Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-10-08NOctober 3, 1979 (Regular--Night Meeting) designated as an RPN or rezoned. Mr. Roudab~sh said when the Planning Commission looks at this plan under the RPN concept, then the shape of each lot assigned to each unit will be taken into account. Roll was then called on the motion motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Lindstrom felt better guidance than the Board presently has is needed; if not an ordinance perhaps some policy and he expressed his desire that Mr. Agnor and Mr. Tucker consider such in the next few months. Dr. Iachetta felt the policy route was the way to go and Mr. Roudabush felt the RPN concept was better. Agenda Item No. 8. presented. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. There were no other matters Agenda Item No. 9. At 10:27 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adjourn to October 8, 1979, at 5:30 P.M. at the Sheraton Inn. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: iNAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. October 8, 1979 (Adjourned--Night Meeting) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 8, 1979 at 5:30 P.M., at the Sheraton Inn, Route 250 EaSt, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from October 3, 1979. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; and George R. St. John, County Attorney. CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Nancy O'Brien and Messrs. Laurence A. Brunton, Edwin Gatewood, Francis Buck and Thomas Albro. CITY OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Cole Hendrix, Robert Stripling, Roger Wiley, William Mitchell and Sidney Rush. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:10 P.M., immediately after dinner, by Board Chairman, Gerald Fisher, who announced that after reviewing the agenda for tonight, he and Mayor Brunton have decided that agenda item #6 (Joint Parks & Recreation Operation) will also be discussed in executive session. Agenda Item No. 2. Economic Development Commission. Mr. Fisher gave a brief history of discussions regarding a joint economic development commission. Mr. Fisher said if the City does not think it is feasible to join with the County in such a venture, the County will most likely create an economic development commission on their own. Mayor Laurence Brunton said theCity already has an Economic Development Group working and the Chamber of Commerce is establishing a separate economic development group. Mrs. O'Brien and Messrs. Gatewood and Albro all felt the commission should be an active organization which solicits business to come to the area, and that the local governing bodies should be involved in that solicitation. Mr. Fisher said that is not the Board's general view of such an organ- ization.~ is his opinion that the Board should be more passive, not aggressively seek business to the area, but only give interested organizations information about the area. Mr. Roudabush said he did not feel a government official could make an unbiased decision on a rezoning request if that official had worked to recruit the business requesting the rezoning. Mr. Lindstrom and Dr. Iachetta said they agreed with Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Dorrier said he would like to see a joint commission, but with government officials in a passive rOle. Mr. Buck said with the obvious difference in opinions between the City and County as to the role of the government official in such a commission, if the County and Cityww~e to go into a joint commission, it would be sure to flounder. Mr. Henley said he felt the County should do away with the idea of an economic development commission completely, as he felt development of this type would "take care of itself" Mr. Fisher summarized the discussion by saying there seemed to be too many philosophical differences between the City Council and the County Board to establish a joint economic development commission at this time. Agenda Item No. 3. Mclntire/Rio ROad Extension. Mr. Fisher said the County is interested in proceeding with the project as fast as it can be achieved. The County is prepared to spend $4 Million plus to renovate the Lane building. When the building was purchased the County agreed to dedicate right of way to the State Highway Department for the widening of McIntire Road into a four lane highway so all the damage would take place on the County's side and none occur to the private properties on the other side. Mayor Brunton said this is the number one road priority in the City. The County will hold a work session on the design of the road so when the public hearing is held next year, the design will fit the needs of the City. Dr. Iachetta said the CATS Study that this roadway is the only alternative to the present traffic problems in the Route 29 North areaand on Rio Road. Mr. Fisher said the road will be four-lane, divided, with limited access. He hopes it will have a grass median strip. The County will also consider a bicycle strip with the design. Mrs. O'Brien asked if the County planned to pursue an eastern-by-pass October 82 1979 (Adjourned-Night Meeting~ for the Route 29 North area. He said immediate plans have been received for Route 29 No~h,~ the possibility of an eastern-by-pass presently is only a dotted line on a mapin the~.~o~prehensive Plan. At this time, the Board has decidedto remove the eastern-by-pass from the Comprehensive Plan amendments because no formal proposal for such a road has been received from the Highway Department. Agenda Item No. 4. Watershed Management Official. Mr. Fisher said the County's Watershed Management Committee~ which was appointed to study methods of eliminating non- point sources of pollution from the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir. He made a recom- mendation that a Watershed Management Official, charged with the responsibility of edu- cating people on ways to minimize the impact on the reservoir, be appointed. Mr. Agnor said after study, the committee determined that a watershed management official should be employed by the County and placed in its Engineering Department. He then presented the following memo: "October 8, 1979 Subject: Watershed Management Official A review of the Watershed Management Plan and the proposed duties of a Watershed Management Official leads to the conclusion that the recommendation that the Official be organized in the office of the County Engineer is a valid one. The reason for this conclusion is ths functions of 'the position which are directly related to County government activities or to County landowners as follows: 1. To coordinate County ordinances, i.e. runoff control, soil and sedimen- tation erosion, storm water detention, zoning, site plan, and subdivision regulations. 2. To integrate programs of highway operations, agriculture land usage, and streambank erosion control. 3. To establish educational programs on conservation activities, best man- agement practices, agricultural pollutants, land use management, and technical/ financial assistance programs to landowners. 4. To inspect compliance with ordinances and observe results of voluntary programs. The Watershed Management Official can function more effectively within the County government organization than within the Rivanna Authority organization because of the inherent coordination between County departments (Planning, Engineering, Inspections, Attorney) as well as the existing direct relationship between the County government and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, the Soil and Water Conservation District, the Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service, and the United States Soil. Conservation Service. The principle functions indicate an orientation toward several aspects of the engineering profession. .The acceptance of the recommendation of the Committee that the Official be organized in the County Engineer's office is recommended. The costs of the position should be borne by the County and the City, recommended in an earlier report as being through the Rivanna Authority's Urban Water rate structure." Mr. Fisher recommended that everyone study the memo and then discussion be continued at some future date. Mr. Fisher said the Board has requested the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to investigate the possibility of using the Buck Mountain Creek Watershed as a potential future reservoir site in the County. Mr. Agnor saidthe Rivanna Authority has already held one work session on this request with additional work sessions planned. No time- tables have yet been established, but when a report of recommendations is worked up and received, the County can proceed further. Agenda Item No. 5. Request from City/County Cooperation Committee. (Joint Services Committee). Mr. Fisher read a memorandum dated October 1, 1979 from Mrs. Sally Thomas, Chairman of the Committee: "October 1, 1979 We understand that this committee will be discussed at your October 8 joint session. The purpose of this memo is to put a brief status report into writing and to share the committee's view of its most useful role and a few suggestions. List of Committee Activities In January of 1979, the Joint City-County Cooperation Committee was appointed, consisting of five members, all of whom were approved by each governing body: Betsy Rosenblum and Roy Patterson from Albemarle; John Knapp and Frank Sherwood from Charlottesville; and a chairman, Sally Thomas from Albemarle. We met with R. Lacey, a Virginia Community Development Extension Agent, to -formulate a study of the joint delivery of services. We met with Messrs. Brunton, Hendrix, Fisher and Agnor to discuss present areas of cooperation and areas of concern. We arranged a public discussion of city-county cooperation under the new annexation legislation by a panel of persons from Virginia Commonwealth University, Virginia Legislative Services, the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Assoc- iation of Counties. We arranged with the University of Virginia's Institute of Government to have a staff member study present methods used in the joint delivery of services. We met with C. Bingman, former acting director of the Urban Mass Transportation Agency of the Department of Transportation to discuss regional transportation issues. October 8, 1979 (Adjourned-Night Meeting) We studied and discussed the new annexation legislation and wrote "Report #1, Analysis of New Annexation Legislation" and presented the report to the city and county officials. Present Status We are studying 1) tax revenue sharing possibilities; 2) methods of joint delivery of services; and 3) public transit coordination proposals. We plan to present reports on at least the first two items. Committee's Role The role which seems most useful and reasonable for the committee is for it to be an outside resource group looking at issues which face the area as a whole. When an issue is identified, the committee will study it, discuss it with public officials, organize meetings, make reports to officials and the public, utilize outside resources etc. -- whatever methods are most appropriate for clarifying the issues an~ostering an educated discussion amoung officials and citizens. Thecommittee may make recommendat~. at the end of the process. The purpose of any of these activities is to facilitate city-county cooperation. An outline of activities given to the committee discussed only joint delivery of services, but our study did not have to proceed far for us to realize that joint delivery of services is only a segment of the city-county cooperation situation and cannot be studied very productively in isolation. We have not abandoned that topic as Item numbers 2 and 3 above attest, but we are also taking a broader look. Suggestions We would welcome an indication that both governing bodies agree with our view of the committee's role and purpose, as well as any specific areas of concern for us to study. It would improve communications if each governing body would delegate one of its members to act as a liaison person, attending some of our meetings. The com- mittee could be used as a sounding board and a resource group for any city-county contracts or negotiations. We would work with better morale if we had assurance that the two governing bodies have a serious interest in the committee's purpose in facilitating city-county cooperation. If it's "too late" in the annexation-or-immunity game to talk of cooperation, please don't let this committee be the last to know!" Mayor Brunton and Messrs. Buck and Lindstrom all said they felt the committee was important for looking at such items as tax revenue sharing or methods of joint delivery of services. Mr. Fisher added the coordination of public transit to the list of items such a committee should help study. Mrs. 0'Brien said the committee may not be able to devise a route system for a joint City/County transit system, but may well be a help in setting up the policies for such a system. Mr. Fisher said a communication should be forwarded to the committee expressing the City's and County's gratitude for services rendered to this point, and encourage them to continue with their efforts. Agenda Item No. 7. City/County/University Planning Activities. Mayor Brunton spoke specifically to the University's plans for development of Birdwood. The Mayor said he would like to see the City and County allowed to participate in discussions and planning of this project. Mr. Brunton noted that in the past, local governing bodies had not been invited to participate in planning discussions. Dr. Iachetta agreed, adding he felt it should be allowed for local governments to have the same privilege in dealing with State agencies as they have with private developers. Mrs. 0~Brien said the City and County should jointly sponsor legislation requiring State agencies to work jointly with the local government while projects are still in the planning stages, not to just inform localities that a project will be placed in their community with no regard to local planning ordi~n- ances~ Agenda Item No. 8. Central Dispatch/911 System. Mayor Brunton said he understood that space for the equipment for a 911 system for the City/County/University, will be made available in the Lane Building. Mr. Fisher said that is the planMr. Agnor said it is planned to locate the central dispatch office in the basement under the gym. That is Phase II of the Lane renovation and detailed plans for that segment will not be ready for at least nine months. Mr. Fisher said the Board has asked the University of Virginia to consider installing the 911 system into their new telephone system. Mr. Fisher added that the problems of such a system are complicated by the fact that part of the counvy is located in a different area code and serviced by a different telephone company. Mr. Fisher said it is his personal goal to retain the Lane Auditorium as an auditorium for the community. The Board needs a large meeting place and in working with the archi- tects, he feels a plan has been devised for both purposes. The ~ublic meeting facilities will be off the stage at a lower level and will not interfere with viewing of the stage by people in the front rows. Mr. Fisher noted that the Board does not intend to restore the stage and its fixtures to a point where it will be suitable for use in drama Productions, but added that possibly some community group might take on such a project. Agenda Item No. 9. Other Matters of Mutual Concern. Mr. Fisher said the Board is considering a resolution which will be sent to the State Legislature requesting that JAUNT vehicles be exempted from personal property taxex. Mrs. O'Brien said she was concerned about the role of JAUNT as a transportation system within the City and the County, and hoped that a discussion of this could take place. Agenda Item No. 10. Executive Session. At 8:48 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: 129 October 8, 1979 (Adjourned-Night Meeting)__ The Board reconvened into open session at 9:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned.