HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-05-11May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
May 4, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 7. Adjourn. At 11:05 P.M., there was no further business before the
Board, and Mr. Fisher declared the meeting adjourned.
Chairman
May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on May 11, 1983,
at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room #7 of the Albemarle County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler (Arrived at 9:11 A.M.), Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke,
Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr., Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom-(Arrived at 9:08 A.M.),
and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County
Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:09 A.M., by
the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher noted that today is Youth In Government Day and that
several students from Albemarle High School will be attending today's meeting.
Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Mr. Fisher said he wished to discuss Item No. 6a.,
the April 20, 1983, application for approval and certification for rebuilding the
Charlottesville-Gordonsville Transmission Line by Vepco in greater detail, and asked for
approval of the consent agenda with this item removed. Motion was offered by Miss Nash,
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept and approve the consent agenda with item 6a removed.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
Item No. 2.1 Statement o£ Expenses for the State Compensation Board for the month of
April, 1983, for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional
Jail, were approved as presented.
Item No. 2.2. Resolution to take Deepwoods Road in Loftlands Wood Subdivision into the
State Secondary System requested by Kenneth Youel, President of Loftlands, Inc., on April 18,
1983, was adopted as follows:
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 Loftlands Wood Subdivision:
Beginning at station 0+11, a point common to the centerline
intersection of Deepwoods Road and edge of pavement of
Loftlands Drive; thence in a southerly direction 1,239 feet ....
to station 12+50, the end of the cul-de-sac of Deepwoods 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 and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded
by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 658, page 181.
Item No. 2.3. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of March, 1983,
was presented in accordance with Section 63.1-52 of the Code of Virginia.
Item No. 2.4. Report of the County Executive for the month of April, 1983, was presented
as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602.
Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by
the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of April, 1983,
were also presented as information:
May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Fund
Cafeteria Fund
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Grant Project Fund
Capital Improvements Fund
Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
Mental Health Fund
147,370.77
828,799.92
2,294,438.93
25,614.06
2,046.11
78,697.95
700.00
332,099.85
318.92
242~.798.50
$3,952,885.01
Item No~ 2.5. Letter dated April 14, 1983, from the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation, signed by Oscar Mabry, Deputy Commissioner, was received as follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated February 9, 1983, the following addition
to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective
April 14, 1983.
ADDITION LENGTH
WYNRIDGE~ PHASE II~ SUBDIVISION
Westfield Road--From end of Maintenance on Route 1452 westerly 0.i1 Mi."
Item No. 2.5. Letter dated April 26, 1983, from the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation, signed by Oscar Mabry, Deputy Commissioner, was received as follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated January 12, 1983, the following addition
to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective
April 26, 1983.
ADDITION LENGTH
WINDRIFT SUBDIVISION
Spring Lake Drive--From Route 664 West to Cul-de-sac
0.41 Mi."
Item No. 2.6. Letter dated April 25, 1983, from H. Byran Mitchell, Virginia Historic
Landmarks Commission, stating that "Spring Hill" has been placed on the Virginia Landmarks
R~gister.
Item No. 2.7. Notice from the State Corporation Commission dated March 22, 1983,
regarding a public hearing to be held on May 12, 1983, regarding an application for Richmond-
on-the-James, Inc., for a license to broker the transportation of passengers by motor vehicle.
Item No. 2.9. Notice from Virginia Electric and Power Company dated April 28, 1983,
regarding a public hearing to be held on July 19, 1983, before the State Corporation
for an increase in:~tactricl:rat~s
Item No. 2.10. Memorandum dated May 4, 1983, from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance,
regarding FY 82'83 third quarter projections of revenues and expenditures, noting that the
General Fund Carry-Over balance is estimated to be $179,522 at the end of the fiscal year.
Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes. Mr. Lindstrom said he was not ready to approve
the minutes of September 2, 1982. Mr. Henley said he was not prepared to approve the minutes
of March 9, 1983. (NOTE: At 9:11 A.M., Mr. Butler arrived.)
Mrs. Cooke said she had read the minutes of March 16, 1983, afternoon, and found no
errors.
Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash said they were not prepared to approve the minutes of March
April 6 (Afternoon) and April 14, 1983.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve the minutes of
March 16, (afternoon) 1983, as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4a. Highway Matters, Discussion of Twin Trailers on Albemarle County
roads. Mr. Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation was present.
~r. Roosevelt referred to his memorandum to Mr. J. C. DuFresne, dated April 22, 1983 (NOTE:
Copy of this memorandum is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.)
.44
May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
"It appears that the routes being considered for use by twin trailers fall into
two categories. The first category are certain designated routes of which only
Route 29 through Albemarle and Greene counties fall within my residency. The
second category includes all federal aid primary routes not included in the
first list. I have, therefore, attached two lists to this letter indicating
geometric features which I feel will preclude safe operation of twin trailers
on Route 29 and other federal aid primary routes in Albemarle/Greene and the
City of Charlottesville.
It is my feeling that because of these various restrictive geometric features
twin trailers should not be allowed on any federal aid primary routes except
the following:
l)
Route 29 from Route 64 to Route 692, Albemarle County
Route 29 from Route 64 to the intersection with Route 250
bypass in the City of Charlottesville
Route 250 bypass within the City of Charlottesville from
Route 29 to the intersection with McIntire Road."
Mr. Roosevelt said Virginia law, prior to passage of the new law, allowed trailers 45
feet long and 96 inches wide. Mr. Roosevelt said the new law will allow trailers 48 feet
long, twin trailers each 28 feet long for a total of 56 feet, and a maximum width of 102
inches. Mr. Roosevelt said that buses have been allowed the 102 inch width for many years.
Mr. Henley commented that the twin trailers are supposed to be more maneuverable. Mr.
Roosevelt said that is correct, twin trailers have proven more maneuverable in turning in
close areas, but that they are more difficult to back up than conventional trailers.
Mr. Lindstrom asked which roads were made accessible to twin trailers by the new federal
law. Mr. Roosevelt said the federal action covers Route 64 and all of Route 29 through
Albemarle County. Mr. Roosevelt said sections of Route 250 have been designated, but those
sections are still subject to interpretation. Mr. Roosevelt said that any road within one-hal~
mile of a designated route is also accessible by twin trailers.
Mr. Fisher noted that this matter has been reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr.
Tucker said the Planning Commission endOrsed Mr. Roosevelt's letter to Mr. DuFreSne (as
written above) and expressed concern and opposition over allowing twin trailers anywhere
within the County's urbanized area as well as on U.S. Route 29 because of existing roadway
alignment and geometric problems. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission expressed concern
that because of the lack of a by-pass route around the Albemarle/Charlottesville urban area
(Route 29 North), twin trailers would further complicate the level of service problems
already existing on Route 29 North. The Planning Commission addressed the possible pressures
on localities to provide truck terminals along the present roads being considered for twin
trailers, and how such would be in conflict with the County's Comprehensive Plan and present
growth patterns. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission expressed concern that designated
Scenic Highways (Route 250 West, Route 6 and Route 20 South) which are federal aid primary
routes, might be considered for twin trailers also, and that the Planning Commission would
be adamantly opposed to their use on these routes. Lastly, Mr. Tucker said the Planning
Commission's unanimous opinion was that twin trailers should be confined to interstates.
Mr. Roosevelt said he attended a public hearing held by the Highway Department in
Culpeper on May 3, 1983, and stated that the truckers wished for a better definition of the
term "reasonable access". Mr. Roosevelt said that the interprelation is presently that
reasonable access is one-half mile from the designated route, but that the truckers are
requesting a better definition of reasonable access and the word "terminal". Mr. Roosevelt
said the Highway Department will hold another hearing in June, prior to which a definitive
listing of the routes, and definitions of reasonable access and terminals will be formulated.
Mr. Roosevelt said it was his opinion that the one-half mile access would not stand very
long, and that the Highway Department will extend that distance, possibly to terminals
presently existing near designated routes. Mr. Roosevelt gave the example of the Wilson
Trucking firm located on Route 20 which has access of about one and one-half miles from
Route 64.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to support the Planning Commission's recommendation
and endorse the Planning Commission's comments as stated in a letter from Mr. David P. Bowerman
Chairman of the Albemarle County PZanning Commission, dated May 6, 1983, (NOTE: Copy on file
in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors). Mr. Tucker said he wished to remove
the word "currently" from the Planning Commission's recommendation number five referring to
designated Scenic Highways. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash.
Mr. Fisher asked if any study has been done of benefit to local industries. Mr. Tucker
said no indepth study has been conducted because of the lack of time. Mr. Henley commented
that he could not see how the State would allow twin. trai~ers on interstate routes and then
not allow terminals nearby. Mr. Henley stated his concern about the Planning Commission's
fourth statement regarding possible conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Henley said
he couldn't comprehend how twin trailers could be kept out of the urban area of Albemarle
County and still allowed on Route 29. Mr. Henley said he would prefer to rely on the Highway
Department's expertise in such matters.
Roll was then called and the motion endorsing the Planning Commission's May 6, 1983,
letter carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Mr. Henley.
Ma~y_ 11~_1_98~3 (Regular Day Meeting)
145
In response to this vote, the following letter was written:
"May 12, 1983
Mr. Harold C. King, Commissioner
Virginia Department~ of Highways and Transportation
1221 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Re: Surface Transportation Assistance Act
Twin Trailer Trucks
Dear Mr. King:
At its meeting of May 11, 1983, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors voted
to support the Albemarle County Planning Commission's recommendation, and
endorse the following comments concerning the issue of allowing twin trailer
trucks on certain Virginia highways.
Endorsement of the memorandum of April 22, 1983, addressed to Mr. J. C.
DuFresne from Mr. Daniel S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer of the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation in Albemarle County;
e
Definite concern and opposition over allowing twin trailers anywhere
within the County's urbanized area as well as on U. S. Route 29 because of
existing roadway alignment and geometric problems;
Because of the lack of a by-pass route around the Albemarle/Charlottesville
urban area (i.e., Route 29 North), twin trailers would further complicate
the level of service (congestion) problems already existing on Route 29
North;
If portions of our highways were opened to twin trailers, pressure on
localities to provide truck terminals along the present roads being considered
for twin trailers would be apparent. In Albemarle County, the location of
truck terminals would be in conflict with the County's Comprehensive Plan
and present growth patterns;
e
Several of the proposed routes are designated Scenic Highways, e.g., Route
250 West, Route 6 and Route 20 South; the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
is adamantly opposed to their use for twin trailers;
Based upon all of the above reasons and comments, it was the Board's
opinion that twin trailers should be confined to interstates."
Agenda Item No. 4b. Highway Matters: Request from Charlottesville Track Club. Mr.
Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated April 29, 1983, from Mark and Cynthia Lorenzoni
(NOTE: Copy of this letter is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Lorenzoni was present and asked him to summarize his request.
Mr. Lorenzoni said is is requesting permission to close a portion of Garth Road on
September 3, 1983, in order for the Charlottesville Track Club to hold the First Annual Lady
Enterprise Four Mile Road Race. Mr. Lorenzoni said this race is to have from 500 to 1,000
participants from around the nation and that proceeds will be donated to a local charity.
Mr. Lorenzoni noted that he felt such a race would bring extra revenue to local businesses
due to the influx of visitors, and that details have been worked out with regard to detours,
signs, communications to the public, volunteers, etc. Mr. Lorenzoni said the race is to
start at Foxfield at 8:15 a.m. and last approximately one hour over a four mile course. He
ended by asking that the Board grant permission for the road closing.
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Lorenzoni had checked for possible conflicts in the area, such
as horse shows at Foxfield or other stables on Garth Road.. Mr. Lorenzoni said he first
wanted the Board's react-ion to the idea of closing the road, and would work further from
this point.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how Mr. Lorenzoni planned to notify residents along the race course
area about the road closing. Mr. Lorenzoni said he could either have a public hearing, or a
general mailing of information to inform the public and alert them of the race date, time
and course.
Mr. Fisher asked why Mr. Roosevelt did not just approve this request administratively.
F~. Roosevelt said he regularly issues permits for long standing events such as the Crozet
parade, but he wished the Board's reaction on this matter before a permit is issued. Mr.
Roosevelt said he felt confident that traffic could be handled, but would not issue the permit
until he had assurance from local authorities that they would assist in handling the traffic.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had no problem with the request. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not
feel a public hearing was necessary because there were only eight or ten residents on that
section of Garth Road. Mr. Lindstrom did feel that some notification was necessary however,
whether that be through door-to-door communication or a general mailing. (NOTE: Mr. St. John
left the meeting at 9:45 A.M.) Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to concur with the
Resident Highway Engineer in granting permission for the closing of Garth Road in order for
the Charlottesville Track Club to conduct a foot race, and that proper notification of all
property owners directly affected along the route of the race be given. The motion was
seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
· 146
May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 4c. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Lindstrom said there was an accident
on Route 676 near Ivy Creek Methodist Church, and he felt the major cause of that accident
was that there is no shoulder at the curve. Mr. Roosevelt said he would check on the area.
(NOTE: Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 9:50 A.M.)
Mrs. Cooke said as a member of the Transportation Safety Commission she wished to read
to the Board a news release regarding "Project Safe". Mrs. Cooke said that Project Safe has
been organized because of awareness of the problems of driving under the influence of alcohol
and drugs. Mrs. Cooke said the project will be conducted on prom and graduation nights of
local high schools, and will provide free, no questions asked, rides for students under the
influence of alcohol or drugs. Mrs. Cooke said this is an effort to prevent possible tragedies
and to make the community more aware of the dangers of driving under the influence. Mrs. Cooke
said by dialing 979-SAFE, a ride will be arranged by a deacon of one of several local churches
participating in this project, to pick up the student and other members of his party and
drive them home.
Agenda Item No. 5. Request, Ashcroft Well. Mr. Agnor said a request has been received
from Mr. Gary D. Cooper, President of Liberty Land Limited, dated May 3, 1983, as follows:
"We hereby request a temp. orary change in our Central Well Operating Permit approved
on May 14, 1980, and clarified on October 14, 1981, for Ashcroft.
We are asking that the limit of 26 hook-ups be removed and that the control be the
well design capacity of 10,400 gallons per day. The present daily demand on the
well is less than 1800 gallons per day or 17 percent of approved capacity.
We have had a surge in construction activity this spring and will exceed the 26
hook-ups approved shortly. The lag time between commitment and usage demand is
120 to 180 days. It would be close to year end if all the houses were sold and
occupied before we would reach the design capacity of the well.
The public facility is due to become operational about July 1, and engineering
studies are in progress as to how we can tie into this system and utilize the
public source rather than drill additional wells. If the engineering problems
can't be solved by June 15, we will request expansion of our present central
well system."
Mr. Agnor added that the storage tank being installed by the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority on Pantops Mountain will be completed about June 30 and that Mr. Cooper will have
120 days from that point to hook his water system to the public system and dedicate the
system to the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Agnor said engineering problems with
Mr. Cooper's water system have caused the project to become more extensive than originally
anticipated and will most likely delay connecting with the storage tank beyond the 120 day
period.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Cooper when he would be ready to connect to the public system.
Mr. Cooper said engineering problems have shown the need for an additional storage tank at a
higher elevation than the tank under construction by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
Mr. Cooper said water pressure problems are the difficulty now trying to be resolved by his
engineers, the Service Authority and the State Health Department. Mr. Cooper said engineers
are presently working on a plan to put in a pumping station at the Rivanna Storage tank
which hopefully will balance the pressure difficulties and only until the additional storage
tank is constructed. Mr. Fisher asked how long such a design would take to work up and
construct. Mr. Cooper said optimistically he could have it fully installed and operational
before the end of the year.
Mr. Fisher suggested the possibility of changing the condition on the central well permit
restricting the well to 26 building permits, to 26 certificates of occupancy. Mr. Fisher
said people cannot move in until water is supplied. Mr. Fisher he would not consider lifting
the hook-up limit for a well on which the County has not supervised the testing. Mr. Agnor
expressed concern with tying water hook-ups to the certificate of occupancy. Mr. Agnor said
it could happen that a person would be ready to move in and the builder would be unable to
get a certificate of occupancy because there was insufficient water. Mr. Fisher said provided
that Mr. Cooper could guarantee the engineering and construction of the new line, he would
feel comfortable with changing the condition from building permit to certificate of occupancy.
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer said he would caution the Board in changing the
condition from building permit to certificate of occupancy, because many times a person will
sign final papers on a home and expect to move in by a certain date or move in without the
certificate of occupancy, and that there would be a very definite health problem if a family
moved into a dwelling which had no water hook-up available. Mr. Fisher said he would like
to rethink his offer to change to certificae of occupancy because of this potential problem.
Mr. Moore of the Virginia State Department of Health spoke next. Mr. Moore said the
present well permit is based on thirteen gallons per minute, during a 48 hour pump test
conducted by the well driller for a total of 10,400 gallons per day. Mr. Moore said based
on present meter readings, the subdivision is using 2,500 gallons per day or about 25 percent
capacity. Mr. Moore said there is a minor problem with manganese in the water, but Mr. Cooper
has been flushing the system to control the problem.
Mr. Fisher said he is certain now that the water must be tied with the building permit
and no~ ~he certificate of occupancy. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Cooper had control of the
sale of lots for home construction. Mr. Cooper said he is not in the business of building
homes, only preparing the lots. Mr. Lindstrom said he was also concerned with the problem
of occupancy as described by Mr. Elrod. Mr. Elrod said the Board may wish to consider
bonding the system, whereby if the system does not work or is not completed on time, the
County could call in the bond and correct or complete the system.
147
Mr. St, Joh~ commented that he felt the bonding idea was far better than not requiring
water until the certificate of occupancy is requested. Mr. St. John said if water were tied
to the certificate of occupancy, a person could purchase a lot, build a home and have no way
of knowing that there will be water supplied to the dwelling. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Cooper
if he would be interested in a bond to help with this problem. Mr. Cooper said even with a
bond, it will still be several weeks before the engineering plans are prepared and a bond
can be purchased and he could be out of business by that time. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt
that if a mechanism satisfactory to all involved should be worked out, that will insure enough
bond money to build the water system to connect with public water. Mr. St. John said the
plans must have enough finality to know how much the cost will be and also enough finality
to know when the conditions of the bond have been breached. ~. Lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor
if he could foresee any administrative problems with bonding this water system. Mr. Agnor
said once the amount of the bond is set and the bond issued, the only administrative function
will be to monitor the progress of the water system construction to determine if the bond has
been breached.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to defer this item for one week, during which
time a meeting should take place between Mr. Cooper, the Albemarle County Service Authority,
and the County Engineer, to design a bond to cover this water system. Mr. Fisher said he
will support such action if there is a certain date established for the completion of the
Water system or the calling of the bond. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: Ordinance to amend Section ll-13(b) of the Business
License OrdinanCe on a p8rmanent basis. This ordinance to extend the application filing date
for business licenses was extended from March 31 to April 30 as an emergency measure for the
1983 license year. (Advertised on April 26 and May 3, 1983, in the Dai!y Progress.)
Mr. Agnor said this action is to adopt on a permanent basis, the ordinance amending the
filing date for business license applications, which was taken on April 14, 1983. Miss Nash
asked when the notices for business license filings are mailed. Mr. Agnor said notices are
mailed in May.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. There was no one present wishing to speak
either for or against this proposed ordinance, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing
closed. (Mr. Henley left the meeting at 10:45 A.M.)
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following ordinance:
BE iT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that Article I, Section ll-13(b) of the Albemarle County Code is hereby
amended and reenacted to read as follows:
Section 11-13. Same -- Persons liable to keep records~
report of gross receipts.
(a) Same.
(b) Each licensee whose license is measured by gross receipts or gross
expenditures shall submit to the director of finance, not later than April 30
of each year, a report of his gross receipts or gross expenditures for the
preceding year.
(c) Same.
(d) Same.
(e) Same.
The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lincstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: Albemarle County Service Authority service areas
regarding Mormon Church. (NOTE: Mr. Henley returned to the meeting at 10:47 A.M.) Mr. J. W.
Brent summarized his memorandum to the County Executive dated May 2, 1983, which read as
follows:
"In 1980 when the Board of Supervisors was amending the jurisdictional boundaries
of the Service Authority there was considerable discussion of the boundary along
Hydraulic Road. It was pointed out in these discussions that the widening of
Hydraulic Road would destroy the septic drainfields of the Mormon Church at the
intersection of Hydraulic Road and Rio Road and it would be desirable for this
church to be able to have public sewer. In the drawing of the jurisdictional
boundary at this point the ridge line of the reservoir drainage basin was used
which permitted the church to remain in our water and sewer service area.
When our jurisdictional boundaries were again amended in 1982 this church property
was designated for water service only to structures existing as of October 1, 1982.
I do not recall any discussions at that time of the drainfield problem being
created by the highway improvements.
May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Now, with the road work underway, the church desires to connect to public sewer
but they are not in our sewer service area. I understand it is possible to install
a new drainfield at the rear of their property but sewage would have to be
pumped to this drainfield.
This is not a request from the Service Authority to have the church property
included in our sewer service area. However, I feel the Board of Supervisors
should be informed of this problem since this was considered in their 1980
decision making but was not brought to their attention last year. The church must
make a decision on how to handle their sewer system very soon. In the event the
Board may want to reconsider this matter I would appreciate your bringing
this to their attention at an early date."
Mr. Fisher asked if the public sewer service were extended back to the ridgeline, would
the problems of the Mormon Church be solved. Mr. Brent said he believed such an extension
would solve the problem. Mr. Tucker agreed with Mr. Brent, adding that the official location
of that ridge line is awaiting official survey data. Mr. Lindstrom asked if granting sewer
service in this area would be consistent with the Board's previous action. Mr. Tucker said
he felt such a change would be consistent.
Mr. Fisher asked what the smallest change would be to solve the Mormon Church problem.
Mr. Tucker said that would be to designate the Mormon Church property in a water and sewer
area. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if he was certain that all the church's property falls
outside the watershed of the South Rivanna Reservoir. Mr. Tucker said he was absolutely
certain of that fact.
Miss Nash asked if there were any adjoining properties which could come under the same
category as the church. Mr. Tucker said there could be, but those properties would have to
come before the Board before such property could be included in the service area.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to extend water and sewer service to the property of the
Mormon Church on Hydraulic Road. Mr. Lindstrom said as a clarification of that motion he
wished to note that this motion is based on the Board's previous action relating to the
ridge line. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Brent asked if the Board intended to advertise this matter for a public hearing.
Mr. Lindstrom said it was his feeling that that area is already within the service area and
that due to the lack of a proper survey map, the area had not been included. Mr. St. John
said it should be considered a clarification of the service area, and would therefore not
require a public hearing.
Agenda Item No. 9. Proposed Hollymead Square II Housing Development. Mr. David Goodman
of Concord Mortgage Company, Silver Springs, Maryland, was present along with Mr. John B. Ashto
of Hunton and Williams. Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia. ~P~. Goodman said he was present on
behalf of Cavalier Associates to request the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to adopt
the necessary resolutions to allow a redevelopment and housing authority from some area in
Virginia other than Albemarle Counnty, issue tax exempt bonds for the financing of this
project. Summarizing a memorandum dated May 18, 1983, Mr. Goodman described the project as
a 120 unit project to be constructed as the second phase of Hollymead Square. (NOTE: Copy
of this memorandum is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.)
Hollymead Square II will consist of 100 two-bedroom townhouses and 20 three-bedroom townhouses.
Mr. Goodman said the developer of the project, Cavalier Associates, consists of Mid-City
Financial Corporation, a Maryland corporation; Allan S. Birndorf, President of Concord Mortgage
Corporation, Silver Springs, Maryland; and Thomas D. Farrell, Executive Vice-President of
Concord.
Continuing to quote the.May 18, 1983, memorandum, Mr. Goodman said "Hollymead Square II
will provide additional housing opportunities for lower income persons since twenty percent
of the units will be Section 8 subsidized. Hollymead Square II is expected to rent at
projected rates of approximately $450 for two-bedroom units and $530 for three-bedroom units,
exclusive of utilities. The rent structure assumes tax-exempt financing because market rental
rates are not sufficient to meet the costs of conventional financing and construction.
Hollymead Square I was made possible by 7.5 percent financing from HUD, but that program has
now been discontinued. The developers expect to obtain FHA mortgage insurance that will
allow tax-exempt financing to be rated AAA by Standard & Poor's Corporation and sold at an
effective interest rate of less than 10 percent. This relatively low interest cost would
permit the quality of Hollymead Square I to be duplicated with rental rates currently affordabl
by the rental market. Without such financing, a project of this quality is not feasible.
Twenty percent of the units in Hollymead Square II will be subsidized under the HUD Section 8
rental assistance program. These units can be rented only to persons who earn less than 80
percent of the median income of Albemarle County ($20,560 for a family of four). This subsidy
will be available to qualifying project occupants for a period of at least twenty years.
Lastly, Mr. Goodman said since this is not a project intended for use by the elderly,
the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority cannot undertake this project. Mr.
Goodman described the Virginia Housing Authorities Law (Chapter 1, Title 36 of the Code of
Virginia) which permits redevelopment and housing authorities to finance projects such as
the proposed Hollymead Square II project. Mr. Goodman said such authorities from other areas
in Virginia can finance projects in Albemarle County if the Board of Supervisors determines
that there is a need for the housing authority to do so in accordance with Section 36-23 of
the Act.
May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked which redevelopment and housing authority Mr. Goodman had in mind to
finance this project. Mr. Goodman said no specific authority has yet been approached, but
that he wished to see if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors would be receptive to the
idea before approaching an authority for possible financing.
Miss Nash asked what the present rents are at Hollymead Square I apartments. Mr. Goodman
said approximately $380 for a one bedroom and $405 for a two bedroom, and that those rents
were trended for a two year period to come up with the anticipated rents for Hollymead
Square II.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this proposed project is cOnsistent with the approved PUD plan
for Hollymead. Mr. Goodman said it is consistent.
Next to speak was Mr. John Ashton of Hunton and Williams. Mr. Ashton said if the Board
approved of the concept of this project, redevelopment and housing authorities in neighboring
localities could be contacted to see if they were interested in financing this project in
Albemarle County. Mr. Fisher asked if Albemarle County should consider establishing its own
redevelopment and housing authority. ~. Ashton said he was not very familiar with Albemarle
County's housing problems, but felt since this county was still rather rural, that there is
not really a need for a redevelopment authority at this time.
Mr. Agnor said when a developer obtains funding under Section 8 from HUD, that developer
administers the program himself. Mr. Agnor noted that currently the County Housing Office
has a significant list of applicants waiting for Section 8 rental subsidies. Mr. Russell Otis,
Director of Housing, was present. Mr. Otis said there are currently 77 people waiting for
Section 8 housing to become available. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Otis could foresee any
difficulties by having a redevelopment authority from another locality finance such a project.
Mr. Otis said he could not think of any difficulties which would arise. Mr. Fisher asked if
this project were built, who would be allocated the Section 8 funds. Mr. Otis said it would
not be Albemarle County's allocation, but would be credited directly to the developer. Mr. Oti~
compared this allocation procedure to that being used at the Meadows where Section 8 subsidies
are allocated to the developer but administered through the Jordan Development Corporation.
Mr. St. John said prior to 1982, Albemarle County could not have participated in redevelop-
ment and housing authority activities because such areas of Jurisdiction were only authorized
for municipalities under Virginia law, and Albemarle County is not considered a municipality.
Mr. St. John said a revision of that law in 1982 redifined the word "municipality" to include
counties. Mr. St. John added that if Albemarle County wished to establish its own redevelopmeni
and housing authority, a referendum would have to be held on the question.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would be willing to consider a public hearing on this request if
the developer brings to this Board the name of a redevelopment and housing authority willing
to finance the project.
Mr. St. John expressed concern that if an authority from another commUnity should finance
this project and the loan should default for some reason, that the loan would then be held
by that other locality. Mr. Ashton Said the loan would be insured by HUD and if any default
should occur, HUD would take title to the project.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, that it is the consensus of
the Board of Supervisors that the Board is interested in pursuing this matter further, and
hereby requests the name of the redevelopment and housing authority interested in issuing
the tax-exempt bonds to be presented to this Board for consideration to set a public hearing.
Mr. Henley said he was concerned about some outside housing agency doing business in
Albemarle County, and also that he was not very supportive of public housing in general.
Mr. Henley said. he would not support the motion.
Mr. Butler said he felt the concept was important and that he would be willing to
support the motion in order to learn more about the procedures involved.
Mrs. Cooke said she woUld support the motion in order to be able to furth~r study the
concept and learn more about public housing needs in Albemarle County.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded Votl :
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: Mr. Henley. !
(NOTE: Mr. Fisher left the meeting at 11:45 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. i0. Extension Service Agreement. Mr. Agnor summarized h s memorandum
dated May 6, 1983, regarding a Memorandum of Understanding between Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University Extension Division and the County of Albemarle,las follows:
"The following agreement is an effort by the Extension Service to standard!ze
throughout the State the responslbmimtles of the Extension Servmce and the local
governments, the employment of personnel, the processing of the payrolls, and the
division of costs between the Service and the locality. Currently there is a
wide disparity in different localities in the division of costs.
Albemarle presently funds entirely the salary and fringe benefits of one ?mployee,
a secretarial position. We share in varying amounts in the salaries of five
extension agents. The County payroll office distributes the County share of
salaries. The State handles the fringe benefits costs along with the Sta'~e share
of salaries. Additionally the County shares in the costs of office suppliLes and
telephone expense.
May 1t, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
The proposal is to divide the salaries and fringe benefits on a 2/3--1/3 basis,
the State paying the 2/3 share. The State would assume the full responsibility
of payroll distribution for the jointly funded employees. The result of such a
division of costs would reduce the 83-84 budget by $4,917, from $69,410 to
~64,493. A benefit to the Extension Service employees is that their retirement
and life insurance program will be calculated on the basis of their total salary
and not on the State share only.
The other items in the agreement are similar to the current operations. The
agreement simply reduces it to writing. It is recommended that the agreement be
approved effective July 1, 1983."
II.
III.
IV.
VI.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY
EXTENSION DIVISION AND
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Purpose of Memorandum
To set forth a mutually agreed on departmental structure and administrative
program and financial arrangements.
Department Structure
The extension program in Albemarle County shall be conducted within a
department or office known as the "Cooperative Extension Service". Other
county programs may be added to the department as consistent with the Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University Extension Division and mutually
agreed on by both the Extension Division and the County.
Administrative Responsibility
Ail extension personnel will report administratively to the Dean of the
Extension Division through the District Extension Director.
A unit director for the office will be appointed by the Dean of the Extension
Division. The unit director shall be responsible to the District Director
and shall also be responsible to the local government for those responsibilities
assigned as unit director for county coordinative purposes.
The local government may appoint the unit director as department director in
accordance with the provisions of county policies. The appointment of an
extension agent to fulfill this responsibility must have the concurrence
of the Dean of the Extension Division.
There may be three types of staff employees within the department, i.e.,
employees of Cooperative Extension Service (Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University and/or Virginia State University), employees of Albemarle
County, and the employees funded both by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University and Albemarle County.
Protram Responsibility
Programs will be developed in accordance with the Extension Division's process
of program development which involves the affected audience in the determination
of these programs. The supervision of the total program will be under the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Extension Division with
close program coordination with the Albemarle County government.
Special program responsibilities may be assigned to extension as mutually
agreed on by both parties.
Employment of Personnel
Extension personnel, regardless of sourceof funds, assigned to this unit
will be employed through the prescribed procedures by the State and applicable
EEO Affirmative Action Program for selection and employment of staff members.
Personnel employed by the county and assigned to the Cooperative Extension
Service will be employed by Albemarle County in accordance with its established
hiring procedures.
Financial Arrangement
Ail permanent extension employees are members of the State Personnel
Classification System, and therefore, are subject to guidelines of the act,
including salaries and fringe benefits.
The following guidelines will pertain to the financial agreement between
the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and state University and Albemarle County.
A. Salaries
Employees jointly funded by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University and the county will be paid 1/3 by Albemarle
County and 2/3 by VPI&SU. This same ratio applies to joint
payment for unused accumulated annual and sick leave upon termination
of the employee.
May 11,1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
VII.
VIII.
2. Employees who are appointed by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University will be paid 100% of their salary/wages from
extension funds.
3. Employees who are appointed by Albemarle County will be paid 100%
of their salary/wages from county funds.
4. Extension agents may be paid above the top of respective state
scale by the county provided that adequate local funds are available,
they are at the top of their scale, their performance merits it,
and approval is granted by the State Personnel Office and the
Dean of the Extension Division. Extension agents supplemented above
the state salary scale will be compensated in conformance with the
local personnel policy.
5. Any personnel who are paid 100% by Albemarle County will be hired
and receive compensation in conformance with the local personnel
policy and classification system.
B. Operations
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Extension Division
agrees to provide the following:
1. Faculty specialist assistance of the Virginia Cooperative Extension
Service of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University;
2. Current secretarial assistance (minimum of one full-time secretary);
3. Office equipment;
4. Office furniture;
5. Publications (user fees may be charged);
6. Travel expenses for staff members;
7. Office supplies;
8. Postage;
9. Soil analysis service (user fees may be charged);
10. Plant disease diagnostic services (user fees may be charged);
11. Virginia Extension Magazine;
12. Telephone service - state SCATS line;
13. Fringe benefits for appropriate personnel, including VSRS costs
(employer and employee), Workmen's Compensation, Unemployment
Insurance, and VSRS Life Insurance on the state portion of salaries
for jointly funded employees;
14. Periodic billing of the county for its share of costs to include
salaries, fringe benefits, and any other appropriate items.
Albemarle County agrees to provide the following:
1. Office space and appropriate insurances;
2. Additional secretarial assistance - currently one position including
salary and fringe benefits;
3. Telephone service - local;
4. Fringe benefits for appropriate personnel including VSRS costs
(employer and employee), Workmen's Compensation, Unemployment
Insurance, and VSRS Life Insurance on the county portion of salaries
for jointly funded employees;
5. Support for county employees assigned to the department;
6. Printing and duplicating; and,
7. Office supplies not furnished by VPI&SU Extension Division
not to exceed annual budgeted amount.
Amendment
This Memorandum may be amended upon consent of both parties. However, before
the program can be terminated by either party, a three-month notice must be
given in writing to the appropriate party.
Signatures
The appropriate representatives of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University Extension Division and Albemarle County agree to the above.
May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom said he could definitely support a change which would give better employee
benefits and cost the County less money.
Mr. Butler said as former unit chairman of the local Extension Service, he often wondered
when VPI&SU would make this change. Mr. Butler said he totally supported the agreement, and
offered motion that the agreement as presented be approved and that Mr. Agnor be authorized
to sign the agreement on behalf of Albemarle County. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 11. Victim-Witness Program; Recommendation for Funding. Mr. Agnor read
the Budget Committee's report on the Victim-Witness Program, which was requested by the
Board at the April 14, 1983, meeting. That report reads as follows:
"PROGRAM SYNOPSIS
The Board of Supervisors is being requested to fund the proposed Albemarle
Victim-Witness Program. The main function of this program is to act on behalf of
victims and witnesses in fulfilling the various needs which may arise as the
result of the crime incident. Proponents of such programs contend that in the
past, the rights of crime victims and witnesses have been forgotten or ignored by
the criminal justice system. Besides meeting the needs of victim-witnesses, the
program is also aimed at increasing witness cooperation and saving time for system
personnel. This is accomplished through the program by improving the amount of
information received by witnesses about the processing and outcome of cases, by
orienting victims and witnesses to the criminal justice system and courtroom
procedure and by providing services to assure the presence of the witnesses in
court.
There are presently victim or victim-witness programs in ten different localities
in Virginia. Most of these programs were established with federal grants but are
now locally funded. The program being proposed for Albemarle County follows the
victim-witness model which places a greater emphasis on increasing witness cooperation
and on the criminal justice payoff rather than reducing the trauma of victimization.
The program for Albemarle will be located in the Commonwealth Attorney's office.
The funding requested from Albemarle County would be used to hire a part-time
volunteer coordinator who would then be responsible for organizing ten to twenty
volunteers. The volunteer's tasks and program objectives would be aimed at
reducing the amount of time witnesses must spend in court, helping to reduce
apprehension and fear of reprisal that victim-witnesses might feel, assisting
victims in applying for compensation and aiding victims in seeking restitution.
The Albemarle Victim-Witness Program contends that these activities will not only
meet the needs of victim-witnesses but will also result in savings to County
taxpayers. It has been estimated that the program could serve 1,500 direct victims
of crime, and 3,000 indirect victims in the next year in Albemarle County.
Since there are presently no federal funds available to establish new victim-witness
programs, the County programs will be relying one hundred percent on local support.
If the State law changes in the future, there may be some prospects for State
funding with reimbursement to the State and locality from convicted criminal
defendants. If the County does not fund the program at the requested level of
-$8,000 for FY 83-84, it has been noted that the part-time coordinator's salary
will be reduced accordingly.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Protram Review. While this program/budget request was not received and reviewed
concurrent with all other FY 83-84 budgetary reviews, it was reviewed under the same
guidelines. After reviewing the program report for the Albemarle Victim-Witness
Program, the Committee noted that it would have, according to the total points
accumulated, recommended funding for the program along with the programs in
Group Two, i.e., in the mid-range of budget requests and allocations.
2. Establishing Priorities. The Staff agrees that victim-witnesses have needs
that are currently unmet and commends the concept behind the program. However, the
Staff committee noted that the scope of the activities and tasks proposed by the
program and the volume of persons to be served appears unrealistic for an agency
which is just establishing itself. The Staff strongly recommends that the volunteer
coordinator establish attainable priorities for~the program. Staff recommends
establishing aid to the victim-witnesses of violent crime as the first priority of
service.
With regard to the tasks undertaken by the volunteer coordinator, establishing
and training a quality volunteer pool should also be a high priority. In addition,
the Staff would recommend that explanation of the court process to victim-witnesses,
coordination between the victim-witnesses and police, prosecutor, court, etc.
and the notification of the outcome of court cases should be top priority services.
3. Coordination. The review form indicated that the Albemarle Victim-Witness
Program would be coordinated with the Sheriff/Police Departments, Commonwealth
Attorney's Office, the various courts, Probation Office and Clerk of the Court's
Officer. The Staff also recommends that coordination with the Rape Crisis Group
and Offender Aid and Restoration be explored when establishing the program.
May 11, 1983 (Regular Bay Meeting)
The program should also consider future coordination with the City of Charlottesville
criminal justice system. Perhaps next year the agency could approach City Council
to establish joint funding of this program. Since it appears that this program
will continue to require long term local suPport, significant efforts should be
made to locate other sources of funding and to utilize all cost saving measures.
4. Victim-Witness Contact. (NOTE: Mr. Agnor noted that this portion of the
report was inaccurate as to time of contract.) The program proposes that victim-
witnesses will be contacted one day prior to their court appearance. The Staff
Committee recommends that such contact be established earlier in order to serve
the victim-witnesses more effectively and to reduce any apprehension of the
procedure that these persons may have.
5. Records. The program envisions that keeping of records regarding the number
of victim-witnesses served, number of persons contacted by telephone, amount of
restitution paid, and activity reports on apprehension suffered by the victim before,
during and after trial. The Staff supports the keeping of good, quantifiable
records of activities. Recordation of such information is extremely important for
the future funding support of the program.
6. Recommendation. The Staff commends this program, not only for the victim-
witnesses needs that it will meet but also because it potentially serves all persons
~ince anyone can become a victim or witness of crime at any time.. As part of the
Committee's support, the Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors take action
to support House Bill No. 277 which allows the Commonwealth to collect funds from
convicted criminal defendants for victim compensation.~
Based upon the above comments and recommendations, Staff recommends funding the
Albemarle Victim-Witness Program at the requested level of $8,000 for FY 83-84 and
that the volunteer coordinator be requested to provide a mid-year report/presentation
to the Board of Supervisors regarding the program's progress and activities."
Miss Nash asked if there was any such program in the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Dorrier
said if the program is successful in Albemarle County, the City's Commonwealth Attorney will~
try and obtain approval of a similar program in the City.
Mrs. Cooke asked what services are presently being provided victim/witnesses. Mr. Dorrier
said it is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Attorney's office, but that time for such
counseling is very limited.
Miss Nash asked if this counseling is similar to the Service provided by the Rape Crisis
Center. Mr. Dorrier said a representative of the Rape Crisis Center was present today, but
he felt the counseling provided by that organization occurrs mainly at the hospital, rather
than before, during and after the trial. Mr. Dorrier then described the counseling procedure
used by Ms. Alison Grob during a sodomy trial, and the fact that Ms. Grob's testimony concernin
a witness impact statement was very well received by the Judge.
Next to speak was Ms. Gretchen Wylegala of the Rape Crisis Center. Ms. Wylegala said her
organization supports this program and feels that it could become a very valuable program
for victims and witnesses. Ms. Wylegala said counselor training courses given by the Rape
Crisis Center, could be made available to the Victim-Witness Program if Mr. Dorrier wished.
Mr. Butler said he has received phone calls and has been stopped on the street by people
requesting him to support this program. Mr. Butler said people who undergo such traumas
deserve the assistance offered, and stated he would support the funding of this program.
Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve the funding of
the Albemarle County Victim-Witness Program in the amount of $8,000 for Fiscal Year 1983-84;
of which $7,500 is for the salary of one part-time program coordinator and $500 is for a
telephone extension. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Parks Ordinances. Set public hearing to amend re: Water Supply
Reservoirs Utilized by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of the
following memorandum from Mr. William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official, dated
May 6, 1983:
"Section 14, Article III of the County Code was adopted as a County ordinance on
December 9, 1981. This ordinance established and identified the limited recreational
uses which are allowed within the boundaries of the water supply reservoirs utilized
by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Two matters concerning this ordinance
need your consideration, as follows:
The first is a basic housekeeping chore. Section 14-13 of the ordinance references
maps attached to the ordinance and on file in the office of the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors. Due to an unintentional error, the original map is incorrect;
the Ivy Creek area and the upper reaches of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir were
omitted from the reservoir area on the map. In order to correct the references and
to provide for an ordinance which is defensible in court, it is recommended that
the existing map be replaced by a new set of five maps based on tax map property
lines and identified as Sugar Hollow Reservoir, County Code Section 14-14, Tax
Maps 24, 25, 38; Ragged Mountain Reservoir, County Code Section 14-15, Tax Maps 59,
74, 75; South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, County Code Section 14-16, Tax Maps 30, 44,
45; Beaver Creek Reservoir, County Code Section 14-17, Tax Maps 41, 56, 57; and
Totier Creek Reservoir, County Code Section 14-18, Tax Maps 130, 136. These maps
will be on display at your meeting.
May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
The second deals with a proposed change to the text of the ordinance. The Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors in actions taken on December 20, 1982,
and February 28, 1983, voted to propose a relaxation of the ordinance which, instead
of prohibiting boats equipped with combustion engines within the boundaries of the
water supply reservoirs, would permit them under the following conditions:
a) that the use of any internal combustion engine be prohibited,
b) That the engines be tilted to provide visual evidence of compliance, and
c)
That engines equipped with or utilizing removable gas tanks shall have the
gas tanks removed prior to entering reservoir waters."
Mr. Agnor said he would recommend the public hearings be set for June 8, 1983. Motion
was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to set public hearings on the above ordinance
revisions for June 8, 1983. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Trust Agreement: Region Ten .Community Services Board (Deferred
from April 14, 1983). Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney, said this matter was deferred
because the Board wished his opinion on the ramifications of the trust agreement and conveyance
of property at 503 - 16th Street, N.W., to this charitable trust. Mr. St. John then summarized
his letter of April 18, 1983, to Mr. John V. Little, attorney for the Region Ten Community
Services Board, as well as Mr. Little's response. (NOTE: Mr. St. John's letter dated April 18
1983, and Mr. Little's letter dated May 10, 1983, are on file in the office of the Clerk to
the Board of Supervisors.) Mr. St. John said one question in his letter to Mr. Little, was
whether or not the Community Services Board was empowered by State Law to convey this property
to the Trustees, and whether the Trustees have the power to dispose of this property in any
fashion so long as the proceeds are recorded in the Region Ten Community Services Board's
books. Mr. St. John said Mr. Little's letter presents a rationale of State Law which documents
the legality of the proposed Trust to make a conveyance of property, and Mr. St. John said
he agreed with Mr. Little's opinion. Mr. St. John said he felt this matter was a legislative
decision of the Board of Supervisors as to whether or not to authorize the property to be
conveyed to a Board of Trustees who may use the property or the proceeds from the property
for any purpose related to the area of mental health, retardation or substance abuse.
Mr. Fisher said he felt this request was most unusual, and felt there may be a better
way of accomplishing the goal desired by the Region Ten Community Services Board.
Mr. James Peterson, Director of the Region Ten Community Services organization, said
resolutions have been adopted by the other five localities involved in Region Ten. Mr.
Peterson said basically the Trust has been established to accept cash and stock donations
from the public and retain these assets for the long term needs of those served. Mr. Lindstron
asked what would happen to the property if it becomes unoccupied by the Region Ten Community
Services organization. Mr. St. John said he felt the property would be deeded to the Trustees
and if it were ever declared surplus property, it would be up to the counties involved to ~
either hold or sell the property. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Trustees sold the property,
could the proceeds be added to the trust. Mr. St. John said that could be done with the
approval of the localities. Mr. St. John described the concept as being "once removed from
the Region Ten Board's control and twice removed from the control of the localities".
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. St. John had reviewed the Trust Agreement. Mr. St. John said
he had several problems with the original Trust Agreement, but amendments have been made and
he no longer has any concerns about the Trust. Mr. Lindstrom asked what control the Board
of Supervisors will lose if the Board agrees to this Trust. Mr. St. John read from Virginia
Code 37.1-197, which describes the powers authorized to the Region Ten Community Services
Board in accepting donations and use of public properties. Mr. St. John added that it was
his opinion that any change in use of this property would have to be authorized by the
localities. Mr. Fisher said he considers this property capital funding because it was
financed by all the localities specifically for the use of the Region Ten Board. Mr. Fisher
said if that real estate is no longer needed, it should be sold and have those funds revert
back to the original localities. Mr. Fisher said establishment of th-is trust would create a
precedent in that any other agency which owns real estate could also sell that property and
use the proceeds for other purposes. Mr. Fisher said he felt this might create an excess of
public property in an untaxed situation, being used for non-public purposes. Mr. St. John
quoted from Mr. Little's letter "If a private trustee, rather than a public official has
control over how these monies will be spent, the Board feels that this would encourage more
generosity from the private sector". Mr. Fisher said he did not feel this was the proper
way to handle receipt of donations.
Miss Nash said she felt this trust would create a bureaucracy. Mr. Henley said he felt
the property purchased by the member localities should be returned to those localities if no
longer needed. Mr. Peterson said that if the trust is terminated all assets would be returned
to the Region Ten Board.
Mr. Lindstrom said he felt that as long as the governing bodies remain in the position
of being able to decide the disposition of properties given to various public agencies, he
would not feel very threatened; but in this situation the Trust seems to have the powers of
disposition. Miss Nash said she felt approval of this request would set a precedent of how
surplus property could be handled. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to deny the request.
The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
___~. i1_~ 1983 (Re~ular Day Meeting)
At 12:43 P.M., Mr. Agnor introduced the five Youth-In-Government students from Albemarle
High School. Mr. Fisher invited the s~udents to have lunch with the Board.
The meeting reconvened at 1:30 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 16. AHIP Quarterly Report. Mr. Gary Olivera, Director of the Albemarle
Hbusing Improvement Program, was present and noted that this report is for the third quarter
of Fiscal Year 1982-83. He then presented a slide presentation for the eight jobs performed
during the third quarter; two minor and one major rehabilitation, plus five repair jobs.
Mr. Fisher asked if any other major rehabilitations are underway. Mr. Olivera said
during this quarter, AHIP started Charlottesville Housing Foundation loan-funded projects
in the Chestnut Grove area consisting of a complete plumbing, bathroom, well and septic
field Job.
Mr. Fisher extended appreciation for the presentation.
Agenda Item No. 17. Selection of 1982-83 Auditors for County Audit.
Mr. Agnor said Section 11-35 of the Virginia Public Procurement Act which went into
effect on January l, 1983, requires that accountants be selected through the sealed bid
process. Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, explained the procedure followed by his
staff for soliciting proposals for the annual audit as set out in his memo dated May 5,
1983 (Memorandum is on file in the Clerk's Office). Requests for proposals designed from
the 1983 State Auditor of Public Accounts Audit Specifications were sent to nine auditing
firms on April 15, 1983. The specifications were designed to provide more program compliance,
fraud detection, more confirmations, sampling, and overall application of-accepted principles
of governmental accounting. In addition, the specifications included requirements of the
Federal Office of Management and Budget for grants. The bid specifications also included
an option to extend the agreement with the firm selected for a period of three years. Mr.
Agnor then commented that the State Auditor had called and said the County's specifications
were the most extensive used by any local government in the State and is the process the
State Auditor is encouraging localities to follow; in particular, to analyze-proposals from
various points of view and not just of cost of service. Mr. Agnor said the staff is recommend~
ing that the firm of Robinson, Farmer and Cox be employed as the Auditors for the 1982-83
Fiscal Year report.
Mr. Fisher said the firm of Robinson, Farmer and Cox has been the auditing firm for
the County for a number of years. Even though he finds no fault with the firm or its work,
he has felt that perhaps the County should consider a change. He also feels the staff
would probably favor a firm with which they have been working for a period of time. Mr.
Fisher said a new firm could be beneficial in analyzing the County's accounting procedures
and asked Mr. Agnor if he had considered a change. Mr. Agnor said yes; this is one of the
reasons for obtaining proposals from other firms. However, he personally did not feel
changing auditors would be of any particular benefit to the County other than to have a
firm with a different point of view. He emphasized that the State Auditor of Public Accounts
controls and regulates accounting and auditing procedures. Therefore, the staff does not
have the latitude to change any procedures. Mr. Agnor said in discussions with other
localities that have changed auditing firms, some feel the change was beneficial and others
do not. Mr. Agnor said the firm recommended by the staff has more experience and .background
in local government financing in the State of Virginia than the other firms who bid on the
audit.
Mr. Fisher said his concern is based on comments made to him by County citizens. Mr.~
Lindstrom agreed and felt that a new firm might shed a different light on the County's
financial operation. Mr. Agnor said the auditing firm works for the Board of Supervisors
and the selection of the auditors is the responsibility of the Board. Mr. Fisher asked
when a decision is needed on the selection. Mr. Agnor said some preliminary work must be
performed prior to the end of the current fiscal year so the appointment needs to be made
as soon as possible.
Mrs. Cooke said she would prefer more time to study this matter. Mr. Fisher suggested
that any interested Board member should review the actual bid proposals to determine if the
staff's recommendation is correct. Even though 'he is not advocating that a firm other than
the staff's recommendation be chosen, he did feel the Board should be certain that the firm
selected is the best available.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the audit will include the School system. Mr. Agnor said yes;
the audit covers all funds under the control of the Director of Finance. Mr. Lindstrom
said the deficit situation of the Schools is one reason he feels a different auditing firm
should be chosen for at least a year even if the audit takes more time and costs more
money. Mr. Lindstrom concluded by stating that he is not criticizing the staff, but some
citizens have expressed concerns to him that this should be considered.
Mrs. Cooke then asked if the proposals were a direct result of advertisements or if
the staff personally contacted these firms. Mr. Agnor said the staff developed the
specifications and distributed same to the State Auditor and nine other firms.
.Mrs. Judy Gough from the Department of Finance was present. She said this audit was
not advertised. Mr. Jones was a member of the committee that reviewed the specifications
of the new auditing system for the entire State and nine out of the top firms were picked;
firms that were felt to be the most knowledgable in governmental accounting. Out of the
nine firms, seven had representatives present at the prebid conference to discuss the
specifications. Five of the firms submitted proposals. Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr.
Lindstrom each said they were interested in reviewing the actual bid documents. Therefore,
this item'was deferred to May 18, 1983, in order to allow time for the proposals to be
reviewed.
M~ ll, 1983 ~Begular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 18.
May 4, 1983).
Ordinance:
Establishment of County Police Force (Deferred from
Adoption of this ordinance was deferred from May 4, 198B, with a request for the
compilation' of a full information packet on the establishment of a police force to be made
available to the public through the news media. Mr. Agnor said the report~was compiled and
distributed to the press. Only three citizen requests were received for the information
during the last week. Mr. Agnor said the report was compiled with the assistance of Mrs.
Opal David who offered her services to write the report in "plain English". The report
consists of relevant facts about the county's form of government, the office of the sheriff,
financial, legal and political considerations, referendum issue, and the transitional
arrangements proposed (Copy of the report is on-file in the Clerk's Office). Acknowledgments
of appreciation for the report were extended to Mrs. David.
Since Mrs. Cooke had requested this information in her motion for deferral, Mr. Fisher
asked if she was satisfied with the report. Mrs. Cooke said the availability of the report
was mentioned in the Daily Progress and she had advised her constituents that the report
was available in the County Executive's office.
Mr. Fisher said there have been mixed feelings about this whole issue~andhe is not
sure he understands the depth of feeling.- The second paragraph of the proposed ordinance
states that the police force shall consist of a chief of police and five full-time police
officers. He asked if the number of police officers has to be included in the ordinance.
Mr. St. John said the State Code states that the police force shall cOnsist of a chief of
police and related personnel as the ordinance shall prescribe. Further, the~Code states
that the force shal~ consist of a full-time officer on duty at all times. According to
logistics, five people are needed to have an officer on duty twenty-four hours a day, seven
days a week~ Mr; Fisher said according to that language the number of officers cannot be
increased or decreased withoUt changing the ordinance. Mr. Fisher then. asked if the three
deputies who are presently paid entirely from County funds, and the two'new deputies to be
employed effective July l, comprise the five officers. He asked what is to be done between
June i and July l, 198B, since this ordinance is effective June l, 198~. Mr. Agnor said he
has recommended that the two new deputies be hired before July l, 198B, if~'the ordinance is
adopted. The funds needed to pay them for the month of June are available~in the Fiscal
Year 1982-8B balance of the Sheriff's Department budget. Another reason the officers
should be hired before July l, 198B, is that to be eligible for House Bill 599 funds in
July, 1984 a police force must be in operation for twelve months prior to'the distribution
of those funds.
Miss Nash questioned the phrase in the ordinance saying the present authority or
responsibility of the Sheriff will not be diminished by the adoption of this ordinance.
Mr. St. John said the Sheriff will still be the Sheriff during Fiscal Year 198B-84. The
wording is included so the State Compensation Board will understand that the Sheriff will
continue in his present position for Fiscal Year 198B-84.
At the end of Fiscal Year 198B-8~, the police force will be separated into a separate
division and the Sheriff relieved of his responsibility as chief of police. During this
year, it is intended that the Sheriff will also serve as chief of police.
Mr. Lindstrom said for the all reasons stated today and previously stated', he would
offer motion to adopt the ordinance which is before the Board today as prepared by the
County Attorney. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
Mr. Henley said he would support adopting the ordinance if it had been the subject of
a referendum. Adopting the ordinance without a referendum and making it effective on June
l, 198B, he will not support the motion. As previously stated, he feels~the'citizens in
the County should have an opportunity to vote on a change of this magnitude. Mr. Henley
said he was somewhat disturbed that Mrs. David had participated in the preparation of the
report since she is a member of the Five C's Committee that had supported~the establishment
of a police force. Mr. Henley said the report listed a number of factors for having a
police force such as the deputies not having job security in the existing Sheriff's Department
He felt the items of concern could be solved if the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors
worked together. He also said the deputies are covered by the County's Pay%Classification
Plan and that is not a requirement of the State Code for the Sheriff's Department. In
conclusiOn, Mr. Henley said his major concern is the indefinite status of~-the funding for
the police department. In particular, the amount of funding obtained from House Bill 599
could be between $100,000 and $200,000 less than the amount currently received from the
State Compensation Board for the Sheriff's Department. This uncertainty disturbed him a
great deal. He had questioned a member of the County staff on how much funding the City
receives from House Bill 599 and requested a response on the feelings of other localities
who have established a police force. Mr. Henley said he had never received a response to
these.questions.
Mr. Fisher said if this ordinance is adopted, there will not be any immediate change
in law enforcement services for the County citizens. He is concerned about what will
happen after July l, 198~. FUnding from House Bill 599 is not based on population, but
rather factors such as the crime rate. There has not been any incentive for the Sheriff's
Department personnel to maximize reporting crimes. The reason for this is that a higher
crime rate makes the Sheriff's operation look bad and creates a problem during his reelection
On the other hand, the City realizes that there will be more funds based on the number of
crimes. Therefore, there is a different motivation. He also noted that-the~General Assembly
appears to be moving in the direction of equalize funding between a Sheriff's Department
and a police department but it will be at least two years before any legislation is finalized
May ll, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
If this process is successful, then there will not be any' difference in the way State funds
are disbursed after such a law is effective. Mr. Fisher said the real question in his mind
is not whether a police force should be established, but whether this is the right time to
make the change. He then noted that the people speaking in favor of the change feel now is
the time. A reasonable demonstration of need has been shown. The Sheriff is supporting
the change and the transition can be accomplished now with a minimum amount of disruption
to the present Sheriff's Department and the entire County.. Mr. Fisher said in consideration
of these items, he feels it is time to "bite the bullet'T and establish a police force. In
conclusion, Mr. Fisher said for the reasons he has stated, and against the wishes of some
of his constitutents, he will support adoption of the ordinance.
Miss Nash congratulated Mr. Fisher on his statements and noted support of the ordinance.
She has also received many comments from constitutents both for and against the ordinance.
She said she feels the establishment of a police force will be good for the entire County
and she supported the motion.
Mrs. Cooke said in the interest of time and in light of all the .previous comments, she.
would not get into a lengthy discussion of her support for the ordinance. Mrs. Cooke said
her constituents are in the urban area of the County which is highly populated, and the
persons supporting the police force outnumber those opposing same. Mrs. Cooke felt this
action is in the best interest of the people in her district and she did not feel there was
any reason to continue prolonging the vote and supported the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom said at the public hearing last week, a person who has quite often
disagreed with his actiOns approached him and asked if he would support the ordinance if he
were running for election this year. Mr. Lindstrom said he was as honest as possible and
said he hoped he would support the ordinance under these circumstances. He did not feel
people forget what an elected person does during his term in office. In conclusion, Mr.
Lindstrom said he felt adoption of the ordinance is the best thing to do.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded~vote (Note:
When the Clerk began the roll call, Mr. Butler asked that she skip his name and come back
to him at the end of the roll call.):
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Messrs. Henley and Butler.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out below.)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia:
A police force as defined in Virginia Code Section 14.1,84.2(L) is hereby
established which shall be responsible on and after June l, 1983, for the
prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of criminals, the safe-
guard of life and property, the preservation of peace and the enforcement of
state and local laws, regulations and ordinances.
This police force shall be and hereby is designated the Albemarle County
Police Force and shall consist of a chief of police and five full-time police
officers.
The chief of police and all other personnel of the Albemarle County Police
Force shall be appointed pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-598 and shall
constitute a division of the County's Department of Law Enforcement under
Virginia Code Section 15ol-608. All initial appointments to the positions
established hereby shall take effect on June l, 1983. The salary scale for
members of the Albemarle County Police Force shall be prescribed from time to
time by the County Board of Supervisors within the regular budgetary and
appropriation process.
It is the intent of this ordinance that the Albemarle County Police Force
shall be jointly responsible with the Sheriff's Department for Law Enforcement
in the County, and this ordinance is not intended to diminish thee present
authority or responsibility of the Sheriff.
Mr; Fisher asked what action is now necessary based on this adoption. Mr. Agnor said
the revised Pay and Classification Plan will be presented to the Board for approval in
June. A new job description in the plan for the Sheriff includes his duties'as the Chief of
Police. Mr. Agnor said that now that the ordinance has beenadopted, he will proceed With
the letter of intent to the State Office of Planning and Budget applying for HoUse Bill~599
funding~in July, 1984. Mr. Fisher approved of that procedure and the Board members concurred.
.t-58
May ll~ 198E (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 19. Discussion of Ordinances for establishment of Agricultural/Forestal
Districts (Deferred from April 20, 198B)'.
This item was deferred from April 20, 1983, in order that the County-'Attorney could
prepare the actual ordinances to be advertised for adoption before the establishment of an
Agricultural/Forestal District. Mr. Fisher asked if this is on the agenda for the purpose
of setting a public hearing or if some other action is required. Mr. St. John said there
are two ordinances, one is'.the parent ordinance and the other is to establi'sh the actual
district which have been aPplied for (Hatton and Totier Creek) and both~ordinances are on
the agenda for the purpose of setting public hearings on same. Mr. St. John said section 6
in the parent ordinance needs to be amended to read as follows: "As a condition for approval
of any proposed agricultural and forestal district pursuant to this ordinance,, any parcel
in the proposed district-shall not be develOped to a more intensive_ use during the period
which said parcel remains within the proposed district without the prior apprOval of the
Board."
Mr. Lindstrom questioned the following wording in the second paragraph of section 6,
"the term 'more intensive use' shall include any use which is not permitted'by right in the
RA zoning district". He asked if that language will prohibit by-right divisions except for
family divisions. Mr. St. John said no, that wording prohibits all uses which are not
allowed by-right in the RA district. Uses'allowed by right in the Rurally'Areas District
will also be allowed by right in any Agricultural/Forestal District. Mr. St. John suggested
rewording the sentence to read: "the term 'more intensive use' shall include any use which
is not permitted by right in the RA zoning district and shall also include any subdivision
of land," to alleviate Mr. Lindstrom's concern.
Mr. Lindstrom said at the meeting on April 20, ~1983, he had expressed concern that
under the Rural Areas District, five, two'acre lots are permitted by-right if a parcel was
in existence at the time the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1980. He does not feel that
subdivisions should be allowed in agricultural areas except for family divisions. Mr.
Lindstrom said he discussed this concern with the Deputy County Attorney, Mr. Frederick
Payne, and was told that the language would be specific in the definition--of' "more intensive
use" in order that a subdivision composed of by-right parcels other than famiIy divisions
could~ not take place without Board approval. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel this language is
specific enough. Mr. St. John said the propOSed language exempts family divisions which
are not subject to review under the Subdivision Ordinance. Certain uses, buildings and
occupations allowed by-right in the Rural Areas District are not affected by the proposed
language. Mr. St. John then read the uses permitted by right under Section 10.2.1 in the
Rural Areas District of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom expressed concern that the by-
right use in the Rural Areas District regarding utilities, Section 10.2;1.6, was to have
been prohibited in this ordinance or at least some control given owners over a transmission
line going through their property. (Mr. Fisher left the meeting at 2:46 P.M.). Mr. St.
John agreed and suggested inserting language to prohibit the utilities as listed in Section
10.2.1.6.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if an owner had twenty acres of land, did not want to subdivide,
but did want to build rental units, if the owner would be permitted to do t~hat by right in
the Rural Areas district providing the requirements of the Site Plan section are compiled
with. Mr. Tucker said the Site Plan section relates to three or more dwel'lings on a
single parcel. The Zoning Ordinance allows five development rights but that does nob mean
that the land has to be divided to build five units. Mr. Henley asked if.the development
rights in the Rural Areas District means five dwelling units by right or five lots by
right. Mr. St. John said the intent is a division into lots. Mr. Lindstrom~suggested
including a limitation on dWelling units because small lot subdivisions are something that
the Board is trying to prohibit in the RUral Areas District. If there were three or four
separate parcels comprising a farm, fifteen or twenty rental units could'be built and that
type of development concerns him. Mr. Lindstrom said he would not object if the units were
for bona fide farm tenants, but would have a problem if the units were to be rented to
University students. Mr. Tucker said he had told Mr. Payne that the manner in which this
ordinance is worded does not address the number of units allowed on a parcel, but does
pro.hibit the actual division of land by right.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the concerns expressed today be incorporated into the
ordinance. In other words, prohibit in an Agricultural/Forestal District;~the utilities
permitted under Section 10.2.1.6 and single-family or duplex dwelling units except those
used in connection with the employment for a farming operation. He then'offered motion to
advertise the parent ordinance for public hearing with the above amendments. Mr. Henley
said the ordinance shoUld be redrafted first for the Board t° review before-the public
hearing date is set. The motiOn was then withdrawn.- Mr. Henley asked~the deadline~for the
adoption of this ordinance. Mr. Agnor said the ordinance should be adopted by the end of
June. The consensus of the Board was to have the ordinance redrafted by t~he County Attorney
including the revisions suggested today and to review these ordinances at the May 18, 1983
meeting for the purpose of setting a public hearing.
Agenda Item No. 14. 'Resolution: Buck Mountain Reservoir, Clarifying Intent of.
Mr. Agnor said bond counsel for the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority have expressed concern about paragraph ~b of the Buck Mountain
Reservoir resolution adopted by the Board in January. The paragraph states that the yearly
debt service on the reservoir project will be paid through Rivanna's urban water rate with
the exception of revenue derived from the surcharges outlined in the resolution. Mr. Agnor
said the bond counsel feels that the language is too restrictive and have requested that
the four signatories to the resolution amend same to allow the Rivanna Authority to use
funds other than the water rate surcharge for payment of the debt service. Mr. Agnor said
this action also bears on other outstanding bond issues of the Rivanna Authority and he
recommended approval of this new resolution and noted that the other three parties; the
City, Rivanna and the Albemarle County Service ALLthority have already approved~the resolutio~
May ll, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
159
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to adopt the following
resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
B~T RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
paragraph 4B of the Joint Resolution authorizing the purchase of the property
for Buck Mountain Reservoir has been considered, and the Board of Supervisors
intends that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority adjust its urban water rate
to provide revenues sufficient to carry the debt service that might'be reasonably
attributed to site acquisition, but that it is not and was not intended to preclude
the use of other funds including interest on invested funds or the general revenues
of the Authority to provide necessary coverage for present or future debt service.
Agenda Item No. 15. Set public hearing to amend Section 4-3 of the County Code re:
Disposal of dead animals and fowl.
Mr. Agnor said Section ~-B of the Albemarle County Code concerning the disposal of
dead animals and fowl has been rewritten to increase the fee if a person has to be employed
to dispose of dead animals and fowl. The current charge for the cremationor burial'of
animals is five dollars and the proposed charge is not to exceed seventy-five dollars. The
current charge for the cremation or burial of fowl is one dollar and the proposal is not to
exceed five dollars. Mr. Agnor said recently there have been problems with dead animals
not being properly disposed of and the County cannot afford to employ someone to do this
for only five dollars. Therefore, this amendment is presented in order that a public
hearing can be scheduled on same. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom, to advertise an ordinance to amend Section q-B of the Albemarle County Code
concerning the disposal of dead animals and fowl for public hearing on June 8, 198B. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 20. Appointments.
Mrs. Cooke noted receipt of an application from a person interested in serving on the
Library Board. She suggested that an interview be scheduled since she did not know the
applicant. Mr. Henley asked the Clerk to schedule the interview for the June 8, 1983
meeting.
Mr. Butler said he had received an application from Dr. Richard Lindsay regarding
appointment to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging. Mr. Henley said he has attempted to
contact Mrs. Adelaide Spainhour whose term has expired on the JABA Board but has not been
successful. He noted that she is eligible for reappointment. Miss Nash said Mrs. Spainhour
had indicated to her that she was interested in being reappointed. After a brief discussion,
the Board decided to defer this appointment until Mrs. Spainhour can be contacted.
Mr. Lindstrom noted that Lt. Col. Dirk Van Der Voet has informed him that he does not
desire to be reappointed to the Soil Erosion Advisory Board whenhis term expires on June
30, 1983.
Miss Nash then asked about the appointment for the MPO technical committee. Mr. Agno'r
said he was requested to recommend a staff person for this committee. Miss Nash said there
are already two members of the staff on the committee_an~ she felt this appointee should be
a citizen. Mrs, Cooke said the MPO Advisory ~,~ .... ~~s ~av~ng meeting tomorrow and
perhaps the confusion can be clarified then. This appointment was deferred pending the
clarification of same.
Agenda Item No. 21. .Claims AgAinSt Dog Fund.
'Claim against the Dog Fund from Mr. Marvin Gibson of North Garden, Virginia, for six
Holstein steers killed during the period of February to March, 1983, was received. (Mr.
Fisher returned to the meeting at 3:17 P.M.) The amount recommended by the Dog Warden for
settlement of the claim is $975.00.
Claim against the Dog Fund from Mr. James A. Williams of Barboursville, for two heifers
and four steers killed on March q, 198~,. was received. The total recommended by the Dog
Warden for settlement of this claim is $1,602.00.
Mr. Henley said he felt the amounts were reasonable. Motion was then offered by Mr.
Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the claims as presented~ Mr. Fisher asked if
there were sufficient funds in the budget for these claims. Mr. Agnor said there are not
sufficient funds in this particular line item, and would have to request the Board to
approve a transfer of funds at a later date. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher~ Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 22.
Resolution:
Clean COmmunity Commission.
Mr. Agnor said this resolution is needed to apply for State Litter Control funds for
the Clean Community Commission. The resolution contains one change regar'ding the funds
being sent either directly to the Planning District Commission in the locality or to the
Clean Community Commission if same is responsible for the program. Since the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Clean Community Commission is the coordinator of the program, the language does
not pertain to Albemarle County. Mr. Agnor recommended adoption of the resolution. Motion
was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following resolution
for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, recognizes
the existence of a litter problem within the boundaries of Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Litter Control Act of 1976 provides, thro-U-gh~the
Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Litter Control,
for the allocation of public funds inthe form of grants for the purpose of
enhancing local litter control programs; and
WHEREAS, having reviewed and considered the regulations and the application
covering administration and use of said funds,
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of~ Supervisors of Albemarle County;
Hereby endorses and supports such a program for Albemarle CoUnty'; and
Hereby expresses the intent to combine with the City of CharlOttesville
in a mUtually agreed upon and cooperative program contingent on approval of
the application by the Department of Conservation and Economic Development,
Division of Litter Control, and contingent on receipt of funds; and
Hereby authorizes the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission
to plan and budget for a cooperative litter control program, which shall
represent said program for all localities named in this resolution; and
Further authorizes the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission
to apply on behalf of all the above named localities for a grant, and to be
responsible for the administration, implementation, and completion of the
program as it is described in the attached Application Form LC-G-l; and
Further accepts responsibility jointly with Charlottesville~Albemarle
Clean Community Commission and the City of Charlottesville for all phases of
the program; and
Further accepts liability for its pro rata share of any funds not properly
used or accounted for pursuant to the regdlations and the application; and
That said funds, when received, will be transferred immediately' to the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission or if coordinated by the
Planning District Commission, said funds will be sent directly to the Planning
District Commission by the Department.. All funds will be used in the.
Cooperative Program to which we give our endorsement and support,~
Hereby requests the Department of Conservation and Economic Development,
Divisio~ of Litter Control, to consider and approve the application and program,
said p~gram being in accord with regulations governing use and expenditure
of said funds.~
Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher,'Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda~Item No. 23. Construction Change Orders -- ?'hase II County Office Building.
Mr. Agnor said the approval of constrUct'ion change orders is on the Board's agenda due
to a recommendation in the 1981-82 audit report that this type of approval be recorded in
the Board's minutes. However, any future change orders will be placed on the Board's
consent agenda. The four change orders being presented bring Phase II of the County Office
Building up to date. The total of the four orders is $9,849 and the amount budgeted for
change orders during construction was $120,370. Therefore, the requested~-amount does not
create~-any problem in the budget. (The change orders which were attached'to a memorandum
dated May 9, 1983, from Mr. Agnor are on file in the-Clerk's Office.) Motion was offered
by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Butler, to approve the four constructionch~nge orders for
Phase II of the County Office Building in the amount of $9,849 as presented by Mr. Agnor.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr, Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 6. Report: Stormwater Drainage Plan.
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, was present and said during his one year employment
with the County he has been reViewing the County's drainage problems. A report from him
entitled "Status Report on Drainage Studies in Urban Areas" dated May ll, 1983, has been
distributed ~'~he Board members and is divided into three parts; general discussion of
drainage problems, activities of the Engineering Department to solve the problems, and
preliminary report on the two drainage areas of Meadow Creek and Crozet with recommendations
on how to correct the problems in same. Mr. Elrod said the terrain is steep in Albemarle
County and therefore more severe erosion problems occur. He did not feel any major changes
are necessary in any of the County's ordinances or existing policies to correct the problems
but rather a better means of coordinating work and a good drainage design at the beginning
of a project. He then summarized his report as follows:
GE~ERAL~DISCUSSION OF DRAINAGE PROBLEMS
A. Classification of most prevalent problems.
1) Erosion
- Ditches too steep (too much reliance on rip-rap instead of paved ditches).
Mr. Elrod said rip-rap works well in large channels if same is away from
development but using rip-rap as a ditch lining alongsubdivision roads
is not satisfactory. Grassgrows through the rip-rap and there is no
way to mow this and over a period of years this creates more problems than
can be solved. Therefore, he favored paved ditches which are not that much
more expensive and in a lot of cases less work is required because rip-rap
has to be done.by hand.
- Drainage allowed to flow from lot to lot.- Mr. Elrod said this problem
is particularly evident in small lot subdivisions.
- Steep yards and driveways~ Mr. Elrod said this is a minor problem but
in a lot of cases this could have been handled by taking the water from the
lot into the street rather than allowing the water to drain into the second
lot. This is a difficult problem to solve once yards have been Seeded
and other landscaping done.
- Roof drains~not planned for. This problem exists in Four Seasons where
many homes were built without gutters. The initial concept was to have
-the water come off the roof and be carried away without ever being
concentrated. Some of the homeowners installed gutters and converted
the water over to the their neighbors and the yards were not graded to
handle this flow.
- Steep cut slopes and groundwater problems. Mr. Elrod said due to the
County's steep terrain, many places, particularly commercial sites, have
deep cuts and steep slopes behind structures in order to have a flat
level area for a parking lot. This can be stabilized if one does not
get into a situation of cutting into an aquifer and getting into the
groundwater. Grass will grow but the soil will slide down the slopes
during wet seasons and there will be constant erosion problems.
- Development too close to streams.
2)
- Attempt to leave streams in natural conditions.
Mr. Elrod said these two items are related. A lot of large tracts and
.property lines slope toward creeks. Developers build toward'the creeks
but the creek is never improved. It is almost impossible in the urban
areas to have a natural watercourse because when the amount of runoff
is increased the stream will meander~ Bennington Terrace is a prime
example of this. Mr. ElrOd said this problem can be corrected if homes
are built far enough back from the street and there is no clearing within
fifty feet on each side of the street. Homes built only twenty to
twenty-five feet from the street, as in Bennington Terrace, create the
problem.
Flooding -- Mr. Elrod said he thought of flooding as two types. One
from a major watercourse such as Meadow Creek or from a roadside ditch
overflowing into someone's basement.
a) Major drainage areas
- Inadequate~pipes and channels.
- On-site detention facilities not designed to meet the needs of
a given situation. Mr. Elrod felt the ~County has relied too much on
these facilities to'solve the .flood problems. Meadow Creek has a lot
of area that is developed and the problem will not get any better
with on-site facilities.
- Flood plains not mapped for urban areas. Mr. Elrod said this
is one case Where an ordinance change may be necessary. The Zoning
Ordinance, Site Plan section, speaks of flood plains as being
shown on the Federal Flood Insurance Administration maps. The
problem is that there are large areas in the County which were
not mapped and a prime example of that is along Meadow Creek.
Ma_~ 1983 (Regular Daff Meeting).
The area mapped and studied stopped just_downstream on Route 29
where Branchlands is proposed. A lot of areas around the County
have a flood plain shown but it is'not based on any computation.
-Mr. Elrod said he has not had any problems in dealing withdevelopers.
This has been~pointed out to the engineers who ~have agreed to study
the matter. He then~noted that at ~the Safari Campgrounds on Route
250 West, there was a proposal to develop an area which-appeared
to be in the flood plain. The area was surveyed and this was sent
to the Corps of Engineers who then computed the information. Mr.
Elrod said a permit is not issued when there is a possibility
of this problem. ' ~
b)
Small drainage areas
- No coordination between design of drainage for roads, and drainage
of lots. Mr. Elrod said he has tried to persuade engineers and developers
to coordinate the design of. lots in subdivisions withthe design of the
road and not to be so concerned with the road designs only. The plans
for the North Pines SubdiviSion' showed drainage comingdown a steep
hill to a cul-de-sac and there were no plans for where the drainage
was to go. He examined the site yesterday and there are two lots
with drainage going through~and eroding those lots. In some
cases, the developer has tried to take care of this problem'. Many
times pipes or concrete channets are installed to take'the drainage
away, 'but the pipes are not sized properly. If there is not some
relief, the drainage builds and the house floods. He has received
about thirty complaints aboUt this during the past year. The
homeowners are then faced With the cost of correcting~the problem.
Mr. Elrod said a problem with drainage in subdivisions is correcting
the situation in a timely manner. There are bonds posted for certain
improvements to subdivisions, but the ordinance does not specifically
state.~t what point all of the items have to be completed. Mr. Elrod said
his office is not ~set up to call bonds on projects at this time.
Mr. Elrod then summarized the activities of the Engineering Department since the Board
requested a drainage study. A complaint form was developed to record location and types of
drainage problems. This continuing program has been very useful. The second activity was
the employment of Mr. Tom Muncaster who specializes in'hydrology. Mr. Muncaster has worked
'with the Army Corps of Engineers because~it is interested in assisting the County with a
drainage study. The only problem with using the Army Corps of Engineers arises because the
standards used by the Corps are not designed for urban area drainage such' as culverts,
paved ditches and different cross-sections. ~The information gathered did provide the
location of total flows but did not identify flood limits. Mr. Elrod said it was then
decided to have a hydrologic model of basins for use in his office in order to study effects
of proposed~detention-basins rather than hiring a consultant to do preliminary plans. Mr.
Elrod said Mr. Muncaster attended an Environmental Protection Agency sponsored seminar on
computer software known as the "Stormwater~ Management Model (SWNM)". This model provides
drainage as well as water quality information. A computer was purchased~_for the office.
The computer interacts, at no charge, with a computer at,the University of Virginia. This
computer has been used~ to set up a status report on all subdivision and site development
plans. This will hopefully be more efficient in providing answers for problem areas.
Preliminary studies have been made on Meadow Creak~, Lickinghole Creek and the area at Windham
in Crozet, and the results are as follows.
Mr. Elrod said Meadow Creek has three major flooding areas. Oneis west of Berkmar
Drive (off of Route 29 North) behind the Pampered Pet Shop. Mr. Elrod said the shop is
built directly overtop of this drainage area. There is no place for the water to go except
through an inadequate pipe of a twenty-four inch diameter which is buriedlunder two commercial
buildings in this location. Mr. Elrod said the drainage area begins near the'Rescue Squad
building and the problem is created because the pipe should be about six times its present
size. Mr. Elrod said this Problem would not be'solved~by, having-an upstream detention
basin and the Only solution would be to enlarge the pipe'which is very expensive in relation
to the benefits which would be derived from same.
The next area in the Meadow Creek drainage area is east of Berkmar Drive near the
Wayside Press building. Mr. Elrod said this area also has an inadequate pipe of thirty-six
inches diameter which allows the water to flow around the Wayside Press building, across
Berkma~ Dr'i~e, and then between Route 29 ahd~opper's World-to the a~'~hind the Pizza
Inn at Dominion Drive. Mr. Elrod said the. preliminary study has indicated that a regional
detention basin upstream from Wayside Press woUld help abate this flOoding problem. This
recommendation should be studied further to de$1ermine what size basin is necessary to make
the existing pipe system adequate. He alsO.~noted, that ~er~. is a site for~the basin in the
area and developers upstream from this subject~area have noted their interest in contributing
to the cost-of such a basin in lieu of constructing individual on-site detention basins.
The next problem area in the Meadow Creek drainage area is at Commonwealth. Drive, Four
Seasons Drive and Dominion Drive. Mr. Elrod said the developments of Birnam Wood and
Townwood both have small detention basins, and both are upstream from the area mentioned.
However, there is an ideal location downstream from these two' developments for a regional
detention basin and most of the property is owned by the County School Board. Mr. Elrod
said the two basins mentioned have been filling up with silt and conversations have been
held with the developer to eliminate the basins and the developer instead contribute his
proportionate share to a larger regional basin. A larger basin, along with the storage
available in the Four Seasons lake, Will lessen the frequency of flooding at Commonwealth
Drive and the home at the intersection~of.Dominion Drive. Mr~-.Elrod said one of the developer
May I1, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
has agreed to release his basin to the County. Mr. Elrod said with the quantity of development
in this area, he felt it is time to attempt getting contributions from the developers for
the regional basin. Mr. Elrod also noted that if development continues without requiring
detention structures, the flooding will increase in to an already critical problem area.
(Mr. Henley left the meeting at' 4:10 P.M.)
Mr. Elrod said the the second problem area studied is the drainage area below Windham
on Jarman's Gap Road in Crozet. Mr. Elrod said the runoff control devices installed in the
first phase of Windham were ~not constructed according to the plan. Therefore, residents in
the subject area have complained about drainage across their properties. Mr. Elrod said
the problem with this area is that the drainage occurs in front of houses and there is not
a channel-to take the drainage off of those properties. Mr. Elrod said a possible solution
to this prOblem is a pipe and ditch combin&tion. However, this depehd~on the preference
of the homeowners. In his discussions with the developer of Windham, offers were made to
contribute to off-site improvements in lieu of on-site detention basins as required by the
County ordinance. However, Mr. Elrod said there is erosion and flooding of yards downstream
from Windham that would not be helped by on,site detention basins. Mr, Elrod said the
people involved in the off-site improvements would have to ~be willing to provide the easements
necessary for such improvements.
In summary, Mr. Elrod said there is a good indication that developers are willing to
contribute to construction of regional detention basins in lieu of providing on-site detention
basins. Mrs. Cooke asked if residents are also willing to contribute funds~. Mr. Elrod
said at this time only developers have been approached with this idea. He then noted that
discussions have been held on different approaches to funding the basins. One is to wait
for collection of sufficient funds to finance the basins, or to have the County advance the
necessary funds from the General Fund with the idea of recovering the funds from developers
at some future time. This concept has been discussed with the Deputy County Attorney, Mr.
Frederick Payne and Mr. Payne does not feel there is legally any problem with that approach.
Mr. Elrod said another possibility is to adopt a general drainage district which would
allow the County to assess the developer his pro rata share for the costs of these structures.
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. St. John his feelings of this process. Mr. St. John said a lot
of thoughtrhas been given to this matter and he.agreed that it is time tO proceed with the
idea. The first step of course is to develop, and adopt, a stormwater drainage plan.
Then, the matter of financing the necessary structures can be pursUed.
Mr. Fisher asked what action is needed by this Board at this time. Mr. Elrod said
$4,200 is needed for contracting out survey work and for the development of a.preliminary
plan for the Meadow Creek and Windham areas. After that work is completed, he can present a
detailed analysis of the amount needed for the necessary improwements. Mr. Fisher said
this appears to mean that the County cannot accept funds until a plan is adopted.~ Mr.
Elrod said this approach is like a proffer. Developers will still have to meet the requiremen
of the Stormwater Detention Ordinance for off-site improvements, but the requirements will
be set up on an on-site detention approach.
Mr.~Agnor said this project would normally be includedin the Capital Improvements
Program; but "in order to begin the necessary work, he would recommend transferring funds
from the General Fund in order that the work can proceed. The necessary information for
the transfer will be submitted to the Board at its meeting on May 18, 1983. Motion was
then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to authorize Mr. Elrod to proceed
with the survey work necessary for the Stormwater Drainage Plan recommended for the two
drainage areas, Meadow Creek and in Crozet. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley. ,., , , , , , ,
Mr. Fisher expressed his concern that the Stormwater Detention Ordinance (actually
Section 18-22 of the Subdivision Ordinance) does not cover the Pantops Mountain area.
Since this area is designated for intensive commercial development, he felt the area should
be included in the ordinance. Mr. Elrod said the ordinance describes areas in a way that
exempts any land which discharges directly into the Rivanna River. He said any project
along the Rivanna River banks is unlikely to discharge directly into the river and affect
the flood heights. Mr. Fisher said his concern is the entire Pantops area. In other
words, what if property at the bottom of Pantops would be flooded by activity at the top of
the ridge.~ Mr. Elrod said he did not feel that would be problem. The Rivanna River has a
drainage area of 600 square miles. The amount of water coming off of Pantops will not
raise the height of the Rivanna River. He also noted that the Stormwater Detention Ordinance
states that if drainage discharges into a tributary of the Rivanna River, then that is
within the requirements of the Stormwater Detention Ordinance, but if the drainage discharges
directly into the Rivanna River then it is not coVered by the Ordinance. Mr. Fisher said
he would meet with Mr. Elrod later to review the maps of the area he is concerned about.
Agenda Item No. 24. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher said the consent agenda showed a notice from YEPCO dated April 20, 1983,
regarding application to the State Corporation Commission for approval and certification
for rebuilding the Charlottesvilte-Gordonsville Transmission line for a 230 KV operation.
He is concerned about this particular application because the line between the Gordonsville
substation and the Cash's Corner substation is next to an existing 115 KV line. Mr. Butler
said he has discussed this proposal with three property owners in the subject area and he
understands, there are some problems about placement of the lines. Mr. Agnor said he, Mr.
Tucker and Mr. Butler have met with representatives from VEPCO about this line. He under~
stands that VEPCO received approval for building of the line from Gordonsville to Cash's
Corner several years ago. The reason this line has not been constructed is that a decision
is still pending on the route over the mountain to the Hollymead substation.
May !1, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher said he is concerned that it is becoming a common practice for lines of
separate companies to be constructed side bY side, and he feels the lines should be ~consolidat~
or at least carried by one set of poles. Mr. Lindstrom agreed'. Mr~ St. John said he
understands this line was approved some time ago, but the matter was reopened due to objection~
of citizens and requests received for adjustments in plans. Mr. Lindstrom 'then offered
motion to authorize Mr. St. John to send a letter to the State Corporation Commission by
May 16 noting the County's objection to the proposed 23OKV line between mCash's Corner and
the Gordonsville Subst'ation since the existing tl5KV line will remain in place, and to
request that the Commission give close scrutiny-to applications of power companies in an .~
attempt to coordinate and, if possible, consolidate routing of lines in order to avoid
duplication 6f same. Mr. Butler seconded the motion and same carried by'the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and LindstrOm and Miss Nash.
None. "~ ~
Mr. Henley.
Mr. Fisher said notice has been received from the State Water Control Board about a
public hearing on May 19, 1983, regarding Federal Grant Funds on Municipal Wastewater
Facilities. He asked Mr'. Agnor if the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority plans to present
anything at the public hearing regarding the Croz~et Interceptor Facility. Mr. Agnor said
Mrs. Treva Cromwell will attend the public hearing on behalf of the Rivanna Authority. Mr.
George Williams, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, has said that ....
he does not feel there will be any 'problems with"this request, but if problems seem eminent
regarding the funding then he will request Senator Michie or the delegates to attend the
meeting also.
Mr. Fisher then noted letter dated April 14, 1983, from Delegate George Allen regarding
a public hearing on May 12, 1983, on Regulatory Reform MeaSures; in particular, a course of
action initiated by the Governor for a systematic review of all existing regulations by
state agencies to repeal or amend any regulations not necessary to protect the public
health, safety and welfare.
Miss Nash said she has been contacted by members of the Albemarle Education Association
concerning complaints that the Association does not knOw when items arebeing presented to
the Board. She had indicated to the members that she would mention this concern to the
Board. Also, she has been informed that a banquet to be attended by the School Board and
other affiliated educational persons is to be held May 18, 1983., which is the evening
scheduled for the adoption of the budget, Based on this information,, she suggested deferral'
of vote~on the schoOl budget until June l; 1983, in order that persons interested can
attend the meeting. Mr. Fisher asked if Mi~s Nash was suggesting the deferral at the
request of the School Board. Miss Nash said no, Mr. John Baldino, representing the Albemarle
Education Association had made this request because of the-schedUling of the banquet.
Mr. Lindstrom did not object to deferral in order that interested persons could be
present at the meeting. Mr. Fisher said he would not object other than the fact-that the
budget has to be adopted by June 30 and he was concerned that the matter would continue
bouncing back and forth. Miss Nash then offered motion to defer the'discussion of the
budget and adoption of same to June !, 1983, in order that the'School Board could be present.
Mr. Fisher suggested the School Board be asked if deferral is preferred. Miss Nash then
amended her motion to ask the School Board Chairman if the School Board preferred deferral
of the budget untiI they could be present. Mr'. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 25. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 4:55 P.M.