1983-05-18May 18, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
'
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on May 18, 1983, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T.
Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:36 P.M. by the Chairman,
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2. SP-83-20. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Request for
approval of Part II of Crozet Interceptor, beginning near its connector with Morey Creek
Interceptor, running westward generally following Ivy Creek through Ivy, continuing west
along Little ivy Creek and terminating near its crossing with the C & 0 Railroad.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 3 and May 10, 1983.).
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was present and presented the
following staff report:
"Re~est: Locate Crozet Sewer Interceptor Line in flood plains of Little Ivy
Creek and Ivy Creek (Section 30.3.5.2.1.2). Locate sewage pump station
in flood plain of Little Ivy Creek.
History,_ ~n December, 1982, after legal notice and public hearing, the Planning
Commission approved the general locations and alignment of the Crozet
Interceptor and related sewage pump stations, as required by Section 15.1-456
of the Code of Virginia. The purpose of the current special use permit review
is to address aspects of Part II of this project in relation to flood plain
considerations.
P~Qject Description: Part II of the Crozet Interceptor project is located between
Route 708 west of Ivy and the Boar's Head Inn on Route 250 West. About one-half
of this project would be located within the flood plains of Little Ivy Creek
and Ivy Creek. Beginning at a point east of Route 708, the interceptor would
become a gravity line in the Little Ivy Creek valley, located in the flood
plain. The interceptor would parallel Little Ivy Creek, cross Route 250 West
and travel into the West Leigh area where a sewage pump station (to be located
in the flood plain) and force main would be necessary to.convey out of the Ivy
Creek valley. About 16,000 feet of the interceptor would be located in flood
plain areas. Two intermittent stream crossings, two crossings of Ivy Creek
and one crossing of Little Ivy Creek are proposed.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements: The Flood Hazard Overlay district requires that
new sewer facilities be located and designed to 'minimize or eliminate
infiltration of flood waters into such systems and in the case of sewer
facilities, discharge of effluent into flood waters; minimize damage or
impairment caused by flooding' (Section 30.3.3.1). The Flood Hazard
district also requires construction to prevent flotation, collapse, or
lateral movement as a result of flooding; maintenance of stream channel
carrying capacity; protection from erosion by vegetative cover, rip-rap,
gabions or other approved method; and use of construction materials that
will not pollute surface water or ground water.
In regard to the sewage pump station, which is proposed to be located
in an open area adjacent to West Leigh Drive, Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning
Ordinance states that 'Public utility buildings and structures in any
residential zone shall, wherever practical, have eXterior appearance of
residential buildings and shall have landscaping, screen planting, and/or
fencing, whenever these are deemed necessary by the commission.'
Staff Comment: Construction plans for Part II of the Crozet Interceptor project
have been approved by the Virginia State Department of Health, the State
Water Control Board and the United States Army Corps of Engineers and are
currently under review by the Environmental Protection Agency. Review and
approval by the County Engineer is required by zoning regulations which
reflect requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
In prior review of this project for consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan, staff stated that:
As with any other construction in a reservoir watershed, review
and participation by the Watershed Management Official wOuld be
appropriate. Because of the scale of the project and extensive
flood plain location, careful construction practices, guided by
watershed Best Management Practices, is of critical importance.
Contractor bonding should provide for immediate correction of any
problem areas as well as restoration measures.
May 18, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Staff recommends approval, subject to the following conditions:
County Engineer review and approval in accordance with the
requirements of 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the
Zoning Ordinance;
Staff approval of site plan for West Leigh pump station to
include a landscape plan and facade treatment;
Watershed Management Official review of contractor specifications
and grading permit to be guided by construction Best Management
Practices as outlined by the Watershed Management Plan, Comprehensive
Plan, and State Water Control Board;
Approval of appropriate local, state and federal agencies."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on May 3, 1983, recommended
approval of SP-83-20 with the above conditions and with the stipulation that particular
attention be~given to the construction bonding in this project, given the scope and
location of the project in the flood plain to insure immediate correction should problems
occur in the future. Mr. Tucker said the'Board can add this stipulation as a condition
or request that the County Engineer in approving grading plans make sure that any bonding
can be liquidated immediately in the event an emergency occurs.
The public hearing was then opened. Mr. George Williams, Executive Director of the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, was present. He said this request is for Part II of
the Crozet Interceptor. The project was divided into three parts in order to accommodate
available funding alternatives. Mr. Williams said the entire project consists of 30,000
feet of sewer pipe line and extends from the lower end of Boar's Head Inn to Route 708.
The project includes two pumping stations with approximately 12,000 feet of force main
and 18,000 feet of gravity sewer line. Mr. Williams noted this is a committed project
under the terms of the Four-Party Agreement. This project is necessary in order to
complete the Regional Wastewater Management project and the Authority hopes this will
help reverse the eutrophic trend of the South'Fork Rivanna Reservoir. The effluent from
the interceptor will be treated at the new Moore's Creek Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the reason for this proposed route is so that the area can
be served by gravity flow. Mr. Williams said basically that is correct. The alternative
to the proposed route would be to place another pump station on Route 250 West near the
entrance to West Leigh, but that alternative causes financial implications for the
entire project. Mr. Fisher asked if a pumping station will be located at the Mechum
River. Mr. Williams said yes, but that station is in Part III of this project. Mr.
Fisher then asked Mr. Williams to indicate the locations of the pumping stations. Mr.
Wiliams said there is a pumping station in West Leigh Subdivision Just west of West
Leigh Drive after crossing the railroad tracks, and the other pumping station will be on
Route 250 west of ivy Nursery. Mr. Williams also noted that the pumps will be underground.
He said the disadvantage of an alternative route following along Route 250 is that the
land along the line could never be served by gravity flow. The Moores Creek/Morey Creek
Interceptor is only adequate to receive the flow for approximately twenty to twenty-five
years. At the end of that time, an additional line will be necessary; part of the flow
from Crozet would be pumped to the Rivanna interceptor, the other major system serving
the area. This would occur after the year 2000. When that occurs, it is the plan that
the pump station in West Leigh Subdivision will be abandoned and part of the flow will
be fe~i~ by gravity to the Rivanna interceptor. Mr. Williams concluded by stating that
use of the Route 250 West alternative would mean construction of a pumping station which
is adequate for fifty years rather than for twenty years. Also, the cost of operating a
pumping station for an additional thirty years is astronomical.
Mr. Lindstrom felt it would be beneficial for the Board to see the plans for the
entire Crozet Interceptor project and suggested the information be presented to the
Board at its meeting in June.
Next to speak was Mr. Gene German, property owner of Lot 2 in Section 2, West Leigh
Subdivision. He expressed his concern about the proposed route through the West Leigh
Subdivision and asked why this route was necessary at all. He felt a pumping station
will be needed in West Leigh Subdivision and on Route 250 as well. The residents in
West Leigh are concerned that crossing some vacant property in the subdivision could
possibly render those p.roperties unbuildable. This could reduce a great deal of income.
Mr. German was also concerned that the line crossing properties with homes will devalue
properties. The sewer line will not have any benefit to the West Leigh residents since
they cannot hook onto the line. There is also concern about siltation into the lake in
West Leigh. The lake is already filled with silt and the residents do not feel there is
any reason to hasten that siltation and fear that the sewer construction will increase
that problem. Mr. German said the lake is maintained by the surrounding residents and
the residents are very concerned about any additional problems which may occur as a
result of this project. Another concern is damage to the roads in West Leigh which are
dedicated to public use but have not been accepted into the Highway System. Therefore,
the roads are privately maintained totally by the residents. Other concerns of the
residents are the odors from the vented manholes of this project and the amount of noise
from the pumping station. Mr. German said even though the alternative route will cost
more, he felt the disruption to this residential area should be considered. He concluded
by stating that he felt there must be some way to assign monetary values when computing
the overall cost of the project.
May 18, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Next to speak was Mr. Rick Richmond, owner of Lot 38 which fronts on the lake in
West Leigh. He noted that there is a distance of approximately eighty feet from his
home to the lake and the sewer line is requiring sixty feet of that. Mr. Richmond said
the lake, at one time, extended to a point opposite his lot, but approximately two to
three feet towards his lot is now filled in as a result of construction of the Meriwether
Hills Subdivision. Mr. Richmond said the lake does contain silt and the lake has been
examined by experts for suggestions on correcting the problem. However, there is no
public support available for the corrections since the lake is private and the estimated
cost is about $50,000. Therefore, the residents are extremely concerned about any
further damage to the lake since the maintenance of the lake is the responsibility of
the homeowners in this particular section of West Leigh. Mr. Richmond said the sewer
line will be placed about twenty-four feet deep in his yard and he is not certain what
amount of dirt will have to be removed in order to install the line that deep. Mr.
Richmond asked that this problem be considered by the Board. Mr. Richmond then reviewed
the history of the roads in West Leigh and noted that approximately one-half mile of the
road leading across the railroad tracks out to Route 250 is owned by several different
people and one family was not even given notice of this meeting tonight. Regardless of
ownership, Mr. Richmond noted that due to a fluke in the West Leigh covenants and restrictions
it is the legal responsibility of the owners in West Leigh, with the exception of the
lots around the lake, to maintain the road leading out to Route 250. Even though this is
not a relevant point he felt that the Board should be aware of the fact that this responsibili'
is entirely the homeowners. Not only will the sewer line be crossing West Leigh Drive
but he is concerned about all the construction vehicles using this road during construction
of the pumping station. In general, Mr. Richmond asked what kind of protection the
homeowners can be afforded with respect to the roads. The normal bond on projects such
as this states that any damage done with respect to the construction of a sewer line
will be repaired by t~e contractor. In his opinion, this language does not govern the
damage done to a road which is not part of the sewer easement itself. Mr. Richmond said
there are pot holes in the road now and he is concerned about how the property owners will
know what damage has been done by the construction trucks. Mr. Richmond asked that a
special bond or requirement 'on the contractor to maintain the roads be imposed~and the
status of the existing road conditions be determined at the beginning of the project. Mr.
Richmond also questioned the process used for approval of this special permit. The sewer
line is allegedly permitted under Section 30.3.5.1.1(6) and he then read what is allowed
by right in the flood plain. According to this language, there is no provision in the
Zoning Ordinance for a sewer interceptor line to cross a flood plain. Therefore, he felt
a zoning text amendment is necessary before this sewer line can be considered. Mr. Richmond
said he did not understand why the line suddenly leaves Route 250 goes through a residential
section, and then goes back to Route 250 approximately two-tenths of a mile further eastward,
just to avoid construction of a pumping station. He felt a pumping station could be built
at Ivy that would be adequate to pump the effluent over the hill down past West Leigh and
maybe up the next hill. Mr. Richmond then questioned the costs involved for the alternative.
He said Mr. Williams did not give any estimates of costs, but rather just stated that
there will be additional costs after the year 2000. Mr. Richmond agreed that the Crozet
interceptor is very important but the routing through West Leigh'is, in his opinion, one
of the greatest abuses of eminent domain that he has ever seen in his law practice. In
conclusion, Mr. Richmond felt costs should be given for the alternative route and some
consideration given to the residents of West Leigh.
There was no one else to speak for or against the petition and the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Lindstrom asked for the cost for an alternative route versus the proposal presented
tonight. Mr. Williams said approximately $817,000 is the difference in costs of the two
routes due to the need to oPerate a pumping station for an additional thirty years. Mr.
Lindstrom then asked for an explanation of the fifty versus thirty year situation. Mr.
Williams said in twenty years it is felt that a gravity line will be built along Ivy Creek
going toward the South Fork Reservoir, eventually tying into the Rivanna interceptor. If
that happens, the pumping station in West Leigh could be abandoned. If not, it would
become a permanent pump station. Mr. Lindstrom asked what would trigger the need for the
additional line mentioned by Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams said two things would trigger the
need. One, if growth occurs in Crozet as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan and secondly,
when the flow into the interceptor exceeds 2,500 gallons per minute.
Miss Nash asked if the $817,000 additional cost includes condemnation of properties
and payment for damages. Mr. Williams said the difference is basically that of construction
and operation costs and he does not know condemnation costs at this time.
Mr. Lindstrom asked why an additional line could not lie parallel to this line. Mr.
Agnor said the Morey Creek/Moores Creek interceptors do not contain capacity to take the
excess flow that will come through the Crozet interceptor. Another line will have to be
built because of this limitation. Mr. Lindstrom said one of the Board's biggest concerns
while working on the Comprehensive Plan was that the Crozet Interceptor has the potential
for stimulating growth in an area where growth is not desired. He felt that shooting the
alternate route into the area mentioned will stimulate growth. He felt the Board should
examine the alternative of a line lying parallel to an existing line in order to avoid
stimulating growth. He felt it would be desirable to have a map presented at the next
meeting showing the proposed line and the land along that line that could be gravity fed.
Mr. Fisher said he thought the Board had rejected ten years ago the idea of having a
line go near the Reservoir. He was stunned to hear the justification for taking the line
into West Leigh is based on having that line eventually go in that direction. Mr. Williams
said that is correct when looking only at a twenty-year span of time, but this work is
very expensive. Mr. Lindstrom then asked when the population in Crozet will trigger the
need for this additional line. Mr. Paul Shoop from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority,
was present and said with the present rate of growth, the 2,500 gallons per minute limitation
on the Moores Creek/ Morey Creek interceptor will be met in about twenty-three years.
May 18, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Williams that it would be foolish to build something
that is not adequate for a good length of time, but he did not clearly understand the
imperative for having this other route in the future. He then asked if the line is built
along Route 250, if the pumping station would still have to be there. Mr. Williams said
yes, and also a new interceptor would have to be built all the way to the plant.
Mr. Fisher noted agreement with the concerns of Mr. Lindstrom. He said he is familiar
with the terrain in West Leigh and the idea of putting this line between the houses and
the lake would be a terrible thing to live through during the construction process. He
felt that if there is any way to avoid that disruption and stay on the public right-of-way
on Route 250 West, which is a shorter route, then he would like to have that explored. He
would like to know in greater detail the comparative cost figures for the long range plans
as well as the location of the line and the pumping stations. Mr. Williams asked if that
information is requested for past the twenty year period of time. Mr. Fisher said yes.
Mr. Fisher suggested deferring action of this petition until June 8 for the submittal of
information on the comparative cost figures of the alternative route versus the proposed
route. In particular, the costs of condemnation and problems caused by construction on
those properties. Mr. Williams said that many times roads used by the Authority during
construction projects have benefited and the roads in West Leigh would be in the same or
even better condition than they were originally. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to
defer action on SP-83-20 to. June 8 in order that the information requested by Mr. Fisher
could be submitted. He also noted his desire to see a schematic of the ultimate plans for
the interceptor for serving needs fifty years hence.
Mr. Harry Marshall, counsel for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, was present.
He noted that the control of growth is controlled by the Boardby not e~tending service
areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Fisher said the Board is aware of
that.
Miss Nash then seconded the motion. She asked to what extent damages could be assessed
for this type of project; in particular, the concern about the smell from the manholes.
Mr. St. John said the general rule of thumb is that whatever depreciates or diminishes the
price that the lot could be sold for is the amount of damages.
Mr. Henley noted that he was glad to see the Board members so concerned about these
property owners. When discussions were held on the Buck Mountain Reservoir project, he
did not notice anyone concerned about smells and roads then.
Mr. Fisher said he would like for the issue about the project crossing the flood
plain to be addressed. Mr. St. John said he understood the statements made by Mr. Richmond
but felt it is clearly established in the Zoning Ordinance that this line can be built and
he did not feel an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is necessary. This is a transmission
line and the Zoning Ordinance states that a pumping station can be allowed and he did not
see how there could be a pumping station without lines leading to and from same.
Roll was then called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing: 1983-84 Secondary Highway Improvement Budget.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 3 and May 10, 1983.)
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present and paraphrased Section
33.1-70.01 of the Virginia Code regarding the purpose of this public hearing. Mr. Roosevelt
said at the April 14, 1983, Board meeting he presented the estimate of $1,150,870 as the
funds available for the 1983-84 Highway budget. Mr, Roosevelt said in addition to presenting
the proposed budget for the 1983-84 Fiscal Year, he has also displayed a synoposis of the
approved six-year plan from which the projects for the Secondary Budget come. Mr. Roosevelt
said he is disappointed to report that official information has been received that the
funds available for secondary improvements will only be $1,125,896 instead of the $1,150,870
estimated in April. Mr. Roosevelt then reviewed the following proposed 1983-84 Secondary
Highway Improvement Budget:
PRIORITY ROUTE FROM TO DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION
I 743 29 1.3 MW Hydraulic Road 718,870
(Mr., Roosevelt said this project is underway and the allocation is for
four-laning from Route 29 west past Albemarle High SchOol on Route 743.)
2 County Wide RUral Additions 20,000
(Mr. Roosevelt said counties are allowed by State Code to set aside an
allocation each year for upgrading and improving roads which are
not in the State Secondary System.)
3 County Wide New Signs
(Mr. Roosevelt said this is a self-explanatory project.)
8,000
County Wide New Pipe 5,000
(Mr. Roosevelt said this is financing the installation of entrance pipes
in accordance with the Departmental policy. If a property owner
needs a new entrance and purchases the necessary pipe, the Highway Department
will install the pipe and this allocation is for the labor involved.)
May 18, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
1.6'9
PRIORITY ROUTE FROM TO DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION
5 County Wide Erosion Control 13,000
(Mr. Roosevelt said the majority of this allocation will be used to match
funds in the Federal Program which the County is required to follow in
order to improve farm land and roadway crossings.)
6 764 663 .15 MW Widen & Hard Surface 20,000
(Mr. Roosevelt said this is a gravel road which leads into the Pines
Subdivision.)
7 769 20 1484 Widen & Hard Surface 100,000
(Mr. Roosevelt said this is the back entrance to Key West Subdivision which
is currently a gravel road.)
8 631 631 NCL Meadow Creek Parkway 205,000
(Mr. Roosevelt said this is a supplemental allocation for this new road
from the Vocational Education Center to the City limits at Melbourne Road,)
9 671 609 668 Widen & Hard Surface 61,000
(Mr. Roosevelt said this road is north of Free Union.)
Mr. Roosevelt noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 29, 1983,
adopted the foregoing budget.
Mr. Butler then referred to alternatives which were reviewed by the Planning Commission
and are as follows: One mile of hard-surfacing on Route 645; 400 feet of guardrail on
Route 715; and a bridge on Route 743. Mr. Butler said his question is particularly in
reference to Route 645. Mr. Roosevelt said the alternatives can be added to the Six-Year
Highway Plan when same is revised or the projects could be done using funds in the county-
wide undesignated item allocation in the Six-Year Plan. This item carries a total of
$140,000. Any project up to that amount could be added to this budget and still be in
compliance with the Plan. The four county-wide projects listed in the proposed 1983-84
budget (Items #2, 3, 4, 5) total only $46,000 of the $140,000.
Mr. Fisher said the revised figure from the State reduces the grand total for the
1983-84 budget by about $25,000. He asked Mr. Roosevelt his recommendation on which
project to reduce this amount. Mr. Roosevelt recommended that the $25,000 be taken from
the allocation for the Hydraulic Road project (Route 743-project #1) because another
allocation will be required in the next year's budget.
Mr. Butler asked what is necessary to get some of the undesignated funds to finish a
project. Mr. Roosevelt then explained the procedures involved and summarized by stating
that the Board is to tell the Highway Department what projects are desired for the allocation
of funds.
Mrs. Cooke noted confusion about Mr. Roosevelt's recommendation that $25,000 could be
deducted from the Hydraulic Road project since that project is presently underway. Mr.
Roosevelt said the Highway Department's policy is that any project under construction
should be paid for no later than the fiscal year following the completion of the project.
The Hydraulic Road project should be finished by October or at the latest in the spring of
1984. This would mean that the County has until 1984-85 to allocate the necessary funds
to pay for the project. In other words, Mr. Roosevelt said all the money does not have to
be in hand when the project is finished.
The public hearing was then opened. First to speak was Mrs. Lucille Huffman, resident
of Route 645. She said Route 645 has been waiting completion for eleven years. She asked
if the road could not be completed this year and not placed in the Six-Year Plan again.
Speaking next was Mr. Champ Greene also a resident on Route 645. He requested the
Board's attention and consideration to upgrade Route 645 to hard-surface. Currently there
are ten residents on the unpaved section which is approximately 1.4 miles long and the
section is in bad condition. Mr. Greene said the road is analogous to the roads which
were used by covered wagons.
Mr. Lester Smith, also a resident on Route 645, spoke next in repetition of the
previous speakers. He concluded by stating appreciation for consideration of funds being
provided to pave Route 645.
Mr. Fisher asked if all of the necessary right-of-way for this road project has been
dedicated. Mr. Roosevelt said the gravelled section is I 1/2 miles long. The first one
mile was widened in the early 1960's so the right-of-way is available. He has an estimate
of $43,000 to hard-surface only the first mile of the road which has a traffic count of
fifty-three so is eligible for hard-surfacing. The section from one mile south of Route
608 to one and one-half miles south has not been improved. The right-of-way has not been
dedicated and there are only twenty-six vehicle trips per day. This section is not included
in the estimate. Mr. Fisher noted that eVen if the right-of-way were dedicated there is
not enough traffic since fifty vehicle trips day is the minimum count for hard-surfacing.
Mr. Greene asked when the traffic count was taken.
and August 1982.
Mr. Roosevelt said between June
Next to speak was Mr. Robert Estes, property owner on the last one-half mile of Route
645. He noted willingness to dedicate right-of-way along his property if same is necessary.
Since the traffic count was taken, two families have moved into the area. Mr. Fisher
urged that the necessary right-of-way be dedicated as soon as possible in order to speed
up the approval process when the traffic count warrants hard-surfacing.
(P
May 18, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mrs. Lester Smith then asked the procedure for dedicating the right-of-way. Mr.
Roosevelt explained the procedure and noted that usually one property owner handles the
necessary paperwork for this.
Next to speak was Mr. Hank Hopper, resident on Route 645 for eleven years. He noted
that the road is in bad shape and asked if it were possible to pave at least the one mile.
With no one else to speak for or against the budget, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Butler offered motion to designate $43,000 from the undesignated funds to hard-
surface one mile of Route 645. Mr. Fisher asked if the $43,000 needed for this project
can be transferred from the Hydraulic Road project in order to get Route 645 done in
Fiscal Year 1983-84. Mr. Roosevelt said that would be no problem. As previously stated,
an allocation will have to be made next year on Hydraulic Road and deleting $43,000 this
year just means having to add $43,000 next year to the Hydraulic Road project. (Mr.
Henley left the room at 8:59 P.M.) Miss Nash seConded the motion on the basis that the
$43,000 will be taken from some other project. Mr. Fisher restated the motion. (Mr.
Henley returned at 9:00 P.M.)
Mrs. Cooke asked for clarification on-the status of the Hydraulic Road project if
this motion passes. Mr. Roosevelt repeated his previous statements and noted that this
action will not affect the Hydraulic Road project.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Roosevelt said other actions necessary tonight are to balance the 1983-84 budget
and to set a priority for Route 645. .He suggested reducing the allocation for Hydraulic
Road (Route 743) to $650,896; changing Route 671 from priority 9 to priority 10; and
making Route 645 priority 9. The reason for his suggesting changing Route 671 is because
Route 671 is not scheduled to be done in 1983 anyway and if there is a shortfall in funds
there would be no problem with this project. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to
follow the recommendation of Mr. Roosevelt as follows: Hydraulic Road to be allocated
$650,896; change Route 671 from priority 9 to priority 10; Route 645 be added as priority
9 with an allocation of $43,000; the remainder of the aforementioned projects remain as
presented; the grand total of the 1983-84 Secondary Improvements Budget being $1,125,896.
Mr. Butler seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Nonel
Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing:
Year 1983-84 through Fiscal Year 1987-88.
May 10, 1983.)
Five Year Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 3 and
Mr. Fisher said this was scheduled as a public hearing but it would really be only a
work session. Mr. Agnor then introduced Mr. Keith Mabe, Principal Planner, to summarize
the Planning Commission's recommendation of May 3, 1983 for the Capital Improvements
Program. Mr. Mabe summarized the proposed project categories of the Five-Year capital
improvements program along with the total project costs, county share, prior allocations,
and the year of funding recommended by the Planning Commission. He noted that the work on
the Educational department requests has not been concluded by the School Board and will be
submitted at a later date. Mr. Mabe also noted that the Planning Commission recommended
$3,060,235 out of the $6,645,064 total request and the Planning Commission also prepared a
ranking of the requests by priorities.
Mr. Lindstrom asked when the Educational requests will be submitted. Mr. David
Papenfuse was present and said the School Board hopes to complete its work on May 31,
1983.
Mr. Fisher noted appreciation for the action of the Planning Commission but did not
feel there was any need to spend time on this matter until the Education requests and
revenue projections are received. He then asked Mr. Agnor his recommendation for a work
session on the.program. Mr. Agnor recommended the afternoon of June l, 1983.~ A brief
discussion followed on the date for the work session to be scheduled. Mr. Fisher suggested
June l, 1983 at 2:00 P.M. and no objections were offered.
Mr. Lindstrom said inevitably the Board is going ~to have to deal with some aspects of
the School's redistricting proposal. He then referred to a letter addressed to the Chairman
of the School Board from Mr. FiSher in October, 1982 which contained four questions. He
hoped that the School Redistricting Committee would review the letter when presenting its
request in order that the Board would have a better perspective on the ramifications of
the redistricting plan on the Capital Improvements ~Program. Mr. Papenfuse said the work
of the Committee so far has been only to request funds for planning to implement the
redistricting plan rather than committing funds to a specific project. Mr. Lindstrom said
he felt the committee should at least look at the additional school buses that may be
needed as a result of the redistricting plan even though the expense of that may not be
placed in the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to schedule
a work session on the Five-Year Capital Improvements Program for June l, 1983, at 2:00 P.M.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
M~y 18~ 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Agnor said calls have been received from the public about this agenda item and he
felt the Board should ask if anyone was present to speak on the program. Mr. Morris,
representing the Jefferson Country Firemen's Association, was present and asked how the
Capital projects for the Albemarle County Service Authority will fit into this program.
Mr. Mabe said the waterline extension program was shifted to the Service Authority when
the Authority developed its own capital program. The actual projects will be reviewed
later this summer.
The Board recessed at 9:26 P.M. and reconvened at 9:35 P~M.
Agend~ Item No. 5. Adoption of Annual Appropriation Ordinance.
Mr. Fisher said he had requested some additional information from Mr. Agnor and asked
that same be presented at this time. Mr. Agnor said a memo has been distributed this
evening dated May 13, 1983, from Mrs. Jessie Haden, Chairman of the School Board, regarding
the adoption of the budget this evening~ This memorandum is in answer to a question as to
whether the School Board would prefer that this meeting be deferred until a later date.
Mrs. Haden offers thanks for the consideration but felt the budget process should be
completed in order to consummate contracts with the teachers. Her memo also indicated
some reservations about budget matters next year in terms of changes in estimates of
expenditure needs.
Mr. Agnor said there have been some concerns expressed about the Route 29 North
Corridor Bus Service and a memorandum has been distributed to the Board regarding that.
Mrs. Helen Poore, Transit Manager, is present and will answer any questions.
Mr. Agnor then summarized his memorandum dated May 13, 1983, regarding the 1983-84
Appropriation Ordinance. Mr. Agnor said the significant difference this year in the
Ordinance is that the School Board only submitted a grand total and requested that the
Board allow them to make the necessary adjustments in line items.
"REVENUES:
General. F~B~ -- an increase of 9126,022 From:
l)
2)
Sales tax reflecting an improving economy +9129,300
State fund reductions from Compensation Board
School Fund -- a decrease of 9218,021 from:
1)
Transfers from general government departments for vehicle
maintenance +976,700. Of this amount 930,000 represents an
adjustment of the original staff estimate and 946,700 represents
an increase in the hourly labor change.
2)
3)
Recovered costs for retirement, life insurance and social
security -9329,138. Of this amount, approximately 948,000 represents
a reduced average teacher salary and reduced average daily membership,
and approximately 9280,000 represents a computational error in the
original estimate.
State Aid +934,417 with sales tax increasing $84,088 from an
improving economy, basic aid decreasing 976,855 from a reduced
average daily membership (9150 to 9071), and other sources
increasing $27,184 primarily from adjustments in original estimates.
Self~Sustaining Fund -- an increase of 9527,784 from:
l)
2)
3)
Shifting Federal programs totalling 9593,213 to the~operating budget.
Listing~ the McIntire Trust Fund totalling 95,000
Listing the Regional Jail Fund totalling 91,115,997
Appropriations (From General Fund):
l) Vehicle maintenance distributed among eleven departments +9 ~6,700
2) Personnel department - reserve to pay 1984 increase in FICA
recently approved by Congress, to be distributed to all
departments.
9 30,000
(Mr. Agnor said the Social Security Tax (FICA) is currently 13.4% with
one-half paid by the employer and one-half paid by the employee. Congress
enacted legislation this year to change this amount to 14% as of January
1984. Therefore, the employer will pay 7% which is a ~change from
the 6.75 stated at the beginning of the budget work sessions. However,
the employees share will not increase this year.)
3)
Education Department - Additional local funds required to
balance revised budget.
+ 20,579
4)
Commonwealth's Attorney - funding for Victim Witness
program.
+ 8,000
5)
Parks and Recreation Department - deletion of Hatton
Ferry funds (included in Secondary Highway Budget).
7,500
i72
May 18, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
6)
VPI and SU Extension Service - reduction in funding caused
by agreement signed in May, 1983. -
4,917
7) Board of Supervisors - a reserve for:
+ 33,160
1)
2)
3)
State approvals of Social Services and Constitutional
offices budgets
Adoption of revised street light funding policy.
Approval of revisions to General Government Pay/
Classification Plan
Total
+$126,022
Also attached IS a copy of a memorandum from Mr. Papenfuse to the School
Board dated May 3, 1983, which details the revisions to the School budget.
following summarizes those revisions'
The
School Board R~commended Revised by
Request for Hearing Staff
D~fference
vs. Revised
Salary and Fringes
Other Operating CoSts
Capital Outlay
Total Budget
School Fund Revenues
General Fund Revenues
$20,621,325 - $20,350,617 -$270,708
4,342,852 - 4,185,254 - 157,598
.607~%4I - 464,8%0 - 14~,601
$25,571,618 $25,198,153 $25,000,711 -$570,907
11,178,853 11,178,853 10,960,832 - 218,021
$14,392,765 $14,019,300 $14,039,879 -$352,886
To balance the revised School operating budget, $20,579 will be required
in General Fund revenues above the amount recommended. Those funds are included
in the Appropriation Ordinance. If approved, the total appropriation to the school
system will be:
82-83
Operating
Debt Service
Federal Programs
Sub total
$25,000,711
2,037,242
593,213
$27,631,166
Cafeteria Operations
Textbook Rentals
McIntire Trust
1,284,552
205,000
5,000
$29,125,71U
Revenue Sources:
Local Funds
State Funds
Federal Funds
Revenue Sharing Funds
Miscellaneous Revenues
Sub total
$15,915,721
10,262,647
909,398
161,400
'382,000
$27,631,166
State/Federal Lunch
Lunch Receipts
Textbook Rentals
Textbook Fund Balance
McIntire Fund
Total
$ 400,000
884,552
120,000
85,000
5,000
$29,125,718
SUMMARY:
The School budget has been revised in accordance with the instruction
to provide all employees with a five percent salary increase and to retain any remaining
funds for the approved programs and the installation of a merit plan for
classified employees. The shortfall in funds to meet the requested budget
was originally $373,000, of which it was estimated that $100,000 could be gained
by recalculating fuel costs, health insurance Costs, and increasingrevenues
from vehicle maintenance services, leaving a net shortfall of approximately
$2?0,000. It was estimated that salary adjustments could provide a reduction
of approximately $400,000. (Mr. Agnor noted that $300,000 would be in the
instructional category and $100,000 in the classified category. The $100,000
in the classified category was retained by the school staff for the merit
plan and $60,000 for the revisions to their Pay/Classification Plan.
Therefore, the $100,000 of salary, $400,1000 adjustment was not available for
decreasing their need in the salaries of the classified employees.)
As reported to the School Board in an April 20 memo from Mr. Papenfuse,
the recalculations of salaries amounted to a $257,000 net savings, but the
budget was still short $247,000, primarily from a $280,000 computational error
in the original calculations of State revenues. From the discovery of that
problem, Mr. Papenfuse has worked diligently to recommend additional cuts
which are listed on page 20 of the attachments to his May 5 memo. The bulk of
the cuts ($142,000) have been made in capital outlay, of which approximately
$70,000 is listed for transfer to the Capital Improvement Program budget.
All of the reductions have been selected so as not to impair any instruction
programs.
It is recommended that the Appropriation Ordinance be approved."
May 18, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Agnor then referred to the information which Mr. Fisher had requested regarding
the Fiscal Year 1983-84 Salary Comparison of the CountY School System to that of the City.
(Copy of this information is on file in the Clerk's Office.) He noted that there are
currently eleven steps in the teachers pay scale and the School Board has proposed to add
one additional step for the coming year. Mr. Agnor then summarized the information which
contained the salaries for steps 0 through ll+(12), the County's FICA salary, taxable
salary and equivalent salary which includes retirement and life insurance, and the comparison
of those with the City's gross salary for each step. Mr. Agnor then noted the following
assumptions for the salary comparison:
me
3.
4.
5.
County School Board will adopt a FY 83-84 salary scale with no
increase in base (starting) salary.
A five percent step increase will be provided for all current employees.
Step ll+ will be added to allow those employees at the top of the
present scale (step ll) to get a five percent increase.'
Comparison is made on present FICA plan for the first part of FY 83-84
(through December 31, 1983).
Pay scales used in comparisons are for teachers working ten-month
contracts with a Bachelor's degree and no activity stipends.
Advanced education or other stipends would increase amounts shown.
CgNC.LUS!ON :_
1. If such a scale is adopted for County teachers, their net salary
before Federal and State income tax withholdings will exceed that
of City teachers at all steps except-Step 0 and Step 1. When
income tax withhholdings are included in the comparison, the net
salary for~County teachers will exceed that of City teachers in
all steps except Step 0.
2. If the five percent icrease were applied to giving a five percent base
increase with no further step increase, County teachers would be
compensated at a level exceeding that of City teachers at all steps."
Mr. Agnor then referred to memorandum entitled "Albemarle County Schools--Comparison
of School Budget by Current Categories" whic~ c?ntained the categories with actual amounts
spent in !98~8~; category amounts for the i9U2-U3 budget, and the initial and final 1983~84
budget~-req~ests.
Mr. Lindstrom noted concern about the amount proposed for the Route 29 North Bus
Service ($18,243) for the 1983-84 budget. According to the memorandum dated April 12,
1983, from Mr. Agno~ (Copy of the memorandum is on file in the Clerk's Office.) in order
for the bus system to pay for itself out of sales tax revenues generated at Fashion Square,
etc., all those persons riding the bus would have to spend $24.00 on each trip. He said
he would be surprised if that was averaged on every trip. His concern is that this is
really a subsidy for a few shopping areas on Route 29 North, and he did not feel there is
any meaningful service for the County citizens being provided by this system. He was
disturbed that the general County citizenry has to pay for this service'. Mr. Agnor said
periodic surveys are done and one is being conducted now to obtain ridership figures.
Mrs. Helen Poore said the survey will not be complete until the end of the month to show
how many of the riders are commuters and how many are shoppers. She does not know how the
Board addresses the value of Public transportation but personally feels the routes are
very productive and the actual subsidy is being gradually reduced on the routes. Mr.
Lindstrom then asked the location of the bus stops. Mrs. Poore said they are at Midas
Muffler, Dart Drug, Albemarle Square, and Fashion Square. Mrs.mpoore said the bus runs
from the Downtown Mall, through the University, Barracks Road Shopping Center, and then
out to Albemarle Square. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the study being conducted will Show point
of origin as well as purpose. Mrs. Poore said yes. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be surprised
if the study shows a big difference from what is already known. He then asked if this
item is included in the 1983-84 budget and then the study shows that there is no justificatio~
for the system if the County can terminate its participation. Mr. Fisher said the Route
29 Bus System is operated according to a contract. Mrs. Poore noted that the contract is
according to the County's fiscal year.
Miss Nash asked if someone could explain to her the difference in the final request
from the School Board for $25,O00,711 and that of $27,631,166 in the Appropriation Ordinance
for the School Fund. Mr. Agnor said the amount in the Appropriation Ordinance is the
combination of the request from the School Board, the addition of Federal School Programs,
and the Debt Service for the Schools.
Mr. Fisher then acknowledged appreciation to Mr. Agnor, Mr. PapenfUse, Mr. Jones, Mr.
Breeden, and Mrs.~ Gough who have spent a great deal of time in preparing this information
for the Board.
Miss Nash then offered motion to adopt the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the
Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1984. Mr. Butler seconded the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom said people are more concerned about education than anything else. Mr.
Lindstrom said he feels that next to the parents of the children and the School Board,
this Board has the greatest responsibility for education. His biggest concern during this
year's budget process has been that this Board should go along with the School Board's
request. Even though that is his feelings this year, he know that there will be some
years when he will have to swallow those words. Mr. Lindstrom felt this Board has to come
to grips with the local situation and responsibility. Even though there is validity in
comparing City and County salaries, he feels the ultimate decision has to be whether the
County is providing adequate education for its children. Mr. Lindstrom felt this community
has a bigger responsibility than most because Albemarle County is unique. People in the
County are able to provide better education than in 99 percent of the local communities in
the country. He felt that sooner or later the County will have to be aggressive and
initiate an approach to education that will be respectful of its needs. Mr. Lindstrom felt
May 18, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
the citizens in the County are frustrated about ~-hat the Board is doing this year, but do
not know how to handle the situation. Citizens have indicated that they do not feel the
quality of education in the County is what it should be. Mr. Lindstrom said he personally
could not live on the salary at the top of the teacher's scale, and noted that the top of
the scale is less than the median income in the County. Mr. Lindstrom said it was ironic
that during the presentation ~for~a public housing projecmtlast week, one of the bankers
said that County teachers could qualify for public supported housing. There are a lot of
employees in the County, other than teachers, who are perhaps in that same category. Mr.
Lindstrom felt that there are many good teachers, in the County and this community has the
ability to create an educational system, not only through salary incentives but through
curriculum, in order to attract other qualified people to the community. However, Mr.
Lindstrom did not feel that is possible as long as-this Board is battling with the School
Board over "bits and pieces". Mr. Lindstrom felt that if the situation has gotten to the
point that this Board is telling the School Board that. it lacks faith in the School Board's
actions, and the motion just made is an indication of lack of faith, then it is the Board's
responsibility to initiate changes to create circumstances that will be acceptable to the
Board. In conclusion, Mr. Lindstrom said he felt this Board has to meet with the School
Board and develop an atmosphere that can.be worked in and not against each other. He
personally shared the frustrations of many County citizens and teachers and other people
involved in the educational system and felt the Board needs to meet more frequently with
the School Board to resolve differences.
Miss Nash said a lot of Mr. Lindstrom's statements were true, but a lot is just
talking. She did not feel that a lot of the people she has seen are naturally interested
in education. Miss Nash said she also is interested in education, but feels there is a
need to view this from a practical point of view. The Board of Supervisors has the fidicuary
responsibility for the funds of the County. She didnot feel the Board could just hand
over funds without some controls. If that were done, then the Board would be derelict in
its duties to the County taxpayers. She felt. Mr. Agnor and Mr. Papenfuse have worked very
hard to resolve matters and that is the reason she offered the above motion because she
did feel this is a step forward. Miss Nash said in spite of what Mr. Lindstrom has said
that there are a lot of people who believe in education, there are also a lot of people
who feel there are other things that should be handled as well.
Mrs. Cooke said many of Mr. Lindstrom's statements reflect her feelings. She personall~
feels quality education in the County affects every citizen. If quality education is not
provided for the children of this County who will be taxpayers in future years, then the
Board has cheated not only the children but th~ community as well. She then noted that
when she was running for office, the League of Women Voters asked her what methods or
values she would use for Board appointments. She felt the Board must make appointments
with persons capable of doing the best job. Mrs. Cooke said she has some rapport with her ~
appointee to the-School Board and unless every Board member has that same rapport, there
is no way to have quality education in the County. As has been stated before, the Board
of Supervisors cannot do everything and has to learn how to delegate authority and have
confidence in appointees to boards and co~missions. Mrs. Cooke then noted her vote-of
confidence to Mr. Papenfuse for the work he has done in his short period of employment
with the County Schools. Mrs. Cooke said she will support the motion because this is to
be the final vote of the Board on the budget and she does not feel there is any need not
to have an~m?e~~ vote. However, she is very upset with the fact that the teachers get
the shOrt 'end of the stick and did not mfeel there is any way to have quality education "'~
without quality teachers and quality teachers will not be attracted without decent salaries~.
Mr. Butler said he too supports quality education. However, his decision on the
budget has been made while trying to think about all the people he represents. He personally
does not feel taxes can be raised at too fast a pace.' Mr. Butler agreed that there is a
need to work together with teachers, the School Board and the County citizens to discuss ~
items of concern and reach a consensus to benefit all the citizens of the County. The
past year has been very hard for many County citizens and particularly farmers who have
not made any profit for ten years. Therefore, as a representative of all types of constituent
he had seconded the motion. He felt the increase was a fair amount for teachers and
others. In conclusion, Mr. Butler said he would pledge himself to work hard to improve
teacher salaries and all other employees as the economy grows and resources develop.
Mr. Fisher said he heard loud and clear when the School Board presented its budget
that there could be no further cuts in programs. When the Board made the decision to not
increase the tax rates (a decision which he supported) the only other' solution was to
reduce salaries. He personally feels what has been offered is a reasonable amount. The ~-.
salary comparisons of the County teachers to the City teachers is definitely not what he
expected to see because so many times parents and teachers have told the Board that the
City's salaries are better. He concluded by stating that he hoped the media present
tonight would make every effort to reproduce this information for the public.
Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Mr. Lindstrom.
(The Appropriation Ordinance as adopted is set out on the following pages.)
May 18, 1983 (Regul~ar Night Meeting)
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1984
An ordinance making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expen-
ditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1984; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions
with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal
all ordinances wholly in conflict with this ordinance and all ordinances
inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent of such inconsistency.
BE IT ORDAINED' by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
SECTION I
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1984:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of COLLECTION AND DISBURSEMENT OF TAXES AND
OTHER REFUNDS the sum of two million one hundred ninety-nine thousand three
hundred dollars and no cents ($2,199,300) is appropriated from the General
Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Refunds $ 2,199,300
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of the function of GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND
SUPPORT the sum of three million three hundred eighty-nine thousand two
hundred seventy dollars and no cents ($3,389,270) is appropriated from the
General Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Board of Supervisors $ 227,770
2. County Executive 103,940
3. Personnel 108,835
4. Legal Services 125,625
5. Data Processing 326,865
6. Finance 1,006,318
7. Engineering 212,524
8. Planning 269,445
9. Landfills 418,335
10. Elections 62,160
1!. Staff Services 440,107
12. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission 18,142
13. Soil and Water Conservation 9,230
14. Watershed Management 26,605
15. Visitor's Bureau 33,369
Paragraph Three
For the current expenses of the function of HUMAN DEVELOPMENT the-sum
of three million two hundred eighty-one thousand nine hundred eighty dollars
and no cents ($3,281,980) is appropriated from the General Fund to be appor-
tioned as follows:
1. Parks and Recreation $ 4502890
2. Redevelopment and Housing 61,695
3. Virginia Public Assistance 816,252
4. Public Assistance-Payments 566,880
5. Food Stamp Program 149,267
6. Fuel Assistance Program 53,685
7. Health Department 321,700
8. Mental Health 90,660
9. Regional Library 455,040
10. Piedmont Virginia Community College 4,615
11. Extension Service 64,493
12. District Home 13,500
13. Offender Aid and Restoration 15,970
14. Madison House 4,050
15. Community Action Agency 16,310
16. Jefferson Area Board on Aging 5,057
17. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program 132,500
18. Jefferson Area United Transportation 12,391
19. Youth Services Center 6,242
20. Shelter for Help In Emergency 19,140
21. Charlottesville/Albemarle Legal Aid Society 3,400
22. Route 29 North Bus Service 18,243
May 18, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Paragraph Four
For the current expenses of the function of PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE
the sum of three million one hundred thirty-one thousand seven hundred
twenty-two dollars and no cents ($3,131,722) is appropriated from the General
Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Clerk, Circuit Court $ 205,775
2. Circuit Court 19,900
3. General District Court 8,880
4. Commonwealth's Attorney 178,115
5. Juvenile Court 25,083
6. Sheriff 1,338,965
7. Fire Department 313,929
8. Forest Fire Extinction Service-State 3,020
9. Volunteer Fire Departments 205,500
10. Code Enforcement 379,675
11. Animal Control 57,203
12. Rescue Squads 36,450
13. Zoning 138,930
14. Emergency Services 6,280
15. Regional Jail 66,800
16. Juvenile Detention Home 11,274
17. Magistrate's Office 2,160
18. Emergency Medical Services Council 6,626
19. Community Attention Home 10,000
20. SPCA Shelter Contract 3,600
21. 911 System ~ 45,000
22. Law Enforcement Reserve 68,557
Paragraph Five
For the current expenses of the function of CAPITAL OUTLAYS the sum of
six hundred sixty-one thousand four hundred dollars and no cents ($661,400)
is appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to:
1. Capital Improvements Fund
$ 661,400
Paragraph Six
For the current expense of the Annual Payment to the City of
Charlottesville, pursuant to the Revenue Sharing agreement between the City
and the County dated February 17, 1982, payable in January, 1984, in the
amount of one million five hundred thirty thousand nine hundred ninety-one
dollars and no cents ($1,530,991) is appropriated from the General Fund as
follows:
Revenue Sharing Payment to City of Charlottesville$1,530,99!
SUMMARY
TOTAL GENERAL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1984
$14,194,663
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total GENERAL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1984
$11,462,594
2,721,069
12,000
SECTION II
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for SCHOOL purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1984:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the SCHOOL fund the sum of twenty-seven
million thirty-seven thousand nine hundred fifty-three dollars and no cents
($27,037,953) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
1. Administration $ 476,314
2. Instruction-Regular Day School 13,892,415
~. Attendance and Health Services 562,641
~. Pupil Transportation 1,829,832
5. Operation-School Plant 2,346,698
6. Fixed Charges 4,555,807
7. Adult Education 11,800
8. Other Education Programs 410,283
9. Capital Outlay 375,101
10. Charlottesville/Albemarle Technical Educational
Center
Debt Service
539,820
~1. 2,037,242
May 18, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting')
177-
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of FEDERAL SCHOOL PROGRAMS the sum of five
hundred ninety-three thousand two hundred thirteen dollars and no cents
($593,213) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Chapter I $ 480,027
2. Migrant Education 48,802
3. ESEA Title IV-C (ELII) 7,600
4. Title IV-C (ELS) 3,000
5. Chapter II 53,784
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1984
$27,631.~6.6
To be provided as follows:
Revenue From Local Sources (Trans from Gen. Fd.) $15,915,721
Revenue from the Commonwealth 10,262,647
Revenue from the Federal Government 909,398
*Federal Revenue Sharing (Transferred from
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund) 161,400
Miscellaneous Revenue 382,000
Total SCHOOL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1984 $27,631~166
*Federal Revenue Sharing monies are earmarked for payment of energy
usages of electricity and fuel in Education as set forth in Item 5,
Paragraph One of this Section (Operation'School Plants).
SECTION III
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1984:
Paragraph One
For the function of CAFETERIA OPERATIONS the sum of one million two
hundred eighty-four thousand five hundred fifty-two dollars and no cents
($1,284,552) is appropriated from the Cafeteria Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
1. Maintenance and Operation of School Cafeterias $ 1,284,552
SUMMARY
Total CAFETERIA FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1984
To be provided as follows:
Revenues from the Commonwealth
Lunch Receipts
Total CAFETERIA FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1984
Paragraph Two
$ 1~284,552
'400,000
884,552
1,284,552
For the function of TEXTBOOK RENTALS the sum of two hundred five thousand
dollars and no cents ($205,000) is appropriated from the Textbook Rental Fund
to be apportioned as follows:
1. Textbooks $ 205,000
SUMMARY
Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1984
To be provided as follows:
Receipts from Rental Fees
Carryover~balance
Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1984
$' :20:5:,:000
120,000
85,000
$ 205,000
Paragraph Three
For the function of the McINTIRE TRUST FUND the sum of five thousand
dollars and no cents ($5,000) is appropriated from the McIntire Trust Fund
to be apportioned as follows:
1. Payment to County Schools $ 5,000
May 18, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
SUMMARY
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1984
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from investments per trust
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1984
Paragraph Four
$ 5,000
5,000
$ 5,000
For the function of REGIONAL JAIL OPERATIONS the sum of one million one
hundred fifteen thousand nine hundred ninety-seven dollars and no cents
($1,115,997) is appropriated from the Regional Jail Fund to be apportioned
as follows:
1. Operation of Regional Jail
$ 1,115,997
SUMMARY
Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1984
$ '1',115,997
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from Other Sources
Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1984
Total appropriations mentioned in
246,282
855,615
14,100
$ 1,115,997
Sections I through III in this Ordinance for the
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1984:
RECAPITULATION
Section I
Section II
Section III
General Fund
School Fund
Self-Sustaining Funds
GRAND TOTAL
$14,194,663
27,631,166
''2','6~'0,549
$~4~4~,~4~3~6,3~78
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the director of finance is hereby authorized
to transfer to other funds from the General Fund, from time to time as monies
become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations
made to these funds from the General Fund for the period covered by this
appropriation ordinance.
SECTION IV
All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in
Sections I through III are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions,
and provisions hereinbefore set forth in connection with said terms and
those set forth in this section.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appro-
priations made out of the General Fund, the School Fund, the Cafeteria Fund,
the McIntire Trust Fund, the Regional Jail Fund, the Textbook Rental Fund,
and the Grant Project Fund are declared to be maximum, conditional and
proportionate appropriations--the purpose being to .make the appropriations
payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in
the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal
year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay.~!! of the
appropriations inf~'l!. Otherwise, ~t'he'said''apPropr'i~t'i'O~s's~alT b'e'deemed
to be payable in such 'pr'o'po'rt%on ;as the total sum of ail realized revenue of
the respective fUnds is to the total amount of revenue e'st'im'ate'd''t'o' b'e''a'v'a~il-
able in the said fiscal year by the'Board 'of 'S'up'ervi's'o'rs.
paragraph Two
All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of
Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Board~of Public Welfare not
included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget
as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said
agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board
or by the Board of Public Welfare without the consent of the Board of
Supervisors being first obtained. Nor may any of these agencies or boards
make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation or
make transfers between specific items of appropriation without the consent
of the director of finance being first obtained.
May 18, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Paragraph Three
All balances of appropriations payable out of the General Fund of the
county treasury at the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) day of
June, 1984, except as otherwise provided for, are hereby declared to be lapsed
into the county treasury and shall be used for the payment of the appropria-
tions which may be made in the appropriation ordinance for the next fiscal
year, beginning July 1, 1984. However, nothing in this paragraph shall be
construed to be applicable to the School Fund, Capital Improvements Fund,
Cafeteria Fund, Textbook Rental Fund, McIntlr~ Trust Fund, or Grant Project
Fund, but any balance available in these fundS shall be used in financing the
proposed expenditures of these funds for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
1984.
Paragraph Four
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual
services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency,
or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by
requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for
contractual services--such as communications, travel, freight, express--and
membership fees and subscriptions shall be required; and provided further
that no requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a
contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract
shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency,
or individual and the purchasing agent, who shall be responsible for
securing such competitive bids on the basis of specifications furnished by
the contracting department, bureau, agency or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason Of approval herein required
for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action
of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obligations incurred contrary to the purchasing procedures prescribed
in the Albemarle County ~P~urch'a's~ing ~M~nual Sh'all not be co'ns~idered obligations
of the county, ~a'nd th'e 'direC'tO'r' Of finance shall no't issued'any warrants in
payment of suc~ obl~i'gations.
Paragraph Five
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this ordinance by
any or all county departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the
Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on
account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal auto-
mobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same
rate as that established by the Sta-te of Virginia for its employees and shall
be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates.
Paragraph Six
Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according
to regulations prescribed or approved by the director of finance.
Paragraph Seven
All ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions
of this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Eight
This ordinance shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred
and eighty-three.
180
May 18, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 6. Set Tax Rates for !983..
(Note: Notice of proposa~ tax increase caused by reassessment of real property--such
notice published in accordance with Virginia Code Section 58-785.1--was published in the
Baily Progress on March 29, 1983, heard at the~p~blic hearing on the budget on April 6, 1983,
and no action having been taken by the Board to this~date, the Board proceeded to set the
tax rates for 1983 when m~tion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Miss Nash, to
adopt the following resolution. Mr. Lindstrom said he will support the motion because
the budget has been approved and funds have to be provided somehow. Roll was then called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
M~. BUtler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
does hereby lay the County levy for the taxable year 1983 for General County
Purposes at Seventy-Seven Cents ($0.77) on every One Hundred Dollars worth
of assessed value of real estate; at Five Dollars ($5.00) on every One Hundred
Dollars worth of assessed value of personal property; at Five Dollars ($5.00)
on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of machinery and tools;
at Seventy-Seven Cents ($0.77) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed
value on mobile home; at Four Dollars and Eighty Cents ($4.80) on every One
Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of public service on unequalized
assessments; and at Seventy-Seven Cents ($0.77) on every One Hundred Dollars
worth of assessed value of public service on equalized assessments; and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of the County of Albemarle
assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal
property, including machinery and tools not assessed as real estate,
used or employed in a manufacturing business, not taxable by the State on
Capital; including Public Service Corporation property except the rolling
stock of railroads based upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation
Commission and certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to location
and valuation; and including all boats and waterCraft under five tons as
set forth in the Code of Virginia; and all vehicles uSed as mobile homes
or offices as set forth in the Virginia Code; except merchant's capital, farm
machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and household goods as set forth
in the Code of Virginia, Section 58-829 and Section 58-829.1.
Agenda Item No. 7.
!983.)
Discussion:
Ashcroft Water System Bond.
(Deferred from May ll,
Mr. Agnor said this will have to be deferred because the efforts to resolve the
details for a procedure to bond the proposed Ashcroft Water System have not been successful.
Therefore, rather than deferring this item to a specific date, he recommended that the
staff present the matter when everything has been resolved. The Board agreed to the
recommendation.
Agenda Item No. 8.
from May ll, 1983.)
Discussion:
Agricultural/Forestal District Ordinances.
(Deferred
The Board at its meeting on May ll, 1983, requested that the parent ordinance Creating
Agricultural/Forestal Districts be redrafted to exclude the phrase "any facility permitted
pursuant to Section 10.2.1-6 of the Zoning Ordinance". Mr. St. John said this has been
done and a copy has been distributed to the Board. However, he did question if the Board
wanted to exclude this category referring to utilities. Mr. Lindstrom said his main
concern had been with transmission lines and if that provision is not included then he
would agree with Mr. St. John. Mr. St. John said the phrase referred to ordinary electric
lines. From talking to a representative of the Agricultural and Consumer Services office,
it appears to be next to impossible for anyone to build a transmission line through one
of these districts.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to advertise for public hearing on June 8, 1983,
the Agricultural/Forestal District Ordinances with the deletion of the section regarding
any facility permitted pursuant to Section 10.2.1-6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Miss Nash
seconded the motion.
Mr. Henley then questioned wording in the ordinance regarding rental of more than
one dwelling unit on one parcel. His question is in regards to four tenant houses which
he has on his property. Mr. St. John said his houses would not be effected since they
are existing at the time the ordinance is to be adopted. Mr. St. John said the whole
idea of the language is that a use cannot change to a more intensive use than at the
current time. Roll was then called on the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None..
Agenda Item No. 9. Appointment of 1982-83 Auditors.
Mr. Fisher said he plans to request an executive session at the end of the meeting
to discuss this item. He did not feel any action will be taken tonight.
May 18, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda~Item No. 10. Clarification of Resolution Adopting CATS Study.
Mr. Fisher said the following resolution has been prepared for the Board's action
and the purpose of the resolution is to clarify the Board's resolution adopted on April
14, 1983. The resolution of that date omitted the request to the Metropolitan Pl'anning
Organization~to do the study of alleviating congestion in the Route 29 North Corridor,
etc., which had been included in the resolution of February 9, 1983. Motion was then
offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the following resolution. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the document entitled "Charlottesville Area Transportation Study - Year
2000 Transportation Plan" (the Study), dated 1981 and prepared by the
Transportation Planning Division of the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation (VDH&T), with the assistance of Policy and Technical Committees
appointed by the City and County, is hereby accepted and approved as an
amendment to the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to be the "Transportation
Element" with the following exceptions:
The RoUte 20 North Connector passing through Key West shall not be
included as part of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and shall
not be part of any transportation plan accepted or recommended by
this Board.
The "Western By-Pass" consisting of a four-lane, divided highway
extending 6.07 miles from Route 29 North at the South Fork of the
Rivanna River to the Route 29/250 By-Pass shall not be included
as a part of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and shall
not be a part of any transportation plan accepted or recommended
by this Board.
The McIntire Road Extension between Rio Road and Route 29 North
(Hollymead) should be shifted from Phase IV to Phase II. This
improvement along with improvements proposed to Route 29 North
should provide viable transportation alternatives for the
Urban and Hollymead growth areas for the foreseeable future.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Metropolitan Planning Organization made
up of representatives of Albemarle County, Charlottesville, the University
of Virginia and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be,
and it hereby is, requested to study methods of alleviating congestion in the
Route 29 North Corridor including but not limited to, the addition of extra
lanes, express lanes, etc., and grade separation interchanges at critical
intersections within the Route 29 North Corridor, and the possibility of a
by-pass to the said corridor connecting the Route 29 North Corridor with the
Pantops area, provided, however, that it is the expressed desire of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, consistent with its concern for the
protection of public drinking water supplies, and the protection of existing
neighborhoods that no alternative shall be studied which would impact or
intrude upon any public drinking water impoundment located in Albemarle County,
or impact or intrude upon any existing neighborhoods.
The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is further directed to send copies
of this resolution to the Virginia Department Of Highways and Transportation,
the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Charlottesville City Council.
Agenda Item No. 11. Appointment.: MPO Technical Committee.
Mr. Agnor said at the May ll, 1983, meeting he was requested to check minutes of
Board meetings regarding an additional appointee to the MP0 Technical Committee. He felt
the additional appointee was to be a staff person but Miss Nash felt the appointee was to
be a citizen oriented to the technical aspects of transportation. Miss Nash said she
felt a citizen should be appointed to study the alternatives to the western by-pass but
not be a member of the technical committee. Mr. Agnor said he would recommend that the
third member of the Technical Committee be a staff person and a Citizen Advisory Committee
be appointed for the task of studying an alternative for the Route 29 North Corridor.
Mr. Agnor said the expansion of the Technical Committee was done on a request from the
City, and he would recommend suggesting to the City that the appointments be reduced to
only two, thereby alleviating this problem. Miss Nash and Mrs. Cooke agreed with this
that suggestion. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to defer the appointment to the MPO
Technical Committee to the June 8, 1983, meeting. Miss Nash seconded the motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
May 18, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 12.
Drainage Study.
Transfer of Funds:
Engineering Department for Stormwater
The Board at its meeting on May ll, 1983, authorized the County Engineer to proceed
with a Stormwater Drainage Study. This request is to transfer from the Personnel Department~-
to the Engineering Department an amount of $4,200~to cover the cost of the study~ Motion
was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to transfer $4,200 from Code
1203-1007--Personnel Salary Adjustments to Code 4100-3002--Engineering, Consulting for
the Stormwater Drainage Study. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Mash.
NoMe.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: September 2, December 1 (Afternoon),
1982, and March '9, March 14, April 6 (Afternoon) and April l~, 1983.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had read the minutes of September 2, 1982 and discussed the
following amendment with Mr. Fisher since the statement was made by Mr. Fisher. Mr.
Fisher has approved same and the following additional sentences are to be placed at the
end of the last paragraph on page 360: "Mr. Fisher asked Dr. Gutierrez if there was not
a condition in their staff contracts that the contracts were good only as long as there
was money available to fund them. Dr. Gutierrez responded that there was no such provision
he was aware-of, however it might be possible under state law. Mr. Fisher responded that
that was a question for the school staff to look at, but in any event it is clear that
the schools need to monitor their revenues and trim ~their expenditures to match them if
the revenues start to decline to avoid overruns."
Mrs.. Cooke had read the minutes of December i (Afternoon), 1982 and found no errors.
Mr. Henley had read the minutes of March 9, 1983, and noted no corrections.
Mr. Lindstrom said he read the minutes for March l~, 1983, and noted the following
grammatical errors on the second page, second paragraph under agenda item no. 2g:~ Change
the word "to fill" to "filling" in the eighth line; change "to restore" to "restoring" in
the ninth line; change "extend" to "extending" and "to allow" to "allowing" in the tenth
line, and change "its" to "it is" on the eleventh line.
Miss Nash had read the minutes of April 6 (Afternoon), 1983, and foUnd no errors.
Mr. Fisher had read the minutes of April 14, 1983, and noted two typographical
errors on the seventh page.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to approve the
minutes of September 2, December I (Afternoon), 1982, and March 9, March 14, April 6
(Afternoon), and April 14, 1983, with the above noted corrections. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Mash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Agnor noted that he had received copies of the~staff's study of the consolidation
of the County and the City Social Services Departments. This is the third report he has
received on this matter. Therefore, he asks that the Consolidation Committee be reactivated
in order that the reports can be examined. Mr. Fisher said he will schedule a meeting
with the City representatives of the Consolidation Committee to review these reports.
Mr. Fisher then requested an executive session to discuss .personnel and property
acquisition matters.
Mr. Lindstrom said he did not object to an executive-session on personnel matters
but was uncertain if he desired to discuss the property acquisition matter in executive
session. To his understanding, the property acquisition matter is not about property to
be acquired by the County, but rather another entity. Therefore, he felt that should be
discussed in public. He has heard about the siting of a University project and felt
discussions of the project should be treated the same as any other project and discussed
in public, not private. Mr. St. John said the discussion of the item is legally correct
for an executive session. Mr. Lindstrom said that was not the reason he did not desire
an executive session but rather that the matter should not be treated any differently
than any other property acquisition matter by someone outside of the County government
structure.
Based on the above statements~ Mr. Fisher requested the executive session be only
for peronnel matters. At ll:12 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by
Miss Nash, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Mash.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 12'03 P.M.
May 18, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom said he personally felt the Board should indicate to the University of
Virginia that it would be pleased to talk about the siting of a University project in
public session.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Agnor received the request late today. Mr. Fisher then asked
that Mr. Agnor elaborate on the request. Mr. Agnor said several options are available
for the siting of an electron accelerator project by the University of Virginia. A very
tight timetable is involved and due to previous concerns from City and County officials
about the University not informing the localities of projects, the University is requesting
a meeting with both the Board and Council to explain the project further. However,
options for a site have not been completed and the University prefers that this be done
in private. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not have any problem with receiving the report in
private but did not care to have Board reactions in private. He felt the reactions to
the project should either be done ~n public or with the supervisors individually. Mr.
Fisher said since he is an employee of the University of Virginia, he is trying to stay
out of this matter, but did feel that the University is attempting to inform the Board of
their projects. Miss Nash asked what difference it would make for the University to
discuss this project with the Board. Mr. Agnor said the University has informed him that
if there are adverse reactions, the project will not proceed. Mr. Lindstrom suggested
informing the University that the Board would be pleased to talk with them but the preference
is to discuss the matter in public. However, if that is not satisfactory, then the Board
will be glad to listen to their proposal in private. The consensus of the Board was to
listen in private session as requested by the University.
Mr. Fisher requested that the minutes show that this item was not discussed in
executive session this evening.
Mr. Fisher then noted that agenda item no. 9 (Auditors) was discussed in executive
session and action is anticipated on June l, 1983.
Agenda Item No. 15. At 12:12 P.M., motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom, to adjourn to June l, 1983, at 2:00 P.M. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.