Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-03-14M~rch 7, 1979 (Regular--Night Meeting) !91 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of~ Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Congress of the United States is respectfully requested~ to act to overrule the aforesaid proposal of the Secretary of Transportation, Within the time period provided by law; and 'BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of Transportation, the members of Congress representing Albemarle County, and the Virginia Department of Highways an~-Transportation are urged to take all appropriate actions to preserve all ~existing rail passenger service to Charlottesville and ~he Albemarle County area. Mr. Roudabush seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: ~'Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Mr..Agnor noted the groundbreaking ceremony of the Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant wil~l be held at 1:00 P.M. on March 16, 1979 at City Hall. ~A~ge~da Item No. 6. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at t0:00 P.M. March 14, 1979 (ReEular--Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 14,' 1979, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesvill Virginia. Ab~Sent: None. Officers Present: County Attorney. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr. (Arrived at 9:18 A.M.), Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W..S~Roudabush. Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County, Executive and ~r. George R. St. John, The meeting was called to order' at 9:10 A.M.~y the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 3a. Highway Matters: Abandonmen~of road off of Route 602 in H-~wardsvil! Mr. Brian Donato, representing Mr. Paul Stacy, the .applicant, was present. He requested deferral until May 9, 1979. Motion was offered by Dr. I~chetta to defer this matter until May 9, 1979. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and sama carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT:~ Mr. Dorrier. Agenda Item No. 2. Approval Of Minutes: January 3, 1979 and January 17, 1979. Dr. Iachetta noted the following corrections to the minutes of January 3, 1979: Page 107, agenda item no. 11, change Mr. Lindstrom's vote from "ABSTAIN" to "AYE" (CLERK'S ERROR) and page 113, sixth paragraph, eighth line, change the word "uninterpreted" to "uninterrupted." Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the minutes of January 3, 1979 with the above corrections. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS' ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr.' Dorrier. Mr. Roudabush had not completed reading the minutes for January 17, 1979; therefore, they were deferred. Fisher said he was present at the December 20, 1978 meeting and requested 'the be amended to reflect same. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to amend the December 20, 1978 minutes to reflect Mr. Fisher's attendance to show the following "Gerald E. Fisher (Arrived After Executive Session Began)". Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded yore: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3b. Highway Matters: Ray L. Marshall: Keene Landfill. A resolution was adopted by the Board on April 14, 1976, granting Mr. Ray L. Marshall, his heirs and assigns, a right of way and easement across the Keene Landfill subject to his first-constructing at his own expense, a fence on one side of the roadway. This fence was to be constructed in a manner and location designated by the County Engineer. The fence has been built and approved by the County Engineer. Therefore, the discussion today concerns an easement which has been drafted by the County Attorney's Office and agreed to by the County Engineer and Mr. Ray Marshall. Mr. St. John said the only matter which has not been resolved is whether the County will be responsible for maintenance of the road if Mr. Marshall subdivide his land in the future or if only Mr. Marshall can use the road. Mr. St. John said he Would recommend that the easement be approved with the understanding that the agreement runs only to Mrs. Marshall. Mr. Fisher noted the easement states "non-exclusive right of way". Mr. St. John said this means that other persons can use the road, but this wording has nothing to do with maintenance of the road. Mr. Fisher expressed his concern that the wording in the easement does not protect the County and no mention is made of any future subdivision of Mr. Marshall's land or what happens if Mr. Marshall sells land. Mr. Roudabush suggested the language of the easement be amended to include the words "a single tract of land owned by" in the first sentence. He felt that with this language included, there would be no question about the road if subdivision approval is needed. Mr, St. John preferred to consult with the County Engineer and Mr. Marshall about any changes. Mr. Fisher favored the easement being for a single tract of land. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to defer action so the staff and Mr. Marshall would have an Opportunity to consider the concerns expressed. Dr Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 3d. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Roudabush said there is one remaining road in Terrybrook Subdivision which is not in the State system and he would like a report made on the status of this road. Mr. J. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, was present and noted that there is a maintenance bond on the road for $2,331. He has pointed out to the developer the areas needing correction. Mr. Lester Terry was present to speak on behalf of his parents. He said this was brought to their attention for the first time in October, 1978, when Mr. Williams came and pointed out the items in need of repairs. At that time, they were uncertain as to who was responsible for the repairs since all lots had been sold, but after investigation, have determined that they are responsible. Some defects have been found in the original constructio~ of the road. Mr. Terry said the repairs will be made immediately and he also noted that all of the lots on the section of road in question have been sold and built upon. Mr. Roudab~ush then offered motion to place this back on the agenda for April llth and request the County Engineering Department and Highway Department to make an updated report at that time. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush NAYS: None. · Mr. Roosevelt said the Board, several weeks ago, asked him to check on the drainage easement needed so Vincennes Court in Key West Subdivision can be taken into the State System. After investigation, he has been advised by the State Highway Department that the drainage easement can be omitted in this case. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion 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 Department, the following road in Section 4A in Key West Subdivision: Vincennes Court - Beginning at station 0+15 on Vincennes Court, a point common to the centerline intersection of Vincennes Court and the edge of pavement of Vincennes Road; thence with Vincennes Court in a southwesterly direction 340 feet to station 3+55, the end of Vincennes Court. BE ~T FURTHER ~E~OLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Tran~sportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of way along this requested addition as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 505, page 607; Deed Book 530, page 351; and Deed Book 543, page 114. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: ~YES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. ~AYS: None. Mr. Roosevelt said the speed studies requested by the Board on November 8, 1978, have March 14, 1979 (Regular--Day Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom said a meeting to discuss future plans for Georgetown Road was held by Mr. Roosevelt, Dr. Iachetta, Dr. Lester Hoel and himself. They came to the following conclusic l) The road should not be widened to four lanes, with curb, gutter and sidewalks. 2) Use the $50,000 currently allocated in the Highway Department budget for preliminary engineering studies to improve the curve in front of Dr. Word's property and also acquire the right of way needed for a pedestrian pathway. Mr. Lindstrom said those persons attending this meeting were concerned that there be immediate improvement to Georgetown Road, mainly through building of a pedestrian pathway and improvement to the curve where there have been a number of accidents. It is his understanc that ~unless the County is willing to go with ultimate width plans for Georgetown Road; the County may have to allocate funds for improving the curve. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Roosevelt has indicated that~ the County can build at its own expense.a pedestrian pathway on Highway Department right of wa~ if the existing terrain~is folZo~ed. Mr. Lindstrom felt some action should be taken on this report before the public hearing on the 1979-80 Highway Budget tomorrow night. Mr. Fisher did not feel a decision was needed before the public hearing. Mr. Roosevelt agreed. Dr. Iachetta agreed and said the main concern of residents using Georgetown Road is the need for immediate improvements. It was the consensus of the Board that the alternate proposal for Georgetown Road would be presented at the public hearing for discussion by the public. Agenda Item No. 4. Professional Office Building Site Plan Appeal. Mr. Fisher noted letter dated February 2, 1979 from Mr. William Prdllaman of Grigg, Wood, Browne, Eichman and Dalgliesh, Architects and Engineers for the applicant Dr. Wedford W. Ross. The letter appealed condition 2 recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of' Planning, was present and presented the following staff report: "Location: Acreage: Zoning: Proposal: History: Behind the Ivy Inn between Route 250 West and Cid Ivy Road. 33,545 square feet. B-I, Commercial. To locate a three story professional office building to be served by public water and sewer. The Board of Zoning Appeals, on January 9, 1979, granted a variance (VA-78-77) allowing relief from Section 7-4 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a building to be located 28 feet from the rear property line with the following condition: 1) Preservation of all vegetation and trees 15 feet from the property lines or a landscape plan providing for a substantial tree buffer. Mr. Tucker said the staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: "A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: 5. 6. 7. 8. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of frontage improvements (plans) as recommended in the Highway Department's letter of December 6, 1978; Staff approval of the iandscape plan; County Engineer approval of drainage plans and pavement specifications; Grading permit; Fire Official approval of fire prevention facilities; Compliance with condition of VA-78-77; Note that the Planning Commission is not approving a sign or its location at this time. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition has been met: County kttorney's office approval of cooperative parki~ng, agreements. (Shared by the Ivy Inn Restaurant and this facility.)" Mr. Tucker said the recommendations of the highway department contained in the. letter of December 6, 1978 were: "Sight distance to the existing entr-ance needs to be improved. Removal of vegetation and relocation of the fence to the east will be necessary. We recommend that full frontage development, curb and gutter, and storm sewer is necessary to be located at 26 feet from the centerline of the existing road to the face of curb, he constructed across the frontage of this property." ' Mr. William Prillaman said the applicant's concern is the requirement for full frontage development. If this improvement is needed to get adequate sight distance, there is no objection. However, removal of vegetation (trees) and relocation of the fence is of concern. Mr. Prillaman noted that two parcels, under the same ownership, are involved. He felt the Highway Department thought only one parcel was involved. Mr. Roosevelt said that was correct, the Highway Department was of the opinion that it was one parcel. lng March 1~, 1979 (Regular--Day Meeting) ~r. Tucker saia It was the intent of the Planning Oommlssion that there be full frontage improvements on both parcels because they are under the same ownership and parking is jofntly owne~. Mr. Kendrick Dure, local attorney, was present. He asked if the Board was acting under Section 18-39(o) of the Subdivision Ordinance to require these off-site highway improvements. He felt this site plan was being considered as a subdivision and that was incorrect. Mr. St. John'cited Section 17-5-8.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, which reads the same as Section 18- 39(o) of the Subdivision Ordinance. He noted that these sections give the Board and Planning Commission the power to require off-site highway improvements. He also noted that neither the Board nor the Planning Commission can require a person to acquire additional right-of- way for 'such improvements. Mr. Roosevelt said when Old Ivy Road is fully developed, it will need to be improved to four-lanes with curb and gutter. Therefore, the Highway Department felt the requirement that curb and gutter be placed 26 feet from the centerline was feasible at this time. Mr. Roudabush felt the Planning Commission was correct in considering the two lots together due to common ownership as well as the site plan and improvements relating to both lots. He felt curb and gutter were reasonable improvements to require on the front of these properties due to the nature of the road. The' Board felt a decision on this matter should be tabled until the committee working on a policy for off-site highway improvements and requirements of same makes a report. Motton to this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. ~g_e_D_d_a !_tem No. 5. Clifford I. Napier Final Site Plan Appeal. Mr Fisher noted the following * . "On Tuesday February 20ti plan for Clifford I Napier, i~ for one two-acre parcel of lan( from Mr. Francis Staton that his mother, Florence Louise Rani deed conveying the land to Mr. Now, Mr. and Mrs. Staton want outlining a two-acre tract, wi; starch assumed that there woul~ However, the Planning Commissi, he feels are unreasonable. He did not appear at the Planning I feel that road requirem, unreasonable and there have be~ Mr. Tucker then presented the "Location: Southeast corner o: Acreage: 5.75 acres. Zoning: A-1 Agriculture. Proposal: A redivision of tw having double fron' Staff Comment: The staff and tl to the followin{ Lot 2 to enter from Route Improvement of Route 773 of Highways and Transport~ Clear owners' title." Mr. Tucker said the Highway De shoulder up to the intersection wit] of the existing road, with the ditcl Mr. Francis Staton was present the property had never been made no~ purpose of this subdivision plat is only one dwelling and it is on lot '~r. 'Lindstrom asked if Mr. Sta~ an entrance to lot #2 and retain th~ 773 for lot 1 and the entrance for : Dep~tment has stated that both roa~ Mr. Roosevelt said improvement~ Highway Department feels improvemenl agreed with the highway department'~ occur, ~t he did not feel any extr~ no'new Zbts are being created. The: should be waived. Mr. Roudabush agreed since the N 68° 2t~2 9~' 622 2..00 AC. LINE DB. 5]55-7 and the only problem is clearing (Re ular--Da Meetin ) ' At 10:48 A.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:00 A.M. Agenda Item No. 3c. of same. Discuss policy for off~SiSe~'~h~h~y:~H~pro~m~n~s~and requirements At the March 7, 1979 meeting, action was taken to develop a policy for off-site highway improvements and requirements for same. Mr. Lindstrom distributed a sheet containing criteria used by Culpeper County in determining the carrying capacity of roads subject to subdivision. Mr. Roudabush felt a committee should be established to develop a policy recommendation. This committee to be composed of a Planning Commission member, a Board member, a Planning Staff member, a representative from the County Attorney's office, a person from the general public and a representative from the field of builders and developers and possibly a represent; tire from the Highway Department. Mr. Fisher suggested that Mr. Roudabush and Mr. Lindstrom compile the list and present it to the Board for appointment on March 21, 1979. Agenda Item No. 3d. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Fisher noted complaints about joggers and bicyclists on Route 601 (known as 21 Curves). Several suggestions had been made. One, was for a sign to be placed at each end of the road, asking pedestrians and bicyclists to stay to the edge of the road. Mr. Roosevelt said he would discuss this request with his traffic engineer and report back. Dr. Iachetta said perhaps some announcements could be put on the radio by the Highway Safety Commission about this problem. Mr. Agnor noted letter from Mr. D. B. Hope about the allocation hearing for Interstate, Primary and Urban highways to be held on April 11 in the Culpeper District Office. Mr. Fisher suggested a resolution be drafted giving the County's priorities for these funds and requesting additional monies for Route 29 North and Route 20 North and South and any other needs. He felt such a resolution should be entered into the minutes of th~ Highway Commission meeting. The consensus of the Board was that all Board members attend this meeting. Mr. Lindstrom said an "exit" road from 01d Salem Apartments, which has no deceleration lane and no sign, is being used by the residents as an entrance. He asked if an exit sign could be erected at this location. Mr. Tucker said exit signs are there but no attention is paid to them. Mr. Fisher suggested the Zoning Administrator be advised of this problem. Mr. Lindstrom noted an area being used for private parking at the corner of Routes 601 and ~58 on land which he believed to be owned by the State. His concern was the increased amount of traffic turning from Route 601 onto Route 658 and the site distance which is inadequate. Mr. Bryon Coburn, Assistant Resident Highway Engineer, stated that plans are being made to construct a right turn lane into that area and hopefully this will eliminate the present situation. Dr. Iachetta noted that there is a tree in the right of way which overhangs the road on Route 643 about one-half mile off Route 29 going east. He then asked about ditch work on Route ~43. Mr. Roosevelt said hopefully that can be completed this spring. Mr. Roudabush noted an accident on Rio Road involving a tractor trailer which went o~er a bank. He asked if the Park Street Bridge is marked warning truck ~traffic that the cu~e on Rio cannot be negotiated. Mr. Roosevelt said a warning is posted at the Route 29 North end of Rio Road, however, he was uncertain if one is posted in the City. The bridge itself is posted for an 8-ton capacity to keep continuous overloading of the ~ridge to a minimum. Mr. Roudabush asked if taller sign posts~cguld be used on the steep bank on Rio Road. Mr. Roosevelt said that is being studied by the traff~c~eng~neer now. Action was taken earlier today to defer action on the Professional Office Site Plan and Mr. Roudabush felt that a definite date for deferral should be set and he then offered motion to defer this matter until the end of the March 15, 1979 meeting in order that each Board member could look at the site and become familiar with the things Mr. Prillaman has brought up a~out the ~rees, traffic and general road conditions. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion. He felt the Ivy Inn area should be examined as to whether the future widening could be done around the Ivy Inn in order to save the trees. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 6. Criminal Justice Plan for F¥-80. Mr. Fisher said in order to qualify for Division of Justice 'and Crime Prevention aonies, the Criminal Justice Plan for 1979-80 must be reviewed and approved by all local governments in Planning District 10. Mr. Stephen Blair, Criminal Justice Planner, for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District, was present and Mrs. Wayne Harbaugh, the newly appointed Exectuive .Director of the Planning District Commission. Mr. Blair then summarized the goals of the Plan which are as follOWs: March 14, 1979 (Regular--Day Meeting) Goal 3 -- To reduce the number of rural residential burglaries in Planning District 10. Goal 4 -- Improve the responsiveness and the accountability of the criminal Justice system to the public. Goal 5 -- To provide every community with Judicial services in response to local needs. Goal 6 -- To provide every law enforcement agency with high quality communications and information exchange. Goal 7 -- Provide uncrowded and humane Jail facilities for all persons who are sentenced to terms of incarceration in Planning District 10. Goal 8 -- Reduce law enforcement and court effort consumed in dealing with the high volume of public drunkenness cases. Goal 9 -- To provide every community with the legal services of commonwealth's attorneys in response to local needs. Goal 10 -- To provide alternatives to incarceration for persons awaiting trail or facing sentences to jail. Goal 11~-- Reduce law enforcement and court effort consumed in dealing with the high volume of worthless check cases. Goal 12 -- To promote planning, coordination of efforts, and evaluation of criminal Justice services in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. · Mr. Fisher said some of the goals and objectives have not been discuased nor considered by the Board. He noted goal #7 is an issue that has been discussed but no definite decision made as to the expansion of the Joint Security Complex. He expressed his concern that the Board was being faced with time and money problems on goals and objectives not necessarily consistent with the Board's position on such. Mr. Blair said the Plan is advisory and approval of the Plan does not commit the Board to do anything. He also noted that the plan is a five-year accumulative plan which is not amended each year. Mr. Fisher said most of the objectives were good and was pleased to see progress on the 911 system and encouraged such progress. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve the Criminal Justice Plan for Fiscal Year 1979-80 with the understanding that it is advisory only. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 6a. Request for allocating space for 911 system in Lane Building. Sheriff George Bailey said a joint dispatch system for a 911 system has been discussed at quarterly meetings which he attends with other local law enforcement officials. He said all members are interested in the dispatch system and felt it was time to start working on such a program. Sheriff Bailey said there is federal money available for renovating the space available at the Lane Building. He noted the City's dispatching system is more up to date and perhaps that could be supplied by the City and space by the County. He noted a facility needs to be designed and processing for federal funding begun since it takes two years. Mr. Agnor said the gym portion of the Lane Building is currently under lease to the YMCA for 4 years. The architects have examined the gym basement and the basement of the main building for use for a 911 dispatching office. The architects feel the basement gym is the most appropriate area to use. Mr. Agnor said endorsement by the three entities involved is needed and application for the federal funding should be made. Mr. Fisher felt the space could be committed now. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to request Stainbeck & Scribner, the architects, to examine the space at the Lane Building for a central dispatching system. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Not Docketed. Mr. Agnor said a grant application for Fiscal Year 1981 for a youth counseling service was recently presented to him by Mr. Stephen Blair of the Planning District Commission. He was asked that Albemarle County be the local governmental unit that makes application for the funds and the administrator of the funds if same are received. Mr. Agnor said during work sessions on the 1979-80 budget, the Youth Services Center had requested funds, ~but later withdrew the request due to possible federal funding. After the Youth Services Center presentation, Mr. Agnor said he felt the youth services in the community should be examined to see if there was any duplication occurring. He discussed this with the City Manager and a committee was formed to examine the question. In examining the four agencies providing youth services, no duplication was found. Mr. Agnor said he will report to the Board on the four youth services programs after the committee completes its work. In conclusion, he stated that he had signed the application with the understanding that the Board would be apprised of this. Since the application is for funds for Fiscal Year 1981, he will have ample time to finish the review and decide if the County should be a sponsor or not. Mr Fisher thanked Mr. Agnor for his leadership in this matter. No action was taken. Agenda Item No. 9. Continuation of Discussion on Water System Improvements. This matter was discussed on February 21, 1979 and deferred in order that more specific figures on the cost of installation of individual pressure control valves could be assembled. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, then reviewed the following information received from Mr. E. E. Thompson, Jr., Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority: "March 7, 1979 We (Albemarle County Service Authority) have had some experience with large pressure reducing stations which were intended to protect the water lines A~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ice Authorit~ and as a~ side effect provide some March 14, 1979 (Regular--Day Meeting) is marginal, it sometimes affects pressure relief valves on water heaters. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to regulate pressures throughout the water main due to the rise and fall of the terrain. Pressure regulation in one area may cause pumping in another to achieve pressure adequate to serve the needs in that area. I calculated a commercial cost for installation of 3/4" valves. If installation is to be by the Albemarle County Service Authority, out,of-pocket expenses would be $40.00 without a meter box and $57.50 with a meter box. Ail reducing valves are calcUlated for installation at the meter boxes. I am still of the opinion that the water purveyor is not legally obligated to provide a maximum of uniform pressure through the system." The following memorandum, dated March 9, 1979, from Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, was also discussed: ". . . Mr. Thompson estimates six months w±ll be required for the installation, if done by the ACSA. If each individual were required to see to his own installation (commercial service), a like time should be allowed. The County is of the opinion that the high pressures can be controlled s~m¢~fully by either of the two methods described. It is assumed that the individual house regulator is equal to the large r'egulator in reliability of service. The ACSA has experienced some difficulty with two of its large installations, at least one of which had to be replaced. Their concern about being held liable in the event of the failure of a regulator causing damage in a number of houses is reasonable. Since any costs that fall on the ACSA must be passed on to the Authority's renters, the interests of the body of public water users is protected by ACSA declining to assume the responsibility for protecting an individual from the high-pressure transmission service. My memo dated December 21, 1978 (Copy on file in the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Office) addressed to Mr. Agnor, listed four advantages arising from the use of storage and gravity flow in serving water customers. During January of this year, we experienced several ice storms and the loss of power in some~areas for 48 consecutive hours. Any such power outage at the Canterbury Hill pump station would be quite annoying. It would be disasterous to experience a fire during any period when the pump station was inoperable. One advantage the proposed plan will give for fire suppression purposes that has not been listed - the existing bottleneck of 6" pipe between the pump and the Authority's 12" line would be supplemented by the full use of the 12" truck main. Clearly, all users on this system will derive some benefit by the proposed improvement. But not all of the users will benefit in the same proportion. The prime consideration which-- prompted the improvements ~is that they are essential to the fire-suppression needs at certain congested areas such as the County schools, Old Salem, and Four Seasons. The pump station now in use can supply adequate fire streams for most of the individual dwellings within the service area. There may be a more equitable way of assessing costs than to charge each individual ~dwelling unit a flat fee, regardless of the benefit derived, the volume of water used or the value of the home. The proposed Canterbury - Hessian Hills water sYstem improvement was considered in the ~reparation of the 1977-78 Capital Improvements budget. This item was not in the adopted budget. At that time, the estimated cost was $63,000; $20,000 of which was to be borne by t~he County (revenue sharing) and $43,000 by the ACSA. Today's cost estimate, which excludes the cost of pressure controls, is $29,490. Assuming that the County is willing to shoulder one-third of the cost ($9830) because of the benefits its schools will derive through adequate fire protection, the ACSA's part will be $19,660. The cost of pressure control could be proportioned among the water users and collected by adding a surcharge to the monthly water bill either as a flat sum, or as an increase in rates, until the costs are defrayed. The responsibility for the maintenance and replacement of the individual pressure reduction device could remain with the owner. By recovering the cost of the pressure controls (49,621), the ACSA will set a precedent for dealing with the protection of its renters on high pressure distribution systems." Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Bailey if it was his opinion that the large pressure reducing valve is likely not to work as well for the individual consumer as the individual pressure reducing valve, Mr. Bailey said the single~ valve is more exactly tailored to the individual's need than the larger valve. Based on experience, and theory, the large valve is subject to a greater demand than the individual valve. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the need for the increased water pressure is required by County schools and the Old Salem Apartments. Dr. Iachetta said it will also provide fire flows for Four Seasons. Mr. Thompson said when this system is put into operation, it will provide fire protection for practically all of this area as well as domestic water needs and reliabili~ in times of power failures. Mr. Roudabush asked if with the individual pressure reducing valves, all persons in the area would have the same pressure available, but with the large valve, individual consumers throughout the system would still be subject to variations in pressure. Dr. Iachetta said yes, and some of the variations would be rather severe because of the change in elevations in this part of the County. Mr. Thompson said there is a similar situation in Four Seasons at this time. The Service Authority adjusts the pressure reducing station so the pressure will not blow the pop-off valves in houses on the downhill side of Four Seasons and then there is no water on the third floor of the condominiums on the uphill side. Mr. Lindstrom asked if t'he Cit~y had ever been~ involved in such a decision. Mr. Bailey 198, Dr. Iachetta asked about houses which will be constructed in the future. Mr. Bailey said the BOCA Building Code requires that wherever there is 80 psi or greater pressure, a valve must be installed when the house is built. Mr. Fisher said from the information furnished the Board, he felt the individual valve approach should be explored. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to instruct the staff to draft a report for implementing the individual valve approach giving ways of funding, how the public would be notified and a timetable for implementation of the program. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Henley felt the individual consumer should pay the costs of installation of these valves in their homes. Dr. Iachetta suggested that the costs might be recovered over a period of time by putting an additional charge on water bills. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to appoint Mr. Thomas E. Bruce, Jr., to the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors for a term to expire on April 16, 1983; said appointee to replace Mr. George T. Omohundro. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. At 12:50 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 1:45 P.M. Agenda Item No. 10. Double C Corporation Site Plan Appeal. Mr. Tucker said this site plan was brought to the Board through an appeal filed by the adjoining property owner, Mrs. Anna Crenshaw, who does not feel that the Planning Commission's conditions are sufficient ~ d . relative to drainage, floc and erosion control. Mr Tucker then read the staff's report: Location. On the north side of Rio Road just west of Route 29. Zoning. B-1. Adjacent properties are R-2 and R-3. History: The original site plan for one building was approved December 12, 1974. An amended site plan was approved February 3, 1976, for the remainder of the ~'~ site work including two more buildings. Proposal notes usage of alternate location of office building No. 1. Also shows deletion of drainage pipe on Rio Road, use of railroad ties for curbing, and .~a?i~lpgrking addition for five spaces. Staff comme'nt. There is no problem with the alternate building location. The deIetion Of the frontage pipe is not consistent with Virginia Department of HighWays and Transportation approval or county interests. The railroad ties do not' adequately serve as surface drainage convectors as evidenced by existing erosion. The addi$i~na&lparking spaces do not show adequate drainage facilities. Staff can support only part of this amendment and strongly suggests immediate compliance with other parts of the site plan as previously approved. Recommended Co'~di't'ions Of Approval. 1) Show and install 15-inch drainage pipe along Rio Road as shown on previously approved plans. 2) Show and-replace railroad ties with concrete curbing as noted by the County Engineer. 3) Show culvert pipe and'rip-rap for drainage from new parking stalls as recommended by the County Engineer. 4) Note that all landscaping shall be maintained, and in a healthy condition, and replaced immediately if it should die. Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 30, 1979, gave conditional approval to this site plan subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Bradley F. Peyton, IV, was present to represent Mrs. Crenshaw who owns Greenfield Trailer Court and who_has maintained the private road running between her property and this property, although she is not legally obligated to do so. Mr. Peyton said Mrs. Crenshaw agrees with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, but ~ould like to recom- mend that a condition be added requiring that a supplementary drainage swale be run from the exit road at the bottom of Double C's site over to the north of the site and then to the creek which is on the lowest part of the site. On the west side of the site there is a slope of about ~0% and the railroad ties are not.capable of holding back erosion and this is causing a problem on the road. (Mr. Peyton showed several photographs of the site and the road to the Board.) Mr. Peyton also had a resident of the trailer court [Mrs. Mays) present to explain the condition of the road before and after Double C started construction. Mr. Fisher asked if anyone had looked at the possibility of retaining stormwater on the site. Mr. Roudabush said. Mrs. Crenshaw had called him and he had looked at the problem. He said the situation "on the ground" is worse than the Pictures indicate. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the recently adopted Stormwater Detention Ordinance could be applied in this case. Mr. St. John said it could be applied to this site plan. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, if he had looked at the problem "on the ground". Mr. Williams said yes and there were numerous solutions that could be applied. The railroad ties were not installed to catch or divert the drainage. March 14, 1979 (Regular--Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher felt the landowners involved should be able to voluntarily work out a solution to this problem. He then noted that there was no one present to represent Mr. Carter. Mr. Peyton said he understands that Mr. Steve Amato represented Mr. Carter at the Planning Com- mission meeting and there is a certain amount of antagonism between the parties involved although Mrs. Crenshaw has indicated her willingness to contribute financially to a correction of the problem so she can salvage the road. Mr. Roudabush then suggested that he, Dr. Iachetta and Mr. Williams meet with the two property, owners involved, look at the situation "on the ground", and make some recommendations the Board. Mr. St. John said if this appeal is to be deferred, Mr. Carter should rbe notified that his site plan does not stand approved until some manner is devised toprevent erosion on the site and drainage onto the road. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to defer final action on this appeal and appoint Mr. Roudabush, Mr. Williams and himself to work with the owners on a solution to the problem, and to notify Mr. Carter not to proceed further with work on the site until the Board takes action, and that this appeal be placed on the agenda of April 18th. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Jim Butler: Explanation of Funding Drive for 4-H Camp. Mr. Butler explained that the Extension Service has recently begun a three-year fund raising campaign for the expansion of the Camp Holiday Lake 4-H Education Center and the rebuilding of the main lodge at Camp Albemarle. Camp Albemarle will become a part of the Eastern Central District 4-H camping facilities. (Mr. Butler handed to the Board a brochure explaining the proposed facilities at Holiday Lake.) He said this project has been in the planning stages for several years and quite a bit of research was conducted on the need for these facilities. Mr. Fisher asked if there will be any significant change in the use patterns at Camp Albemarle. Mr. Butler said it will basically remain a camp, but some facilities will be added for year-round usage. Since there has been a long history of vandalism on this property eventually a permanent build%ng will be constructed for a watchman. Recently, a mobile home was given to Camp Albemarle and this will be used until a permanent facility can be constructe~ Holiday Lake will be a year,round facility for youth .and adults. This report was presented as information only. Agenda Item No. 12. Appropriations. Mr. Agnor said the School Board, at its meeting on January 30, 1979, approved a request for an appropriation of $2,070 to replace stereo equipment which was stolen from the band rooms at Jack Jouett Middle School and Albemarle High School. This amount has been receovered from the insurance carrier. He requested a special appropriation in this amount. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $2,070 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Fund and coded to 17K-403, Furniture and Equipment. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Agnor sa~d that two years ago, the County applied for, and received approval of, a grant for radar equipment in the amount of $1795 for the Sheriff's Office. This ~past week the County received $1400 from the Department of Transportation Safety as the Department's share of the purchase. This leaves $395 as the County's matching share. The $1400 has been credited to the General Fund, however, he requested a special appropriation in the total amount of $1795. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, s~·conded by Mr. Dorrier, to-adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $1795 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to 6A-499b, Radar & Teletype Equipment for the Sheriff's Department. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush~ None. Mr. Agnor said that in February, $9,745 was received from the State Department of Conservation and Economic Development as a litter control grant to be dispmrsed by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission. The funds have been placed in the County's General Fund. He requested a special appropriation in the amount of $9,745. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $9,745 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Gener'al Fund for use of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission, and coded as follows: bO ZOO March 14, 1979 (Regular--Day Meeting) Mr. Agnor requested an appropriation in the amount of $4,000 to extend the scope of the energy study authorized by the Board several months ago to cover a PSEC (Public Schools Energy Conservation) analysis of the 16 schools not already studied using this method. The PSEC analysis consists of on-site evaluation to determine a school's energy conservation potential through capital improvements and management. This study will also put the County in line for certain Federal funds to make any improvements recommended by the analysis. Dr. Iachetta said that although this study will be done indirectly by his department at the University, he has no involvement whatsoever as far as funds for the work. Dr. Leroy Fletcher, who is in charge of the program, has contributed his time, so all of the £unds have been used to pay the students working on the study. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, virginia, that $4,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to 3-299, Energy Evaluation-Albemarle Schools and Public Buildings. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Agnor said the School Board has gpproved a Title IV-C adopter grant (Every Child A Winner) for physical education in-service training. Under the terms of the grant, all program costs are 100% reimbursable. He requested an appropriation of $3,310. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adop the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $3,310 be, and the same~hereby is, appropriated from the School Fund for the Title IVC, Every Child A Winner, program and coded as follows: 17-0a Administration: 319 Stationery, Printing, etc. 326 Indirect Costs 50.00 52.OO 17-0bl Regular Day School: 135b Compensation-Substitutes 423.00 17-062 Other Instructional Costs: 220 Travel-Local 185.00 236 In-Service Training 1,500.00 305 Instructional Materials 1,100.00 The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Agnor said that in April, 1972, Virginia Electric and Power Company was authorized to change the existing overhead facilities at Mint Springs Park to underground facilities. Most of the work was done at that time, however, the changes at the entrance were not complete until late in 1978 due to road realignment work by the Highway Department. Now that the work is completed, the County has received a bill in the amount of $8,404 for the work. Since there are not sufficient funds in the current operating budget of the Parks Department to absorb this amount, he requested a special appropriation. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $8,404 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Operating-Capital Outlay Fund and coded to 19.10L2, Underground Electrical Facilities-Mint Springs Park. The foregoing motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Budget Amendment: The Meadows. (Dr. Iachetta said he would abstain from discussion o~ this request because of reasons given about one year ago.) Mr. Agnor said that the original budget and grant for The Meadows (Crozet housing project for the elderly) was $288,280. The Board later transferred $15,000 from the Esmont Health Facility project to this project. He then requested approval of the following amended budget: 68.1 The Meadows Original Amended 102 Engineering/Survey Fees $ -0- $ 4,000 103 Recordation Fees 96 -0- 205 Construction Contracts-Center 97,000 91,280 205.1 Construction-Utilities 30,000 -0- 226 Architectural Fees 16,000 16,000 226.1 Site Preparation and Development 40,280 96,000 226.2 Landscaping -0- 5,000 299 Miscellaneous-Bookkeeping 19,904 1,400 PQQ 1 N~aellaneous-Pro]ect Management -0- 3,600 March 14, 1979 (Regular--Day Meeting) 201 AYES: NAYS: None. Mr. Lindstrom questioned the original amount set out under code 299. Mr. Ray 'Jones, Director of Finance, said the original amount was a bid from an independent accountant. Since the County will be keeping the books on this grant, the new amount is to offset some of the County's costs of administering this grant. Motion was then offered by Mr. RoudabuSh, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve the amended budget in the amount of $303,280. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN:~ Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 7. Proposal for Consultants for Tourism Promotion Study. Mr. Fisher noted that the Board had been furnished a copy of a memorandum from Mr. Cole Hendrix to Mr. Agnor relative to a proposal to hire a consultant to study tourism promotion. This memo was written as a result of discussion held between the Board and City Council at their last joint meeting. This proposal written by the City Manager's Office calls for any consultant wishing to bid on this proposal to develop a promotional theme, to develop a series of four detailed promotional programs, to delineate a tourism promotion organization, to identify the optimal location of a tourism information center, to prepare preliminary promotion material including a dummy brochure, city and area maps and other guides, and to recommend improvements to tourist signs. Each complete proposal would include an overall study concept, a detailed work program, the names and biographic data of all professionals to be involved with the study, and a cost proposal including the amount of direct labor costs based on the man-days per professional, overhead and indirect costs. Dr. Iachetta felt this proposal contemplates a more ambitious program than he would be willing to fund. Mr. Dorrier noted that the proposal leaves out the Town of Scottsville. Mr. Henley said he is not in favor of promoting tourism. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the first question to be resolved is that of funding. Mr. Fisher said this question has been discussed many times in the last three or four years and the question of funding has never been resolved. He personally feels that tourism promotion should be funded by the private sector, however, the private sector feels it should be funded by the public sector. Feeling that there should be some way to reach a compromise, he recently called a meeting with representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and other businesses to see if these people were willing to seek funds so tourism promotion could be undertaken on a 50/50 public/private split. During this meeting he received some assurances that they would seek funds. On this basis, he had agreed to place this item on the agenda for discussion. Mr. Dorrier asked if the County would spend any money obtaining these bids. Mr. Fisher said no, but the people who write the proposals will spend time and money doing so. Mr. Fisher then asked if the Board wanted to proceed with the hiring of a p~ofessional consultant. Mr. Roudabush saw no reason not to request a proposal since some benefit might be derived through a determination of economic benefits to the community. Mr. Dorrier felt tourism promotion would be more beneficial to the City than the County, although there is a feeling of "one community" in the City/County. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to know how much it costs the community to cope with tourists. Also, if the Transient Occupancy Tax was in anyway earmarked for tourism. If the funds will be taken from the County's General Fund, justification should be provided on the basis of the benefit to the whole County. Mr. Lindstr ~m then offered motion to defer any action on this request until more information is available. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. At the request of the Chairman, motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to write letters of appreciation to the members of the Tourism Committee. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 14a. Agenda Item No. 14b. Appointment: Appointments: Industrial Development Authority. Deferred. Jefferson Area Board on Aging. Mr. Henley offered the name of Adelaide J. Spainhour for reappointment to the JABA Board for a term which will expire on March 31, 1981. Mr. Dorrier offered the name of Edgar Paige, Jr. for reappointment to the JABA Board for a term which will expire on March 31, 1981. These motions were seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 14c. Appointment: Sign Commission. Deferred to March 21. Agenda Item No. 14d. Appointment: Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Fisher noted that Mr. Thomas Bruce had been appointed to this Board earlier in the day, but requested authorization to forward a letter of appreciation to Mr. George T. Omohundro who had served on the ACSA Board since its inception. Motion to this effect was offered bY Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. March 14, 1979 (Regular--Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher noted that he had received a letter from JAUNT requesting that a Rural Transportation Advisory Committee be appointed. He does not know anything about the purpose of this Committee, their organization, or terms of members. Mr. Lindstrom said this is the Committee from which Mr. James Skove resigned in December. Dr. Iachetta said he has questions about how the JAUNT program will be supported after June, 1979. Mr. Dorrier suggested that Mrs. Karen Morris, Chairman of the JAUNT Board, be invited to the April meeting to discuss the future of Jaunt. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Mr. Dorrier resigning his appointments on the Welfare Board, Mental Health and Retardation Services Board and the Monticello Area Community Action Board. Agenda Item No. 15. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff and Commonwealth's Attorney for the month of February, 1979, were presented.. Also presented were salary statements for the month of December, 1978 for the Director of Finance and the Sheriff and salary statement for February 1979 for the Commonwealth's Attorney. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, these statements were approved as resented. The motion car~ia~y~/t~e~fo~lo~ing recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Statement of Expenses for the Regional Jail for the month of February 1979 was presented along with salary statement for the month Of December, 1978. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, these statements were approved as presented. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 17. Statement of Expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Regional Jail for the month of February, 1979, along with summary statement of prisoner days and statements of the salaries of the jail physician, paramedics and classification officer, were presented. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley said there is an area outside of the Jail building which is Rn~a~ consideratio for conversion to a minimum security area. It would be the type of facility where one person. could watch 25 to 30 prisoners. The Jail Board hopes to get a grant for part of the work, but fire requirements (such as putting in an exit door and a set of steps) may add considerabl to the cost. Agenda Item No. 18. Report of the County Executive for the month of February, 1979 was presented as 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 February, 1979, were also presented as information: General Fund School Operating Fund Cafeteria Fund School Construction-Capital Outlay Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Federal Revenue Sharing Fund Mental Health Fund Crozet Elderly Housing Escrow Fund Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account Town of Scottsville-l% Local Sales Tax Total g 450,815.49 1,351,655.52 74,166.53 50,080.16 64,899.52 47,764.99 136,722.41 36,735.00 4,215.26 216.85 $2,217,271.73 Agenda Item No. ~19. Report of the Department of Social S~rvices for the month of Januar 1979, was presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52. Agenda Item No. 20. Post Office Lease-General Services Administration. Mr. Agnor said that GSA had been informed that it would cost about $119,394 per year to house the Federal Court in the Post Office Building during renovations. Mr. Ronald M. Brothers, Chief, Field Acquisition Section for GSA, had responded that limitations imposed by the Economy Act of 1932 set the maximum rent the Government can pay for the space at $49,257.60 per year. GSA requested a three-year lease effective June 28, 1978, with partial or whole termination rights exercisable by the Government upon thirty days written notice. GSA will provide their own cleaning and janitorial, services and provide building maintenance and utilities. During renovation of the Post Office, if any part of the Government space is rendered unoccupiable, GSA would deduct the affected square footage and corresponding rental considerations for that space from the beginning of the disruption and make appropriate adjustments to the lease. Mr. Agnor said City Council has taken action to request help from the areas three legislators in finding an equitable solution to this problem. Mr. Fisher suggested that a letter be sent to Senator Byrd, Senator Warner and Congressman Robinson stating that the County joins the City in their position on this question. Since the building is under joint ownership, the ........ ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~+~ ~+~ ~ ~ ~ff~nt was offere~ ~arc~ 14,~1979 (~eg~lar--~a~ ~eet±ng) Agend~ Ztem ~o.~ 21. ~et ~e~r~g ~ate to Ame~ Dog Or~±n&~oe. ~r. Agnor 8&~d that t~e Dog ~ar~e~ ~r. ~erman Dorr±er~ ~as e×pre~sed ~±s need for t~e a~t~or±ty to ±mpo~d ~ 8~specte "killer" dog, and hold the animal or release it to the owner with adequate provisions for securing the dog on the owner's premises, until its disposition can be determined by the Court. The Dog Warden can impound a "vicious" dog (vicious dogs are considered dangerous to human beings) but there is no similar provision for killer dogs (killer dogs are dangerous to livestock and fowl). The Dog Warden can have a warrant or summons issued against an owner of a suspected killer dog, but cannot require its impoundment while awaiting trial. Mr. Agnor said the County Attorney's Office has drafted an amendment to the County Code, the addition of Section 4-9.1, which will give the Dog Warden this authority and if the Board so orders, same will be advertised for a public hearing. Motion to advertise an amendment to the County Code for May 2, 1979, was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 22. Discuss Amendment to Planning Commission Ordinance. Mr. Dorrier said, during work sessions on the budget, he had proposed an amendment to this ordinance to allow the Planning Commission members the same salary as that allowed members of the School Board. The Planning Commission is now meeting at least two times each week while working on revisions to the Zoning Ordinance and carrying out their other duties, and the work loa~. is steadily increasing. Mr. Lindstrom felt the salary of the Planning Commission members should be set at $2,400 per year. Motion to set an amendment to Section 2-4(c) of the County Code on the agenda for May 2 was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 23. Statement to Compensation Board on Salaries. Mr. Agnor said the Board had received a request from Mr. John M. Rasnick, Jr., Executive Secretary, State Compensation Board, dated February 1, 1979, requesting an expression as to the County's policy concerning salary increases in Albemarle County, as well as recommendation in regard to budget requests filed by the County's constitutional officers. He suggested notifying the Compensation Board that salaries for all employees in the County's Pay and Classification Plan will be increased by 6% effective July 1; that funds have been provided in the FY-80 budget for one-third of these employees to receive a 5% merit increase in addition to the pay scale increase on their individual anniversary dates during the year; that the totals of these two increases will not exceed a total payroll adjustment of 7% over FY-79; and that employees in the Finance Department and Sheriff's Department are covered in the County's Pay Plan, while employees in the Commonwealth AttorneyJs Office and the Clerk of the Circuit Court are not included in the Plan. Also,.the County budget was prepared with the understanding that the salaries for the full-time ~ommonwealth's Attorney and staff effective January 1, 1980, will be adjusted by the Board to the levels approved by the Compensation Board. On other expenses, the amount has been matched as nearly as possible to inflationary increases and an effort has been made to keep the total budget requests within the voluntary 7% national guidelines. It should also be noted that the County has no problems with locally funding the requests made to the Compensation Board by any of the departments mentioned. Motion to send a letter to the State Compensation Board setting out the 'above information was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 24. Lottery Permit. Request for. a lottery permit for the calendar year 1979 was received from the Sigma Chi Fraternity for raffles. The proceeds will go to the University of Virginia Burn Unit, Bloomfield School, and other area charities. Motion was offered'by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to issue this lottery permit for 1979 in accordance with the Board's adopted rules for issuance of same. The motion carried by the recorded vote which follows: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 24a. Discussion of Policy on Industrial Development. Mr. Lindstrom presented the following for discussion: WHEREAS, it is the desire and intent of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to maintain the uniquely stable and healthy economy of the County, and WHEREAS, it is the desire and intention of the Board that the employment needs of the residents of the County be identified and met, and WHEREAS, on October 19, 1977 the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, pursuant to the requirement of Virginia Code Section 15.1-454, adopted a revised Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, it is the desire and intent of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to encourage industrial expansion in a manner consistent with the recommendations of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan and the interests of the residents of Albemarle County, and with a respect for the County's unique character and quality of life, and ~March 14, 1979 (Regular--Day Meeting) WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan sets forth certain goals and objectives, among them being the preservation of the existing quality of life and rural characteristics of the County, and provision for the expansion of existing industry and the location of new industry in such a manner as to 1) provide jobs for residents entering the labor force, 2) maint.ain a balanced employment mix, and 3) avoid stimulating rapid population growth, and WHEREAS, the rate of industrial expansion and the location of industrial sites will significantly affect both the rate and patterns of population growth, and the Comprehensive Plan, recognizing these facts, calls for the controlled phasing of industrial rezoning and the preliminary identification of suitable industrial sites throughout the County in aocordance with established criteria, NOW, THEREFORE, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby adopt the following policy for Industrial Development: 1. The Board shall direct its appointees, agents and employees to determine actual levels of unemployment among County residents and to identify the types of employment that would meet the needs of those unemployed. 2. The Board shall develop and maintain a map of the County identifying those areas which meet the criteria and recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, both in terms of characteristics, and aggregate acreages, for potential industrial sites. 3. The Board shall, without affecting existing zoning, take appropriate measures consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to protect areas identified as potential industrial sites from both sUrrounding and internal development inconsistent with that potential. 4. The Board shall direct its appointees, agents and employees who may be involved in discussion with prospective industrial citizens of the area, to emphasize only those sites identified for potential industrial use. 5. It shall be a policy of the Board to facilitate the appropriate industrial development of land identified for industrial use at a rate consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Speculative rezoning to industrial use shall be discouraged. 6. The Board shall direct its appointees, agents, and employees to make available such information about Albemarle County as may be helpful to industrial prospects seeking such information. In addition, such appointees, agents, and employees shall actively solicit the location of desirable industry in Albemarle County when necessary to meet local employment requirements determined pursuant to Paragraph 1. The Board of Supervisors recognizes that industrial development must serve the interests of the County population as a whole. It is the belief of the Board that it is inappropriate for it as governing body of the County to actively encourage or discourage industrial development, but that such activity should be carried on by the various agencies, public and private, charged with such responsibility. Finally, it is the desire and intent of the Board to provide for such industrial growth as is necessary to provide meaningful and rewarding Jobs for the residents of the County and to do so in a manner that will maintain the quality of life that is unique to Albemarle County. Mr. Lindstrom said everything in his proposed poIicy is keyed to the Comprehensive Plan. He feels the Board has an obligation to determine the employment needs of the COunty in terms of number and types of jobs needed and further to actively seek to meet those needs. There is also the obligation to do this consistent w~th growth envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. His first concern is to identify those areas which meet the criteria set Out in the Comprehensive Plan for industrial development~ This information should then be made available on a map for the people who will be dealing with industrial prospects. He feels the Board needs to be careful when granting rezoning requests for~-industrial properties, so as not to rezone properties when there is no immediate prospect for use of that property. Mr. Lindstrom said he specifically did not specify "economic development" in this policy because he did not want to tie the County into supporting same. He does not think an agressive industrial development policy is merited in the County. Mr. Dorrier felt the Board should encourage the types of industry wanted in the County. Industrial sites should be identified, although not particularly rezoned. The Board should issue directives to the Economic Development Commission, thus making for better communications between the two bodies. Mr. Dorrier said he was not suggesting that the individual members of the Board meet with industrial prospects, but if a new industry were going to locate in the Scottsville District, he would like to know about it before the information ~as dis- seminated to the news media. Dr. Iachetta said the Board only has partial control over what type of industry comes into the County because there is already a substantial amount of land zoned for M-1 and B-1 uses. He feels it is necessary to implement the part of the Comprehensive Plan that suggests phasing and not encourage anyone to try and create unneeded new zoning. One way might be to encourage an owner to proffer zoning which would revert back to its original zoning category if not used within a certain time. March 14, 1979 (Regular--Day Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom said he did not mention 'in his proposed policy anything about land that is already zoned for industrial uses because he feels that will_be a part of the new zoning ordinance and map. Mr. Roudabush felt numbered Paragraph 3 was appropriate. He said the day of relegating industrial uses to flood plains and undesirable sites is a thing of the past. He feels the County will run out of industrial sites before it runs out of residential sites. If the good industrial sites are used for residential development, there may come a time when residential development may have to be torn down for industrial sites. He felt some way should be determined at this time to preserve the best industrial sites. Mr. Henley said if he could start from scratch, he would not zone any sites for industria] uses, but would consider zoning requests as they came before the Board. During his years on the Board, he feels that no sites already zoned industrial have been chosen for use, but all industrial uses have needed a rezoning for that purpose. Mr. Henley said he feels that when a site is zoned industrial, the County is guaranteeing that that site can be used for an intensive use. He does not believe the Board knows what type of property most businesses and industries need. Dr. Iachetta said this policy should serve as a guide to County members of the Economic Development Commission so they do not show sites which are not recommended for industrial uses. The County can influence industrial uses though extension of utilities and through the County's use of State Highway funds for access roads. Mr. Dorrier felt that Route 20 has a lot to do with the lack of growth in the southern part of the County. Mr. Lindstrom said the County needs some way to fulfill the employment needs of those graduating from local schools who want to stay in the area, plus the needs of the underemploye~ Mr. Fisher felt that numbered paragraph 1 is crucial. The levels and kinds of unemploymel should be identified so that an industry to meet specific needs would be actively solicited. Dr. Iachetta suggested that the Vocational Technical Center and Piedmont College could be used to help upgrade skills when an industry is about to locate in the County. This has been done successfully in other communities. Because of the lateness of the hour, Mr. Fisher suggested that a work session be set for March 21 at 1:30 P.M. on this policy. The other Board members concurred. Agenda Item No. 25. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher referred to the following letter: "March 9, 1979 Board of Supervisors Albemarle County County Office Building Charlottesville, VA 22901 Gent lemen: I am replying to your letter of February 21, 1979, and the Resolution adopte~ on February 16, 1979, regarding financing of housing on private roads. The action you requested is not under the authority of this office; therefore, your correspondence has been forwarded to the Farmers Home Administration National Office for consideration. When a determination is made on your request, we shall inform you. In the meantime, we will require that housing be located on publicly maintained roads except as authorized by present instructions. (The exception applies only to housing located on private driveways that serve not more than two lots.) Sino~, (Signed) E. A. Ragland State Director" Mr. Fisher said he and Mr. Dorrier had attended the National Association of Counties Legislative Conference from March 11 through the 13th. A number of Congressmen and Senators gave their views on constitutional conventions, welfare reform and~a balanced national budget. Revenue Sharing funds may be cut, or there may be significant reductions in programs, if the states require Congress to balance the budget. Mr. Dorrier said House Minority Leader John Rhoades spoke in favor of Revenue Sharing and felt that enough pressure will build so that Congress will enact another Revenue Sharing bill at the termination date of the present bill. Mr. Fisher said the Agricultural Lands Bill will be reintroduced in both the House and the Senate. There was a Senator at this meeting who is a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee who threatened to kill the appropriation bill for Payments-In-Lieu of taxes, if NACO supports the Alaskans in their position on the Alaskan Public Lands bill. Mr. Dorrier said he had talked with the head of the Rural Development Committee about building FHA financed housing on public roads. This gentlemen said FHA had repealed their requirement to build on public roads and suggested that Mr. Dorrier talk with Mr. Gordon Cavanaugh, Administrator, Farmers Home Administration. March 14, 1979 (Regular--Day Meeting) Dr. Iachetta said he had received a letter from Mr. John Hanna, State Highway Safety Commission, about the number of accidents in Albemarle County during the 1978 calendar year; particularly noting the number of single car accident'S. Dr. Michael Demetsky, a member of the County Highway Safety Commission, is working with a former insurance investigator to see if there is any educational program that can be used in the schools to help with this proble~ Mr. Agnor noted receipt of the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund and Anti-Recession Fiscal Assistance Fund~Audit for the year ended June 30, 1978. Mr. Agnor said that Mr. J. Benjamin Dick, Zoning Administrator, will be on vacation for two weeks and the County Attorney's Office has recommended that an acting zoning administrate be appointed for that period of time; March 15 through March 27. He recommended that Mr. Andy Evans be appointed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to appoint Mr. Andy Evans as Acting Zoning Administrator for the period March 15 through March 27. The ~motion carried by the following recorded vote: Mess~s. Dor~rier, F±sher, Henley, 'Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. Non~. AYES: NAYS: Mr. Agnor said that during work sessions on the FY80 budget, Mr. Robert Tucker, Directo~ of Planning, had:~equested one additional staff position, that of a planner. Mr. Tucker is now asking~lthat.~.'b~ grante~ this additional person on April ! instead of July 1. Mr. Agno~ said the fmnds needed for this additional position will be ascertained after quarterly revie~ of the Dep&~rtment~s~bu~get. MOtion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. RouRabush, to approve f~nding for one~addi~iona% planning staff member beginning April 1, 1979. The motion carri~d by h~he~r~ll'oWing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs~.~Dorrier, FiSher, HenD~, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: N~ne. Agenda~..!tem~?!No. ~6~ A~t5:10 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by'Dr. Iachetta, to~adj~ourn thi~ meeting to March 15, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. ~e-'motion ~carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Dorri~r, F%,~e~, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. 6%~airman ~ AYES: NAYS: