Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-11-12November 12, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 12, 1980, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the Albemarle County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (arrived at 9:09 a.m.), F. Anthony Iachetta (arrived at 9:30 a m.), C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 10:25 a.m.), Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash (arrived at 9:11 a m.). OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.~ County Executive (arrived at 10:23 A.M.) George R. St. John, County Attorney and Mrs. June T. Moon, Administrative Assistant. Agenda Item No. 1 Call to Order. the Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 9:15 a m., by Agenda Item No. 2 Approval of Minutes. Mr. Henley reported no changes required in the minutes of February 6 (night) and March 5 (afternoon) and offered motion to approve same. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Iachetta and Lindstrom. ABSTAIN: Mr. McCann. Agenda Item No. 3a. Highway Matters: Phase II, Lake Restoration Program (Highway Stream Crossings). Mr. William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official, summarized his memorandum to the Board of Supervisors dated November 7, 1980, as follows: "The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL92-50) established as a national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water, be achieved by July 1, 1983.' In order to achieve this goal and the area's goal of maintaining a viable water supply, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority plans to submit an application to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for funds for a 314 Phase II Implementation Program. The purpose of this Lake Restoration Phase II program is to implement best management practices (BM?s) for a five year period in the South Fork Rivanna Watershed. The Phase II program will concentrate on reducing the stormwater erosion and runoff entering the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir from the Mechum River Basin by the implementation of agricultural BMPs and of erosion controls for roadways. If the project is funded, EPA will provide funds on a fifty-fifty cost share basis. The local share for the implementation of agricultural BMPs would be supplied by those area farmers utilizing the practices. Erosion controls for roadways could be locally funded by the Department of Highways and Transportation. Under Department of Highway's policy, up to one percent of the area's Roadway Improvement budget can be spent for special erosion control programs. In the current highway budget, that would amount to approximately $12,000 per fiscal year. In order to provide continued erosion control and improvement funds for the area of the county outside of the project area, only a portion of these special funds should be allocated. It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors indicate to the Resident Engineer their preference as to the expenditure of these Roadway Improve- ment funds, and indicate that only a portion, or approximately $8,000 per fiscal year, be allocated by the Department for the scope of the project." Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, was present and stated that one percent of the secondary road improvement budget would amount to approximately $12,000. He stated that any amount up to that figure could be appropriated in general terms to erosion control. Mr. Roosevelt said larger amounts could also be budgeted to specific projects if the Board of Supervisors so de- sires. (Dr. Iachetta arrived at 9:30 A.M.) Mr. Fisher asked what. part of the secondary road budget this allocation would come from. Mr. Roosevelt said the unallocated portion, but stated that any money set aside for erosion will no longer be available for highway repairs. Mr. Norris recommended that the Board request the Highway Department to approve an allocation of $8,000 for an erosion control project in the Mechum River basin if funds are approved by the EPA. Mr. McCann said if the Board is going to spend $8,000 on erosion control in the Mechum River Basin alone, what will this do to roads and erosion problems throughout the remainder of the County. Mr. Roosevelt said normally these funds are used to resee~d construction projects. Mr. Roosevelt added that the Board always has the option to take funds from other projects and apply them to any other project it desires. Dr. Iachetta said if erosion control is required by private landowners in the watershed, the same should be required of the state. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to request the Highway Department to allocate $8,000 of secondary road funds toward this project. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. November 12, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 2 Approval of Minutes. Mr. Fisher reported that Dr. Iachetta had read the minutes of March 19 (night), March 21 and March 24, 1980. Dr. Iachetta reported that on page 409, fifth line of the first paragraph the word "controlled" should be "constructed". There were no further corrections and motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the minutes as corrected. Motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. ABSTAIN: Mr. McCann. Agenda Item No. 3b. Progress Report: ZMA-79-33, Albemarle Land. Mr. Roosevelt reported that a verbal report on this dam was received from the Richmond Office of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Mr. Roosevelt reported that the hydraulics of the dam have been approved for 100 year flood levels, bUt the stability, of the dam is still in question. No answer may be found without excavating. The Highway Department feels that the dam falls under Federal Dam Safety and should have Army Corps of Engineers review. It would be best to have the Corps approve the dam. Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant has received a copy of this report. Mr. Roosevelt said he has only received a verbal report and as soon as a written report is received he will forward a copy to the Board of Supervisors and to the applicant. Mr. Fisher suggested that this be brought back before the Board in about three months for further review. Agenda Item No. 3c. Letters from the Highway Department. Mrs. June T. Moon, Adminis- trative Assistant, re~d the following letter received from Mr. Leo E. Busser, III, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer, dated October 16, 1980: "As requested in your resolution dated September 10, 1980, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective October 16, 1980. ADDITION LENGTH ACCESS ROAD - ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL From Route 9655 to Route 9885. 0.05 Mi." Agenda Item No. 3d. Take Road into State Secondary System. Mrs. Moon read a letter from Mr. Stephen M. Melton of Caleb Stowe Associates, Ltd., dated October 20, 1980, requesting that a road in Thurston Subdivision be accepted into the Secondary System. Motion was offered.by Mr. Henley to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Depart- ment, the following road in Thurston Subdivision, Crozet, Virginia: vote: Beginning at station 0-16 of Thurston Drive, a point common to the centerline intersection of Thurston Drive and the edge of pavement of Route 810; thence with Thurston Drive in a southeasterly direction 2,821 feet to station 28+05, the end of the temporary cul-de-sac on Thurston Drive. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot and a 60 foot unob- structed right of way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 637, page 458 and Deed Book 703, page 467. The foregoing motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 3e. Other Highway Matters. Dr. Iachetta asked if Mr. Roosevelt would check on the problem of debris at the corner of Monterey and Lake Forest Drive. He also requested that the pavement be checked on Lake Forest Drive on the east sade near Lot. 50. Mr. Fisher said he received a request from a school bus driver about a dangerous "depression" on the south side of Route 250 between Henley School and the blinker light. Mr, Fisher said the driver requested guardrails to be placed along the road shoulders at that point. Mr. Fisher reported the residents of Sherwood Farms Subdivision have complained about the RaiZroad blocking the only access to the subdivision in order to replace railroad ties. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt i~ there was any kind of notification procedure required when access is blocked. Mr. Roosevelt Said there is no notification procedure required by law although if such repairs cause the road to be closed for an extended period of time, notice is often posted at the site. Mr. Fisher next noted that the only alternate access into Sherwood Farms Subdivision has become impassible, and asked if it 407 November 12, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) were in the State System. Dr. Iachetta commented ~hat the road Mr. Fisher is describing was the original access to Sherwood Farms Subdivision. Mr. Roosevelt said that is only a one lane gravel road and is not in the State Secondary System. Dr. Iachetta informed Mr. Roosevelt about areas on Route 29 North in front of the Post Office which are beginning to deteriorate. Agenda Item No. 4. Request for Purchase of former Berkeley Sewer Plant Site. Mrs. Moon read Mr. Guy B. Agnor's memorandum of November 4, 1980 as follows: "Attached is a request from Jim Hill on behalf of Dr. Charles Hurt for the County to make available for sale the former site of the Berkeley Sewer Plant, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 03-3, 1.77 acres. Mr. Hill's interest in the property is to add it to the Branchlands PUD. Also attached are staff comments to this request from Planning, Engineering, and the Albemarle County Service Authority. A copy of the current State Code concerning sales of property is also attached. The general conclusion of the staff is that the property is not needed in its entirety for public use, except for the reservation of easements for a sewer line and the retention of a sixty foot right-of-way for a proposed extension of a collector street through the parcel, connecting the Branch- lands PUD to Greenbrier Drive. It is recommended that the parcel be made available for sale, but not until it is known whether or not a connector with Greenbrier Drive is to be required, and, if so, what the alignment of the needed right-of-way for the connector across the parcel would be. This may be discussed at your November 20 meeting when a rezoning for Branchlands PUD is considered." Mr. Fisher said since the recommendation of the County Executive is to defer action until the discussion of the Branchlands PUD is considered on November 20, it would also be his recommendation to defer this to that date. Agenda Item No. 5. Amend 208 Watershed Grant. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, presented the following summary for FY 1979 funds to amend the existing 208 program for-~ the Rivanna Reservoir: "The Rivanna Reservoir and its watershed is presently being studied under a 208 water quality management grant from the Virginia State Water Control Board and EPA. Funding for the project consists of 75% FY 1979 federal funds and 25% local matching funds from the State, the County of Albemarle and the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority. The existing program includes (1) watershed and reservoir monitoring to re- evaluate the magnitude and sources of the phosphorus and sediment loading to the reservoir, (2) revision of the methodology presently used in the Runoff Control Ordinance, and (3) analysis of institutional approaches for implementation of best management practices. The purpose of this proposal is to amend the existing 208 grant to obtain additional EPA funds, to extend the program into 1981, and to accomplish additional tasks recommended in the 1979 Watershed Management Plan developed by the County-appointed Watershed Management Plan Committee. Specific reasons for this amendment include: Due to the local match provided by the State and the new in-kind service provided by the Watershed Management Official, the County has a surplus in-kind match that can be used to obtain additional EPA funds (without the spending of any additional County funds). Drought conditions over the past eight months have provided atypical stormwater runoff conditions in the watershed. Use of the watershed data collected in the past year will lead to the calculation of erroneous and misleading nutrient and sediment loadings to the re- servoir. To obtain more typical data, the monitoring program should be extended to August of 1981. The amendment will provide valuable information on the selection of sites for in-stream sedimentation ponds downstream of developed.areas; it will also provide best management practices (BMP) criteria that the County Engineer, local consultants and developers can use to evaluate and select efficient runoff controls for new developments. The amendment includes the following tasks: Extension of the existing watershed monitoring program through August, 1981· Evaluation of potential sites for sedimentation ponds; evaluation of size, characteristics and removal efficiencies of potential ponds; and development of BMP selection criteria. November 12, 1980 (Regular DaY Meeting) 4-08 Monitoring of 'groundwater in the Crozet area to determine the relative impact of septic tanks in the Crozet area on the phosphorus and fecal coliform bacteria contribution to the Rivanna Reservoir. The proposed budget for this amendment is: EPA 208 Funds Local In-Kind Service $45,000 15~000 $60,000 No new local funds will be required since the $15,000 local match will be provided by existing in-kind services of the County, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, and the State Water Control Board." Mr. Fisher said since this amendment would include looking at sites for sedimentation ponds, monitoring groundwater in the Crozet area and mOnitoring of septic tanks, if thi~ work would be coordinated with the Health Department. Mr. Bailey said no attempt at a coordinated effort with the Health Department has been made. (Mr. Henley left the meeting at this time.) Dr. Iachetta said the groundwater monitoring in Crozet will be especially valuable to this study. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve the request to amend the 208 Watershed Grant as set out under 1, 2 and 3 above with the understanding that the proposed budget from this amendment will be; $45,000 - EPA 208 funds; and $15,000 - Local-In-Kind Services. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 6. Street Lighting Request for Oak Forest Subdivision. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey said a request was received from the Oak Forest Homeowners to light the entrance to the subdivision (there are 74 lots). He said he requested VEPCO to prepare a lighting plan and cost estimate. The estimate received from VEPCO for the installation was in the amount of $4,499.04, and he asked the Board if it would be willing to assume up to fifty percent of the costs before he notified the homeowners of the costs involved. (Mr. Henley returned to the meeting.) Mr. Fisher asked if the homeowners would be willing to pay their portion of the costs. Mr. Bailey said they have not yet been contacted with that question. Mr. Fisher said since the County has assumed a portion of the installation costs in other subdivisions, perhaps this should also be paid. Mr. Bailey said the total amount budgeted for street lighting was $32,100 of which $10,095 has been spent to date. He also noted that the present billing for lights is $2,666 per month. This lighting system would add another $35 per month to that cost. Mr. Fisher said perhaps the best response to this problem is to tell the homeowners that the Board is willing to assume the cost of~operation of the lights, but is not willing to assume the cost of installation, or any portion thereof. Mr. McCann said he did not want to start a policy of assuming one-half of the cost to install street lights throughout the County. Dr. Iachetta said, in the past, the great majority of lights installed have been on existing poles, therefore being at a substantially lesser cost. Motion was offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Henley, that the Board is not prepared to assume the cost of installation of these lights at this time. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to vacate a plat of a portion of Hollymead shown on a recorded plat as parcels A, B, and C. This property is shown on a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court in Deed Book 531, Page 313. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 29 and November 5, 1980.) Mr. Fisher read the following letter from Mr. James M. Hill, Jr., agent to C. W. Hurt, dated October 3, 1980: "We would like to request that the Board of Supervisors hold a public hearing on Parcels A, B & C in Hollymead, so that a zoning change can be implemented from multi-family to single-family, which has been approved by all governing bodies." The public hearing was opened. Mr. Hill was present and said the property has already been rezoned by this Board. Mr. ~isher asked the approximate land area involved in parcels A, B and C. Mr. i~Hill said approximately 14 acres. No one else wished to speak either for or against this proposed ordinance, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. (Mr. Agnor arrived at 10:23 A.M. and Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 10:25 A.M.) Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following ordinance: November 12, 1980 (R~gutar Day Meeting) AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PLAT OF A PORTION OF "HOLLYMEAD" SHOWN ON A RECORDED~PLAT AS PARCELS A, B & C: THIS PROPERTY IS SHOWN ON A PLAT RECORDED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN DEED BOOK 531, PAGE 313. WHEREAS, a certain tract or parcel of land, lying in Albemarle County, Virginia, has been heretofore subdivided as a part of Hollymead, the original plat of which is of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 531, page 313; and WHEREAS, the owners of Parcels A, B, & C shown on the said plat now desire to vacate the original plat so as to resubdivide the said lot; and WHEREAS, the said owners have petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the said plat be vacated insofar as it is incon- sistent with the proposed resubdivision; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albe- marle County, Virginia, as follows: Section i. That the subdivision of that portion of Hollymead shown on a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office'of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 531, page 313 be, and it hereby is, vacated insofar as the same shall, be inconsistent with the resubdivision of Parcels A~ B, & C in accordance with the approved Planned Community plan for Hollymead, as the same may be amended from time to time, with the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance. Section 2. The vacation set forth in Section 1 of this ordinance shall in no way vacate any other street, road, right-of-way or lot duly platted and recorded on the aforementioned plat. Section 3. Pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, shall write in-plain legible letters across the vacated portion of the aforesaid plat the word "VACATED", and shall also make reference to the same on the same to the volume and page in which the instrument of vacation is recorded. Section 4. Such vacation of the aforesaid plat shall be effective upon the recordation of a plat of resubdivision as approved in accordance with the foregoing. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 7. Proclamation: Youth Appreciation Week. Mr. Fisher welcomed and introduced the student representatives from Western Albemarle High School who were present at the meeting for Youth-In-Government Day. Mr. Fisher then read and signed the following proclamation in honor of Youth Appreciation Week: ? "WHEREAS the majority of youth are concerned, knowledgeable and responsible citizens; and WHEREAS the accomplishments of these young citizens deserve recog- nition and praise; and WHEREAS Optimist International has, since 1957, promoted a program entitled Youth Appreciation Week; THEREFORE I, GERALD FISHER, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, do hereby proclaim the second week in November, 1980, as Youth Appreciation Week and I urge the citizens of Albemarle County to join with me in appreciation and approval of the contributions of youth to our community." Agenda Item No. 9. Request from Bruce Tyler to vacate a plat. Mr. Fisher said he has been advised by Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney, that this matter is not yet ready for discussion by the Board. Mr. Bruce Tyler was present and stated ha~ desires a vacation of Tax Map Parcel 21-35 accepting the Dallas-Cason parcel. Mr. Fisher suggested that Mr. Tyler meet with the County Attorney to work on an ordinance which will cover his needs, then a public hearing can be advertised. Mr. Tyler agreed to do what was suggested. Mr. Fisher said this will be put back on the agenda at the proper time. Agenda Item No. 10. Request from Albemarle County Service Authority re: Fi~mr~dation. Mr. John W. Brent'of the Albemarle County Service Authority summarized his letter of October 21, 1980, as follows: "The Albemarle County Service Authority has received a memorandum from the State Health Department informing us of the availability of financial aid to install and operate public water fluoridation systems. The only water treatment plants providing fluoridation at the present time are the South Rivanna and Observatory plants. Water from the plants at Scottsville, Crozet and North Rivanna is not fluoridated. As you know, the customers to be affected are Service Authority customers, but the treatment responsibility is that of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. November 12, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) The decision to fluoridate the public water supply is one to be made by the governing body. For this reason the Albemarle County Service Authority forwards this information to you and awaits your instruction." Mr. Fisher said that several years ago this request would have brought a large public response, but fluoridation has become very accepted and he cannot see any reason to deny this request. Mr. McCann said the choice should be up to the people, but since no one from the public was present, he would support such action. Mr. Henley said he felt the people in Crozet would be all for this proposal. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to request the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to seek funding for fluoridation from the State Health Department. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 12. Community Attention Home Agreement. Moon's memorandum of November 5, 1980, as follows: Mr. Agnor summarized Mrs. "AttaChed is a copy of proposed renewal contract between the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle for the services of the Com- munity Attention Home program. This agreement has been approved and executed by the City and is submitted to you for consideration and ap~ proval. For your information, I am listing below the differences between the current and proposed agreements. Change in Section 2: Boys' Attention Home program Girls' Attention Home program Family Group Home program Changes in Section 4: Old Rates New Rates $493.00 $617.00 74.00 65.00 168.00 179.00 Family and personal adjustment added before the word "counseling"; trans- portation; educational and vocational training coordination added. The last sentence in this section previously read "The City of Charlottesville shall be reaponsible for the cost of medical services for each child in an amount not to exceed $100.00; the cost of any medical services for a child in excess of $100.00 shall be the responsibility of the parents or guardians of the child". An amount of $2,500 was estimated in the current budget for this item. The balance in this account was $1,042.91 as of September 30. Based on esti- mated expenditures for the remainder of the fiscal year by Karen Morris, Director of Social Services, an additional appropriation of $3,300 will be needed." Mr. Fisher asked what the principal.referring agent is for juveniles placed in this home. Mr. Agnor said almost entirely the Juvenile Court, but sometimes the Department of Social Services. Mr. Agnor added that the rates in the current contract are almost two years old. He added that he was not sure that the $3,300 recommended by Ms. Morris is needed at the present time and suggested holding off approving any additional funding at this time.· Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to sign the contract which follows: THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 30th day of October, 1980, between the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, party of the first part, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, party of the second part. W I TNE S S E TH : In consideration of the mutual benefits set forth in this agreement, the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle agree as follows: The City of Charlottesville operates the Community Attention resi- dential programs. Children from the County of Albemarle participate in these programs. The County of Albemarle agrees to pay to the City of Charlottesville the following fees for each chid who resides within the jurisdictional boundaries of the County of Albemarle, who participates in a Community Attention program and~whose custody has not been awarded to a social service agency: Boys' Attention Home program Girls' Attention Home program Family Group Homes program $617 per month $ 65 per month $179 per month The amount to be paid shall be pro-rated on a daily basis for each fraction of a month that each child participates in any Community Attention program. Payment shall be due the City of Charlottesville on the 20th day of each month for services provided during the prior month. Payment shall be made payable to the City of Charlottesville and mailed to Community Attention, P.O. Box 155, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902 or delivered to the Community Attention office at 416 East Main Street, Charlottesville, Virginia. November 12, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) The City of Charlottesville agrees to provide room and board; family and personal adjustment counseling; recreation; transportation; educational and vocational training coordination; and medical services for each child from the County of Albemarle who participates in the Community Attention programs. The cost of any medical services not normally covered by the program shall be the responsibility of the parents or legal guardians of the child with the understanding that prior authorization is necessary for planned special medical expenses. This agreement shall be effect from November 1, 1980, through June 30, 1981. It may be terminated by either party at any time prior to June 30, 1981, provided written notice is given to the other party at least 30 days in advance. Mr. Fisher said he felt this agreement should be continued. Mr. McCann said he hopes this program doesn't continue to grow at the rate indicated over the past two years. There was no other discussion and roll was called. The motion to sign the contract carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 14. Agreement: Health Department Employees. Mr. Agnor summarized his memorandum of November 6, 1980, regarding the proposed agreement for Health Department Employees as follows: "For several years the State has had a ceiling on hiring additional full- time employees, but has permitted the employment of part-time personnel (part-time being defined as working up to 32 hours per week without re- ceiving fringe benefits). The Health Department has seven part-time employees and is experiencing high turnover, minimal skills and few ap- plicants for these part-time jobs. The attached proposal requests that Albemarle County employ three full-time employees (Clerk-Typists) to replace four part-time positions in the Health Department. These full-time employees would be assigned to the Health Department with a contractual arrangement which the Health Director believes would be approved by the State under current authorizations that allow contracts for personnel. No additional allocation of funds would be required, and the County would recover all payroll related costs by re- imbursement from the Health Department budget. This is an obvious method of circumventing a State freeze on full-time employment positions. From that perspective, the proposal is distasteful. It may not even be approved by the State for that reason, but that is an unknown until tried, and the Health Director does not want to seek approval without the County first approving the proposal. It is also a method to solve an administrative problem of retaining em- ployees, and to serve an expanding population with programs restricted by a blanket State policy that does not recognize changing needs, and allows only part-time employment to meet those needs. From that perspective, it is important to consider. It is recommended that the proposal be given favorable consideration with the understanding that (1) no additional funds are required, (2) the positions are to be assigned to Albemarle health programs, (3) the County is reimbursed for all costs, and (4) the agreement is an interim solution to a State hiring freeze and is approved on a one year basis." Mr. Fisher said he did not want to sign such an agreement because he felt it was a poor solution to overcoming a bad policy. Dr. Iachetta agreed and added that the Board should adopt a resolution asking the State to reevaluate its policy. Mr.' Lindstrom said he agreed that the policy should be corrected. Mr. Lindstrom added that if everyone circumvented this policy, it could never be properly evaluated in the future as to its effectiveness. Mr. McCann said if the County decided to hire these employees and then the Health Department decides those employees are not needed, would those people still be considered County employees and entitled to benefits. Mr. Agnor answered that the only way they could remain on the County payroll would be if there were a vacant position that employee could transfer into. Dr. Iachetta said he really felt the best thing to do is to try and get the State to reconsider this policy; then if no action is taken, local action can be considered. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, that the County Executive draft a statement to be sent to the Governor for the Chairman's signature, requesting a review of the State's policy which has placed a freeze on the hiring of additional employees by the Health Department. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. At 11:01 A.M., Mr. Fisher declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 11:05 A.M. November 12, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code by adding Sections 17.1-1 through 17.1-14 relating to the regulation of dealers in pre- cious metals and providing for a penalty; said ordinance was adopted as an emergency measure on October 8, 1980. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 29 and November 5, 1980) Mr. Fisher stated that this ordinance was adopted as an emergency on October 8, 1980, because the legal advertising requirements had not been met at that time. Mr. Fisher then declared the public hearing opened. First to speak was Sheriff George Bailey who stated that since the enactment of this ordinance on an emergency basis, he has made two arrests for silver theft. He added that although the ordinance has not been in effect long enough to see any drastic affect on the prevention of precious metal thefts, he feels in the long run the ordinance will be worthwhile. Mr. Fisher stated that at a recent meeting of the Virginia Association of Counties, it was noted that many localities had their own versions of this type of ordinance. Mr. Fisher said thatVACo is considering recommending that this be handled on a State level. Mr. Bailey said he was aware of the fact that many localities have various versions of this same ordinance, in which permit costs range from $25 to~ $1,000. Mr. Bailey added that all the surrounding localities have a uniform ordinance. Dr. Iachetta asked if there has been any input from the dealers since this ordinance has been in effect. Mr. Bailey said the only comment he received was about the section requiring that all purchases be held by the dealer for five days; it was the concensus of dealers that this amount of time was too long. Mr. Lindstrom noted an article printed in the Washington Post stating that a similar ordinance in effect in Washington, D. C. requires a holding time of 15 days. Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Commonwealth's Attorney, stated that similar ordinances adopted in Northern Virginia even go so far as to require fingerprints of dealers. Dr. Iachetta asked if a lot of the precious metals received by dealers are melted down, or received in a melted down.state. Sheriff Bailey stated that he has not seen too much of that. He added that the name and identification of the seller is required. No one else from the public wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher then asked the County Attorney if any sections in this ordinance would need to be changed from the emergency ordinance adopted on October 8, 1980. Mr. St. John said the only rewording required would be in Section 17.1-14 titled "Effective Date", which should now state "This ordinance takes effect immediately, November 12, 1980.", rather than the emergency statement. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to reenact the ordinance on a permanent basis. (Wording of the ordinance is set out in the minutes of October 8, 1980.) Mr. McCann said he would support the adoption of this ordinance even though he did not support the emergency ordinance last month. He said it was clear from Sheriff Bailey's report that the ordinance could help control thefts without being bothersome to legitimate dealers. Mr. McCann said he would like to see a statew~de ordinance considered. Roll was called and the motion to readopt the ordinance carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher said he Would like to receive some reports from the Sheriff before the General Assembly convenes so the Board could see how the ordinance is working and whether it should be adopted on a statewide level. Sheriff Bailey said he would be certain to submit a report before the end of the year. Agenda Item No. 13. Quarterly Report: Albemarle Housing Improvement Program. Miss Ann Paul was present and presented a projection for the fiscal year 1980-81 as follows: "The following is an estimate of the amount of rehabilitation AHIP can produce in FY 80-81 based upon anticipated operating funding, in-kind donations,~ and labor forces available including both volunteer and CETA labor. Please note that this is an estimate of AHIP's total rehabilitation productivity for FY 80-81 based upon anticipated available resources. The number of jobs specified in each job-type category does not reflect actual families-waiting-to-be-served, but is an estimate as to the type and number of jobs AHIP will perform this year. Families are served on a first-come, first-served and emergency basis, and thus the actual number of jobs in each category may fluctuate from the estimate. The total productivity indicated, however, is AHIP's productivity goal for the year. Estimated Production Capacity: Major rehabilitations - 12; Minor rehabilitations - 8; Repairs - 12; and New construction - 0.2. Jobs Completed in the First Quarter of FY 80-81: Families'Served - 9; Persons Served - 35; Total cost of materials and subcontracts - $64,354.59; Total Albemarle County gr~nts-to-families - $2,848.05; Average cost of materials and subcontracts - $7,150.51; Average AHIP operating cost - $4,454.98; and Average Albemarle County grant-to- families - 3569.61. e Number/Job type of units completed: Major rehabilitations - 4; Minor rehabilitations - 1; Repairs - 1; HUD jobs - 2; and New construction- -0.2. After completion of its yearly independent audit, AHIP was able to return to the County of Albemarle $766.93 in unspent Fiscal Year 1979-80 Operating Funds. AHIP had a total of $1,735.24 in unspent FY 79-80 grants-to-families funds. This was a total return to Albemarle County of $2,502.17 in unspent FY 79-80 funds." Mr. Gary Olivera next presented a slide presentation showing six rehabilitation jobs which AHIP is in the process of completing. 413 November 12, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following letter from Mr. Alan B. Howard, President of AHIP, dated November 5, 1980: "On behalf of the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, Inc. Board of Directors, I am responding to your inquiry at the October 8, 1980, AHIP Quarterly Report to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors concerning follow-up inquiries on past AHIP rehabilitations. Ann Paul reported to the AHIP Board of Directors that the Albemarle Board of Supervisors had indicated an interest in assessing the long-range effects of the housing rehabilitation work AHIP has performed in the last four years. ~The AHIP Board agrees that such an examination of the social and physical impact of our program on the community would be timely and worthwhile. However, we admit to being somewhat uncertain how a reliable study of this sort could be carried out. We are, however, certain that with our very limited resources we could not conduct such a study without reducing significantly our current rehabili- tation production. Therefore, we would appreciate your suggestions about obtaining both the expertise and the additional manpower that the study seems to warrant." Mr. Fisher said he did not recall asking for an examination of the social and physical impact of AHIP on the community, but did ask if projects were being maintained by the recipients. Miss Paul suggested possibly the out-reach workers could check on past clients to see how rehabilitation jobs are being maintained. Mr. Olivera said a more complete education program is being enacted in terms of informing the recipient of rehab work, what was actually done and how to maintain it. Miss Paul said a home repair manual has been drafted by a VISTA worker. Miss Nash asked if there is any way for AHIP to be reimbursed in a situation where repairs are made to an elderly couple's home and shortly thereafter they die; would their heirs be liable to reimburse AHIP? Miss Paul said that would be possible if a deferred loan process were used. Mr. McCann said he had hoped that AHIP only helped those families who had no one else to help them make those repairs. Miss Paul said most repair jobs in this situation have been inherited by low income beneficiaries. Mr. Fisher agreed with Miss Nash, and gave the example of a new home being constructed by AHIP, saying that at some point it will be sold for a great deal of money and all that "profit" would go directly to the owner. Mr. Fisher thanked Miss Paul and Mr. 01ivera for coming to the meeting. Agenda Item No. 18. Appropriation: Planning Department for Aerial Photographs. Mr. Agnor read Mr. Robert W. Tucker's memorandum of November 3, 1980 regarding aerial photo- graphs: "We have requested, and have now received four proposals for aerial photo- graphy of the entire County. Our request for proposal included 139 re- producible mylar film positives at 1" = 600' scale to correspond with our existing tax map sections. Standard annotations which will identify state primary and secondary route numbers, rivers, etc., will also be provided. United States Geological Survey (USGS) will be used as field control. The four aerial photographic firms that responded and their fee proposals are as follows: Air Photographics, Inc. Greenhorne and O'Mara, Inc. AeroEco JODEE Associates, Inc. $ 8,215 11,825 2O,35O 17,500 As you can see, the proposed fees are quite different, even though the product being provided from all responding firms is identical. After consulting other localities who have used the services of Air Photographics, Inc., we find that their resulting products are very good and as you can see is the lowest fee proposal submitted. We, therefore, recommend that the proposal of Air Photographics, Inc. be accepted and the necessary appropriation be made." Mr. Agnor added that this is the best time of year to conduct this type of photography because the leaves are off of the trees, and the photographs will be very helpful in the real estate reassessment to be conducted in the Spring. Mr. Lindstrom asked when the last set of aerial photographs were taken. Mr. Agnor said approximately ten years ago. Mr. Fisher noted that in that 10 year timeframe, the number of dwelling units in the County has increased by 72%. Mr. Agnor requested that the Board appropriate $8,215 at this time. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $8,215 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and Coded to 8101-3099.02, Miscellaneous contracted services Aerial Photographs, Planning Department. Mr. Fisher said he would like to take this opportunity to again request the Planning staff to use clearer maps in its presentations to the Board, both in staff reports and during Board meetings. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. November 12, 1980 (Regular Da~ Meeting_ ) .4!4. Agenda Item No. 19. Request for Transfer of Federal School Funds. Mr. Ray B. Jones' memorandum dated October 14, 1980: Mr. Agnor read "The appropriation ordinance for FY 80-81 included appropriations in the amount of $982,266 for Federal School Programs as follows: 1. ESEA Title I (Low Income) $567,734 2. ESEA Title I (Migrant) 60,535 3. ESEA Title IV-B (Libraries) 31,400 4. ESEA Title ZV-C (ELII) 39,490 5. ESEA Title V (SECC) 119,206 6. Crime Resistance (TIPS) 22,634 7. COPE 87,644 8. PREP 42,523 9. Title IV-C (Adopter) 11,500 $982,266 An item of 94-142 Federal Funds for Special Education was omitted. Item 4 above was not approved at all by the Federal Government and Item 1 was approved at a lower level. Therefore, the excess funds appropriated in these two categories can be moved by transfers to the federally approved category "Flow Through Special Education" which was omitted in the initial appropriation ordinance. Based on the above circumstances, the following transfers of appropriations are requested: From: Code 17NA Code 17XA Title I Low Income Title IV-C ELII $ 66,425 39,400 $105,825 To: Code 17V Flow Through-Special Education 109a Compensation-Secretary $ 8,008 109b Compensation-MH Teachers' Aides 10,019 109c Compensation-Transit Aides 12,000 t34a Compensation-Teachers 39,298 215 OT/PT Equipment 3,000 290 Private & Public School Grants 31,000 290a Extended Contracts 1,500 215 OT/PT Equipment 3,000 405 Office Equipment 1,000 $105,~25 These transactions are made possible due to more recent information on the level of federal funding and allocations. It does not change the original amounts of the federal programs. It merely adjusts the original appro- priations to the federally approved proper category. As you know, all federal school programs are reimbursable with no local funds required except to cover the costs until reimbursment is received by the County." Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve the transfer of funds as requested by Mr. Jones. Roll was called,, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 20. Request for Capital Funds: Athletic Field Development, Jack Jouett School. Mr. Agnor read Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney's memorandum of November 6, 1980, as follows: "Our Department would like to request that the Board of Supervisors approve $5,000 from the Capital Improvements Budget Code 9700-760.60 Other School Recreational Facilities, for the purpose of developing athletic fields at Jack Jouett Middle School for both school and community recreation usage. This project will include: The development of a softball field which will serve as the home field for Albemarle High School girls varsity softball team and provide our department with an adequate site for adult softball league play. This field will also be used heavily for school instructional use and little league play. The construction of soccer goals for use by the Albemarle High School soccer team, County Parks and Recreation Department Soccer League play and school instructional use. These goals will be designed to be sturdy yet portable so that the possibility exists for future softball field development without interference to either activity. The single major expense in this project will be approximately $2,500 for the.purchase and installation of a softball backstop and wing fences. The remainder of the funds will be used for the soccer goal materials, dirt, the correction of a drainage problem~and labor." 41_5 November 12, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $5,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Capital Improvements fund and transferred to Code 9700-760.60 Other School Recreational Facilities. Mr. McCann said he was in favor of this project and would endorse its use. Mr. Agnor noted that there are 180 softball teams involved in Charlottesville City League Softball teams, and approximately one half of those players are county residents. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 21. Appropriation: memorandum of November 7, 1980: Education. Mr. Agnor read Mr. Ray B. Jones' "The School Board approved two requests for appropriation at their October 28 meeting. One of the requests is for $15,500 of which $5,000 is earmarked for extensive testing of the mortar joints and metal supports at Woodbrook, Henley, Jack Jouett and Brownsville schools. The remaining $10,500 is to provide for architectural and engineering fees on Woodbrook to develop plans and specifications on masonry wall repairs. The Woodbrook walls may require replacement. The second request is.for $10,000 to further the energy conservation work on school buildings. This appropriation will'provide for development plans and specifications for the design phase of Project I. The selected pro- jects will then be bid for actual renovations which will be split fifty- fifty on matching funds up to $74~646. The following appropriations are therefore requested from the School Construction Fund balance: 19.31 Woodbrook School Repairs $10,500 19.32 Masonry testing various schools 5,000 19.33 School Energy Conservation Projects 10,000 $25,5oo No additional money will be transferred from the General Fund balance. This appropriation utilizes the earnings on investments on existing unspent proceeds in the School Construction Fund from funds that were appropriated from the General Fund for other projects.'.' Dr. Iachetta said he was concerned about the statement that the Woodbrook School walls may require replacement. Mr. Agnor said the statement about replacing walls refers mainly to the northern side of the building, but he does not know how many walls may need replacement. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia that $25,500 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Construction Fund to the following codes: 19.31 Woodbrook School Repairs $10,500 19.32 Masonry testing - various schools 5,000 19.33 School Energy Conservation Projects 10,000 $25,500 Miss Nash asked when Woodbrook School was constructed. Dr. Iachetta said in 1965 and that the building was too new for the type of masonry problems, it is experiencing. Mr. Fisher described some o.f the areas in the schools that the energy conservation program will affect. He said the area of energy is the most rapidly growing expense in the school budget, and this will help identify the "energy hogs". Roll was then called, and the motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 22. Discussion: House Bill 917. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter addressed to The Honorable James B. Murray and forwarded to Mr. Agnor dated Sep- tember 30, 1980, from Mr. John W. Daniel, II, Staff Attorney, Division of Legislative Services: "House Bill 917 was introduced during the 1980 Session of the Virginia General Assembly and is currently the subject of study by a Subcommittee of the House Conservation and Natural Resources Committee. The thrust of House Bill 917 is to repeal all existing local Acts Of Assembly which establish varying fishing, hunting and trapping seasons and bag or creel limits. Attached is a copy of the local Acts which have been enacted for the localities you represent. The Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries has made the following comments in support of repealing these local Acts: November 12, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) 416 'The phrase, general open hunting season for upland game, which appears in Chapter 202, 1920; Chapter 101, 1950; Chapter 202, 1950; Chapter 532, 1950, refers to something that no longer exists. While the hunting seasons for upland small game and turkeys currently begin on the second Monday. in November, the seasons for hunting individual species have different closing dates i.e. turkey--December 31; rabbit, squirrel, fox,.grouse--January 31; bobwhite quail--February 15; raccoon--February 28 east of the Blue Ridge Mountains and January 31 west of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Deer hunting, on the other hand, opens the third Monday in November and closes either November 29 or January 5. Local Acts (Chapter 202, 1920; Chapter 250, 1940; Chapter 358, 1954; Chapter 147, 1948; Chapter 85, 1952; Chapter 67, 1954; Chapter 272, 1954) authorize the shooting of foxes in certain counties year around or during specific periods. Commission Regulation 8-2 provides for the hunting of foxes with gun from November 1 through January 31 and Section 29-138 authorizes landowners to kill or have killed, foxes on their lands at any time. Chapter 101 of the Acts of 1950 is somewhat confusing in that it provides for two different squirrel hunting seasons in Southampton County. Wildlife populations along with hunter and trapper pressure are constantly changing. Through the use of current biological data, the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries regulates the taking of individual species to assure optimum annual harvests on a sustained yield basis and in harmony with all other land uses. Local Acts, based on personal or group preference, are often in conflict with the basic principles of sound fish and wildlife management.' I shall appreciate your contacting the appropirate boards of supervisors in your jurisdiction and inquiring as to whether they will concur in or oppose the repeal of these local Acts." Mr. Henley said he assumes from the tone of the letter that they are taking away local laws and putting this in the hands of the Game Commission. Mr. Fisher said he had no objection to this proposed bill. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to notify Delegate Murray that the Board of Supervisors has no objection to the passage of H.B. 917, which would repeal Chapter 202 of the Acts of 1920 regarding trapping of foxes in Albemarle and Nelson Counties, etc. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 23. Letter from Commission on Local Government. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Mr. M. H. Wilkinson, Executive Director of the Commission on Local Government, dated October 27, 1980 which is set out below: "The Commission on Local Government has been advised by Counsel for the City of Harrisonburg that your locality qualifies under the provisions of Section 15.1-945.7 of the Code of Virginia, for notice of the City of Harrisonburg's proposed annexation of certain territory in the County of Rockingham. The Commission would appreciate your advising it at your earliest convenience as to whether or not the interests of your locality are affected by the proposed annexation, and if your locality wishes to testify before the Commission or otherwise submit evidence for its co- nsideration with respect to the proposed annexation. The Commission is scheduled to receive testimony with respect to the proposed annexation from the City of Harrisonburg, the County of Rockingham and other interested parties between December 3 and December 10, 1980, in Harrisonburg. Written materials and exhibits for Commission review should be submitted in advance of the hearings which are soheduled to begin on December 3. Ail materials and testimony should be submitted in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Procedures and should address the criteria and factors prescribed by Chapter 25 of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia for consideration with respect to a proposed annexation. A copy of the Commission's Rules of Procedure will be sent to each locality advising this office of its desire to submit testimony.or other evidence relative to?~he proposed annexation." Mr. Fisher noted also having received a "Notice of submission to the Commission on Local Government", which consists of a list of exhibits submitted by the City of Harrison- burg. Mr. Fisher said he has not been able to think of any specific impact this annex- ation case has on Albemarle County. Mr. Agnor said he felt this letter from the Com- mission on Locat'Government was sent to all localities bordering Rockingham County and that the only affect this might have on Albemarle County is that it is the first such case to be considered by the Commission. Mr. Fisher asked if it was the desire of the Board to communicate to the Commission that Albemarle County does not wish to make a presentation at the hearing. Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. McCann, to send a letter to Mr. Wilkinson stating that Albemarle County does not wish to participate in these hearings. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. · 4'17 November 12, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) At 12:10 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the meeting recessed for lunch. ~The meeting reconvened at 1:32 P.M. (Dr. Iachetta was'nOt present.) Agenda Item No~ 15. ZMA-80-14. Holkham Associates, Ltd. and Louis A. & Nancy Skidmore (deferred from October 15, 1980). Mr. FiSher noted this item was deferred in order to give the applicant time to present soil reports to the Board which would confirm the availability of adequate primary and secondary drainfield sites~ Mr. Fisher reviewed the happenings from the October 15, 1980, meeting, and asked if soil reports have been received at this time. Mr. Tucker said lot 62 has the existing dwelling and lot 61 has the septic system for that dwelling and that the soil profile descriptions received from Mr. Earl H. Brunger indicate that there is sufficient area for two drainfield sites as well as two alternate sites with fair and fair to good ratings. Sites for lot 62 indicate three locations with fair ratings. Board members had no further comments or queStions regarding the septic site locations, nor did Miss Critzer, representing Holkham Assoc- iates, Ltd. Mr. Fisher next discussed the problem of Louis A. and Nancy Skidmore regarding the circular driveway which presently, illegally fronts on a State Road as well as the in- terior road. The original conditions of approval required that lots enter only onto the interior road. Mr. Fisher said he would like to accommodate the property owner, since he believes it to be no fault of theirs. Mr. Tucker noted that the condition referred to is a standard condition placed on this petition by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Barbara Mahnesmith said she hoped the Board would eliminate the condition, but if not, she would like to see better and more honest dealings by realty companies. Mr. Fisher said clearly Cushman Realty and Building Corporation received approval to construct this community, and that any contractors hired by Cushman would be responsible for the conditions set by the Board. He said unless this condition is lifted, it will be up to the County staff to insure compliance. Mr. McCann asked if the builder received a permit from the State Department of Highways and Transportation to construct this entrance onto a State road. Mr. Tucker said that if the permit were issued by someone other than Mr. Roosevelt or Mr. Coburn, it could have been issued without noticing this restrictive condition. Miss Nash asked if there were any recourse if the builder constructed this driveway without such a permit. Mr. Tucker said yes, the builder could be forced to remove the driveWay and restore the property to its original condition. Mr. Lindstrom suggested ascertaining whether or not a permit had actually been issued before any condition is waived by the Board. Discussion on this agenda item was briefly deferred while~Mr, Tucker telephoned the Department of Highways and Transportion to find out if a permit to construct the circular driveway ontO a state road was ever issued. (Note: Dr. Iachetta returned to the meeting at 1:53 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 24. Appointments. Board members were not prepared to make appoint- ments on any of the following Boards and CommiSsions as listed on the agenda: Advisory Council on Aging, Community Action Agency, Youth Services Citizen Board, Mental Health and Retardation Services Board. Mr. Fisher suggested the appointment of a tie-breaker for the School Board be deferred as he has heard from a reliable source in the General Assembly that the law requiring said tie-breaker will be discussed for repeal. NOT DOCKETED. Dr. Iachetta noted that the term of the at-large member of the Planning Commission, Mr. Charles Vest, is due to expire on December 31. He then reminded the Board of its desire to reduce the number of Planning Commission members from the present eight to seven. Mr. McCann commented that he felt the reduction was a good idea, but felt it should not be reduced below seven. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to set a public hearing for December 10, 1980, on an ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 2, Article I, Section 2-4 of the Albemarle County Code entitled: Composition; appointment; terms and compensation of members; quorum. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Mr. St. John said he will be presenting short~t~ the School Board and the Board of Supervisors a recommendation to repeal the section Of the~Albemarle County Code which handles the appointment of School Board members. Mr. St. John said he wiI1 recommend that this section of the Code be repealed because the General Assembly has often revised that section of the State Code, causing the County Code to become obsolete. Dr. Iachetta said the Transportation Safety Committee will no longer exist as of December 31, 1980, because the term of all members expire on that date. Mr. Fisher recommended that the Sheriff, the Superintendent of Schools and other members of the committee be contacted to see if they are willing to continue serving. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of an application to the State Corporation Commission from Commonwealth Gas Services, Inc., to revise its tariffs. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Mrs. Diane E. Richardson on behalf of the Meriwether Lewis P.T.O., expressing concern for the future of that school. The letter also requests a meeting between the parents, teachers, concerned persons and the Board of Supervisors in the month of December to discuss the school's future. Mr. Lindstrom said he had just met with some parents and teachers of Meriwether Lewis School, and at that time reiterated the Board's position that no decision will be made on this matter until after the new year begins. Mr. Lindstrom said a full session of the Board and staff would create the impression that a decision will be made, and he £elt it inappropriate to hold such a meeting as Mrs. Richardson requested. Other Board members were in concurrence with Mr. Lindstrom's statement. Mr. Fisher said he would send a letter to Mrs. Richardson informing her that Board members were willing to meet on an individual basis, but not as a Board. Agenda Item No. 15. ZMA-80-14. Holkham Associates, Ltd. and Louis A. & Nancy Skidmore (deferred from earlier in this meeting.) Mr. Agnor stated that no answer has yet been received from the Highway Department on whether or not a permit was issued for construction of the driveway with access onto the State Road. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be willing to waive condition #11 if indeed the Highway Department issued such a permit. If no permit was issued, he would not interfere with the Highway Department in requiring the builder of the driveway to remove it. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve ZMA-80-14 with conditions 1-4 as recommended by the Planning Commission and condition number 5 as follows: 1. Approval is for the addition of two lots for a maximum of 62 lots. Location and acreage shall comply substantially with the approved plan. Open space shall be dedicated to include these two lots in Phase I; 2. County Attorney approval of inclusion of two lots into the Homeowners' Agreement prior to final approval; Written Health Department approval of two septic field locations for each lot; no septic field shall be sited on any slopes of 25% or greater; 4. Compliance with other applicable conditions of ZMA-79-12; Waiver of condition number 11 of June 20, 1979, Board action will be granted, provided Highway Department permit has been issued for that entrance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. Fisher said he would support this motion, but wanted to make it clear that he does not want such to become frequent requests. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following re'corded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mrs. Mahnesmith asked what her recourse would be if the driveway was constructed with no permit· Mr. Fisher said possibly the staff could help her with that problem. Mr. Lindstrom recommended she speak to her attorney. Agenda Item No. 16. Request from the Industrial Development Authority to approve financing of a project for Mr. and Mrs. Richard L. Nunley. Mr. D. A. Holden, Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority, summarized his letter to the Board of Supervisors dated October 31, 1980, as follows: "We bring to your attention, and request your approval of our financing a project for Mr. and Mrs. Richard L. Nunley at a location on 29N, all as briefly described herein. The project is a warehouse and distribution center for building and con- struction materials to be net leased to Better Living Inc., a locally owned and well-established business. The facility will be built on a plot of about 3-1/2 acres located on the west side of 29N next to the Better Living Furniture Store. The property is zoned B-I, has public water available, and a septic system already approved by the Health Department will be used. No change in zoning is needed. No manufacturing is planned for the facility. The property is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Nunley and has been appraised at $264,000 by a recognized appraiser. The estimated value of the construction is approximately $840,000, thus making the value of the completed project approximately $1,100,000. Owner's equity will thus be about 25%. Estimated new tax income by the County is $6,700/year real estate tax plus substantial sales tax. Twenty new jobs are contemplated, employing local people and the number is expected to increase as the business builds. Better Living has committed to a long term lease if financing by the Authority is approved. The rent will be sufficient to amortize the mort- gage note (bond issue) and to provide proper debt coverage - 1.6 the first year and increasing thereafter. Virginia National Bank has advised they are quite familiar with the project, consider it realistic and viable, and have offered Mr. Nunley a plan for the purchase of the debt obligations if their issue by the Authority is approved. November 12, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) It is contemplated that Better Living Inc. will be the general contractor and will subcontract most of the work to local contractors. A local architeot will be employed. Our Authority, at its meeting on October 15th, determined that this facility will be a desirable addition to the County and its'economy, will bring additional revenues to the County and will provide new jobs for local- residents. Accordingly, the Authority adopted an inducement resolution - said resolution being drafted at our request by our Bond Counsel. Accor- dingly, we request your approval of our financing the above described project in Hhe location described, said approval being subject to your modifying Section 2-49 of our Ordinance to cover such a facility." Mr. Richard Nunley, owner of the property, described the attributes of the location and the beneficial effects it could bring to Albemarle County. Mr. Nunley said he feels it is a project deserving of the County's support. Mr. Fred Ferguson, of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Chamber of Commerce, said this project has been reviewed by the Chamber. Mr. Ferguson said the Chamber feels this project meets all the requirements set by the Authority and supports this request. Mr. Bill Edwards, speaking for the Greater Charlottesville Area Development Corpor- ation, said the Corporation feels this is an important project, stressing the fact that it will be constructed by local firms and employ local residents. Mr. Fisher said if the Board wished to approve the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds for this project, it would be necessary to set a public hearing to amend Section 2- 49 of the Industrial Development Authority ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said he could not agree with the use as presented. He said there is a growing trend to use bonds for private business and he felt this was a misuse of authority as granted by the General Assembly. Dr. Iachetta said this request would be an abandonment of the original concept by which the Industrial Development Authority was originally organized. Dr. Iachetta said this would open the door to any other private, retail business also asking for IDA bonds, and that he was not ready to support this request. Mr. McCann said he agreed with Mr. Lindstrom and added that private business was asking for trouble when it starts depending on government for backing. Miss Nash said if the Board is waiting for a business which perfectly fits the type described in the original ordinance, nothing will be approved. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash to set a public hearing for the purpose of amending Section 2-49 of the Ordinance to allow for a bond issuance on this type of facility. Mr. Fisher said that since the majority of Board members have stated their opposition to this project, he felt there was no sense in setting a public hearing. Mr. Henley said he felt this type project was not what the Board had in mind for these bonds and that he would not support the motion. There was no further discussion, and the motion died due to lack of a second. There was no further discussion of this agenda item. Agenda Item No. 17. Request from Industrial Development Authority to amend Section 2-52 of the Code of Albemarle. Mr. Fisher summarized Mr. D. A. Holden's letter of October 10, 1980, as follows: "Following my meeting with the Board on the 8th, I have given further thought to the limitation by Ordinance of the number of bond issues the Industrial Authority may have in force at any one time. In my opinion it is improper and risky for the Board to establish and maintain any limit on such issues. I understand the limitation was put in the Ordinance with the idea of controlling and limiting the activities of the Authority. If, on the occasion of all allotted issues having been assigned, the Authority presents a proposed new issue to the Board for'approval and the Board refuses to increase the number of issues to accommodate, or decides that it cannot approve the project because no bond issues are available, the Board leaves itself open to court action from the proposer of aforesaid new issue at such later date on whatever occasion, and for whatever stated reason, the Board increases the authorized number of issues. Such action against the Board could well be on the grounds that the Board had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing the aforesaid application. There are two ways of avoiding such a problem: 1) to keep modifying the Ordinance so that there will always be some openings available, or 2) to repeal Section 2-52 (which limits the number of issuances which can be outstanding at any one time). It would appear to be both wise policy and legally protective of the Board and to be the more sensible approach to repeal Section 2-52 of our Ordinance which limits the number of active bond issues the Authority may have. As Chairman of the Authority, I strongly recommend that you so do." Dr. Iachetta said that as a member of the original committee which studied the forma- tion of an Industrial Development Authority, he felt this is a way of doing away with all the limitations and thus making the bond issues available to anyone. Mr. Holden said he reviews all applications to see if they are in accordance with what is written in the State Code. Dr. Iachetta said this Board was not in total agreement with that State act, and that is why the limiting ordinance'was enacted. Mr. Lindstrom said if he had been on the Board at the time this authority was established, he would have been opposed to it, but since it does exist, he feels strongly that the number of bond issues should be strictly limited. Mr. Holden said this is a moot point at the moment, but had presented this request as something he felt was worthwhile to the best interests of the County. November 12, 1980 (Reguiar Day Meeting) 420 Agenda Item No. 25. Discussion: Proposed relocation of University of Virginia Medical Center. Mr. Fisher said he and Mr. Agnor ~have met with University of Virginia officials regarding the proposed move of the Medical Center to the Blue Ridge Hospital site off of Route 20 South, and informally requested that the County be given the oppor- tunity to review any proposed plans. Mr. Fisher said if the hospital is moved to this site, there will be a considerable amount of other improVements required (i.e. housing, roads, eating establishments, drug related businesses, etc.). Mr. Fisher said this area is sensitive because of its proximity to Monticello and because dense development is not shown for this.area in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Agnor reported receiving a copy of the University consultant's report and fol- lowing his review will forward the report on to the Planning Department for further review. Mr. Fisher said he would like to make the review process on this report similar to any other private proposal submitted to the County, that is it should be reviewed by the staff, Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. McCann said he could see no reason to go into such an in-depth review of the report until such time as the Univer- sity definitely decides to accept the findings of this consultant's report. Mr. Fisher said he felt the only way the Board can influence the University's decision is by stating the Board's findings prior to the University accepting the plans. Miss Nash said she agreed with Mr. Fisher. Dr. Iachetta said that no matter what plans are shown in the consultant's report, the Board can be sure that the facility will grow very rapidly as did the present facility. Mr. Fisher then requested Mr. Agnor to have the consultant's report put through the total review process, having hearings and comments, then brought to the Board of Super- visors for its recommendations to the University of Virginia. Agenda Item No. 26. Statements of Expenses of the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for October, 1980, were presented. On motion by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, M¢Cann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 27. Statement of Expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Regional Jail for the month of October, 1980, ~as presented along with summary statement of prisoner days, and salary of the jail physician and paramedics. On motion by Dr.Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta' Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 28. Report of the Social Services Department for September, 1980 was was not available at this time. Agenda Item No. 29. Report of the County Executive for February, 1980, was presented for the Board's information. 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 September, 1980, were presented as information: Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account General Fund School Operating Fund School Construction Capital Outlay Fund Textbook Rental Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax Federal Revenue Sharing Fund General Operating Capital Outlay Fund Grant Project Fund Mental Health Fund 3,891.25 560,591.42 1,478,119.17~ 379,592.66 19,852.45 65,474.64 306.14 402,228.96 42,496.53 9,346.68 152,209.42 $3,114,109.32 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 October, 1980, were also presented as information: November 12, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account General Fund School Operating Fund School Construction Capital~ Outlay Fund Textbook Rental Fund Joint Security COmplex Fund Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax General Operating Capital Outlay Fund Debt Service Fund Grant Project Fund Mental Health Fund $ 44,788.48 632,217.51 1,706,415.36 357,280.88 ,14,500.92 82,501.31 288.42 453,194.66 62,720.33 7,438~40 157,951.61 $3,5i9,297,88 Agenda Item No. 30. Other Matters. Mr. Agnor reported that State funding was denied for the Pregnancy Prevention Program, therefore the $10,000 appropriation of the County~ will not be needed. Mr. Fisher said copies of a memorandum dated October 8, 1980, from Dr. Clarence S. McClure has been received, regarding the recruitment of a new School division superintendent. Mr. Fisher said he felt the Board might be concerned about a statement in the memorandum which assumes "that the Board of Supervisors-understands the School Board's need and will look favorably on an additional appropriation at the end of the year if that becomes necessary." Mr. Fisher said he would have no problem making such an additional appro- priation. Dr. Iachetta said if the School Board cannot find those funds in their total budget, something is wrong, Mr. Agnor said he thought the meaning intended was that budget category 17A did not have sufficient funds to support this additional expense. Mr. Agnor stated that a letter has been received from State Legislative Services indicating they are going to have workshops on the problems of census information and the reapportionment. Mr. Agnor reported that the Planning Department intends to send a staff member to those workshops. Mr. Agnor then stated that the evening of the workshop sessions, the Virginia Association of Counties regional legislative meetings will be held. He said this becomes a difficult situation, in that this will require two different sets of employees attending the conference. Dr. Iachetta said he received a letter from the Electoral Board asking if they could also attend the legislative session of this con- ference. Mr. Agnor asked if the Board wished to have staff members present at the legis- lative portion of this conference. It was the concensus of the Board that it was more important that someone from the Planning Department attend the~workshops regarding census and reapportionment, and that if someone from the Electoral Board wished to attend, theyJ could share the ride to the conference. Mr. Lindstrom said a time must be set when action will be taken on the Subdivision Ordinance, so there is no timelag after adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher suggested that the night of November 20, would be a good time. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the Subdivision Ordinance was an integral part of the Zoning Ordinance and should be discussed simultaneously. Mr. Fisher said to place discussion of the SubdiVision Ordinance at the end of the November 20th agenda. Agenda Item No. 31. At 3:22 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested that the Board adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel and legal matters. Motion to this affect was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. At 4:16 P.M,, the meeting reconvened back into regular session and immediately adjourned. Chairman