1979-02-14January 17, 1979 (Regular--Night Meeting)
The effect of the above motion is to place before the Board the motion for approval
made on December 20, 1978 with the five conditions set out on pages 97 and 98 of Minute Book
17. Mr. Fisher did not feel it was the right thing to do with other alternatives available
but would support the motion.
Roll was called and carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 5. Lottery Permit.
AYES:
NAYS'
Mr. Agnor presented a lottery permit application for the American Cancer Society.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the lottery permit for calendar year
1979 in accordance with the Board's adopted rules for issuance of such permits. Dr. Iachetta
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. ~'U~i%
NAYS: None.
Appointment:
Equalization Board.
No nominations were received and
Agenda Item No. 6.
this matter was deferred.
Agenda Item No. 7. Report of the County Executive for the month of December, 1978, was
presented as information.
Agenda Item No. 8. Cancel meeting of February 7, 1979.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to ~ancel the regularly scheduled Board meeting of
February 7, 1979 since no public hearings had been scheduled. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the
motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Dance Hall Permit.
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Agnor presented a request for a dance hall permit, for Piney Mountain Restaurant.
He noted that all the rules and regulations of the code have been complied with and the
request was properly before the Board. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to approve the
permit with the following condition: "Hours of operation to cease with respect to-dancing
at 1:00 A.M. If this condition is not complied with, the dance hall permit will be su~ect
to revocation." Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Fisher noted a meeting he and Mr. Agnor attended this morning with the Library
Building Committee to review the plans of the old post office building. He said some of
the basic changes in the plan are as follows: 1) The main stairs on. the Second Street
entrance may be left in and used as part of the children's area for story hour. This is to
save money and marble in the building. 2) Where it was originally planned to double the
stacks in the main part of the library and put a floating floor between the stacks to take
care of the future book load, has now been changed to have a mezzanine built in concrete and
not wait until the space is needed for books and use the space in the interim for offices.
Mr. Fisher said he wrote to the Highway Commissioner requesting information which would
hasten the Rio Road project without using local funds or deferring any other projects in the
six-year highway, plan.
In response to a memorandum dated January 11, 1979, from Mr. Agnor regarding the identifi?
cation sign for the Lane project, Mr. Lindstrom requested the wording be changed from "Future
Home" to "Future Site."
Dr. Iachetta noted a complaint received from Mr. Frank Inscoe. Mr. Inscoe was recently
beaten by an unknown person on a city street. He states that a county deputy who was at the
traffic light, saw the beating occur. However, the deputy did not stop. When Mr. Inscoe
contacted the Sheriff about this, he was told the deputy was on another call. Mr. Inscoe
questioned if there is not a policy between the city and county to help each other in such
cases and if he was in such a hurry to get to another call why did he stop a~h~he red light.
After some discussion, Mr. Fisher suggested Dr. Iachetta discuss this matter further with
the Sheriff.
Mr. Henley noted a thirty-minute workshop to be aired on a major network on the Joint
Security Complex and the OAR.
.39
140
personnel matters. Mr. Roudabush offs,red motion to this effect. Mr. Dorrier seconded the
motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
At 11:50 P.M., the Board reconvened and immediately adjourned.
AYES:
NAYS:
February 7, 1979 ('Regular - Night Meeting)
Regular meeting of the Board scheduled for February 7, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarl~
County Courthouse was cancelled by vote of the Board taken at the January 17, 1979 meeting.
February 14, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting') ,
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on February 14, 1979, beginning at 9:00 A.M., in the Board Room of the County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, F. Anthony Iachetta, C.
Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. (Death in the family)
Officers present:
St. John.
County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R.
Agenda Item No. t.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 9:15 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2: Approval of Minutes. September 27, 1978, Mr. Fisher noted no
corrections. October 4, 1978, Mr. Lindstrom noted that on page 443, under Section 5-4-1, at
the end of the second line, the words "the minimum lot width" should be stricken. October
5, 1978, Mr. Fisher noted no'corrections. October 11, 1978, Dr. Iachetta noted that on page
452, the words "in principle" in the tenth line should be stricken. Also, on page 454 under
Agenda Item No. 17A, add the words "to serve the 23 connections requested." October 18,
1978, Mr. Fisher noted no corrections. October 25, 1978, Dr. Iachetta noted that in the
second paragraph of Agenda Item No. 3, the words "of methods" should be added. November 1,
1978 had not been read. November 2, 1978, Mr. Dorrier asked that on page 37 the following
words be ,included: "Mr. Dorrier said when he visited Italy in 1977, he had suggested that a
student exchange program be started. He had received a letter from Mayor Landini in support
of this concept and entered the letter dated June 20, 1977, for the record." November 15,
1978 had not been read. November 30, 1978, Mr. Lindstrom noted no corrections. December 6,
1978, Mr. Lindstrom asked that on page 72, a sentence be reworded to read as follows: "By
holding the water on the land where it initially comes to rest, it will permit the recharging
of ground water supplies." December 13, 1978, December 20 (Afternoon) and December 20
(Night) had not been read.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve the
minutes of September 27, October 4, October 5, October 11, October 18, October 25, November
2, November 8, November 30, and December 6, as corrected. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None
Mr. Henley
Agenda Item No. 3A: Highway matters: Discuss Highway Budget for 1979-80. Mr. Dan
Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, said in November he had sent to the Board a letter for
a suggested budget for the next fiscal year based on three factors. (1) Due to inflation,
deficits in contracts have grown to a point where more money will have to be put toward
141
February 14, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
at this time. Therefore, he had sent a letter dated February 6, recommending a proposed
budget for 1979-80 as follows:
PROPOSED BUDOET 1979-80
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SECONDARY SYSTEM
PRIORITY ITEM
1. 676 - Plant Mix: 601-614
2. 614 - Plant Mix: 676-835
3. Rural Additions
4. County-Wide Items
5. Hydraulic Road
6. 631 - McIntire Extension
7. 631 - Park Street Bridge
8. 656 - Qeorgtown Road
9. 631 - Rio Road from 29 West
10. 600 - Railroad Crossing
11. 665 - Buck Mountain Creek Bridge
12. 601 - Mechum River Bridge
13. Slurry Seal Schedule
14. 601 - Plant Mix: 676-829
15. 728 - Spot Improvement
ALLOCATION
45,300
31,300
20,000
17,000
617,000
145,100
130,000
40,000
40,000
45,000
83,000
157,500
52,000
7O,0OO
25,000
1,515,200
Mr. Roosevelt said that he had discussed these items, priorities and tentative allocation~
with Mr. Tucker of the Planning Department and has received his concurrence in the recom-
mendations. The proposed budget makes the following changes to year two of the approved
six-year plan:
1. Defers additional State Force work until already financed State
Force work is completed.
2. Adjusts contract project priorities to the following order:
1. Mint Springs Park Road
2. Route 601 - Mechum River Bridge
3. Hydraulic Road
4. Park Street Bridge
5. McIntire Extension
3. Finances effects of inflation on the following projects:
1. Hydraulic Road
2. Route 665 - Buck Mountain Creek Bridge
4. Accelerates financing of the McIntire Extension project.
5. Finances accelerated planning for the following projects:
1. Georgetown Road
2. Rio Road from Route 29 - West
Mr. Roosevelt also referred to his letter of February 9:
"February 9, 1979
Proposed Secondary Improvement Budget
1979-80
Albemarle County
Mr. Gerald E. Fisher
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Route 5, Sheffield Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Mr. Fisher:
As I indicated in my recent letter submitting the proposed Secondary
Improvement Budget for the coming fiscal year, there are a number of
potential improvement projects which I feel the Board should be made aware.
The purpose of this letter is to apprise you of such projects to assist you
Citizens along six sections of gravel secondary routes in Albemarle
County have donated sufficient right of way for the improvement of these
sections to a 36 foot wide roadway with a 20 foot wide paved surface. In
all cases but one, ~he right of way donated was 50 feet in width with
additional construction easements as necessary. Listed below are the
six sections, their traffic count and estimated cost to construct.
Route From To
1. 717 Route 719 1.2 miles n'orth
2. 717 Route 712 .75 miles south
3. 667 Route 766 1 mile south
Right of way dedication along this route is only
40 feet wide since dedication was received many
years ago. Construction easements will allow us
to widen the cross section to 36 feet. Since
the traffic count is less than 50 vehicles per
day, this road could not be hard surfaced at
this time.
4. 618 Route 729 Fluvanna County Line
5. 729 Route 728 Route 618
6. 693 Route 635 Route 695
Traffic Count Cost
69 'vpd $13~, 000
51 vpd 84,000
23 vpd 93,000
80 vpd 208,000
90 vpd 180,000
74 vpd 132,000
I ~do not recommend that any of these six improvements be scheduled at
this time. Each improvement is best suited to construction by State
February 14, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
Route 728 from Route 729 to one mile west. Spot improvements have
been requested along this section, which will cost approximately $25,000.
These spot improvements will allow a school bus to serve this area. The
improvements will require easements for grading from the adjacent property
owners. I expect to have written confirmation that these easements will
be available prior to the February 14, 1979 Board meeting. Assuming these
easements are available, I am recommending that this improvement be included
in the proposed budget.
Route 702 from Route 250 to a point one mile west. Spot improvements
at three locations have been requested by Mr. William Hurtt. This route
serves the Holiday Trails Camp and carries an unofficial count taken in
1978 of 115 vehicles per day. The-spot improvements will require additional
right of way, which Mr. Hurtt indicates is available. Cost of the three
spot improvements are $12,000, $30,000 and $15,000.
Route 821 from Route 671 to one mile west. This improvement involves
approximately 0.30 of a mile of widening along a road which carries 31
vehicles per day. This improvement has been requested by Mr. James Cahill.
The improvement is along frontage which he owns, and he has volunteered to
assist with some of the cost of the improvement. The improvement, which
would result in a 36 foot wide gravel cross section, is estimated to cost
approximately $30,000.
I cannot recommend the inclusion of Route 702 or Route 821 in the
budget at this time. Although both routes would be improved by the work
requested, I do not believe that school bus access or mail access is
affected by the current conditions. I do not believe that the improvement
to be gained warrants the expenditure of funds at this time.
The slurry seal schedule for Albemarle County will cover almost nine
miles of roadway in eight subdivisions. The cost is estimated at $52,000.
Some streets in the following subdivisions will be included in this
schedule: Canterbury Hills, Hessian Hills, ~Woodbrook, Orchard Acres,
Wakefield, Brookwood, Georgetown Green and Buckingham Circle. I originally
planned to finance this work by transferring funds from a bridge project
on Route 636. This transfer was .approved by the Board. I have been
advised, however, that funds transferred from deferred projects must go to
projects in the approved Six Year Plan. Therefore, some other means of
financing the slurry seal schedule must be found. I am recommending
allocation of $52,000 in the proposed Secondary Budget for this time.
In an earlier discussion of the 1979-80 budget, I discussed with the
Board the placement of plant mix on 12 routes at a cost of approximately
$435,000. The changes necessary to accomplish this plant mix work have
been deemed too drastic to undertake without formal revision of the Six
Year Plan. This plant mix work is still a valid improvement, however,
and I have included three sections~in the proposed budget for 1979-80.
These are as follows:
$45,300
$31,300
$70,000
1. Route 676 from Route 601 to Route 614 -
2. Route 614 from Route 676 to Route 835
3. Route 601 from Route 676 West to Route 829
I am listing the other nine routes below for your information. If
these routes are not included in the plant mix schedule, I will attempt to
finance them as part of the surface treatment schedule as a maintenance
replacement item.
Route From To Length Traffic Count Cost
6-61 250 855 2123 $ 18,--6V
780 631 Char. .53 2354 12,000
656 743 654 .90 7000 20,900
810 240 789 1.00 2922 18,600
663 743 664E 2.05 2443 84,400
708 29 .8 Mi.E .80 947 18,600
691 240 1204 .12 1708 2,500
1204 691 1205 .08 1577 1,900
614 678W 766 2.90 1081 106,200
This completes the improvements brought to my attention during the
past year. These, as well as others brought to the Board's attention,
can be discussed during our work session at the February 14, 1979 meeting.
Yours truly,
(Signed) D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer"
Mr. Fisher asked what highway projects had either been dropped or deferred to accom-
modate these changes. Mr. Roosevelt said there was an allocation in the Six-Year Plan of
$98,100 for Route 727 which was a state-force project for hard surfacing. The budget proposed
in November did not recommend allocating any money to this project this year. At this time,
the right-of-way has not been obtained and Mr. Dorrier is still working on that problem.
Also included in that proposed budget was $120,000 for a bridge over the Southern Railroad
on Route 651 and a $50,000 allocation for the bridge on Route 671 at Millington. Both
projects were put in the SixYear Planwith the hope that they could be pushed forward for
development and .go to construction within one to one and one-half years. This is not possible
and in November he had recommended reducing the allocation for both of these projects. Now,
Mr. Lindstrom asked what type of planning will be done for the Georgtown Road project.
Mr. Roosevelt said the additional money will push the planning forward as if Georgetown Road
were a top priority project. Once the plans are developed, they will be put on the shelf
until there is money to purchase right-of-way and go to construction. It is hoped that by
preparing the plans early, the County will be able to use the'plans to control development
along Georgetown Road by, possibly, requiring developers to build improvements across the
front of their properties. Mr. Lindstrom said he was concerned about the immediate need for
straightening and providing pedestrian right-of-way. He asked if the plans will be oriented
in that direction. Mr. Roosevelt said the planning will be oriented toward the ultimate
roadway, or what will be needed in the year 2000. Although the planning has not yet begun,
he feels that if the area developed according to the County's Comprehensive Plan, the road
must be four-lane with curb and gutter, because a rural cross-section will not solve storm
drainage problems. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt that was a mistake. The area is already
developed as an urban area. He felt that immediate relief should be provided rather than
spending $40,000 for plans which will not be implemented. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway
Department had tried to solve the problem with the curve at Dr. Word's house two years ago
and were at a point to show him what right-of-way was needed when a decision was made not to
pay for right-of-way on a single small improvement. If the concern for pedestrians is the
need for a sidewalk, the Highway Department will nov participate in the cost of construction
of a sidewalk unless its location fits in with the ultimate design of the road. Also, it is
Highway Department policy that any right-of-way needed for sidewalks must be paid for by the
County. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to go over the policy which would require four-
laning of Georgetown Road since he feels it inhibits the Board's ability to deal wit~the
immediate problem. Mr. Roosevelt said the discussion today was to decide on a budget for
the spring highway hearing. Mr. Fisher said he felt the Board should hold a hearing on the
budget as set out above. Motion to set a hearing on the 1979-80 Highway budget for March
15, 1979, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, was offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Roosevelt said he would like to discuss ways to finance major improvement projects
such as the Rio-McIntire extension. In his letter of February 6, he had listed five contract
projects. The first two are in the right-of-way stage and he feels these canbe financed by
1982-83, but, it will take all of the financing for contract projects to do this. Little
other than preliminary planning can be done on Georgetown Road during that time, or on any
other projects. Mr. Fisher said he understands that House Bill 620 on Annexation is promising
more funds to the County for paving gravel roads. He had also heard that there is no new
money involved in the Bill and all of these funds will come off the top of secondary highway
funds, so the County will probably loose funds for other paved roads. He noted that he had
written to Commissioner Harold King about additional funds for Rio Road and his answer
follows:
"January 25, 1979
Route 631 (Rio Road
Project 0631-002-128,C502
Albemarle County
Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Mr. Fisher:
This is in response to your letter of January 17, 1979, inquiring a~
as to the possibility of accelerating the construction of Rio Road between
the north corporate limits of Charlottesville and Route 29 wlthout killing
or delaying other high-priority projects on the Secondary System in
Albemarle County.
This is a question that can be answered only after a thorough re-
view has been made of the funding commitments of individual projects
within the six-year plan. Since there is no additional available source
of funds, acceleration from a funding standpoint would have to be the re-
sult 8f the rearrangement of financial commitments of other projects within
the six-year plan. Certainly any funds committed for an earlier time frame
on lower priority projects could be exchanged with later funding commitments
on the Rio Road project without affecting the schedule of other imminent high-
priority projects.
Thus I have requested Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, the Resident Engineer, to make
a review of the six-year plan and consult with the Board in an effort to ex-
plore this possibility.
Lest a false impression of optimism be gleaned from this, I hasten to
point out that there are certain time-consuming prerequisites beyond the
Department's control that must be consummated in order to advertise any
project to contract, and the spiraling inflation trend has a great impact
upon project cost.
However, you may be assured that our engineers are most anxious to
expedite this project to the extent possible within the framework of our
policies and laws. Therefore, you may expect to be heari.ng from Mr.
Roosevelt concerning this in the not-too-distant future, and I sincerely
February 14, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 3B: Request to Sign Deed for Route 684 (Mint Springs Road). Mr. Agnor
noted~that~at~the NOvember~8~im~e~inE,~--~eq~$~ ~a~rec~ived from the Highway Department to
purchase approximately 2/10ths acre at the entrance to Mint Springs Park for this road
project. At that time, the Board indicated to the Highway Department that they would deed
property to them for the sum of $1.00. The deed is ready and reads as follows: (description
is somewhat different than that shown in the November 8 Minutes.)
THIS DEED, made this 5th day of January, 1979, by and between THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, Grantor, and the
.COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, acting by and through its Department of Highways
and Transportation, Grantee;
WITNESSETH: THAT WHEREAS, by a meeting duly called of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors, a resolution was duly passed authorizing the
conveyance to the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Highways and
Transportation, of the hereinafter described real estate:
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of $1.00 paid by
the Grantee to the Grantor, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
Said Grantor hereby grants and conveys unto the said Grantee in fee simple,
with special warranty the land located in White Hall Magisterial District of
Albemarle County, Virginia, and described as follows:
Being as shown on Sheet 5 of the plans for Route 684, State Highway
Project 0684-002-159, C-501, and lying on the west (left) side of
and adjacent to the lands of Richard F. Pietsch, Virginia K. Pietsch
and Richard L. Pietsch from the lands of said Pietschs also being a
point in the lands of the grantor, opposite approximate Survey
Centerline Station 154+60 to the lands of C. B. Wayland and Norma
A. Wayland opposite approximate Station 155+10 and containing 0.022
acre, more or less, land; and being a part of the same land acquired
by the grantor from L. G. and Elizabeth Ligon by Deed dated April 30,
1947 and recorded in DeedBook 273, Page 426, in the Office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of said County.
The said Grantor convenants that it has the right to convey the said land
to the Grantee, that it has done no act to encumber the same and that it will
execute such further assurance of the same as may be requisite.
The said Grantor convenants and agrees that the consideration hereinabove
mentioned and paid shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation for
land, and for damages, if any, to the remaining lands of the Grantor which
result by reason of the use to which the Grantee will put the land to be con-
veyed, including such drainage facilities as may be necessary.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the
following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the sale to the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department
of Highways and Transportation of a certain tract of land adjacent to
State Route 68~, containing 0.022 acres, more or less, more particularly
describedin a proposed deed of conveyance attached hereto, is hereby
approved. The Chairman of the Board is authorized to execute the deed
of conveyance and the Clerk of the Board is authorized to affix the
Board's seal thereto.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Henley.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Request to Abandon Portion of Leeds Lane.
(Deferred from January
Agenda Item No. 3C:
10, 1979.)
Mr. Tucker noted that Mr. Ronald Smullen, adjoining property owner, has applied for
rezoning of his property to RS-1. That request will be coming to the Planning Commission
next month. If the rezoning is approved, Mr. Smullen intends to upgrade Leeds Lane and
bring it into the State Highway System. However, he understands that one of the residents
on Leeds Lane would prefer to see it remain as a private road because of aesthetics. A final
decision on abandonment of Leeds Lane as a part of the highway system could be made by the
Board after the rezoning request is completed.
Mr. Richard Shannon, property owner on Leeds Lane, said-that he and Mr. Herbert would
still prefer to see the road abandoned. Since there is no responsibility at this time for
Mr. Cushman to maintain the road, it will be 400 feet of mud this summer.
Mr. Smullen said he has applied for the rezoning and if that is approved, he would
bring the road into the State System at his expense. He objects to the abandonment since he
feels it will ruin the value of his property. Dr. Iachetta said he did not feel the Board
could continue with this abandonment until after the rezoning request is completed.
Mrs. Sue DeMong was present and objected to the abandonment. She gave no particular
reason for her objection. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to defer any further consideration
of this matter until April 11. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the
February 14, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 3D: Letters Accepting Roads Into the State System.
sented the following letters for the record:
"January 23, 1979
As requested in your resolution dated December 13, 1978, the
following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is
hereby approved, effective January 23, 1979.
ADDZTION LENGTH
WESTFIELD SUBDIVISION
Greenbrier Drive - From end of maintenance
State Rte. 1453 easterly to State Route 1452.
0.11 Mi."
Mr. Agnor pre-
February 5, 1979
As requested in your resolution dated December 13, 1978, the
following abandonment from the Secondary System of Albemarle County
is hereby approved, effective February 5, 1979.
ABANDONMENT
LENGTH
Route 782 from 0.01 mile west of W.C.L.
Charlottesville southwesterly 0.28 mile
to Rte. 29 business.
0.28 Mi."
Agenda Item No. 3E: Other Highway Matters. Mr. Roudabush said that several weeks ago,
Mr. Agnor, Mr. Tucker and himself had met with Mr. Donald Zimmerman from State Farm Insurance
Company. The primary access from the new State Farm building on 250 East will be at 250
opposite the intersection of Route 20 at the foot of Pantops Mountain. There will also be
an additional entrance on the top of the mountain near Worrel! Newspapers entrance. Mr.
Zimmerman suggested installation of a traffic signal at the entrance on 250 and an industrial
light on the top of the mountain. They will try to route their employees from the building
to 1-64 whenever possible. They have already conducted a traffic survey within the organizati~
to determine the origin and destination of employees to try to minimize problems. Mr.
Roudabush said he felt that it was time for the Board to look at the problem and ask the
Highway Department to consider what can be done before State Farm occupies their new headquartE
Mr. Zimmerman was present. He said that if all goes well, they will occupy the building
by December 1, 1979. At this time, there are approximately 450 autos going into the facility
daily. He then handed to the Board a copy of the study made by state Farm in 1976. Mr.
Fisher said the Board has ten months warning and asked if the Highway Department can have
some recommendation ready before December 15. Mr. Roosevelt said yes, if State Farm will
furnish the Highway Department with their information.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had received a request from citizens in the Clearview/ Arbor Park
area asking if a sign could be erected identifying the area. Mr. Roosevelt said that the
Highway Department puts up signs in areas that are clearly defined as an area. But, it
would have to be designated as an area by the Board so that it could be placed on the highway
map.
Dr. Iachetta said that last year the Board had discussed a problem with BerwiCk Court/
Nottingham Road and it has never been resolved. There is a short piece of road at the.
intersection which is not in the State Highway System. The residents were not aware of this
until the Highway Department stopped pushing snow. In fact, the Highway Department makes
the matter worse by closing off this short piece of street when they do push snow. Mrs.
Neily Huffman was present and again related to the Board the problems that the residents
have encountered. Mr. Roosevelt said that although this was not an ordinary situation, i~f
the Board wanted to adopt a resolution to have this piece of road taken into the Secondary
System, he would pass it on to the Highway Department. Mrs. Huffman noted that the street
is maintained since it was paved by the Highway Department last spring. Mr. Roosevelt said
this was an error on their part.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the followin
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of
Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident
Highway Department, the following road in Westmoreland Subdivision.
Beginning at the centerline intersection of Nottingham
Road and Berwick Court, thence in a southwesterly
direction 175 feet to the end of Nottingham Road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed
right of way along this requested addition~ as recorded by plat in the
Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
rs.
February 14, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Dorrier said that he had received a call from a school bus driver who was worried
about buses driving on roads that have not been sufficiently snow plowed. He had replied
that he did not know what the Board could do other than apprise the Highway Department of
the situation.
Dr. Iachetta said he had received a~ report from the Sheriff that the sign erected in
Ivy had reduced the number of accidents. He then asked if the Highway Department would do
such a study on Rio Road, since at this time, there are only three speed signs on the length
from the city limits to 29 North.
At 11:02 A.M. the Board had a moment of silence in respect for Mr. Henley's father-in-
law. The Board then took a short recess.
genda Item No. 4: Blue Ridge Estates Site Plan Appeal. (Mr. Roudabush abstained from
participation on this item.) Mr. Fisher began by reading the following letter into the
record:
"January 29, 1979
Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman
Board of Supervisors for Albemarle County
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
RE: Blue-Ridge Estates
D'ear Mr. Fisher:
The reason for noting an appeal concerning the above matter
was the failure of the Planning Commission to require off site
improvements to State Routes 691 and 692 as provided for in
Section 18-39(o) of the Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance
of Albemarle COunty, Virginia.
Due to the fact that State Route 692 exceeds capacity at the
present time, my clients feel it is imperative to improve this
road and State Route 691 before a further subdivision of Blue
Ridge Farm comes about.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Paul M. Peatross, Jr."
Mr. Tucker read the Planning staff's report:
BLUE RIDGE ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT
Location: On State Route 692 near Greenwood.
Acreage: 28+ acres
Zoning: A-I, Agricultural
Proposal': For 12 residential lots approximately 2+ acres each, to be
served by individual wells and septic facilities.
Staff Comments: Staff recommends approval subject to the following
conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Written Health Department approval
2. County Engineer's approval of private road plans.
3. Compliance with Run-off Control Ordinance, if necessary.
4. Grading permit required.
5. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval
of commercial entrance, turn lane and taper.
6. County Attorney's office approval of a maintenance agreement.
7. Provide a name for the private road.
Mr. Tucker said that on January 9, 1979, the Planning Commission had approved the plat
subject to conditions t through 4 and 7 recommended by the staff, but changing No. 5 to
read: "Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance,
turn lane and taper and frontage development in accordance with Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation letter of December 6, 1978." and also changing No. 6 to read:
"County Attorney's office approval of a maintenance agreement; (include residue)." Mr.
Tucker then read the Highway Department's recommendation contained in their letter of
December 6, 1978. "550 feet of sight distance is necessary for the commercial entrance.
The existing sight distance can be improved by relocating the fence and grading the slope.
We recommend the frontage of this property be graded such that the shoulder breakpoint is 15
feet from the centerline of the existing road. If this is done, sight distance may be
improved to the necessary length. This should be verified by the developer prior to approval.
The length of~the turn lane is adequate. It should be 12 feet in width. Adequate right-of-
February 14, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Commission had considered additional improvements to
Routes 691 and 692 as conditions of approval for this plat. Mr. Tucker said it was discussed,
but it was not made a condition. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt if he felt that the improvemen
as proposed for the entrance and sight distances are adequate to handle the traffic from the
proposed development. Mr. Roosevelt said the plat is for only 12 lots. Multiplying ~2 by
seven vehicles that are normally assigned for each dwelling unit would make 8a additior'al
vehicles added to the road. From that standpoint, he felt it would be adequate. Mr. Fisher
then asked for the present traffic counts on the roads. Mr. Roosevelt said that on 692 east
of 691, the new count is 469 cars per day; west of 691, it is 390 cars a day; on 691 between
692 and 250, it is 336 cars a day, which is a substantial decrease over what it was in 1976;
and south of 692, it is 285 vehicles per day. Mr. Lindstrom asked the capacity of the roads
in terms of the Highway Department's tolerable/non-tolerable standards. Mr. Roosevelt said
he would have to make a t,elephone'call and would get the information back to the Board in a
few minutes. Mr. Fisher then continued by calling on Mr. Peatross.
Mr. Peatross said he represented the neighbors of Blue Ridge Farm who oppose this
proposed 12 two-acre lot subdivision because of the question of roads. The figures presented
by Mr. Roosevelt are the same as those contained in the Planning Staff's report of October
10, 1978, on the Blue Ridge RPN request. Those figures showed the 336 vehicle trips per day
on Route 692. The staff report also showed that Route 692 was exceeding capacity at that
time. Route 691 was at capacity. For the record, Mr. Peatross presented the Board members
with a copy of the October 10, 1978, staff report. He also quoted from a letter dated
September 6, 1978, signed by W. B. Coburn, Assistant Resident Engineer, said letter being
set out in full on page 35 of Minute Book 17, and then offered a copy for the record. Mr.
Peatross said his clients' concern is that this subdivision will put an additi~onal 84
vehicle trips per day on 692 which is already carrying in excess of its rated capacity.
These 84 vehicles must also go through the intersection at 691. The road is only 14 to 16
feet wide with bad alignment and curves. The Highway Department had recommended definite
improvement of the roads to handle the traffic from the RPN. His clients are also concerned
that these 12 two-acre lots are just the beginning of further subdivision in a piece-meal
fashion~. They are also concerned that the Planning Commission did not consider Section 18-
39(o) of the Subdivision Ordinance, which states that they shall consider the road sy~tems
which will handle the subdivision. They feel that since further development can come at a
later time, it is important to start the road improvements as a condition of this subdivision
which will directly and adversely affect the roads that presently exceed capacity. Also,
there is a 13th lot, the residue. Mr. Peatross says he knows the Board is well aware that
there are no State highway funds to improve these roads. These roads are not included in
the Six-Year Highway Plan. Unless the developer is required to improve the roads, they will
never be improved and the severe safety problem that now exists will get worse. He asked
that the Board use Section 18-39(o) of the Subdivision Ordinance to require that the developer
make improvements to Routes 691 and 692.
Mr. Fisher asked what road improvements Mr. Peatross felt were specifically necessary.
Mr. Peatross said the most critical improvement is at the intersection of Routes 691 and
692. He felt this intersection should be brought up to State Highway Department standards.
Mr. James Wooten, attorney for the applicant, said the Board had previously heard his
concern about the constitutionality of Section 18-39(o). He felt that to impose any road
improvements on this section of road for these 12 lots would be unconstitutional. He said
that it is not within the limit of any governing body to require that a private citizen
confer benefits on the public.
Mr. Roosevelt returned to the meeting at this time and said a paved road, 16 feet wide
is considered tolerable up to 399 vehicles per day. Above that figure, it is considered
non-tolerable. A paved road, 18 feet wide is considered tolerable up to 999 vehicles per
day. Route 692 is 16 feet wide on both sections mentioned. Mr. Fisher said according to
the traffic counts given earlier, 692 east of 691 currently exceeds the tolerable standard
by 170 vehicle trips per day. The other road was within that limit, although 692 west of
691 is close to the limit.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how the tolerable, non-tolerable standard relates to safety. Mr.
Roosevelt said he will not say that a road is unsafe when it is non-tolerable. He gave as
an example Georgetown Road which is no wider than 18 feet but which carries in excess of
6,000 cars per day.
Mr. Lindstrom said when the Highway Department reviewed the request for the RPN last
year, they had recommended improvements at the intersection of Routes 691 and 692. He asked
if it would be advisable for the Board to consider improvements at that intersection with
this application. Mr. Roosevelt said when the Highway Department~reviewed the previous
application as one large parcel, with an additional 1000 vehicles per day using that intersecti
it was felt that it must be improved. However, he did not believe the Highway Department
could say that an additional 84 vehicles per day going through that intersection necessitated
improvements being made at this time. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department did not
recommend any off-site improvements on the RPN application, except for the intersection of
691 and 692.
Mr. Lindstrom said he was afraid the Highway Department. would never say that there is
an unsafe road. Mr. Roosevelt said they will not make such a statement based on traffic
volume. The reason for this is that there are no nationally adopted standards (such as the
sight distance standards) on which all traffic engineers can agree. The County is on it's
own in this case.
Mr. Dorrier said he was uneasy with the fact that the Board cannot rely on the Highway
Department for safety analysis. Mr. Fisher said he was concerned that additional subdivision
in this area, coupled With the existing road condit±ons, will create terrible problems for
the people presently living in the area.
Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Wooten has stated that he does not feel the Board has the
authority to place a condition on this subdivision that would require off-site road improvement
~S
,n,
February 14, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Wooten then mentioned State Code Section 15.1-239 which allows for the assessment
of abutting property owners for such things as storm sewers and drainage control projects,
but noted that this can only be used when there is a total project. In that case, you have
one developer paying the total cost just because he is first to develop in the area. To
say that the roads in the area are of concern is one thing, but to say that the first
person who decides to exercise his right to subdivide his land must pay more than his
proportionate share, is unconstitutional.
Mr. Fisher said he felt the Board needed some cost figures for improvements for Route
692 from the entrance road to the subdivision to its intersection with Route 691, since that
is the section which is over the Highway Department's tolerable standard at this time. What
would be the cost of increasing the pavement width from 16 to 18 feet and what are the
reasonable levels at which this kind of requirement could be placed.
Dr. Iachetta asked the legal status of requiring such improvements. Mr. St. John said
there is an Attorney General's opinion stating that this section of the County's ~0rdinance
is constitutional and that it is authorized under the State's enabling legislation. But,
there is also a Supreme Court case in which it was ruled that off-site improvements must be
only those generated by the development in question. Past that point, requiring improvements
sufficient for both the need generated by the existing public volume of traffic and the
expected traffic from this 12-lot subdivision is a question which has not been addressed by
the courts. Mr. St.~ John said in a situation such as this, the best guideline for the Board
to follow is to do what is felt to be best and the decision will be tested in court.
Dr. Iachetta said many of the problems he has had to deal with in his years on the
Board are those which were left behind because it was not expedient to address them at the
time. They have become social problems in that the individual owners are now incapable of
solving the problems themselves and that is the part of the problem which the Board must
begin to address.
Mr. Fisher said both sides had good arguments. Mr. Peatross feels the road needs
improving how. Mr. Wooten is concerned that the costs should be pro-rated according to the
percentage of benefits enuring to this subdivision. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board has any~
way of accepting from the developer a pro-rata share of the costs for making improvements on
these roads which would be set aside for just this project until such time as public or
other private funds are available.
Mr. Lindstrom did not feel it is fair to approve this subdivision without requiring the
developer to share in the costs of upgrading the roads, but did not think the Board had
enough information to make a decision this day.
Mr. St. John said the Board should know that there is no way that a fee can be taken
from the developer and put into escrow for this purpose. There was legislation proposed to
makeJthat possible, but it was defeated. The Attorney General has said that in absenoe of
that legislation, this cannot be done.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the developer could be required to make off-site improvements as
one of the conditions of approval. Mr. St. John said yes, even if they do not border his
property, although it is easier to justify improvements which border the property. Also, if
this plat is denied, the Board's Agent must, in writing, state to the applicant exactly what
alterations can be made in the plan so it will be approved. So, the burden is put on the
Board to prescribe the exact off-site improvements which the developer must make.
It was the concensus of the Board that the staff, with Highway Department assistance,
should prepare the following information: 1) Cost of upgrading Route 692 from 16 to 18 feet
along the following sections: a) from the entrance of Blue Ridge_Estates, along Route 692,
to its intersection with Route 691; b) from the intersection of Routes 692 and 691, along
Route 691 to Route 250; c) from the intersection~of Routes 692 and 691, along Route 692 to
Route 250; d) improvements at the intersection of Routes 692 and 691. 2) Determine if a
pro-rata share of these costs can be collected from the developer and held until public
funds are available for upgrading these roads. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer any action on this plat until March 7, 1979. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 5. L. B. Harlow Site Plan Appeal. Mr. Fisher said a letter had been
received from Mr. Stuart F. Carwile, stating that Mrs. Harlow is appealing Conditions No. 1
~nd 2.
Mr. Tucker gave the Planning Staff's Report:
"L. B. HARLOW RESIDENTIAL DUPLEXES SITE PLAN
Location:
Acreage:
Zoning:
~istory.:
Proposal:
On State Route 702, off Old Route 29, west of Charlottesville.
8 acres
A-i, Agricultural
Building permits were issued for two single-family residential
units in March 1978 and May 1978. Actual construction revealed
that duplexes were being built and the applicant was able to
acquire additional land to comply with area requirements in
the A-1 zone. The Zoning Administrator has granted temporary
certificates of occupancy and zoning clearance pending this
site plan approval.
To obtain approval for two duplexes (four residential units)
on an eight-acre parcel to be served by an individual well
February 14, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting) .................. ~
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Staff approval of a landscape plan; and a note on the plan:
~ ~ "Landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy condition, to be
replaced if it should die."
2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval
of a commercial entrance.
3. Written Health Department approval.
4. Show deeded easement on adjacent property to the satisfaction
of the County Attorney.
5. These conditions shall be complied with six months from the
date of approval."
Mrs. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on January 23, 1979, approved this site plan
with the staff's recommended conditions, .but chang, ed No..3 by addin, g the words: "and~.~frontage
improvements" to the end of that sentence. They also added a condition 'No. 6 reading:
"Appro. val of .a central well by all applicable agencies, if required."
~Mr. Fisher said he had met with Mrs. Harlow to discuss this proposal and was concerned
about several things. Each of the two buildings has one large residential area, but an area
which was to have been a garage on each building was enclosed to make an additional dwelling
unit, therefore, there are two homes with attached apartments. Each major dwelling is
designed to have six bedrooms which will be used for rental purposes. This parcel Contains
eight acres so it does meet area requirements of County Ordinances, but only about two and
three-quarters acres are on one side of a stream, with the rest of the land going up a
mountain, so the total acreage is essentially of no benefit. Mr. Fisher said he feels this
is a fairly intensive use on a small lot.
Mrs.. Harlow was present. She said Route 702 which runs in front of this-property is a
State Secondary road which dead-ends past her property. She has two entrances to her
property and does not understand how her entrances can be considered commercial. Mr.
Tucker said that is a Highway Department requirement. They feel that when an entrance
serves three or more units, it must be constructed to commercial standards.
Mrs. Harlow said she had applied for a rezoning of her property about three years ago
and it was denied by this Board, however, a neighboring property owner had constructed six
duplexes, with no landscaping and no roadway. She resented having all of this extra expense
come up.at the last minute.
Mr. Fisher said the adjoining landowner had built his duplexes several years ago
without r.equesting a rezoning. When he was denied a certificate of occupancy, he did
request a rezoning, which was approved by the Board over Mr. Fisher's obj~ections. He did
not feel it was a good precedent. When Mrs. Har!ow changed her plans for building two
single-family dwellings into plans for 16 rental units, that brought the plan under site
plan requirements, at which time the Highway Department recommended that commercial entrance
standards be imposed.
Mr. Roosevelt said this is a standard requirement for the number of vehicle trips
expected to be generated by these dwelling units. The entrance needs to be wide enough to
allow two cars to pass in the entrance. It was also recommended that Route 702 be widened
to 18 feet from the centerline to Mrs. Harlow's property. This is the same recommendation
that the Highway Department has been making since the County's Subdivision Ordinance was
revised last year.
Mrs. Harlow said she could not accept these conditions, feeling they are discriminatory,
since they were not imposed on the adjoining property owner. Mr. Fisher said the rules have
changed during the last five years. These are the same conditions which are being imposed
at this time on all other developments. It was the consensus of the Board that no action
would,.betaken on this appeal. The plan stands approved with the conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission.
At 12:37 P.M., the Board recessed for lunch and reconvened at 1:36 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 6. Central Well Reque'st: Piney Mountain Subdivision.
Mr. Agnor noted letter dated January 2~., 1979 from Mr. W. L. Clover requesting a central
well permit on lot #5 of the Piney Mountain Subdivision to serve five single-family units
located on plots 3, ~, 5, and 6. Mr. ~gnor said the subdivision is within the jurisdictional
area of-~$he Albemarle County Service Authority but the water supply is 3,000 feet away from
the property and the Service Authority has no interest in serving the subdivision. Therefore,
Mr. Agnor recommended the request be approved in concept. Mr. Fisher asked about parcels
one and~two. Mr. W. L. Clover said lot #1 has its own well, lot #2 is owned by the owners
of lot #6 and there are no plans to provide water to lot #2. Motion was then offered by
Mr. L~ndstrom to approve the central well permit in concept for lot, #5 to serve five single-
family uhits located on plots 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Piney Mountain Subdivision. Mr. Dorrier
seconde~ the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
-'~ .Agenda Item No. 7. AHIP Quarterly Report.
Mr. Mike Bremmer presented slides of the projects for the Albemarle Housing Improvement
Program :for the second quarter of Fiscal Year 1978-79. He noted that thirteen familiss were
aided with ~6% minority, 35% elderly and for 1 handicapped person..
Agenda Item No. 16. Lottery Permit.
Mr. Agnor presented lottery permit requests for the B.?.O.E. Elks #389 for bingo and
raffles and for the Incarnation Catholic Church for bingo. Motion was offered by Mr.
Lindstrom to approve the above lottery permits for the calendar year 1979 in accordance with
the Board's adopted rules for issuance of such permits. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and
same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 17. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff and
Commonwealth's Attorney. Salary statements for the Director of Finance and the Sheriff for
the months of October and November, 1978 were presented and salary statements for the months
of October 1978 through January 1979 were presented for the Commonwealth's Attorney. The
statement of expenses for the months of January for all departments were presented. Motion
was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve the statements as presented.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 18. Statement of Expenses for the Regional Jail. Salary statements
for the months of October and November, 1978 were presented. Statement of expenses for the
month of-January, 1979, were also presented. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded
by Mr. Roudabush, to approve the statement as presented. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 19. Statements of expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation
of the Regional Jail for the month of January, 1979, along with summary statement of prisoner
days, statement of jail physician and 'statement of salaries of the paramedics and the classifi¢
officer, were received. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, these statements
were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 20. Report of the County Executive for the month of January, 1979, was
received as information.
Agenda Item No. 21. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of
January, 1979, was received as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
Agenda Item No. 8. Resource Recovery Study Committee Report.
Mr. Clarence Anderson, Chairman of the Resource Recovery Study Committee, was present
~o make a report from the committee. (See Minute Book 1~, pages 12 and 13 for charge to the
committee.) Mr. ~Anderson then reviewed with the Board a report dated November 22, 1978,
compiled by Metcalf & Eddy Engineers, entitled "Summary Report to Resource Recovery Study
Commission, City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County and the University of Virginia, on
Solid Waste Resource Recovery Study." (Copy on file in the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Office.) Mr. Anderson read the four alternatives selected by Metcalf & Eddy as the most
~romising candidates for generating steam which are as follows: 1. Mass fired boiler
~lant. This plant burns unprocessed MSW (Municipal Solid Wastes) on grates in two waterwall
~urnaceboilers. The plant capacity is 250 tpd MSW. No materials are recovered. 2. MSW
processing plant and spreader stoker boiler plant. ~his plant first processes the MSW to an
RDF (refuse-derived fuel), using shredders for size reduction and ferrous metal removal by
magnetic separation. The RDF is burned in one spreader stoker, waterwall furnace, boiler
plant. ~The plant capacity is 250 tpd MSW. Ferrous metals are recovered. 3. Controlled
air boiler plant. This plant involves partial combustion of the unprocessed MSW in the
primary chambers of five furnaces with combustion completed in the secondary chambers of
these furnaces. Three waste heat recovery boilers serve the five furnaces. The plant
capacit~ is 250 tpd MSW. No materials are recovered. 4. MSW processing plant and coal/RDF
fired, spreader stoker boiler plant-~, This plant is similar to ~lternative ~2, except,.that .it
includes an additional system to co-fire coal in the same boiler. The plant capacity is 365
tpd, firing MSW only, and up to 113 tpd, firing coal only. Ferrous metals are recovered.
The first three alternative systems, designed to burn Municipal Solid Wastes only as
;he primary fuel were evaluated assuming that an Authority would be established to implement
~nd operate the facility, sell steam to the University and operate the Ivy Landfill. Alternative
~4 is designed to co-fire coal and RDF with a higher steam generating capacity than the
~ther alternatives. This was evaluated assuming that the University, through the Commonwealth,
~ould fund the facility for its own use with none or only a part of the amortization being a
~oncern of the local jurisdiction (or Authority) and suitable arrangements being made with
zhe landfill'.s present operators. The evaluation of the four alternative systems was made
~sing 1977 as the base year with two systems selected for detailed economic analysis over
February 14, 1979 (Regular--All Day Meeting)
The first two sources of income can be adjusted, raising or lowering either, to obtain
desired goals. Figure 1 on page 7 of the report, shows the interrelationship of steam price
and tipping fee based on the following steam quantities supplied per year to the University:
Alternative No. ! - 329,000 M (thousand) pounds; Alternative No. 2 - 339,000 M pounds;
Alternative No. 3 - 338,000 M pounds; Alternative No. 4 - 454,000 M pounds. The tipping
fees are based on the total quantity of MSW. and other solid wastes per year. Alternative
No. 4~with the options of the Commonwealth's paying all of the plant's capital cost or with
an Authority paying a portion of the capital cost gives the lowest tipping fees with the
first option having a tipping fee of a credit of $1.17 per ton and the second option having
a tipping fee of $5.33 per ton. Both of the tipping fees are based on a steam selling price
of $2.~96 per thousand pounds. This selling price is the total cost per thousand pounds of
steam generation for a proposed new University owned and operated, coal fired, spreader
stoker~boiler plant used for comparison purposes. Alternative No. 3 gives the lowest
tipping fees. Alternative No. 3 requires continued operation of the present Heating Plant
and, therefore, its steam is assumed to be sold on the basis of displaced fuel cost of steam
rather than total cost. At a steam sale price of $2.05 per thousand pounds, based on Universi'
fuel cost of steam in 1977, the tipping fee would be $6.20 per ton. Based on tipping
fees comparisons, Alternative No. 4 appears to be the best solution to the two communities
and to the University of Virginia. On a similar basis, Alternative No. 3 appears to be the
best choice among Alternatives No. 1 to 3, inclusive, which propose plants sized only for
firing MSW and selling steam to the University of Virginia.
Metoalf and Eddy recommended Alternative No. 4 as their first choice - Municipal Solid
Wastes Processing Plant and Coal/RDF Spreader Stoker Boiler Plant. The recommendation is
based on the following advantages:
a. Substantial annual net credits to the communities/University of Virginia
compared with Ivy landfill's costs, either assuming that the Authority pays part
of the capital cost or that the Commonwealth pays all of the capital cost. The
credits are considerably higher on the second basis. The study assumes that
the Authority would pay $7,314,000 of an estimated total capital cost of
$14,994,000 for the first option. These costs as of the base year 1977 would be
escalated at five percent per year to 1981.
b. Capable of burning all of the MSW (with the exception of MSW bypassed to
landfill because of plant availability factor) through 1995.
c. Capable of supplying high percentages of University of Virginia's estimated
steam generation requirements through 2000. The steam generation capability
fits in with the University's plans for a new Heating Plant at the proposed site.
d. Substantial ferrous metal recovery.
e. Adaptable to the future installation of additional equipment to recover
aluminum and glass.
f. Large reduction in annual tonnage and volume of MSW/residue to the Ivy
landfill, compared to landfill disposal of all MSW.
g. Substantial annual coal savings compared to a comparable plant firing coal
only.
h. Long and satisfactory operating experience record of spreader stoker boiler
plants.
i. Excess capacity of the MSW processing~plant to give opportunity for selling
any excess RDF to other users in the future.
j. Suitable for alternative 650 psig steam generation, if specified, in lieu
of 235 psig steam generation.
k. Suitable for future addition of a flash drying system to dry wastewater
treatment plant sludges for firing in the boiler.
The disadvantage is the lack of extensive operating experience relative to-the MSW
processing plant.
Mr. Anderson said the Resource Recovery Study Committee unanimously approved Alternative
#4. He said the next question is how far to go into implementing this alternative and it
all lies on what the University does in connection with the boiler plant.
Dr. Iachetta, a member of the Resource Recovery Study Committee, did nbt' feel anything
could be decided by the Board until a response is received from the State on whether they
are willing to participate in such a project. Mr. Agnor also recommended Alternative #4.
Motion .was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to endorse Alternative #4 "MSW processing plant and
[0~RDF fired, spreader stoker boiler plant." Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT:- Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 9. Staff Report on Run-off Control Ordinance.
During the discussion of a subdivision plat on December 6, 1978, the staff was directed
to make a report to the Board on the fol!o~ing questions related to the Run-off Control
Ordinance:
Februar 14 ! Re ular--Alt Da Meetin
Any technical problems which have arisen.
'-~4'. Are there any inadequancies in the ordinance?
Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, was present to discuss the 71-page report
drafted on these questions. (Copy on file in the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Office.)
He said in reviewing the above items, the staff went into great detail to present a complete
picture of the South Rivanna Watershed, activities within the basin, the quality of the
water in the impoundments and the ability of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to produce
good water. It also speaks to the oft-repeated inquiries and comments on the comparison of
the South Rivanna with the Occoquan, the advisabiIity'of seeking a new source of supply and
the risks inherent in the wide-spread use of septic systems or the treatment of sewage. Mr.
Bailey said the County Engineering staff compiled the report with the help of the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority staff and the County's consultant, Dr. F. X. Browne. Mr. Bailey
then-read the following conclusions of the report:
1. The ordinance in its present form and as it is now administered will
'effectively meet its goal of protecting the reservoirs from pollution caused
by development. It should be understood, however, that control of pollutants
from development will not by itself relieve the South Rivanna of it's
eutrophic condition described in the Betz Report.
2. Much work is to be done in improving guidelines which form the technical
aspects of the ordinance.
3. The present pattern of development within the South Rivanna Watershed
demonstrates that substantial growth may occur without the aid of public
water and/or sewerage.
4. Soils within the South Rivanna Watershed are well suited for use by
septic systems for domestic sewage treatment. There is very little risk
of pollution to the reservoirs and wells from this method of disposal.
5. There are problems with water quality in each of the several reservoirs.
Problems vary seasonably and with draw-down of the reservoirs.
6. Poor water quality is sometimes caused by organisms, sometimes by minerals.
Problems are not of such intensity or dimension as to be untreatable. The
reservoirs within the South Rivanna Watershed have problems which are normal
to the reservoirs located in Virginia.
7. At present, there is virtually no public sewerage system within the South
Rivanna Watershed. The one public system is currently serving three schools
only. When the Crozet interceptor comes into being, approximately five years
hence, it will remove from the reservoir its major point-source of pollution
amounting to approximately 23.5% of the total phosphorous load entering
the reservoir.
8. The resources of the City, County and Service Authorities, which are to be
expended on the maintenance of water supply for this area, should be
concentrated on preserving and improving the South Rivanna system.
Mr. Bailey said only 16 of 344 building permits issued since October 1977 were affected
by the ordinance and that sufficiently demonstrates how little development is directly
involved with Runoff Control permits. He said the best illustration of the ordinance is by
what has not happened. The surge of applications anticipated to follow the lifting of the
building moratorium, has never materialized.
Camp Dresser and McKee's report on alternative water supply sources states that the
most economical solution for obtaining additional water is by raising the South Rivanna four
feet by the installation of flashboards. It has been suggested that in the location of
septic systems on property adjacent to the reservoir, the required 100-foot setback be
measured from the waterline which would pertain to this four foot increase in elevation.
Camp Dresser and McKee's timetable puts the years 2015-16 as the date when this additional
storage may be needed. The proposed increase in the elevation of the r~servoir will require
the acquisition of land around the entire shoreline of the reservoir. There will be an
opportunity to purchase additional~nd or rights-of-way for the protection of the reservoir,
some of-which may extend the public land well beyond the 100-foot setback from the new
waterline. Considerable time may be spent in determining how and by whom this project will
be financed, to plan what land should be purchased, and to complete the purchases. Under
these circumstances, the requirement that the setback be established from a non-existing
waterline seems inappropriate.
A second alternative by which to supplement the South Rivanna is by an impoundment on
BuckMountain Creek, which is a branch of the South Rivanna. It is an available alternative,
but 'its cost is estimated to be several times greater than the cost of raising the ~South
Rivanna. A policy decision by the parties charged with providing potable water to the City
and County is needed.
After a brief discussion, the consensus was that the two alternatives should be reviewed
and the problem of what the County and City should do be addressed now. Mr. Bailey said
reading the report by Camp Dresser and McKee indicates that the only alternative for dispensin
with the use of the South Rivanna River is the James River. Mr. Agnor felt any deliberations
on alternative water supplies should wait until the Watershed Management Plan Committee
Reporters received. He suggested the staff examine the four-feet elevation increase around
the shoreline of the reservoir, begin the engineering work required, and then prepare a
recommendation based on that study. Dr. Iachetta requested that copies of the Run-off
Control Ordinance Report be sent to City Council and the Watershed Management Committee. No
other action was taken.
153'
Agenda Item No. 10. Rann ~reserve Site Plan.
Mr. Agnor said the site plan for the Rann Preserve is being presented to show the
revisions that have been made since the last plan was presented to the Board on April 27,
1977. Mr. Earl Sudduth, Director of Parks and Recreation, then introduced Ms. Susan Schmidt,
Chairman of the Ivy Creek Natural Area Advisory Committee, who has been working on the s~te
plan. Ms. Schmidt briefed the Board on the background and history of the Greer Farm which~
was purchased by the County and City from the Nature Conservancy for the purpose of creating
the Ivy Creek Natural Area. She presented several maps showing the layout of the land and
the vegetation, She said, on the previous plan, the parking lot was located on the highest
point of the Property and was visible from the road. It also drained directly into the
reservoir. For that reason, it has been relocated. The Board's concern on the first plan
that was presented on April 27, 1977 was the location of the comfort stations. Their reason
for this concern was the possibility~that it would drain into the reservoir. Ms. Schmidt
noted that the comfort stations have now been relocated further away from the reservoir.
The relocated parking lot will act as a buffer between this property and the Fleming property
which is adjacent. Vegetation along the border of the property will also serve as a bu££er.
She said before the reservoir indented the land, there was a farm road and~the committee
proposes a small bridge, either floating or with some type of posts for support. The boat
access could be put in where the city has an easement at the 400 foot mark. She then discussed
the parking area having a porous surface rather than an asphalt surface.
Dr. Iachetta asked if the site plan included the City's 32 a6re spit of land. Ms. Schmidt
said yes.
?r. Fisher asked if the site plan had been presented to the Planning~Commi~sion.. Mr.
Agnor said no, this presentation is to receive concurrence of the concept by the Board and
then City Council before it goes through the site plan process. Motion was offered by Dr.
Iz.~.hetta~ to approve in concept the site plan entitled "Ivy Creek Natural Area, Land Management
Plan.'~, dated May 1978 and drawn by Jock Wick, Graduate Student, School of Architecture. Mr.
Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: -Mr. Henley.
Ms. Schimdt noted that the Advisory Committee has drafted a charter for an Ivy Creek
Foundation which they hope will be a nonprofit educational and charitable foundation to
encourage environmental education. Mr. Fisher suggested this item be presented to the Board
when all the fundamentals such as operation, budget, etc., have been prepared.
Agenda Item No. 11. Review of Progress on Zoning Ordinance.
The follbwing letter dated January 25, 1979, from William R. Washington, Chairman of
the Planning Commission, was presented for discussion:
"The Planning Commission has worked diligently over the past few weeks on
three major conceptual issues which we felt to be of prime importance to
the draft proposal as an effective tool for implementing the Comprehensive Plan.
We felt it wise at this point to inform you of our progress and direction
on these issues.
Initially, the Commission reaffirmed its support of the central goals of the
Comprehensive Plan to encourage orderly growth ih and near the villages,
communities, and the urban area; and to the extent considered reasonably
possible through zoning, to discourage scattered residential and commercial
development at random locations in other areas of the County.
The first issue of our review is the Planned Development Districts. It is
our· opinion that this concept provides an effective mechanism for encouraging
a planned approach to development in the future and we feel it would be
advantageous to maintain this concept in the ordinance. While we intend
to refine these sections of the ordinance to insure their workability and
remove as much subjectiveness and areas left to interpretation, we are
basically supportive of this section of the draft ordinance.
The second issue we have been reviewing is the concept of providing bonus level
incentives in all of the residential districts. While we are in basic agreement
with this concept as a tool for encouraging development in those areas
~recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, we feel the criteria outlined in the
proposed ordinance and the districts in which they are proposed require some
revision. Our opinion, at this time, is that the criteria proposed is too
subjective in nature and in some cases too extensive in its provision of
percentage increases for certain criteria. We intend to eliminate the possibility
of negotiating for percentage points for bonus increase; we feel the bonus
should be allowed in total or nothing at all. We intend to eliminate all
bonuses providing for decreases in lot frontage. We strongly feel that bonus
~incentives should be provided only where we are attempting to encourage growth;
therefore, we feel that all bonus incentives should be eliminated in the Rural
Residential District. By eliminating the bonus incentives for the RR District,
we saw no need to maintain the 2.5 acre minimum lot size and have retained the
two-acre minimum lot size found in our present A-1 Agriculture zone. Also,
we have eliminated the concept of maximum lot sizes. In summary, we support
the bonus incentive concept, but only in those areas recommended as growth
centers in the Comprehensive Plan.
The third and last issue involved the Best Agricultural Soils Overlay. While it
is our opinion that the Best Agricultural Soils Overlay may effectively preserve
the best agricultural soils in the County, the overall effect would be to
more control to development in the best agricultural land. A draft of this
alternative has been submitted to the County Attorney's office and we are in
the process of reviewing and refining this alternative for possible substitution
to'the BAS Overlay.
~During our work sessions, a great deal of discussion has centered around the
~fac't that zoning alone will not encourage and implement the recommendations
of~'the Comprehensive Plan. It is our opinion that one of the most, if not the
most, important incentives for encouraging growth and development in a particular
location is the provision of public water and sewer. With this in mind, the
Commission urges a separate focus of effort by County officials to initiate
specific action for the extension of water and sewer lines in those areas'
proposed for development in our Comprehensive Plan; by this we envision
extension of distribution and collection lines in addition to any sewer
int'erceptor.
-The Commission, as a whole, has not concurred in every aspect of this memorandum,
but I believe it reflects the views of the majority on each subject. In
closing, we hope that these comments will be helpful to you and welcome
any suggestions any of you may have concerning what has been reviewed to date.
If you should have any questions about this matter, please feel free to contact
me, amy~Planning Commissioner or staff member."
Mr. Fisher said Colonel Washington had informed him that the Planning Commission was not
waiting for an answer to this letter but is continuing their work. Mr. Fisher said he did
not think the Board should respond either too positively or too negatively, since they have
not re'ceived any details on the revised ordinance.
.... Mr, D0rrier felt the question of water and sewer should be addressed in conjunction with
the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom agreed. During Planning Commission meetings, the need
to look at zoning as a comprehensive type of thing has been discussed. He felt that in order
to create an incentive for cluster development in certain areas as set out in the Comprehensiv.
Plan that utilities must be provided. In conjunction with consideration of the zoning
ordinance, he felt a plan is needed to provide utilities in those areas of the County that
the Comprehensive Plan identifies for development of greater intensity than can be accomplished
with p. rivate wells and septic tanks. Mr. Lindstrom suggested a resolution be adopted requestir
the AI'b~arle County Service Authority staff to study the following areas:
1. Identify areas of the County in which water and sewer utilities should
be extended in order to induce patterns of residential development consistent
with the County's Comprehensive Plan; also consider whether or not the Comprehensive
Plan should be amended to show a more detailed analysis bf such utilities;
2. Study and make recommendations on alternative methods of financing such
expansion in order to create sufficient incentive for the location of development
in those areas identified under #1 above;
3. Make recommendations as to how such expansion might be phased in order
to be consistent with the rate of population growth.contemplated in the
Comprehensive Plan;
4. Give due consideration to the proposed new Zoning Ordinance in formulation
of. these concepts;
5. Provide this information in sufficient time so the concept may be
considered by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in conjunction
with review of the proposed new Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Lindstrom said without such incentives any attempt to preserve the agricultural area
will be substantially less effective. Therefore, he felt some plan should be adopted for the
preservation and restriction of certain types of growth in the county. Mr. Dorrier agreed
that utilities are the prime motivator for development.
Dr. Iachetta said he reached the same conclusion but he does not feel this can be
accomplished by taking over an authority over which the Board has no control. Therefore, he
feels it is time to have a County Department of Public Works. For the densities prescribed
by the Comprehensive Plan, water, sewer and transportation are needed and he did not think
these can be accomplished unless the County funds the utilities. He did not feel the Service
Authority should do the analysis and suggested a citizens group be established to look at the
question of whether or not the County should have a department of public works, its respon-
sibilities and how such a department would be funded. Dr. Iachetta felt it was time for the
Board to face this question and not continue to ignor same.
Mr. Roudabush said if growth is to be guided into certain areas, a plan to provide
utilities must be established. He was not sure.the Service Authority is the correct agency
to do this, but felt they could begin to make some plans to coordinate with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Fisher felt a utilities plan should be worked out so it would have some effect with
the Zoning Ordinance. He has felt for a number of years that the Service Authority was a
temporary concept and that the long range solution is a department of public works. But,
since the financing and other mechanisms are presently with the Service Authority the Board
should work with that organization for the short term.
Dr. Iachetta said it seems the longer the Service Authority is in existence, the harder
it will be to dissolve the Authority. If the Board is serious about going in the public
works business, then they should be looking at the functions such a department would carry
out. The Albemarle County Service Authority is not responsive to the needs of the Public,
but to their bondholders. It cannot decide, as government can, .what is in the best interest
~ ~ ~l~lqm to fimm. noe. It is not built to do effectively what a department of public
February lg, 1979 (Regular--All Day Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom said he hopes the public will realize that the County is intent on good
land use planni~ng in the new zoning ordinance. He felt that trying to provide services
through the Service Authority will create monumental problems. He felt the Board should
consider some immediate action to show that the Board will become actively involved in providin
services.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor for comments. Mr. Agnor said that the Planning, Engineering
and Service Authority staffs could develop a conceptual plan. That would take several weeks.
However, developing a long range plan for the extension of utilities to match the growth
areas in the Comprehensive Plan would require employing a consulting firm.
Mr. Roudabush said he was disappointed that the Comprehensive Plan only showed water and
sewer facilities that were in place and did not make recommendations for expansion into
growth areas. He said the question of serving the needs of growth was more important at this
time than whether or not there should be a public works department.
Dr. Iachetta said the Board must make a policy decision on this matter, since only the
Board has taxing powers.
Mr. Dorrier felt the Service Authority should be more involved with the work on the
Zoning Ordinance. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to request the Planning and
Engineering Departments and the staff of the Albemarle County Service Authority, in conjunctio~
with Mr. Agnor, to study the questions outlined above. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion'and
same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Since the hour was late, Mr. Fisher suggested the Board move directly to agenda item
number 22 and defer the remaining agenda items until February 16 at 1:00 P.M. The Board
agreed.
Agenda Item No. 22a. Appointment: Equalization Board.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to appoint Mrs. Sharon Hammer to the Equalization Board for
the calendar year 1979. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Fisher requested a letter be written to Mr. John Higginson for his services rendered
while serving on the Equalization Board.
Agenda Item No. 24. Presentation of 1979-80 County Budget.
Mr. Agnor presented the following 1979-80 budget message:
"Submitted herewith for information and fiscal planning purposes is the
proposed FY-80 County Budget. It includes funds for the County School budget
which have not been adopted by the School Board at the time of the preparation
of this summary and the printing of this budget document. The budget may therefore
be changed.
In its present form, the budget is balanced and totals $23,495,122, an increase
of $1,431,405 or 6.49% over FY-79. It proposes to reduce tax rates on real
and personal property as follows:
Rates per $100 Assessment
FY-79 Proposed FY-80 Difference
Real Estate
Personal Property
Machinery & Tools
Mobile Homes
% Change
$0.72 $0.67 - 55 - 6.94%
$5.9O $5.00 -90$ -15.25%
$5.90 $5.00 -90$ -15.25%
$0.72 $0.67 - 55 - 6.94%
As with previous budgets, it is prepared in six major expenditure divisions
and twelve major revenue sources.
The budget preparation began with several objectives, namely:
1. To roll back the personal property tax rate to $5.00 from its present
$5.90.
2. To adjust the real estate tax rate downward by an amount approximate
to the average increase in the biennial assessment, retaining as new revenues
the assessment on new construction.
3. 1To limit new programs or expansion of existing programs to absolute
essential needs, previous approvals, or mandates.
4. To meet inflationary costs within existing sources of revenue,
mindful that inflation affects everyone, but more severely, those on fixed and
low incomes.
~ , Fe~bruar 14 1~ ~9 ~__~e~ular--All _~Da~_ ~Meet_ ~in~ ~.. _. ~
7. To begin the allocation of current revenues to the Five-Year Capital
Improvement Program.
In my opinion,, these objectives have been generally met within the scope
of the authority granted this office. Appreciation to department and agency
heads in meeting these objectives is gratefully acknowledged.
The FY-80 budget is hereby presented for your review.
REVENUES
Summary of Significant Changes
FY-80 Proposed Budget
Revenues are estimated to increase $1,572,998 or 7.17% over budgeted
FY-79 revenues. Of this amount, $1,418,838 or 90.2% of the new funds will be
found in the General Fund, and $154,160 or 9.8% of the total increase in
the School Fund. The General Fund reflects a 9.04% increase over FY-79 and
the School Fund a 2.47% increase over FY-79.
General Fund:
Local Sources of revenues to the General Fund show an 8.5% increase, or
$1,141,900. You will recall that in November 1978 the Board was advised that
$1,097,000 in Local Sources was estimated to be available for budget planning
purposes, an estimate that has been adjusted +$44,900 with more current
information. The most significant increases in Local Sources are:
+ 3.16%
+28.57%
+12.12%
+30.95%
+22.2'2%
Current Property Taxes +$279,550
Local Sales Tax +$300,000
Utility Tax +$200,000
Building Permits & Inspection Fees +$ 65,000
Clerk's Fees +$ 30,000
These increases are principally related to inflation and an expanding economy.
Other Sources of revenue to the General Fund show a 12.24% increase or
$2.76,935. The most significant increases are:
+$175,000
+$112,672
+ 41.18%
+ 14.94%
+$ 10,500
+1oo.oo%
Use of Money/Property
State Supplements
(Constitutional Officers)
Federal Payments
(National Forests & Parks)
The Staff does not recommend that the FY-80 budget include service charges
on tax exempt properties, but that this source of revenue be planned and approved
for FY-81. The reason for this recommendation is that the principal source of
this revenue will be realized from State owned properties of the University which
are funded on a biennial basis, the next cycle of which begins in FY-81. In
recognition of this funding cycle, and in the need for any other tax exempt
properties affected by this proposed service charge to have adequate notice
for their fiscal planning purposes, the commencement of these charges is
recommended for 1980-81.
School Fund:
State Sources of revenues to the School Fund show a 1.85% increase, or
$112,660. The Basic Appropriation increases only $60,000 or 1.72%. The most
significant change is the State Sales Tax, estimated to increase $145,000 or
10.3%. Of twelve coded sources of State funds, eight show decreases of varying
amounts, leaving the net change +$112,660. Other School Funds show a 30.72%
increase, or $41,500, of which $39,500 is derived from one source, Tuition
from Other School Divisions.
It should be noted that budgeting procedures necessitate that comparisons
on revenues be made between budgeted estimates for the current year (FY-7~) and
projections for next year (FY-80). The budgeted estimates for the current year
were made this time last year, but a revised estimate for the current year
is made from mid-year revenues realized through December. This revised estimate
is made primarily to determine whether the current year will end in black or
red ink, but is also useful to compare with changes anticipated in FY-80. Using
these revised figures for FY-79, the revenues in FY-80 change as follows:
+$424,846
+ 276,730
+$701,576
+ 2.54%
+ 4.53%
+ 9.08%
General Fund
School Fund
Total Revenue
General Fund:
Local Sources
Other Sources
General Fund Total
School Fund:
+$202,038
+ 222,808
"$424,846
+$259,230
+. 17,5o_o
+1.41%
+9.58%
+2.54%
+ 4.36%
+11.00%
State Sources
Other Sources
February 14, 1979 (Regular--All Day Meeting)
Of the total FY-79 revenues currently estimated to be realized by June
30, 1979, approximately $700,000 will remain for allocation to the Capital
Improvement Program. It is no~ recommended that any of these carry-over
funds be allocated as revenue in the FY-80 operations budget in its present
form. The final adoption of the School budget may change this recommendation.
Any such changes will be discussed at the work session on the School budget.
In conclusion, the breakdown of Current Property Taxes, the area of primary
interest to County citizens, can be compared to the FY-79 breakdown as follows:
FY-?9
Rate
Real Estate $0.72
Personal Property/
Machinery & Tools $5.90
Public Service $.72/4.80
Mobile Homes $0.72
Total
Revenues
FY-79 FY-80 FY-80 Increase (Decrease)
Revenue Rate Revenue $ %
$5,821,523 $0.67 $6,202,243 $380,720 6.5%
2,430,741 $5.00 2,368,077
558,224 $.67/4.80 517,475
36~962 $0.67 39,205
$8,847,450 $9,127,000
(62,664) (2.6)
(40,749) (7.3)
2,243 6.1
~279,550 3.2
A 15 change in real property rates equates to $98,200 in revenues.
change in personal property rates equates to $4,700 in revenues.
EXPENDITURES:
Expenditures requested total $24,098,722, an increase of $2,035,005 or 9.22%
over FY-79. Expenditures recommended total $23,495,122, an increase of $1,431,405
or +6.49% over FY-79. Ail of the recommended changes, a total reduction of
$603,600, are in General Operations. The School Budget is shown in amounts of
requests and recommendations being the same, since it is not as yet an adopted
budget. I do not deem it appropriate to comment on the School Division request
until it is adopted by the School Board.
The most significant difference ~between requested and recommended amounts is
in funds allocated to the General Fund-Capital Outlay. The Director of Finance
recommended earlier this fiscal year that a sum from each fiscal year's current
revenues should begin to be allocated to the Capital Improvement Program, a
sum he recommended to be $300,000. As you realize, the Capital Budget since its
inception in F.Y-Z8 has been funded from Federal Revenue Sharing, the unallocated
balance in the General Fund, and projected loans from the State Literary Loan Fund.
The projections of revenues made in November 1978 of funds from Local Sources
estimated to be $1.1 million, allocated $100,000 to the Capital Improvement
Program, with the balance going to General Fund Operations $275,000) and School
Fund Operations ($725,000). As presently balanced, current revenues will provide
$65,965 to the Capital Program rather than the $100,000 estimated from Local
Sources, or the $300,000 recommended by the Director of Finance. This is not
considered a serious deficiency, however, but only a smaller beginning, in light
of the carry-over funds potentially available from FY-79 revenues ($700,000) as
previously explained.
The General Operations requests, which includes all County and regional
departments and agencies except the School Division, totals $6,366,617, an increase
of $773,560 or 13.83% over FY-79 appropriations. These requests are recommended
to be reduced by $369,565 giving a total recommended for funding of $5,997,052, an
increase of $403,995 or 7.22% over FY-79. Of this $403,995 in additional funds,
revenues from the State allocated directly to various departments and agencies
total $182,192, leaving a total requirement from Local Sources of $221,803, well
within the $275,000 estimated to be available from Local Sources at the beginning
of the budget preparatory process.
Analysis of expenditure requests conducted by the offices of the Director of
Finance and County Executive follow the same concept as used in the past three
budgets, namely a review of actual expenditures of each line item in County
department budgets for three successive years as reported in the annual audit,
plus a revision of estimated expenditures for the current year, all compared to
the requests for next year. Past appropriations are not considered important.
Expenditures over several years reflect need, taking into consideration unusual
variations in some expenditures which result from changes in accounting or
changes in operations. Requests from jointly funded agencies were reviewed with
the City and with adjacent counties, where appropriate, and generally are
recommended at the requested level where the increase did not exceed 7%, or at a
limit of 7% if the impact on local funds was not significant, or if the agency
was of a size in proportion to local funds that analysis by County staff was
not justifiable due to time constraints. The recommendations for these multi-
funded agencies has been coordinated with the local governments in Planning
District Ten.
Funding for a 6% across-the-board increase in salaries and wages for all
County employees classified in the Pay and Classification Plan has been provided.
The employees earning minimum wages, concentrated on summer employees in the Parks
and Recreation programs, have been increased 9.4% from $2.65 to $2.90. The 1%
remainder of salary increases from the 6% for all classified employees to 7%
voluntary national inflation control limit has been reserved for the merit
pay system which will fund approximately one-third of the full-time employees,
as in previous years. Additionally, the funds required to fully fund the revised
Pay and Classification Plan are included the FY-80 appropriations. You will
recall the revised pay plan was adopted in May 1978 after the FY-79 budget had been
completed, and was funded from merit pay funds and other departmental line items,
where possible. The adjustments planned for School Division employees will
be discussed at the budget work session, after approval by the School Board of the
157
February 14, 1979 (Re~gui_ar--All Day Me~_t_in. ) -~-~_~
G.~neral Management and Support:
1. The addition of a full-time deputy clerk to the Board of Supervisors,
replacing two part-time employees.
2. The addition of one staff planner to the Planning Department, not related
to zoning ordinance revisions, but calculated on existing work load.
3. The addition of $112,000 ($56,000 each by City and County) to the Ivy
Landfill operation comprised principally of $28,000 for equipment operations,
$20,000 for depreciation of equipment to match replacement costs, and $55,000
for earth moving operations related to contracting for trench construction in
the disposal areas.
4. The inclusion of insurance, utilities, and grounds maintenance of
the Lane Building while it is under construction.
Human Development:
1. The Housing Coordinator's budget reflects a full year's funding of an
employee position funded in the current budget for part of FY-79, assigned to the
Renta~s±s~an~e~?~rogram. Of the $5,896 appropriation increase for that
department, additional revenues from the rental program contract, derived from
the Virginia Housing Authority, totals $9,825.
::~a 2. The Parks and Recreation budget also reflects a full year's funding of an
employee position funded for part of FY-79, assigned to supervising recreation
programs. The Parks budget recommended is an increase of $12,955 or 6.7%. The
Recreation budget recommended is an increase of $28,446 or 14.8%, with $16,800
derived from fees, leaving a net increase from tax sources of $11,646 or 6.1% over
FY-79 funding. The total for Parks and Recreation combined is $41,118 or 20.9%
over FY-79, with new revenues totalling $14,800, leaving a net increase of
$26,318 or 13.4%.
3. Involuntary commitments, funded at $14,000 in FY-79, will be paid
directly by the State and no longer require local funding.
4. The Regional Library's request of $363,709 reduced $16,998; recommended
funding of $296,711 in current revenues for library operations, and $50,000
for bookmobile purchase in the Capital Budget. This will provide the library
with a 7% increase in operations plus their capital request of $58,208 from all
localities.
Public Safety and Justice:
1. Funds for a fUll-time Commonwealth's Attorney for one-half of FY-80.
The salary used in balancing calculations is the minimum provided by the State.
Consideration of this matter by the Board is needed.
2. Two additional deputies are included in the Sheriff's Department,
creating a Juvenile Division approved by the Board earlier this year, and funded
with grant funds over a three-year period. Recent approvals by the General
Assembly for changing salary scales for deputies is not included, and will
require funding when finalized in Richmond. Of $88,613 needed to fund the
Sheriff's Department, $74,970 will be received from State sources, leaving
$13,643 from local sources, an increase of 5.1% over FY-79.
3. ~The Dog Warden's budget shows a 22.6% increase, or $6,936, of which
$6,500 is recommended for vehicle replacement. Other expenses increase only
1.42% over FY-?9.
Capital Outlay:
The funds recommended here are for transfer to the Capital Improvement
Program which has projects that are $5,000 minimum in cost and are involved
in a five-year planning process, Other capital expenditures which are
repetitive in nature and generally cost less than $5,000, such as vehicles,
office equipment and furniture, and building repairs, are carried in the operations
budgets.
Education Division:
Recommendations and comments will be reserved for work sessions following
budget adoption by the School Board.
Conclusion:
Each year the County budget is considered exclusive of funds entitled
"self-sustaining" funds, meaning the funds are expended only as received.
Th~ FY-80 budget is presented to you in this manner. However, as expressed
to you earlier, I am concerned that this format does not provide the Board and
the public with a completely accurate picture of the total costs~of County
government. There is no intended deception. It is simply a process by which
the timing of adoption of the County budget usually precedes the approval of
Federal programs, or the inclusion of self-supporting programs has been added
at the end of the budget process, rather than at the beginning. Sin6e the
Federal programs involve $1 million in School operations, and the self-
supporting funds of Cafeteria operations and Textbook Rentals involve $0.6
million, it is my recommendation that these funds be considered at the beginning
~ ~^ ~.~* ~~ ~ ~n ~d-on at the end. To ~revent confusion
To follow this "self-sustaining" procedure a step further, the FY-80 budget
includes an expenditure fund entitled "Grants Projects" for the General Fund.
The need for this Fund has been apparent for several years, specifically for
projects that were non-repetitive such as the grant to update the Comprehensive
Plan or were included in the Finance Department's responsibilities for accounting,
such as the Resource Recovery Study Commission, or the Clean Community Commission.
These grants warped department budgets and caused fluctuations in bottom line
totals that were difficult to track in later years. Therefore, the Director
of Finance is creating the "Grant Projects" category in FY-80, which will fund
the Watershed Management Plan grant and the Clean Community Commission grant,
which are either non-repetitive or not directly related to County government
operations. The grant for the Sheriff's deputies is included in the Sheriff's
budget since it is an operational expenditure which will repeat itself each year,
once adopted, and will ultimately be funded from local and State sources.
This budget has been one of the most difficult I have had to compile in my
career. I believe that is principally due to inflation and its effect on our
continual efforts to live within our means, and to separate needs from desires.
The County remains in sound financial condition with this proposed budget. The
reduction of property tax rates, desired by the Board as reflected in the wishes
of the people, is attainable. It may not be as much as hoped for, but it is a
"holding the line" which does not endanger the financial stability of the County
government. Changes will certainly be in order, as the School Board completes
its work, as you review this proposal, as the public examines, and as the General
Assembly makes its final decisions affecting local government finances. I
anticipate those changes can be accommodated within the estimates provided in
this budget."
Mr. Agnor noted the budget does not include the energy study report but hopefully it
will be completed before the work sessions on the budget are finished. The data processing
feasibility study is not included. Mr. Agnor said the General Assembly has adjusted the
deputies state salary scale, but same has not been received.
Mr. Fisher said a bill is before the General Assmebly relating to appropriations being
made only by ordinance. This bill would prohibit the County from moving money from one part
of the budget to another. He then asked about the increases for the teaching staff proposed
by the School Board. Mr. Agnor said the increase is a 4.3% adjustment in scale affecting
the increased steps and people in the top step. It then goes from 4.3% to 7.9% depending on
whether the contract is for ten months, eleven months or twelve months. Therefore, the
average increase is 5.9%.
Not Docketed. Mr. Roudabush asked to read the following letter into the record:
"February 9, 1979
MrJ Clarence McClure
Superintendent of Albemarle County Schools
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
Dear Mr. McClure:
In January 1973, which was three years prior to my becoming a member of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, my firm did survey work for the Albemarle
County School Board at the Scot~sville Elementary School site.
Recently we were contacted by Robert Vickery and Associates requesting that we
up-date our drawings to indicate the as-built topographic survey data at this site.
Inasmuch as our office has the original survey drawings, field and office records,
etc. it was felt that it would cost the School Board considerably more to have
another surveying firm do this work. We have agreed to do this work as requested
by Vickery and Assoc. in accordance with the requirements of the Virginia
Conflict of Interests Act.
tt is a fact that I have a material financial interest in the firm of William S.
Roudabush, Inc., a Professianal Corporation. I will agree to perform this work
only if the School B6ard adopts a resolution indicating that contracting with our
firm would best serve the public interest and that the services should not be
acquired through competitive bidding. Our charges for these services would be
based on our normal established per diem rates. -If you wish us to proceed to
furnish the services as requested by Vickery and Assoc., please advise us when
the School Board has adopted the above mentioned resolution.
A copy of this letter is being sent to the Clerk of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors as written disclosure of the existence of my financial interest in the
firm of William S. Roudabush, Inc. and thereby in any contract made by that firm
with Vickery and Assoc., architects for the Albemarle County School Board or
with the Albemarle County School Board.
If you have any questions please let me know.
Very truly yours,
(SIGNED BY)
William S. Roudabush, Jr."
Claims against the County for the month of November, 1978 which had been examined,
allowed and certified by the Director of Finance for oavment an8 ah~ ~~ ~ ~
February 14~ 1979 (Regular--Ail Day Meeting)
School Operating Fund
Cafeteria Fund
School Construction Capital Outlay Fund
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
Federal Revenue Shar±ng Fund
General Operating Capital Outlay Fund
Mental Health Fund
Crozet Elderly Housing Escrow Fund
1,245,034.92
53,687.95
326,426.16
17,587.46
56,921.73
236.15
5,457.16
55,985.50
126,501.50
3,281.02
$2,'284,177.72
Claims against the County for the month of December, 1978 which had been examined,
allowed and certified by the Director of Finance for payment and charged against the following
funds were presented as information:
Commonwealth of Virginia--Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Operating Fund
Cafeteria Fund
School Construction Capital Outlay Fund
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
General Operating Capital Outlay Fund
Mental Health Fund
Crozet Elderly Housing Escrow Fund
Debt Service Fund
$ 257.63
397,873.49
1,274,600.50
51,368~.33
.54,771.61
435.06
51,880.21
220.40
23,913.00
225.00
142,695.38
11,785.13
195,227.75
$2,205,253.49
~ .. Ctaims against the County for;~the month of January, 1979 which had been examined,
allowed and certified by the Director of Finance for payment and charged against the following
funds were presented as information:
Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Operating Fund
Cafeteria Fund
School Construction Capital Outlay Fund
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
Mental Health Fund
Crozet Elderly Housing Escrow Fund
Debt Service Fund
$ 20,328.70
540,361.98
1,310,139.17
79,658.28
108,773.69
569.40
65,205.78
191.19
121,913.08
127,363.66
16,190.32
.~,003,679.60
$3,394,374.85
At 5:25 P.M., Dr. Iachetta offered motion to adjourn to February 16, 1979 at 1:00 P.M.
in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Henley.
February 16, 1979 (Afternmon Meeting--Adjourned from February 14, 1979)
c An~adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on February 16, 1979, at 1:00 P.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
Charlot~esville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from February 14, 1979.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (Arrived at 1:25 P.M.), Gerald E. Fisher, J.
T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta (Arrived at 1:10 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S.
Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R.
St. John.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:08 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Fisher.
Mr. Fisher said correspondence from the Census Division states that sufficient time
will be allowed the County for making comments on the 1980 census between publication of
preliminary census figures and the finalization of same.
Mr~ Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated February 9, 1979 from the United States
Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Approximately two hundred miles of the
Appalachian Trail runs along business highways and secondary roads and there has been considerable
encroachment upon the trail by developers and hard-surface roads. In 1978, Congress passed
a bill amending the 1968 National Trails System Act, requiring the Secretary of the Interior
to enhance and protect the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. Therefore, the purpose of the
letter is to inform localities that the National Park Service is coordinating a protection
program where the Trail now runs across private land or'on roads.
Agenda Item No. 2. FHA Resolution to Relax Restrictions on Private Roads.
-Mr. Agnor said the Planning Commission requested the Planning staff to discuss with
FmHA amendment of their regulations requiring that FmHA financed housing have frontage on
publicly maintained roads. After some study, the staff requests that the following resolution
be adopted:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County is advised that
the United States Department of Agriculture Farmers Home Administration is
a valuable source of financing for low and moderate cost housing in Albemarle
County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County is advised further
that regulations of the said Administration require that each lot financed by
it have frontage on a road maintained by the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation; and
WHEREAS, in practice the said requirement of the Administration has a
tendency to encourage the creation of oddly shaped lots and stripped development
of existing public roads, both of which are inconsistent with the County's
planning objectives and are, in some cases, contrary to the letter of existing
County land use law; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors believe that the provision of low and
moderate cost housing and of good land use planning are both goals toward which
the County should strive and are mutually consistent; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors believe that both of these goals may more
effectively be achieved through the division of land utilizing the private roads
provisions of the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance
without in any material way adversely effecting the interest of the
Administration;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County that the United States Department of Agriculture, Farmers Home
Administration, be memorialized that the Board requests the Administration
to consider the amendment of its regulations to permit financing of development
on lots served by private roads which are developed in accordance with the
private roads provisions of the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development
Ordinance.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board be, and she
hereby is, ordered to forward copies hereof to the Administrator of the
said Administration and to the local office thereof.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the foregoing resolution. Mr. Roudabus?
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier.
Mr. Roudabush suggested that copies of the above resolution be sent to the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission for distribution to other localities in the Planning
District.
Agenda Item No. 3. Clarification of Grant--HUD: Procedure for selection of sites.
February 16, 1979 (~fternoon Meeting--~dj~u~ned from February
development and is proposed in areas of the County having a large number of families in need
of housing. The application was approved and HUD is now ready to disburse funds. Mr. Agnor
noted ~hat when the program was presented to the Board there ha~d been no determination of
where the subdivisions would be located. Since that time, Mr. Russell Otis, Housing Coordinate~,
has discussed site selection with the Planning Department and recommends the following three
sites:
1. North Garden - This village is first choice because of its proximity
to employment opportunities available in the city. Further, there
are shopping and postal facilities in the vilt~ itself.
2. Crozet - As the largest of the counties' villages this is a favored
location because of the employment opportunities and services available.
3. Scottsville - The availability of public water, employment and other
services make Scottsville an attractive location for self-help housing.
Mr, Agnor said thase projects would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which
encourages growth in these areas. Mr. Otis recommends the village committees who worked on
the Comprehensive/~a~sked for advice on these sites. Public meetings in the villages to
hear opinions on the projects are also proposed. If the concept is favorable, then final
approval of the locations will be requested of the Board. Mr. Dorrier then offered motion
to approve the above three sites for the self-help mini-subdivisions. Dr. Iachetta seconded
the.motiOn and same carried by the following recorded vote:
tYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 4. Fire Service Contract.
Mr. Agnor said the following agreement is the latest draft of several efforts for a
proposed contract with the City for fire protection services. He recommended the agreement
be approved and forwarded to the City for their concurrence.
THIS AGREEMENT made this tlthday of APril, 1979, by and between
the CiTY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, hereinafter called "City" and the COUNTY
of ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, hereinafter called "County"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, for several years the County has annually provided funds to the
City as part of the City operating budget, in sufficient amount and for the
purpose of equipping and manning the equivalent of one fire company of mutually
agreed upon strength and equipment; and
WHEREAS, the above described fire company is logistically supported by
the City from the funds provided by the County; and
WHEREAS, the principal purpose for the establishment and existence of the
~id fire company is to provide fire protection for the County, and in
particular the urban area of the County; although this fire company is available
for suppression of any fires in the City, the County, or central Virginia, as
the occasion may require; and
WHEREAS, there has been heretofore no written memorandum between the
City and the County reflecting the obligations, rights and benefits of the two
parties with respect to this fire company; and
WHEREAS, the two parties hereto now mutually wish to memorialize their
respective rights and obligations as to the said fire company, and further, their
intent to study the feasibility of alternative methods for providing unified fire
protection service to the City on the one hand and all or part of the County on
the other hand; report to be completed by July 1, 1979.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the County hereby agree as follows:
(1) The City has included in its budget for fiscal year 1978-79 the sum of
$197,7~, as the County's share of the cost of manning, equipping and housing
the Company within the City fire department. Such budgeted amount has been
reviewed and approved by the County, through its budget process, and such sum
has been appropriated by the Board of Supervisors of the County.
(2) The County agrees to make quarterly payments to the City of such appropriated
sum, payable on July 1st, October 1st, January 1st and April 1st in the amount
of 25% of the appropriated sum, for the services to be rendered by the City
hereunder during the ensuing quarter.
(3) The City agrees to furnish to the County the services of a fire company,
as herein described, to supplement such services with other City firefighting
personnel and equipment as circumstances require, and to provide unified central
radio dispatching service for all area fire departments and companies, including
County volunteer fire companies and the Scottsville Volunteer Fire Company. The
~o~pany shall remain at all times under the logistic and administrative control
of'the City Fire Department.
(4) Ail personnel employed pursuant to this agreement shall continue to be
considered as City employees for all purposes, including but not limited to pay
and classification, personnel regulations, retirement benefits and grievance
Drocedures.
Februar~Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from February 14, 1979)
(5) The County agrees to reimburse the City for the cost of insurance premiums
incurred in protecting the City from all liabilities and claims for damages
to persons or property asserted against the City as a result of the performance
of services under this contract.
(6) The City and the County will jointly study alternative methods for the
long range provision of fire protection services within the two jurisdictions
on a shared basis on such terms as may be determined by both jurisdictions to
be mutually advantageous.
(Ta) On or before December 15th, in each fiscal year for which this agreement
remains in force, the City shall submit a budget to the County for the
continuance of existing services for an additional year, as well as for any
additional services or levels of service which the County may have requested.
~Such budget shall include, in addition to the direct expenses to be incurred
by the City to provide such services, reasonable allocations of indirect costs
'for administrative, legal and accounting services attributable to the provision
of such services.
(b) The component of such budget attributable to personnel costs shall be based
upon the salary recommendations to be used in preparation of the City's
budget, and such figures shall be subject to adjustment to reflect the salary
levels finally approved by City Council for City Fire Department personnel
for the relevant fiscal year.
(c) Such budget shall be subject to review through the County's normal budget
procedures, and to final approval for funding by the County Board of Supervisors;
provided that should the Board appropriate more or less than the proposed
amount, the City shall advise the Board of the resultant changes in levels of
service, manning or other reductions occasioned by such changes in funding.
(8) This agreement shall remain in force from year to year unless terminated by
either party. In the event either party desires to terminate such agreement
at~'~the end of any fiscal year, it shall so advise the other party not later than
30 days after the beginning of such fiscal year. Such notice shall be given
in writing mailed by certified mail to the City Manager in the case of the
City or to the County Executive in the case of the County.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve the wording of the foregoing agreement with
same being forwarded to the City for their concurrence; agreement to be returned at a later
date for authorization for signature. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 5. Special Appropriations.
Mr. Agnor said the proposed development cost for the Ivy Creek Natural Area Project is
estimated to be $60,000, with the County's share being $30.000. In order to move forward
with the development, an appropriation of $30,000 from the General Fund is needed. Motion
was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $30,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund
and coded to 19W.1-600.1, Ivy Creek Natural Area Project.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Agnor said the insurance settlement for the fire at Rose Hill Elementary School has
been received in the amount of $19,381.72 and credited to the School Operating Fund. The
repairs have been made and an appropriation to code 17F2-215c is requested. Motion was then
offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $19,381.72 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Operating
Fund and coded to 17F2-215c, Repair and Replacement-Equipment.
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Agnor said request has been received from the School Board to computerize school
bus routes. The School Board has discussed this with officials of the University of Virginia
and they propose to do the work for $7,500. Federal funding is also being sought for this
study. Therefore, the request is for an appropriation in the amount of $7,500 with the
understanding that federal funds will be used to offset the County's cost if same can be
secured. Mr. Fisher said he would abstain since it is unknown who at the University will
conduct the study. Dr. Iachetta said since it is from the Department of Civil Engineering
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $7,500 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund
and coded to 17A-326.1, School Bus Routing Study.
Mr. Dorrier seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Appointments: Sign Commission.
Mr. Fisher said letter has been received from Mr. Mike Gleason, Chairman of the Albemarle
County Sign Advisory Commission, advising that Mrs. Barbara Yalden-Thompson has resigned as
a representative of the League of Women Voters. The League wishes to appoint Mrs. Harriet
Mohler as its new representative. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to appoint Mrs. Harriet
Mohler to the Albemarle County Sign Advisory Commission; said appointment to replace Mrs.
Barb~ra Yalden-Thompson. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher said the letter also advised that Mr. George McBride, representative of the
U.S. 29 North-area homeowners, has resigned. Dr. Iachetta~ said he would nominate someone at
a later date.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Gleason desires to resign as Chairman of the Commission but to
remain as a voting member. The Sign Advisory Commission on January 17, 1979, voted to
request Board approval of Mr. William S. Edwards, Sr., as their Chairman. Motion was then
offered by Mr. Roudabush to appoint Mr. William S. Edwards, Sr., as Chairman of the Albemarle
County Sign Advisory Commission; said appointment to replace Mr. Mike Gleason. Mr. Dorrier
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AY'~S: ~Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta,- Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Appointment: Industrial Development Authority.
were received for this appointment and this matter was deferred.
No nominations
Agenda Item No. 7. Receipt of Audit for County Clerk and Clerk of the Circuit Court
for calendar year 1977 was presented as information.
.... Agenda Item No. 9. Dog Claim. Claim was received from Mrs. Bertha D. 0mohundro for
thirteen chickens killed on December 22, 1978 and seven chickens killed on February 6, 1979.
Upon motion by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, Mrs. Omohundro was allowed $40.00 for
this claim. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Review of Progress on Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Fisher presented the following letter received from Colonel William R. Washington,
Chairman of the Albemarle County Planning Commission:
'~February 13, 1979
Subject: Proposed Zoning Ordinance
In reviewing the KDA draft zoning Ordinance, the Commission has found its
organization to add to its complexity, and we feel that a complete
reorganization of the format of the document is warranted. Further, our
suggested changes in text already have been of a scope that is sufficient
to make it impractical to follow readily by addendum or corrective sheets.
We realize that the Board has not requested that the staff and Commission
prepare a complete new draft. Also, we are aware that to do so will cause an
initial delay of several weeks in providing to the Board and to the public the
Commission's recommended changes to the ordinance. Nevertheless, the final
result may not be overall delay, but instead be-the quickest way to arrive at
a document that is understandable and possibly~acceptable to the Board and
to the public.
-.. Alternatively, the Commission can forward to the Board, by early March, general
comments on the KDA draft, leaving to some indefinite date the formulation
of detailed recommended revisions, and the determination of the method for
their inclusion into the ordinance."
W~. W~her noted his aooroval of the reorganization of the format of the revised Zoning
F~. _~fternoon M~_~tin_ ~__ _._~~ _ ...~.
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion of Collection of Delinquent Taxes. This item is to be
discussed later in the meeting.
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Economic Development Commission.
Mr. Fisher said this discussion came about as a result of a letter he had written to
the Economic Development Commission on November 16, 1978, requesting the budget and work
program of the Commission for the current fiscal year.
- M~. Bruce Rasmussen, Vice Chairman of the Economic Development Commission, was present.
He said the Commission recently underwent a reorganization and on October 5, 1977 the
following purpose statement was added:
"The primary purpose of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Economic Development
Commission is to encourage and assist those industrial, business, professional,
and commercial developments which would have a beneficial effect on the City and
County.
The Commission should assemble pertinent information relative to available
sites, labor supply, utilities, tax rates, educational, social, religious
activities, and any other matters which may be of concern and interest to such
industries and businesses.
Commission members should be available for consultation with representatives
from such industries and businesses, arranging tours, interviews and assistance
~s may be required.
Commission members should consider it their duty to become familiar with
~ ~the zoning laws and master plans of both the City and the County, and the planning
program of the University of Virginia."
The Commission members felt that a more active and productive role in the economic development
of the area was needed. Therefore, the following work. program for 1979 was developed:
"~. Continue to provide assistance and information to prospects interested
in locating or expanding in the Charlottesville and Albemarle County area.
2. Undertake to review and prepare summary of present and proposed comprehensive
plans and zoning ordinances of local jurisdictions as they relate to present and
future economic development.
3. Undertake to review present and proposed zoning maps to determine acreage
-presently zoned for industrial use and actual suitability of such sites.
4. Attempt to locate and compile previous studies or computer models of the
overall costs versus the benefits of economic development on local jurisdictionS.
-5. Encourage better communications~between Commission and local governing bodies
in an attempt to contribute expertise of Commission and assist those bodies in
t'heir decisions affecting economic development."
Also, the following work program committees were developed for 1979:
"1. Prospects Committee--Assist prospects interested in locating or expanding
in area by being knowledgeable in background data on community and being
available to tour area with prospects. Mr. Rasmussen said this is valuable
and should be independent of the City, County and Chamber of Commerce.
2. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Committee--Review Zoning Ordinance and
-- Comprehensive Plans and summarize references to present and' future of economic
development.
3. Zoning Map Committee--Work with local planning departments to catalogue
sites presently zoned for industrial use and determine suitability.
4. Cost Benefit Study Committee--Work with University of Virginia and Virginia
Division of Industrial Development to locate and compile previous studies
on the overall impact of economic development on various localities.
5. Environmental Impact Committee--Develop sources of expertise and evaluate
potential environmental impact of proposed industrial or commercial
development on Charlottesville and Albemarle County.
Liasion Committee--Work with Board of Supervisors and City Council to improve
communications, develop economic development goals of Jurisdictions and
desired role of Charlottesville & Albemarle County Economic Development
Commission."
Mr. Rasmussen said, hopefully, with these committees, each member on the Commission can
become actively involved. At the monthly meetings of the Commission, any prospects which
have contacted the community will be brought before the entire Commission and whatever facts
are known will be conveyed to the members. By doing this, each member will become aware of
~rosDects and can express their feelings. Mr. Rasmussen said the Commission hopes three
February 16, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from February 14, 1979)
regarding the Board's policy on economic development and provide guidance and assistance to
the Commission.
It was recently brought to the Board's attention through the news media that R. H.
Donnelly Company had investigated a possibility of locating in Albemarle County but had
chosen the Harrisonburg area instead. The news media feels Harrisonburg was chosen because
of a lack of enthusiasm by local officials for industrial facilities in the County. This
has resulted in an air of adversity.
Mr. Lindstrom said this discussion today would have been helpful before the recent
publicity. Although, he had personal feelings about the allegations, he felt it was time
for the Board to make a decision about continuing the Commission or dissolving same. Dr.
Iachetta felt the group should take heed to the Comprehensive Plan since it is a document
for growth. He discussed the recent industrial prospect by noting his being invited to
attend a meeting and react to a rezoning request before it was filed for a public hearing
before the Board. Mr. Dorrier felt the major problem was that much land zoned in the County
is unsuitable for industry and the Board needed to examine same. He agreed that a policy
statement needed to be adopted. Mr. Fisher felt enough suitable land was zoned for light
industry. The major problem for a new industrial prospect is the low unemployment rate and
the lack of highly skilled people in the County. Mr. Fisher felt the comments the industrial
prospect received were from the Chamber of Commerce.
Mr, Bernard Haggerty, member of the Economic Development Commission, was present. He
noted that the main problem when a prospect comes to Charlottesville is that they go to the
Chamber for information which is incomplete.
Mr. Roudabush who represents the Board on the Economic Development Commission, was
aware of the prospect, in confidence, but was never asked to communicate anything about the
prospect to the Board. He felt the only way to implement economic growth is to adopt some
policy to help implement the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. He agreed that
a lot of land zoned for industry in the County is not suited to that use. Mr. Roudabush
said most prospects he talked with had flexible criteria and the Economic Development Commissi~
needed to make decisions on which properties were suitable for industrial prospects.
Mr. Alton Garrett, County representative on the Commission, was present. He expressed
his concern about the Board's attitude and noted if he were a prospect in the area, he would
have second thoughts. Mr. Fisher said the series of articles in the Daily Progress had done
more to discourage industrial development in the community than anything the Board had ever
done.
Mr. Louie Scribner, Chairman of the Economic Development Commission, said the Commission
looks to the County for support, direction and cooperation.
Dr. Iachetta asked if the needs and desires of the County are different from the City
with respect to economic development. Mr. Scribner felt they were the same. D~scussion
then followed on the fact that the City had established a separate economic development
group. Mr. Rasmussen said the city looks more for commercial prospects because they do not
have the acreage needed for industry. Although Mr. Fisher was impressed with the presentation
he questioned whether or not the County should have its own Economic Development group which
would be familiar with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, zoning map and available
lands.
Mr. Lindstrom felt there were three questions that needed to be resolved before any
official response could be made. They are: 1) Whether the County should have its own Econom
Development Commission. 2) Whether the Chamber of Commerce should be involved to the
extent that it is. 3) Whether the City should be included. After making these determinations
the goals of the Commission should be established. He felt a commission was needed to
represent the interests of the County and a development policy established.
Mr. Charles Smith, President of the Chamber of Commerce, was present.
were needed and noted that the Commission was ready to go to work.
He felt guidelines
Speaking next was Mr. Roy Patterson, a County representative, on the Commission. He
noted that he was not aware of the Donnelly Company's interest in locating in the County
until after the decision had been made to move to Harrisonburg. He felt the adversity
relationship that has been discussed in today's meeting was created by publicity and certain
members of the Chamber and perhaps a few of the Commission. He did not share the feelings
some members have expressed about the Board's hostility toward industry.
Mrs. Betty Scott, Commission member, spoke next. She felt the City established a
separate commission because a larger group of people dedicated to the immediate problem were
needed. The City has more problems with economic development but she felt it would be wrong
to separate the two localities.
Mr. Bernard Haggerty said in talking with Mr. Hendrix, City Manager, and Mr. Scribner,
he was convinced that a joint commission is important for prospects since the County and
City are so close and share the same cultural resources, transportation, etc. However, the
city has a real need for an increased tax base and he felt that was the purpose of establishin~
the City Economic Development Commission.
Dr. Iachetta said the discussion has not indicated that the County should develop an
Economic Development Commission of its own. He felt a positive plan for the Commission was
needed. Dr. Iachetta also felt it would be helpful if sites could be identified. He said
the Commission needs to be a group of citizens from the City and County that can communicate
with the prospects without involving the Board.
~ Mr. Henley felt the Daily Progress should share the guilt for the tension which has
arisen from the recent prospective industry.
n
1'87
_ _--=----=--_ ~ Februar 16 1 Afternoon Mee~--Ad'ourned from
Mr. Fisher than suggested that two members of the Board draft a policy statement on
economic development and bring same back to the Board for discussion. Mr. Henley felt the
entire Board should be involved in the drafting. With no further discussion, Mr. Fisher
thanked the Commission for the presentation made today.
The Board recessed at 3:45 P.M. and reconvened at 3:55 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 12. Review of Lane Building (County Office Building) Drawings.
Mr. Fisher said the purpose of this review is to present for comments what is contained
within the Lane Building and the general land use. Mr. Agnor said the architect is ready to
proceed specifically with the mechanical system. Mr. Agnor said he has received a cost
estimated for the preliminary stage and after reviewing, will present same to the Board.
Mr. Byron Sample, Architect, was present and presented the site plans for Phase I and
II as well as Phase II of the lower parking lot. He noted that the plans will go to the
City Planning Commission for their review on March 14, 1979. Mr. Lindstrom expressed his
concern if the Planning Department had sufficient space for expansion. Mr. Agnor said the
Planning Director has said it is sufficient but they will reexamine it with him. Dr. Iachetta
asked when the project would go to bid. Mr. Sample said it should be ready by the end of
the summer. Mr. Sample suggested the Board take a walking tour of the building and then
decide how they felt about the plans.
Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion of Collection of Delinquent Taxes. Mr. Fisher said it
has been requested that this matter be discussed in executive session since it deals with
personnel. At 4:37 P.M., Mr. Roudabush offered motion to adjourn into executive session to
discuss legal and personnel matters. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
The Board reconvened at 5:15 P.M. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to adjourn
to February 21, 1979 at 1'30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Dr.
Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS- None.
February 21, 1979 ~Afternoon-Adjourned from February 16, 1979)
An adjourned meeting of the ~oard of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on February 21, 1979, beginning at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from February 16, 1979.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arriving at 1'53 P.M.S and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officer present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:36 P.M. byIMr. Fisher who said
he had attended an emergency meeting of the Virginia Association of Counties Executive Board
in RichmOnd on Monday to discuss annexation bills now before the General Assembly. It is
likely that Governor Dalton will sign the annexation package of bills if House Bill 603
is either deleted or substantially changed. (House Bill 603 is special legislation ~6r the
City of Richmond.) Mr. Fisher said if these bills are signed into law, Albemarle County will
be faced again with annexation; the earliest datebbeing July 1, 19.80. Partial immunity
measures and the prefiling of suites before a non-judicial body are improvements to the law,
but there are some measures which are worse. As the pending legislation now reads, a City
would be allowed to amend any annexation ordinance at any time it is before the cou~t. Mr. Fis
said he is pessimistic about the future. Although the present City Council has said they are
not interested in annexation at this time, he feels the County will be faced with an
suit at some time in the future.
Mr. Dorrier agreed partially with some of Mr. Fisher's ~omments, but said he had talked
to one member of City Council who feels that if the City can broaden its financial base within
the present City limits, there will be no fiscal reason to annex in the foreseeable future.
Also, if the County can provide services in the urban ring, Mr. Dorrier said he feels the
County can forestall any annexation attempt by the City.
Dr. Iachetta said he has always felt that annexation is legalized stealing of one localit
tax base by another jurisdiction. The whole concept is wrong and he will fight any annexation
attempt by the City. From what he understands of the new legislation, providing services in
the urban ring will nos be a defense against annexation. This fact raises a serious planning
problem for the County and changes priorities t~emendously.
Mr. Roudabush said it is the same old game with a new set of rules.
February 21, 1979 (Afternoon)
Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: 1979-80 Education Budget. (School Board members
present were: Mrs. Jessie Haden, Chairman, Mr. Ronald Baurele, Rev. Peter way and Mr. Dean
Strong.) Mr. Fisher expressed his appre~ation for the work rendered on this budget by the
School Board and its staff. He said from the draft received, it appears tho'.be a good attempt
to follow the guidelines suggested by the Board of Supervisors last year.
Mrs. Haden said the School Board had questioned every part of the budget presented by
their staff. The School Board also invited comments from the public at all of their work
sessions on the document. Their public presentation of the budget last night was attended
mainly by employees. Mrs. Haden mentioned Code 17F2, Maintenance-School. Plants, and said
although this category shows a large increase, it is one of the areas which in the past years
has be~en decreased many times. The School Board feels that the increase shmwn this year
will help get some of the school buildings in shape. Since a number of schools bu~ld:i~gs
are being studied at this time, no money was included in this category for any repairs to the
buildings~;being studied. Numerous items were discussed and voted on and would have been
beneficial, but did not get into the budget. The School Board feels that the budget presented
will keep education in Albemarle County at the level which citizens expect and at the level
they desire. (Mr. Lindstr~om arrived atJ~l:53 P.M.)
M~. Clarence McClure, Division Superintendent, said the Sa~o~l Board h~dmade one
adjustment at ~ast night's meeting; this being to put student~bus drivers on the same ~alary
scale as adult drivers. This increases the School Budget. by $3,783 ~or a grant total of
$15,519,603. Mr. McClure then proceeded to review the School Board's budget. The only item
discussed in detail was under 17K-601, Improvements to Sites. This ca~egory of the budget
carries a zero request. Mr. McClure said he furnished a list of improvements to Mr. Agnor
and requested that they be considered for the County's Capital Improvement Budget. The projec
are as follows:
1. Roof on Burley Middle School. $81,000. Mr. McClure said normally one or
two roofs are replaced each year at a coat of $70,000 or less. (This $70,000
has been carried in the budget, split $35,000 in'~ Code 17F2-290a and $35,000
~i~ in Code 17K603. The roofs at Broadus Wood Elementary and Rose Hill
~ Elementary Will be replaced using these funds.) This coming year the roof
at Burley must be replaced and is estimated to cost $81,000.
Library Security Systems at Albemarle High School and Western Albemarle
High School. $20,000. These systems will pay for themselves in a short time
by cutting down on book losses.
Fences at Henley, Jouett and Stony Point. $7,100. At Henley and Jouett,
fences are needed to protect the grounds against cars driving over them and
cutting into the soil, especially when the ground is wet and for crow~ control
and admissions at athletic events. At Stony Point the need relates to the
safety of children playing near theh~!~hway.
Hollymead walks and hard-surfaced play area. $4,000. This is a school
community plan for improving the grounds for school and community uses.
5. Tennis court lights at Albemarle High School. $6,000.
Water system at Broadus Wood Elementary.~$4,500. The low y~eld of the well
requires that a large storage tank be installed.
Burley renovation expenses. $15,600. The fire marshal has ordered that all
the acoustical tile in the school b.e replaced because it is not fireproof.
McIntire steps and walks. $1~,500. The walks at the front of McIntire School
are eroded and ~he steps are ~ep~gting ~rom the building.
Parking lots at Jouett and Woodbrook. $14,000. These lots have needed
resurfacing for several years. Any further delay would not be wise.
Mr. Agnor said # 4 and #5 are projects which should be considered under Parks and
Recreation projects. The security system for library books is a one-time, non-recurring item.
He felt these three projects should be eonsidered separately from the other six which are an
on-going part of school maintenance. He recommended that roof repairs be funded from the
General Fund carry-over balance. He also recommended that items of a ~e. curring nature be
funded each year from the carry-over balance rather than from current revenues. He saidoM~.
McClure has already agreed to find funds in the current budget to fund installation of the
water system at Broadus Wood. Mr. Agnor said if the Board wished to restore these funds to
the School Budget, Ray Jones, Director of Finance, M~. McClure and himself would work out the
funding sources iince what goes into the school budget has an effect on the amount of money
received in Revenue Sharing funds. The Board felt funds should be restored for these purposes
Mr. Lindstrom also asked if school bus drivers are covered by the School Board's health
insurance plan. Mr. McClure said that any sChool employee who works 20 hours a week is eligib
for insurance. If the coverage is extended to other e~loyees (and it has been discussed by
the School Board], there will be additional funds needed to cover that additional cost.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would still encourage the School Board to work on a merit p~y
system for ~eachers. Mr. Fisher agreed.
At 5:18 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by ~r. Iachett~, to adjourn
into executive session to ~iscuss personnel matters and land acquisition. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
The ~oard reconveyed at 7:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned.