Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-02-16February 16, 1979 (Afternmon Meeting--Adjourned from February 14, 1979) ~ A~adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 16, 1979, at 1:00 P.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from February 14, 1979. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (Arrived at 1:25 P.M.), Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta (Arrived at 1:10 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. $. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: St. John. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 1:08 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Mr~ Fisher said correspondence from the Census Division states that sufficient time will be allowed the County for making comments on the 1980 census between publication of preliminary census figures and the finalization of same. Mr~ Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated February 9, 1979 from the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Approximately two hundred miles of the Appalachian Trail runs along business highways and secondary roads and there has been consider~ encroachment upon the trail by developers and hard-surface roads. In 1978, Congress passed a bill amending the 1968 National Trails System Act, requiring the Secretary of the Interior to enhance and protect the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. Therefore, the purpose of the letter is to inform localities that the National Park Service is coordinating a protection program where the Trail now runs across private land or on roads. Agenda Item No. 2. FHA Resolution to Relax Restrictions on Private Roads. U ~ Mr. Agnor said the Planning Commission requested the Planning staff to discuss with FmHA amendment of their regulations requiring that FmHA financed housing have frontage on publicly maintained roads. After some study, the staff requests that the following resolution be adopted: WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County is advised that the United States Department of Agriculture Farmers Home Administration is a valuable source of financing for low and moderate cost housing in Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County is advised further that regulations of the said Administration require that each lot financed by it have frontage on a road maintained by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; and WHEREAS, in practice the said requirement of the Administration has a tendency to encourage the creation of oddly shaped lots and stripped development of existing public roads, both of which are inconsistent with the County's planning objectives and are, in some cases, contrary to the letter of existing County land use law; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors believe that the provision of low and moderate cost housing and of good land use planning are both goals toward which the County should strive and are mutually consistent; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors believe that both of these goals may more effectively be achieved through the division of land utilizing the private roads provisions of the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance without in any material way adversely effecting the interest of the Administration; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the United States Department of Agriculture, Farmers Home Administration, be memorialized that the Board requests the Administration to consider the amendment of its regulations to permit financing of development on lots served by private roads which are developed in accordance with the private roads provisions of the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board be, and she hereby is, ordered to forward copies hereof to the Administrator of the said Administration and to the local office thereof. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the foregoing resolution. seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Roudabus? AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier. Mr. Roudabush suggested that copies of the above resolution be sent to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission for distribution to other localities in the Planning District. Agenda Item No. 3. Clarification of Grant--HUD: Procedure for selection of sites. Mr. Agnor said an application to HUD for a grant in the amount of $120,000 was approved by the Board on May 10, 1978. (See Minute Book 16, pages 245, 246.) This application was for the acquisition of three subdivisions with five or six lots each for low to moderate February 16, 1979 (~fternoon Meeting--Adjourned from February 14, development and is proposed in areas of the County having a large number of families in need of housing. The application was approved and HUD is now ready to disburse funds. Mr. Agnor noted that when the program was presented to the Board there had been no determination of where the subdivisions would be located. Since that time, Mr. Russell Otis, Housing Coordinato , has discussed site selection with the Planning Department and recommends the following three sites': 1. North Garden - This village is first choice because of its proximity to employ~ment opportunities available in the city. Further, there are shopPing and postal facilities in the vil~itself. ~ 2. Crozet - As the largest or'the counties' villages this is a favored location because of the employment opportunities and services available. 3. Scottsville - The availability of public water, employment and other services make Scottsville an attractive location for self-help housing. Mr. Agnor said these projects would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which encourages growth in these areas. Mr. Otis recommends the village committees who worked on ~ the Comprehensive/~a~sked for advice on these sites. Public meetings in the villages to hear opinions on the projects are also propbsed. If the concept is favorable, then final approval of the locations will be requested of the Board. Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to approve the above three sites for the self-help mini-subdivisions. Dr. Iachetta seconded themotiOn and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 4. Fire Service Contract. Mr. Agnor said the following agreement is the latest draft of several efforts for a ~osed contract with the City for fire protection services. He recommended the agreement approved and forwarded to the City for their concurrence. THIS AGREEMENT made this litthday of APril, 1979, by and between the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, hereinafter called "City" and the COUNTY of ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, hereinafter called "County" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, for several years the County has annually provided funds to the City as part of the City operating budget, in sufficient amount and for the purpose of equipping and manning the equivalent of one fire company of mutually agreed upon strength and equipment; and WHEREAS, the above described fire company is logistically supported by the City from the funds provided by the County; and WHEREAS, the principal purpose for the establishment and existence of the ~id fire company is to provide fire protection for the County, and in particular the urban area of the County;~ although this fire company is available for suppression of any fires in the City, the County, or central Virginia, as the occasion may require; and WHEREAS, there has been heretofore no written memorandum between the City and the County reflecting the obligations~ rights and benefits of the two parties with respect to this fire company; and WHEREAS, the two parties hereto now mutually wish to memorialize their respective rights and obligations as to the said fire company, and further, their intent to study the feasibility of alternative methods for providing unified fire protection service to the City on the one hand and all or part of the County on the other hand; report to be completed by July l, 1979. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the County hereby agree as follows: (1) The City has included in its budget for fiscal year 1978-79 the sum of $197,764, as the County's share of the cost of manning, equipping and housing the Company within the City fire department. Such budgeted amount has been reviewed and approved by the County, through its budget process, and such sum has been appropriated by the Board of Supervisors of the County. (2) The County agrees to make quarterly payments to the City of such appropriated sum, payable on July 1st, October 1st, January 1st and April 1st in the amount of 25% of the appropriated sum, for the services to be rendered by the City hereunder during the ensuing quarter. (3) The City agrees to furnish to the County the services of a fire company, as herein described, to supplement such services with other City firefighting personnel and equipment as circumstances require, and to provide unified central radio dispatching service for all area fire departments and companies, including County volunteer fire companies and the Scottsville Volunteer Fire Company. The _company shall remain at all times under the logistic and administrative control of the City Fire Department. (4) All personnel employed pursuant to this agreement shall continue to be considered as City employees for all purposes, including but not limited to pay and classification, personnel regulations, retirement benefits and grievance procedures. (5) The County agrees to reimburse the City for the cost of insurance premiums incurred in protecting the City from all liabilities and claims for damages to persons or property ~asserted against the City as a result of the performance of services under this contract. (6) The City and the County will jointly study alternative methods for the long range provision of fire protection service~ within the two jurisdictions on a shared basis on such terms as may be determined by both jurisdictions to be mutually advantageous. (Ta) On or before December 15th, in each fiscal year for which this agreement remains in force, the City shall submit a budget to the County for the continuance of existing services for an additional year, as well as for any additional services or levels of service which the County may have requested. rSuch budget shall include, in addition to the direct expenses to be incurred by-the City to provide such services, reasonable allocations of indirect costs · for administrative, legal and accounting services attributable to the provision of such services. (b) The component of such budget attributable to personnel costs shall be based upon the salary recommendations to be used in preparation of the City's budget, and such figures shall be subject to adjustment to reflect the salary levels finally approved by City Council for City Fire Department personnel for the relevant fiscal year. (c) Such budget shall be subject to review through the County's normal budget procedures, and to final approval for funding by the County Board of Supervisors; provided that should the Board appropriate more or less than the proposed amounT, the City shall advise the Board of the resultant changes in levels of service, manning or other reductions occasioned by such changes in funding. (8) This agreement shall remain in force from year to year unless terminated by either party. In the event either party desires to terminate such agreement at"the end of any fiscal year, it shall so advise the other party not later than 30 days after the beginning of such fiscal year. Such notice shall be given in writing mailed by certified mail to the City Manager in the case of the City or to the County Executive in the case of the County. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve the wording of the foregoing agreement with same being forwarded to the City for their concurrence; agreement to be returned at a later date for authorization for signature. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. DOrrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 5. Special Appropriations. Mr'. Agnor said the proposed development cost for the Ivy Creek Natural Area Project is estimated to be $60,000, with the County's share being $30.000. In order to move forward with the development, an appropriation of $30,000 from the General Fund is needed. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolu.tion: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $30,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to 19W.1-600.1, Ivy Creek Natural Area Project. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Agnor said the insurance settlement for the fire at Rose Hill Elementary School has been received in the amount of $19,381.72 and credited to the School Operating Fund. The repairs have been made and an appropriation to code 17F2-215c is requested. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the BOard of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $19,381.72 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Operating Fund and coded to 17F2-215c, Repair and Replacement-Equipment. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Agnor said request has been received from the School Board to computerize school bus routes. The School Board has discussed this with officials of the University of Virginia and they propose to do the work for $7,500. Federal funding is also being sought for this study. Therefore, the request is for an appropriation in the amount of $7,500 with the understanding that federal funds will be used to offset the County's cost if same can be secured. Mr. Fisher said he would abstain since it is unknown who at the University will conduct the study. Dr. Iachetta said since it is from the Department of Civil Engineering and he is not involved with the faculty of same, he will not abstain. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution: 164 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $7,500 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to 17A-326.1, School Bus Routing Study. Mr. Dorrier seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 6a. Appointments: Sign Commission. Mr. Fisher said letter has been received from Mr. Mike Gleason, Chairman of the Albemarl~ County Sign Advisory Commission, advising that Mrs. Barbara Yalden-Thompson has resigned as a representative of the League of Women Voters. The League wishes to appoint Mrs. Harriet Mohler as its new representative. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to appoint Mrs. Harriet Mohler to the Albemarle County Sign Advisory Commission; said appointment to replace Mrs. Barbara Yalden-Thompson. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. AYES: NAYS: Mr. Fisher said the letter also advised that Mr. George McBride, representative of the U.S. 29 North-area homeowners, has resigned. Dr. Iachetta said he would nominate someone at a later date. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Gleason desires to resign as Chairman of the Commission but to remain as a voting member. The Sign Advisory Commission on January 17, 1979, voted to request Board approval of Mr. William S. Edwards, Sr., as their Chairman. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to appoint Mr. 'William S. Edwards, Sr., as Chairman of the Albemarle County Sign Advisory Commission; said appointment to replace Mr. Mike Gleason. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AY~: CMessrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. No nominations Agenda Item No. 6b. Appointment: Industrial Development Authority. were received for this appointment and this matter was deferred. Agenda Item No. 7. Receipt of Audit for County Clerk and Clerk of the Circuit Court for calendar year 1977 was presented as information. Agenda Item No. 9. Dog Claim. Claim was received from Mrs. Bertha D. Omohundro for thirteen chickens killed on December 22, 1978 and seven chickens killed on February 6, 1979. Upon motion by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, Mrs. Omohundro was allowed $40.00 for this claim. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Dorrier Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 10. Review of Progress on Zoning Ordinance. AYES: NAYS: Mr. Fisher presented the following letter received from Colonel William R. Washington, Chairman of the Albemarle County Planning Commission: "February 13, 1979 Subject: Proposed Zoning Ordinance In reviewing the KDA draft zoning Ordinance, the Commission has found its organization to add to its complexity, and we feel that a complete reorganization of the format of the document is warranted. Further, our suggested changes in text already have been of a scope that is sufficient to make it impractical to follow readily by addendum or corrective sheets. We realize that the Board has not requested that the staff and Commission prepare a complete new draft. Also, we are aware that to do so will cause an initial delay of several weeks in providing to the Board and to the public the Commission's recommended changes to the ordinance. Nevertheless, the final result may not be overall delay, but instead be the quickest way to arrive at a document that is understandable and possibly-acceptable to the Board and to the public. Alternatively, the Commission can forward to the Board, by early March, general comments on the KDA draft, leaving to some indefinite date the formulation of detailed recommended revisions, and the determination of the method for their inclusion into the ordinance." Mr. Fisher noted his approval of the reorganization of the format of the revised Zoning Ordinance with the hopes that same could~be accomplished as soon as possible. He also requested appreciation be conveyed to the Planning Commission for their efforts on the .... ~^~ ~ ,~ ~m~ ~a~ w~ th~n ~ff~r~ bv Dr. Iachetta to encourage the reor~aniza~ ion F~ r~ar 16 1 ~fternoon Meetin_ _ --Ad~ournedo~u~0~mfrom ~[eorua~.-Februar ~?_~~_~___IL 1 ........... Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion of Collection of Delinquent Taxes. discussed later in the meeting. This item is to be Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Economic Development Commission. Mr. Fisher said this discussion came about as a result of a letter he had written to the Economic Development Commission on November 16, 1978, requesting the budget and work program of the Commission for the current fiscal year. "Mr. Bruce Rasmussen, Vice Chairman of the Economic Development Commission, was present. He said the Commission recently underwent a reorganization and on October 5, 1977 the following purpose statement was added: "The primary purpose of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Economic Development Commission is to encourage and assist those industrial, business, professional, and commercial developments which would have a beneficial effect on the City and County· s The Commission should assemble pertinent information relative to available sites, labor supply, utilities, tax rates, educational, social, religious activities, and any other matters which may be of concern and interest to such industries and businesses. Commission members should be available for consultation with representatives from such industries and businesses, arranging tours, interviews and assistance .... as may be required. Commission members should consider it their duty to become familiar with the zoning laws and master plans of both the City and the County, and the planning program of the University of Virginia." The Commission members felt that a more active and productive role in the economic development of the area was needed. Therefore, the following work program for 1979 was developed: "1. Continue to provide assistance and information to.prospects interested in locating or expanding in the Charlottesville and Albemarle County area. 2. Undertake to review and prepare summary of present and proposed comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances of local jurisdictions as they relate to present and future economic development. ~:3. Undertake to review present and proposed zoning maps to determine acreage presently zoned for industrial use and actual suitability of such sites. 4. Attempt to locate and compile previous studies or computer models of the overall costs versus the benefits of economic development on local jurisdictionS. 5. Encourage better communications'between Commission and local governing bodies in an attempt to contribute expertise of Commission and assist those bodies in their decisions affecting economic development." Also, the following work program committees were developed for 1979: "1. Prospects Committee--Assist prospects interested in locating or expanding in area by being knowledgeable in background data on community and being available to tour area with prospects. Mr. Rasmussen said this is valuable and should be independent of the City, County and Chamber of Commerce. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Committee--Review Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plans and summarize references to present and future of economic development. Zoning Map Committee--Work with local planning departments to catalogue sites presently zoned for industrial use and determine suitability. Cost Benefit Study Committee--Work with University of Virginia and Virginia Division of Industrial Development to locate and compile previous studies on the overall impact of economic development on various localities. Environmental Impact Committee--Develop sources of expertise and evaluate potential environmental impact of proposed industrial or commercial development on Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Liasion Committee--Work with Board of Supervisors and City Council to improve communications, develop economic development goals of jurisdictions and desired role of Charlottesville & Albemarle County Economic Development Commission." Mr. Rasmussen said, hopefully, with these committees, each member on the Commission can become actively involved. At the monthly meetings of the Commission, any prospects which have contacted the community will be brought before the entire Commission and whatever facts are known will be conveyed to the members. By doing this, each member will become aware of prospects and can express their feelings· Mr. Rasmussen said the Commission hopes three basic goals can be achieved today: 1) Future discussions and better communications than have been in the past· 2) Approval of the program of work for the upcoming year and committe~ structure. ~) The Board will consider, and ~t February 16, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from February 14, 1979) regarding the Board's policy on economic development and provide guidance and assistance to the Commission. It was recently brought to the Board's attention through the news media that R. H. Donnelly Company had investigated a possibility of locating in Albemarle County but had chosen the Harrisonburg area instead. The~news media feels Harrisonburg was chosen because of a lack of enthusiasm by local officials for industrial facilities in the County. This has resulted in an air of adversity. Mr. Lindstrom said this discussion today would have been helpful before the recent publicity. Although, he had personal feelings about the allegations, he felt it was time for the Board to make a decision about continuing the Commission or dissolving same. Dr. iachetta felt the group should take heed to the Comprehensive Plan since it is a document for groWth. He discussed the recent industrial prospect by noting his being invited to attend a meeting and react to a rezoning request before it was filed'for a public hearing before the Board. Mr. Dorrier felt the major problem was that much land zoned in the County is'unsuitable for industry and the Board needed to examine same. He agreed that a policy statement needed to be adopted. Mr. Fisher felt enough suitable land was zoned for light industry. The major problem for a new industrial prospect is the low unemployment rate and the lack of highly skilled people in the County. Mr. Fisher felt the comments the industrial prospect received were from the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Bernard Haggerty, member of the Economic Development Commission, was present. He noted that the main problem when a prospect comes to Charlottesville is that they go to the Chamber for information which is incomplete. Mr. Roudabush who represents the Board on the Economic Development Commission, was aware of the prospect, in confidence, but was never asked to communicate anything about the prospect to the Board. He felt the only way to implement economic growth is to adopt some policy to help implement the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. He agreed that a lot of land zoned for industry in the County is not suited to that use. Mr. Roudabush said most prospects he talked with had flexible criteria and the Economic Development Commissicn needed to make decisions on which properties were suitable for industrial prospects. Mr. Alton Garrett, County representative on the Commission, was present. He expressed his concern about the Board's attitude and noted if he were a prospect in the area, he would have second thoughts. Mr. Fisher said the series of articles in the Daily Progress had done more to discourage industrial development in the community than anything the Board had ever done. Mr. Louie Scribner, Chairman of the Economic Development Commission, said the Commission looks to the County for support, direction and cooperation. Dr. Iachetta asked if the needs and desires of the County are different from the City with respect to economic development. Mr. Scribner felt they were the same. Discussion then followed on the fact that the City had established a separate economic development group. Mr. Rasmussen said the city looks more for commercial prospects because they do not have the acreage needed for industry. Although Mr. Fisher was impressed with the presentation he questioned whether or not the County should have its own Economic Development group which would be familiar with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, zoning map and available lands. Mr. Lindstrom felt there were three questions that needed to be resolved before any official response could be made. They are: 1) Whether the County should have its own Econom Development Commission. 2) Whether the Chamber of Commerce should be involved to the extent that it is. 3) Whether the City should be included. After making these determinations, the goals of the Commission should be established. He felt a commission was needed to represent the interests of the County and a development policy established. Mr. Charles Smith, President of the Chamber of Commerce, was present. were needed and noted that the Commission was ready to go to work. He felt guidelines Speaking next was Mr. Roy Patterson, a County representative, on the Commission. He noted that he was not aware of the Donnelly Company's interest in locating in the County until after the decision had been made to move to Harrisonburg. He felt the adversity relationship that has been discussed in today's meeting was created by publicity and certain members of the Chamber and perhaps a few of the Commission. He did not share the feelings some members have expressed about the Board's hostility toward industry. Mrs. Betty Scott, Commission member, spoke next. She felt the City established a separate commission because a larger group of people dedicated to the immediate problem were needed. The City has more problems with economic development but she felt it would be wrong to separate the two localities. Mr. Bernard Haggerty said in talking with Mr. Hendrix, City Manager, and Mr. Scribner, he was convinced that a joint commission is important for prospects since the County and City are so close and share the same cultural resources, transportation, etc. However, the city has a real need for an increased tax base and he felt that was the purpose of establishin the City Economic Development Commission. Dr. Iachetta said the discussion has not indicated that the County should develop an Economic Development Commission of its own. He felt a positive plan for the Commission was needed. Dr. Iachetta also felt it would be helpful if sites could be identified. He said the Commission needs to be a group of citizens from the City and County that can communicate with the prospects without involving the Board. .~ Mr. Henley felt the Daily Progress should share the guilt for the tension which has arisen from the recent prospective industry. Mr. Fisher said any member with knowledge of a prospect should notify every County appointee on the Economic Development Commission in order to resolve the communication problems which have existed. He favored the reorganization and format presented today. I'8 7 Mr. Fisher then suggested that two members of the Board draft a policy statement on economic development and bring same back to the Board for discussion. Mr. Henley felt the entire Board should be involved in the drafting. With no further discussion, Mr. Fisher thanked the Commission for the presentation made today. ~ .... ~ _~ ...... . ............. ~ The Board recessed at 3:45 P.M. and reconvened at 3:55 P.M. Agenda Item No. 12. Review of Lane Building (County Office Building) Drawings. Mr. Fisher said the purpose of this review is to present for comments what is contained within the Lane Building and the general land use. Mr. Agnor said the architect is ready to proceed specifically with the mechanical system. Mr. Agnor said he has received a cost estimated for the preliminary stage and after reviewing, will present same to the Board. Mr. Byron Sample, Architect, was present and presented the site plans for Phase I and II as well as Phase II of the lower parking lot. He noted that the plans will go to the City Planning Commission for their review on March 14, 1979. Mr. Lindstrom expressed his concern if the Planning Department had sufficient space for expansion. Mr. Agnor said the Planning Director has said it is sufficient but they will reexamine it with him. Dr. Iachetta asked when the project would go to bid. Mr. Sample said it should be ready by the end of the summer. Mr. Sample suggested the Board take a walking tour of the building and then decide how they felt about the plans. Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion of Collection of Delinquent Taxes. Mr. Fisher said it has been requested that this matter be discussed in executive session since it deals with personnel. At 4:37 P.M., Mr. Roudabush offered motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal and personnel matters. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened at 5:15 P.M. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to adjourn to February 21, 1979 at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. C~IRMAN February 21, 1979 IAfternoon-Adjourned from February 16, 1979) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 21, 1979, beginning at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from February 16, 1979. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arriving at 1:53 P.M.S and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officer present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:36 P.M. byyMr. Fisher who said he had attended an emergency meeting of the Virginia Association of Counties Executive Board in RichmOnd on Monday to discuss annexation bills now before the Gen~al Assembly. It is likely that Governor Dalton will sign the annexation package of bills if House Bill 603 is either deleted or substantially changed. (House Bill 603 is special legislation f6r the City of Richmond.) Mr. Fisher said if these bills are signed into law, Albemarle County will be faced again with annexation; the earliest datebbeing July 1, 1980. Partial immunity measures and the prefiling of suites before a non-judicial body are improvements to the law, but there are some measures which are worse. As the pending legislation now reads, a City would be allowed to amend any annexation ordinance at any time it is before the cou~t. Mr. Fis said he is pessimistic about the future. Although the present City Council has said they are not interested in annexation at this time, he feels the County will be faced with an annexatJ suit at some time in the future. Mr. Dorrier agreed partially with some of Mr. Fisher's comments, but said he had talked to one member of City Council who feels that if the City can broaden its financial base within the present City limits, there will be no fiscal reason to annex in the foreseeable future. Also, if the County can provide services in the urban ring, Mr. Dorrier said he feels the County can forestall any annexation attempt by the City. Dr. Iachetta said he has always felt that annexation is legalized stealing of one localit tax base by another jurisdiction. The whole concept is wrong and he will fight any annexation attempt by the City. From what he understands of the new legislation, providing services in the urban ring will not be a defense against annexation. This fact raises a serious planning problem for the County and changes priorities t~emendously. Mr. Roudabush said it is the same old game with a new set of rules.