Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-09-10N9-~-0~75 (~ft ~rno0n)'- 9-10-75 (night) 3O5 Mr. Carr and Mr. Humphrey felt they would need at least three weeks to extract the most important areas from the proposed ordinance. Mr. Wheeler said the section known as "definitions" seems to be the most controversial. Mr. Humphrey said there are only a moderate number of definitions used, and that most are considered standard. Mr. Carr added most of the definitions are not specific as to numbers, because it adds to the administration costs in attempting to enforce the ordinance. Mr. Wheeler agreed that the County and its citizens could not afford to add significantly to its inspector staff in implementing this ordinance. Mr. Fisher said he felt there was merit in reviewing the map and Comprehensive Plan at the same time as the proposed ordinance. He agreed there seemed to be little problem with the types of zoning and the general language of the ordinance. He added that he did not want the work of the Planning Commission and staff to be lost. He supports a joint work session with the Planning Commission to discuss extracting the most important points of the proposed ordinance for possible implementation into the present ordinance. Mr. Wheeler suggested the Planning Commission and representatives of the Planning Department come back before the Board on October 1, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. in the Courthouse. Ail Board members and Planning members agreed with the suggested date. Mr. Wheeler then asked if there were any comments from the public. Mr. Patterson disagree with downzoning. No one else from the public wished to speak. Mr. Carwile wished to discuss the Hessian Hills Subdivision Plat which is pending before the Planning Commission. This proposed final plat is for six or seven additional lots in sections 5 and 6 of Hessian Hills at the end of Old Forge Road. He said he was concerned to have additional lots subdivided and sold when Old Forge Road is not yet in the State Highway System nor sufficient bond -posted. H.e added that the Board set September 15, 1975 as the deadline for the road work to be accomplished, and as yet nothing has been done. Mr. Carwile said he spoke to Mr. St. John who stated it was within the Board's power to withhold approval of the plat until there is sufficient bond or the. road is accepted into the State Highway System. Mr. Carwile then offered motion to do same. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Henley At 5:15 P.M., Mr. Wheeler requested a motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal and personnel matters. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Henley At 7:25 P.M. meeting was reconvened in the County Courthouse. the meeting adjourned. Chairman Mr. Wheeler immediately called 9-10-75 (Night) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 10, 1975 at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse. PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J.T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler, and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Robert Sampson, Assistant to the County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney, James Bowling and Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorneys; John Humphrey, County Planner; and Hartwell Clarke, Building Official & Zoning Administrator. The Board conducted public hearing on the following items: No. 1. SP-446 and ZMP-3!6, Holy Comforter Church (deferred from July 23, 1975). (Mr. Carwile abstaining)Mr. John Humphrey reviewed highlights from the staff report, relating to density and land use concept, site plans and subdivision of land, sewer and water, transportation system, and miscellaneous (recorded in full in minutes of March 5, 1975 meeting). Mr. Max Evans, Landscape Architect, said they wished to reduce the commercial property, reduce the density, and allow for more open space. He stated the homeowners would have to c. ontribute to. the changes required ~n Route 29 with the Virginia Depar~tment of Highways, as well as paying for the roads throughout the Branchlands complex. Mr. Evans said they agree to all t~e conditions suggested by the Planning Commission with the exception of having all the roads dedicated for acceptance into the State Highway Secondary System. Mr. Wood questioned if the area shown for open space on the maps presented, was a firm commitment. Mr. Evans said it was, and Mr. Humphrey proceeded'to elaborate. Mr. Humphrey said the proposed development is broken down into sections, and each section has a certain amount of area alotted for open space and recreation. Mr. Wood asked if a definitive property line was to be established between Branchlands and adjoining properties. Mr. Evans said the adjoining property owners have agreed to a fence between the two properties. Mr. Fisher then asked if a road bond would be required on all roads simultan- eousIy or in'each section as it is developed. Mr. Humphrey said it could be worked and bonded in sections. No one from the public wished to speak either for or against this request, and Mr. Wheeler declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Wheeler.suggested the Board handle ZMP-316 first. Mr. Wood expressed concern that the adjoining property owners had not been properly notified of this meeting, due to the fact that this petition had been deferred a number of times. Mr. Evans stated that citizens and adjoining property owners made statements at the last meeting, and recalled specifically a gentlemen 3O6 9-10-75 (night) AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Carwile. SP-446: Mr. Fisher asked if the County Attorney had reviewed the proposed covenants and restric- tions to be imposed on the Branchlands property. Mr. St. John said they were reviewed and discussed at a meeting of the Board. He added that the "covenants" discussed in Tremblay & Smith's-letter of June 17, 1975 are not the actual covenants, but only a summary. Mr. St. John added that the condition requiring the County Attorney's office to review the convenants and restrictions is usually to see that all statements within the document follow the law. Mr. St. John said if the Board wants his office to review the document for contents as well, he will need guidelines as to what to approve and disapprove. Mr. Thacker suggested the document also come to the Board for approval. Mr. St. John then added that the first document, once adopted, will apply to all future sections developed. Mr. David Garland of the firm of Trembly & Smith, said they would file the restrictions at the same time as the first final plat is put to record. Mr. Wood questioned how the master plan for this development gives a firm commitment to open space. Mr. Thacker explained that the master plan is a firm commitment, but the exact locations within the general areas shown on the master plan canno't: be given until proper engineering work, etc. is done and shown on the final plat. Mr. St. John said that when the restrictions and deeds are put to record they must refer to the plat. Mr. St. John asked that when the plat is recorded, the covenants and restrictions be recorded at the same time; and these conditions not only cover the land on the original plat submitted, but have a statement in it that the restrictions as agreed by the developer shall apply to all other sections of Branchiands hereinafter recorded. Mr. Thacker pointed out that certain roads were inconsistent on the two maps exhibited. Fisher felt it was necessary to specifically identify details on each map for the record. Mr. Humphrey proceeded: Mr. Maps in question were approved by the Planning Commission on.March 3, 1975 and a~e identified as Alternate #1 for access and circulation. The density map is marked approved by the Planning Commission on March 3, 1975 for density and land use received 12/13/74 and initialed by John Humphrey. The second map is relative to the internal road system marked received 12/13/74 and approved by the Planning Commission on March 3, 1975. Sections D and E which deviates from the approved circulation plan known as Alternate #i in tha~t those sections are shown to connect the roads tied into the Branchlands proper as opposed to tying in as a separate subdivision of land at Route 29 at a location north of the main entrance of what is known as Branchlands.o Section B, road indicating extending to the northern most property line of Branchlands as indicated in Exhibit #2 as approved by the Planning Commission is not a part of the Planning Commission approval and is to be terminated at the cul-de-.sac. Mr. Wood made motion to approve SP-446 with conditions set out on pages 20 & 21 of Minute Book #13; with the added condition that fencing be provided in "Section C" adequate to discourage through movement directly onto-the adjoining property, as the property is developed. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Carwi!e. No. 2. Hedgerow Corporation, Restricted road (deferred from August 13, 1975). Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the existing right-of-way being built to State standards and the restricted road servinglots #1 through #7. The restricted road is subject to all County requirements to serve seven lots. This was submitted prior to the Board adopting the new standards for restricted roads, and should be considered under the old standards. The Commission waived the frontage requirements on lots 4, 5, and 6, in order that they may enter on the proposed road. Standard approvals must be obtained from the Health Department, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, and County Fire Marshal, and compliance with the County Subdivision Ordinance as it relates to soil erosion. No one from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Wheeler declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher said he went out to see the property in question, and could see no reason why it should not be approved. Mr. Fisher then offered motion to approve the restricted road request. Motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwi!e, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. 'Wheeler. No. 3. SP-506. Hickory Ridge, Ltd. (deferred from August 27, 1975). Mr. Humphrey said this was a request for a central well to serve six lots in Hickory Ridge Subdivision. The well was tested from 6/12/74 to 6/14/74 yielding ten gallons per minute. The Engineering Department reviewed the well on July 22, 1975, and found the well to be satisfactory. The Planning Commission recommends approval subject to Health Department approval of water, County Engineering Department approval of water line location and sizing, and that a Public Service Corporation application be filed with the State Corporation Commission. The applicant was present, but had no comments for the Board. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against the request, and Mr. Wheeler declared the public hearing clos'ed. Motion was offered for approval by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. 9-10-75 (Night) 307 No. 4. 1976 Legislative Proposals. (As advertised for public hearing in the Daily Progress on September 8, 1975). Present at the Board's request were State Senator J. Harry Michael, Jr. and Mr. James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney, presented nine possible areas of legislation for~the Board's consideration. RESOLUTION TO AMEND CODE SECTION 58-769.2 TO SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE FOR AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM WITH BIENNIAL REASSESSMENT WHEREAS, Code Section 58-769.2 presently authorizes the governing body of any County to provide for the annual assessment in equalization of real estate for local taxation; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County, pursuant to Code Section 58-769.2, is now conducting an annual assessment program with biennial reassessments; and WHEREAS, the Attorney General has held in Op. Att'y. Gen. (1973-74) at 386-387, that neither Code Section 58-769.2 (under which a County acts), nor Code Section 58-776.1 (under which a City under 30,000 people operates), specifically authorizes a regular program of biennial assessments after the original start-up; and WHEREAS, the Attorney General in said opinion recommended that the City of Staunton seek legislation specifically authorizing a two year assessment cycle if it wished to continue conducting an annual assessment program with biennial reassessments; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County realizes that it could safely continue to conduct an annual assessment program with biennial reassessments by repealing the annual assessment resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County on March 20, 1975, and enacting a resolution pursuant to Code Section 58-784.3, requiring a general reassessment of real estate to be undertaken during 1976 to be effective January 1, 1977, utilizing values as of January 1, 1976/, and readopting said resolution every two years thereafter, so long as the County desires to continue on a biennial reassessment program; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County is reluctant to engage in the relatively complex procedure set forth above when a simple amendment to Code Section 58-769.-2 authorizing an annual assessment program with biennial reassessments would allow the County to accomplish the same purpose; NOW, THEREFORE, Albemarle County petitions the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia to amend Code Section 58-769.2 to specifically authorize an annual assessment program with biennial reassessments after the original start-up period. In this regard, Albemarle County recommends changing Code Section 58-769.2 to read as follows: The governing body of any County or City may, by resolution duly adopted, in lieu of the method now prescribed by law, provide for the annual or biennial as- sessment and equalization of real estate for local taxation by the commissioner of the revenue; provided, however, that no commissioner of the revenue without his consent shall be required to make such annual or biennial assessment and equali- zation, and if made, all costs incurred shall be done by the County or City. Ail real estate shall thereafter be assessed as of January first of each year or al- ternate year and taxes for each year or alternate-year on such real estate shall be extended by the commissioner of the re-Venue on the basis of the last assessment made prior to such year. Mr. Bowling stated the Attorney General's Office has recommended if the County wished to continue the two-year cycle beyond a start-up period, the County seek such legislation. Senator Harry Michael said Miss Page Godsey had spoken to him regarding this matter and he was not opposed to introducing such legislation. Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Ray Jones agreed it would save on personnel, and provide time to properly handle the assessment process. Mr. Thacker then offered motion to adopt the resolution as set'out above. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote:~ AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. RESOLUTION TO ALLOW REFUND OF ERRONEOUSLY COLLECTED TAXES BY RESOLUTION WHEN NOT MORE THAN SEVEN YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE 31st DAY OF DECEMBER FOLLOWING THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH ASSESSMENT WAS MADE WHEREAS, Code Section 58-1152.1 allows the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County to provide by ordinance for the refund of any local levies or classes of levies paid when such payment has been determined by said governing body or by judicial action to be er- roneous; provided that no refund shall be made in any case when more than seven years have elapsed since the 31st day of December following the year in which such assessment was made; and WHEREAS, Code Section 58-1142 allows the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, upon the certificate of the Director of Finance of Albemarle County with consent of the County Attorney that such assessment was erroneous, to direct the Director of Finance of the County to refund any erroneously assessed taxes to the taxpayer, provided such time be within two years from the 31st day of December of the year in which such assessment was made; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County wishes to avoid the expense of advertising by ordinance and the delay occurring thereupon when an erroneously assessed tax has been discovered and such time is less than seven years but more than two years from the 31st day of Dehember of the year in which such assessment was made; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth be, and hereby is, memorialized to amend Code Section 58-1142 to allow for the refund of erroneously collected taxes upon the certificate of the Director of Finance and the consent of the County Attorney that such assessment was erroneous and upon resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County directing that a refun~ be made. In this regard, Albemarle County recommends changing Code Section 58-1142 to read as follows: 308 9-10-75 (night) If such commissioner of the revenue, or other official performing the duties~ ~-~im~osed on commissioners of the reven~ue under this title, be satisfied that he has erroneously assessed such applicant with any such levy as aforesaid, the commissioner or such other official shall correct such assessment. If the assessment exceeds the proper amount, the commissioner or such other official shall exonerate the applicant from'the payment of so much as is erroneously charged if not paid into the treasury, of the county or city; and if paid, the governing body of the county or city shall, upon a certificate of the commissioner or ~such other official with consent of the town, city or Commonwealth's attorney that such assessment was erroneous, direct the treasurer of the county or city to refund the excess to the taxpayer, with. interest, if authorized pursuant to Section 58-1152.2, provided that such time be within ~we Seven years from the 31st day of December of the year in which such assessment was made . . . Mr. Bowling and Mr. Jones stated that present law requires this process by ordinance, even if only one individual refund is involved. Because of the advertising requirements for passing an ordinance, the taxpayer is forced to wait two to three months before receiving the refund. Delegate Thomas Michie asked how frequently these errors occurred, and Mr. Jones answered approximately a dozen per year. Mr. St. John said it did not matter how the error arose, whether clerical, mathe- matical or because of a tax law that was struck down; as long as the citizen receives the refund to which he is entitled. MotiOn was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher to applrove the aforementioned resolution. Motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. RESOLUTION TO AMEND CODE SECTION 58-983(b) TO ALLOW DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO RECEIVE DELINQUENTTAX PAYMENT BETWEEN DECEMBER 5, THE THIRD ANNIVERSARY OF THE ORIGINAL DUE DATE THEREOF, AND DECEMBER 31. WHEREAS, Code Section 58-983(b) prOvides that if taxes and levies on any real estate appearing on a delinquent tax list are not paid by the third anniversary of the original~ due date thereof, a lien shall be recorded by the Treasurer in the appropriate Clerk's office or other office in which such liens are customarily recorded; and WHEREAS, Code Section 58-1117.1 requires that when any taxes on any real estate in any county are delinquent on December 31 following the third anniversary of the date on which such taxes have become due, such real estate may be sold for the purpose of collecting all delinquent taxes on such property; and WHEREAS, the Department of Taxation instructions relating to the handling of delinquent lands for county and city treasurers, dated April 22, 1974, indicate that the list required by Code Section 58-983(b) must be prepared after the December 5 deadline and turned over to the Clerk by December 31; and WHEREAS, there exists some doubt as to whether the director of finance between December 5 and December 31 can give a valid receipt for any delinquent taxes which are to appear on the list, but which a taxpayer wishes to pay. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth be, and hereby is, memorialized to amend Code Section 58- 983(b) to allow the Director of Finance to collect and give a valid receipt for any delinquent taxes which are to appear on the list required by Code Section 58-983(b) on all real estate taxes delinquent on the third anniversary of the due date, between December 5 and December 31. In this regard, Albemarle County recommends changing Code Section 58-983(b) to read as follows: (b) if the taxes and levies on any real estate appearing on the !ist mentioned in paragraph (2) of Section 58-978 are not paid by the third anniversary of the original due date thereof, a lien shall be recorded by the Treasurer in the appropriate Clerk~s office or other office in which such liens are customarily recorded. The treasurer or other tax collecting ~officer is authorized to collect any delinquent taxes which are to appear on the list, but which a taxpayer wishes to pay after the third anniversary of the original due date thereof but before December 31 following the third anniversary of the date on which such taxes have become due and note that the payment has been made on the list to be transmitted to the clerk or report the payment to the clerk if the list has already been transferred, but the clerk has not yet recorded the lien in the delinquent land book. Mr. Bowling said current law requires the director of finance to submit a delinquent list to the clerk on all real estate taxes delinquent on the third anniversary of the due date of December 5. This list must be prepared after the December 5 deadline and turned over to the clerk by Dec- ember 31. Between December 5 and December 31, no one can give a valid receipt for any delinque.nt taxes which are to appear on the list, but which a taxpayer wishes to pay. Mr. Jones added there are a total of 25 days when delinquent taxes cannot be collected. Senator Michael asked where this interpretation of the lay came from. Mr. Jones said he was instructed by the State Department of Taxation that he could not collect these taxes after December 5th. Motion was then made by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Thacker, to approve the aforementioned resolution. Motion was adopted by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. RESOLUTION TO REPEAL THAT PORTION OF CODE SECTION 58-769.8 REQUIRING THAT ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMPENSATE THE CLERK AT THE RATE OF $1.00 PER LAND USE TAX APPLICATION FILED AND INDEXED, IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS WHEREAS, Code Section 58-769.8 provides in part that the local governing body shall compensate the clerk at the rate of $1.00 per land use tax application filed and indexed, notwithstanding any limitation provided in Section 14.1-143 or any other section of the Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County, pursuant to Code Section 58-769.8 also requires the local assessing officer to prepare and transmit to the clerk a list of all land use tax appli- cations filed and approved, and the clerk shall index the names in a book entitled "Land Use Tax Assessment Book" and file said application in the clerk's office; and 9-10-75 (Night) 309 WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Department of Finance will present to the clerk land use tax assessment information ~n a book entitled "Land Use Tax Assessment Book" in its final form such that it seems unnecessary to pay a fee of $1.00 for each parcel to cover the cost o.f preparing such a listing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that the General Assembly of the COmmonwealth hereby is memorialized to'amend Code Section 58-769.8 to provide that the local governing body does not have to compensate the clerk at the rate of $1.00 per application filed and indexed when the local governing body presents the required land use tax information to the clerk in final form. In this regard, Albemarle County recommends changing Code Section 58'769.8 to read as follows: · .the local assessing officer shall prepare and transmit to the clerk a list of all applications filed and approved hereunder and the clerk shall index the names in a book entitled "Land Use Tax Assessment Book" and file said application in the clerk's Office.' The local governing body beginning on July 1, 1973, compensate the Clerk at the rate of $1.00 per application filed and indexed notwithstanding any limitation provided in Section 14.1-143 or any other section of the Code of Virginia. However, at his option, the local assessing officer shall prepare a list of all appli- cations filed and approved hereunder and index the names in a book entitled "Land Use Tax Assessment Book" and file said book in said clerk's Office, no compensation of the clerk being required when the application is filed and indexed in the land use tax assessment book by the local assessing officer in final form. Mr. Bowling said the law requires the County pay a fee of $1.00 per parcel for each parcel listed under land use assessment. However, this information will be given to the clerk in the form of a special land book which lists only those parcels which are under land use assessment. In addition, the regular land book will show the taxes due and taxes deferred for each parcel which is under land use assessment. Since the land use assessment information will be given to the Clerk in a final form it seems unnecessary to pay a fee of $1.00 for each parcel to cover the cost of pre- paring sucha listing. It is suggested that the law be changed to pay this fee only for parcels which have a change in use and require that a roll back be collected, since this will require the recording of a change in the clerk's Office. Mr. Jones stated this land book involves approximately 1,800 parcels. Mr. Thacker said the entire land use book must be filed in the clerk's Office every year. Mr. St. John added that no fee is received from the citizen for this purpose. Motion was then offered by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Fisher, to approve the aforementioned resolution. Motion was adopted by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Advance payment to State for salary of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Bowling said that Section 14.1-33 requires that localities pay to the State during the first month of each fiscal year, the local share of the Judges total annual salary. Last year this advance amounted to payment of $14,647. On a statewide basis, this results in the State having the use of a large amou~nt of local money which has been paid in as "front end" funds. At the same time the State requires the localities to "front end" the entire registrar's salary for approximately 18 months. Mr. Jones felt this payment process should be done on a monthly basis, but not an entire year, as it places a great drain on the County's finances. Mr. Fisher felt the monthly transactions would require a great deal more paperwork. Mr. Carwile felt this problem by itself was not worth fighting for a change in legislation; he added it is good cash flow management for the State, but requires the County to go to the taxpayer to compensate for the drain. Ib was the consensus of the Board t~at this matter not be presented in 1976 legislative pro- posals to the Virginia Association of Counties. No vote was taken. RESOLUTION TO AMEND CODE SECTION 21.89-5 TO PROVIDE FOR THE IMPOSITION OF FEES FOR REVIEW OF SOIL EROSION PERMIT APPLICATIONS WHEREAS, Albemarle County has adopted a local erosion and sediment control program pursuant to VirginiaErosion and Sediment Control Law (Virginia Code Section 21..89.1 et seq.); and WHEREAS, the enforcement of the said program and the review of applications submitted pursuant thereto requires a substantial expenditure of county funds for personnel and materials; and WHEREAS, the county wishes to impose reasonable fees to defray the cost of the review of applications submitted pursuant to the said program but is without authority to do so under the aforesaid enabling legislation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, thatJthe General Assembly of the Commonwealth be, and hereby is, memoralized to amend Section 21.89.5 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, by the addition of a subsection (e) providing for the imposition of fees to defray the cost of reviewing applications submitted pursuant to Albemarle County's local erosion and sediment control program. Mr. Bowling felt the resolution was self-xplanatory. Mr. Payne said another Virginia county had been charging fees for their soil erosion and sediment control program, but the legality of this fee is now before the State Supreme Court. Motion was then made by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher to adopt the aforementioned resolution. Motion was adopted by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Ca,wile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. RESOLUTION PETITIONING THAT PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION HAVE IMPLEMENTATION AUTHORITY UNDER THE VIRGINIA AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT, TITLE 15.1, CHAPTER 34. WHEREAS, Albemarle County is a member of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission; and 3i0 9-10-75 (Night) together in providing a service since Albemarle County feels that the proliferation of single purpose agencies is undesirable and the resulting fragmentation of government is contrary to the purposes of forming planning district commissions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia be, and h'ereby is, memorialized to give planning district commissions the option of implementation under the Virginia Area Dev- elopment Act, Title 15.1, Chapter 34, et seq. Albemarle County recommends the following changes in planning district legislation if implementation is allowed: 1. Implementation shall only occur if requested by two or more governing bodies. 2. Implementation of such a program shall only take place.in the jurisdictions requesting the same. 3. The majority of the commission members shall agree that the implementation may take place through the planning district commission, to guard against overuse of the staff. 4. A majority, but not more than two-thirds of the planning district commission, shall be elected officials. 5. The planning district commission shall nov impose program implementation on a locality. In this regard, Albemarle County recommends changing the Virginia Area Development Act, Chapter 34, Section 15.1-1400, et seq., as follows: (Proposed deletions are crossed out; proposed additions are in parentheses) Section 15.1-1401 (d) ~e-ma~e-~e~&~&e~-¢e~-$~e-e~ea~&e~-e¢-a-~&~-e¢-¢e~e~me~-ea~a~e-e¢e¢¢&e&e~- ~e~¢e~&a~ ............ (To promote the efficient performance of) governmental functions and services on a regional basis, ~e-eee~-e¢-w~&e~-ea~-~e-~e~ee~&~a~-~-~eee-~eee&~&~ ~e-~eRef&~s-~e~ee~-- (and to insure that the efficient and economic use of public funds) will be consistent with the growth of the community. (e) To deter the fragmentation of governmental units and services (in order that quality services be provided upon favorable economic terms). Section 15.1-1402 (b) a2e~w&ee-~&e~&e%a-e~a&~-meaR-a-~R&~-e¢-~e~e~Rme~-e~eaSe~-as-D~e~&~e~-&~-%~&e e~a~e~. Section 15.1-1403(b) (4) The composition of the membership of the planning district commission; provided, however, that at least a majority, ~-~e~-s~e%a~&a&&~-me~e-~aR-a ma~e~ (more than two thirds) of its members shall be elected e~&e~a&s(members) of the governing bodies of the governmental subdivisions within the district with each county, city and town of more than three thousand five hundred population having at least one representative, and the other members, (if any), being qualified voters and residents of the district, w~e-~e&~-Re e~&ee--e~ee~e~-~-~e-~ee~e; and provided further, however, should the charter agree- ment, as adopted, so provide, an alternate may serve ~R-~&e~-e~-eRe-e~-~e-e&ee~e~ egg~e~a&s (for any of the elected members) of each of the governing bodies of the partic- ipating governmental subdivisions. Section 15.1-1403 ((d) Any planning district commission shall be an instrumentality of the political subdivisions which are members thereof.) Section 15.1-1404 (b) Powers: (4) To make and enter into all contracts or agreements, as it may determine, which are necessary or incidental to.the performance of its duties and to the execution of the powers granted under this chapter, (except that no Planning District Commission shall exercise the power of eminent domain). Section 15.1-1405 (a) (Upon the request of two or more governing bodies, the commission may provide such public services as local governments are authorized by law to provide individually or jointly. Provided, however, that no public services shall be implemented by any planning district commission without the express prior approval of the planning district commission. The limitations of this subsection shall not apply to any function assumed or implementation performed by any planning district commission prior to the effective date of this subsection.) Section 15.1-1405 (c) ~e-a~e~emea~&eRe~-p~e~ams-&R-e~see~&eR-~$-aR~-~ (No implementation) shall Re~ be undertaken by e~e~ (any) planning district commission within the boundaries of any county, city or town in such district without the express consent by duly adopted resol- ution of the governing body of such county, city or town. (15.1-1405.1. Powers and duties of local planning commissions not affected.--No action of a planning district commission by law.) (15.1-1405.2. Public services furnished by commission to be regional in nature and permissive.--A planning district commission which is authorized to provide public services may do so upon request of the governing bodies of the governmental subdivisions in whose jurisdictions the implementation of a particular service is desired, after determining by majority vote of the members, that the public service in question meets a need of the jurisdictions requesting the services. The planning district commission shall submit any such request to the Division of State Planning and Community Affairs for review and comment within thirty days. The contract or agreement implementing such request is not to be executed or otherwise implemented for thirty days or until said comment is received, whichever first occurs. Upon execution, the finalized agreement is to be filed with the Division). 9-10-75 (Night) 3ii (15.1-1405.3. Creation and function of division of operation.l-When the commission is authorized and elects to furnish public services, it shall do so by organizing separate divisions of operations and district planning. The division of operations is to admin- ister and provide the specifically authorized and budgeted service upon terms specified by the commission with the approval of the consenting subdivisions. Services may be provided by any method specified in the request, not otherwise inconsistent with applicable pro- visions of law, including contracts with third'parties or direct administration by the division of operations.) (15.1-i405.4. Financing of public services by contract with participating political subdivisions.--a. The commission may contract with the governing bodies of the political subdivisions requesting the specified public service or services for the purpose of securing payment for the costs of providing such service or services. Any obligations of such political subdivisions arising from such contracts are deemed to be for a public purpose and may be met by appropriations from general revenues or by issuing bonds; provided, however, that any such contract must specify the annual maximum obligation of any political subdivision for Payments to meet the expenses and obligations under the J~ contract or provide a formula to determine the payment of any political subdivision to meet such expenses and obligations. Political subdivisions desiring to enter such con- tracts are authorized to do so upon compliance with applicable provisions of law and thereafter are authorized to do everything necessary or proper to carry out and perform such contracts and to provide for the payment or discharge of any obligation thereunder :by the same means and in the same manner as any other of its obligations. (b) No bonded debt shall be contracted by any political subdivision to finance the payment of any obligation arising from contracts hereunder without complying with the applicable provisions of law controlling the issuance of bonds by that political sub- division.) (15.1-1405.5 Financing of public services by fees, rents and charges.--a. The com- mission may provide for payment of the costs of such service by establishing fees, rents or other charges for services provided by it. Such fees, rents and charges may be charged to and collected from person contracting for the service or from the owner or tenant, or some or all of them, who uses or occupies real estate which directly or indirectly receives such services. (b) Such fees, rents, and charges shall be uniform throughout the district for the same type, class, and amount of service; except that in cases where uniform rates would be impractical, inequitable, or unreasonable, the commission may establish varying rates for good cause shown. (c) Such fees, rents, and charges shall be payable at the time when and at the place where the commission so directs, and the commission may provide for late charges and penalties for failure to make appropriate payment. (d) Such fees, rents, and charges shall be reasonable, and as low as possible con- sistent with the services to be provided. This may include cost of maintenance, repair and operation, establishment of necessary reserves for future improvement~of the project, and any required repayment of funds contributed by the participating subdivisions.) Section 15.1-1410 (1) ...If it does have district-wide significance, the planning district commission shall determine, within ~e~ (sixty) days from the date of the submission of the appli- cation, whether or not it is in conflict with the district plan e~-~e~e~. Mr. Fisher stated the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission had a meeting, attended by Mr. Michie, at which time this proposed legislation was discussed. He then cited several examples where power separate from that of local governments would have been more convenient, for the com- mission and the !'sponsoring" county. Motion to approve the aforementioned resolution as part of the 1976 legislative proposals was made by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the fol- lowing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile and Wood. Recording of deeds which are illegal under County ordinance. Mr. Clarke said current law requires that the Clerk of the CircuitCourt record all deeds with no requirement that these first be in accordance with County ordinances, such as zoning. It is suggested that the law be amended to require that the Clerk not record any deed which is illegal under a County ordinance. Mr. St. John said it was the Clerk's duty to record deeds, and that if it were her duty to examine these deeds before filing, she would need the knowledge of the zoning administrator. He added it was the opinion of the Attorney General that the clerk record all pro- perly executed papers. Mr. Michie said he felt if this proposal were brought before the General Assembly, they would disallow it, feeling it is not the Clerk's position to evaluate the legality of documents. It was the unanimous opinion of the Board to eliminate this subject from the legislative pro- posals. RESOLUTION TO AMEND CODE SECTION 29-184.2(b) TO PROVIDE FOR YEAR ROUND DOG WARDEN AND DEPUTY DOG WARDEN WHEREAS, Code Section 29-I~4.2(b) requires that the Albemarle County Board Of Super- visors appoint a Dog Warden and Deputy Dog Warden by the 30th day of June for one, two, three or four years, commencing on the first day of July and expiring on the 30th day of June of the year of expiration; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors desires more flexibility so that appointments can be made at whatever time during the year they are needed, the term of the dog warden or deputy dog warden commencing immediately; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia is hereby petitioned to amend Code Section 29-184.2(b) to provide for the appointment of a dog warden and deputy dog warden at whatever 3i2 9-10-75 (Night) (b) The appointments shall be by the governing body for one, two, three, or four years, whichever is deemed appropriate in the sole discretion of the governing body, commencing from the day of appointment. Mr. Wheeler said the current Virginia Code requires the County Board of Supervisors to appoint the dog warden and deputy dog warden by June 30, and suggested that beginning July ! the statute be changed to allow more flexibility so that appointments could be made at whatever time during the year they are needed and the term could begin immediately. Mr. St. John said the language of the present code does not allow for additional appointments during the year, even if the warden or deputy warden were to resign. Motion to approve the aforementioned resolution was offered by Mr. Carwite, seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler. None. Mr. Wood. Mr. Wheeler said he would also like to discuss several items which are presently being dis- cussed on the State level as follows: RESOLUTION PETITIONING THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CONTINUE TO BE ALLOWED TO IMPOSE LOCAL LICENSE TAXES WHEREAS, Title 58, Chapter 7 of the Code of Virginia allows local governments to impose local license taxes; and WHEREAS, Code of Virginia Section 58-266.1(b) provides that no local license tax, imposed pursuant to the provisions of said section, shall be greater than such rate as levied by such city, town or county on December 31, 1974; and WHEREAS, the Retail Merchants Association is asking the General Assembly to repeal the power of local governments to impose local license taxes; and WHEREAS, local license taxes are important sources of revenue for local governments; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth be, and hereby is, memorialized to continue to allow local governments to impose local license taxes. Mr. Wheeler noted that last year theGeneral Assembly put a one-year freeze on the rates for these local taxes while the legislature studied the tax. The Retail Merchants Association has asked the legislature to repeal these gross receipts license taxes and have suggested they be replaced with a local option income tax or an additional 1% local sales tax. Senator Michael said he doubted if the legislature would repeal this tax, but they could possibly schedule a gradual scale down. Mr. Fisher said he would hope they would not withdraw the County's taxing power, forcing the burden on the property tax payers. Discussion was concluded by Mr. Wheeler reiterating the Board's desire to have the business license tax continued. RESOLUTION PETITIONNG THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA NOT TAX MOBILE HOMES ON THE SAME BASIS AS REAL PROPERTY. WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, has previously passed, and the Governor vetoed, legislation to tax mobile homes on the same basis as real pro- perty; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County are against this type of taxa- tion, as it would require the task of field appraisal by Albemarle County and the repeal of the mobile home site tax; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia be, and hereby is, memorialized not to tax mobile homes on the same basis as real property. Mr. Wheeler said sponsors will again introduce the legislation which was passed in 1975, but vetoed by the Governor, to tax mobile homes on the. same basis as real property. This is tied to the repeal of the mobile home site tax, and would also require the task of field appraisal of all mobile homes. Mr. Fisher stated the appraisal costs would go up and the revenue received would go down. He added it would be difficult to establish a method of depreciation. Mr. Wheeler said it would be next to impossible to locate all the mobile homes in the County. Mr. Carwi!e commented that at least one more appraiser would have to be hired to handle mobile homes. Mr. Jones said that 90% of the time the owner of the mobile home does not own the property on which the home is placed. Delegate Michie said the reason this was being considered was because a mobile home is a form of housing, and felt it was only fair to tax same as a form of housing. City County Relationship Study Commission Mr. Wheeler said action will be taken on recommendations made by this Commission relative to annexation. Delegate Michie said he wrote letters to the Board requesting they meet regarding this matter. Mr. Wheeler agreed to discuss the matter more fully at some later date. RESOLUTION PETITIONING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA TO ENACT ENABLING~LEGISLATION FOR A LOCAL OPTION INCOME TAX. WHEREAS~. A~lbema~lel/6omn.~y~ifa~ors~gi~ngS~a~ goye~m~m~s ~of~ the ~ Co~m~ea~lth~f ~V~rgi~a? ~.ha op~ti0m ~to ~tax ~th~ ~nc~m~ ~ ~heir~it~s ~ ~?~a~d~i~~ '~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ ~ ~ ~x~v~? ? ~ ~ WHEREAS, Albemarle County believes that the local option income tax would lead to a more equitable system of taxation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that the 9-10-7~ (N±ght) 313 Mr. Fisher asked the Board to consider taking a position on local option income tax. He said he would like to see the legislature seriously consider enabling local governments to adopt local option income taxes. Motion was then offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Henley to support adoption by the legislature of a local option income tax, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. RESOLUTION PETITIONING THAT LEGISLATION -AUTHORIZING A LOCAL CONSUMER UTILITY TAX CONTINUE IN EXISTENCE. WHEREAS, Code of Virginia Section 58-587.1 and Section 58-617.2 allow local governments of the Commonwealth to impose a tax on the consumers of utility service or services; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County now imposes a tax on the consumers of utility service or services, but such tax is imposed only on the first $20.00 of any monthly bill submitted by the seller of any utility service for residential purposes; and WHEREAS, this limitation of the consumer utility tax for residential service means that the consumer does not have to pay a higher tax due to rapidly rising utility service costs; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia be, and hereby is, memorialized to con- tinue to allow Albemarle County to impose a local consumer utility tax in the manner which it now does. Mr. Wheeler said if this tax were repealed, it would mean the loss of revenue to the County. Mr. Wood suggested that when this comes before the legislature, one of the Delegates inform the Board, so a Board member could be present at 'the hearing and explain our locality's situation. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood stating the Board's support for the continuation of a consumer util- ity tax with a cut-off provision. Motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. No one from the public wished to comment or add to the proposed legislative matters. Mr. Wheeler declared the public hearing closed, and thanked the three representatives for attending. At 10:00 P.M., Mr. Wheeler requested a recess. He added that he would not be returning to the meeting, and requested Mr. Thacker to take over the chair. Meeting reconvened at 10:10 P.M. No. 4. Leaf Disposal Committee Report: Mrs. Opal David, Chairman of the Committee, presented copies of the report to Board members, and proceeded to read the final section entitled "Conclusions and Recommendations": It is the consensus of the Committee that most of the County could live perfectly happily with the regulations of the State Air Pollution Control Board-with respect to the open burning of leaves. In the heavily urbanized areas, most of the problem can be solved by permitting burning within 25 feet of an occupied building instead of within 300 feet as required by the State regulations. There remains, however, the problem of excessive smoke in congested areas and the opposition expressed by a substantial number of residents on grounds of physical discomfort and various other objections as listed above. We think the County has an obligation to intervene in this situation. In presenting the following recommendations, our object has been to afford a measure of relief to individuals and communities subject to special leaf disposal problems without placing unnecessary regulatory or financial burdens on other citizens of the County. 1. We recommend adoption by the Board of a permanent local ordinance. The ordinance proposed differs from the previous emergency ordinance in the following respects: 2. Upon adoption of the new ordinance, and annually thereafter in October, we recommend that the Board should undertake a public information effort aimed at reducing the amount of open burning, especially in heavily urbanized areas. Some suggestions--enlisting the Extension Service to offer advice on simple composting methods; encouraging people in a position to do so, to burn only on weekdays in order to reduce the density of the weekend fog; talking up neighborhood cooperation to rent shredders, mobilize teen-agers to help senior citizens, etc.; reminding citizens of the provisions of the ordinance and of their obligation to act reasonably and with due consideration for their neighbors. 3. We recommend that the County explore the possibility of some joint arrangement with the City for extension of its vacuum leaf pick-up service to include areas adjoining the City where leaf disposal is a serious problem. In view of the fact that the City equipment is presently fully scheduled and that Mr. Wade, at the City Yard, advises us that a request for. the purchase of needed additional equipment this year was denied on economy grounds, it seems unlikely that any progress can be made on this recommendation this year, but it should be pursued as a long- range objective, perhaps as part of an overall plan for the expansion of trash collection services in the County." Mr. St. John said it was good that the Committee eliminated the provision given in last years emergency ordinance requiring citizens to telephone either the Sheriff or the County Fire Marshal before burning leaves. Mr. Fisher said since it was close to October, the ordinance as drafted by the Committee should be advertised. Mr. Wood felt the ordinance should be advertised for the first meeting in October, and made motion that it be advertised for 7:30 P.M. in the County Courthouse on October 1, 1975. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried'by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None. Mr. Wheeler. No. 5. Soil Erosion report: Mr. Lloyd Wood reported that on August 26, 1975, he and rep- resentatives of the Farm Bureau took a tour of the reservoir area, to point out soil erosion in the area. He stated they took a walking tour which lasted approximately five hours, and were shown not only the bad areas of erosion, but what could be done to correct erosion problems with proper attention. Mr. John Smart of the Farm Bureau said that due to lack of time they were not able to complete the tour as planned, but felt Mr. Wood had seen sufficient examples of erosion problems to realize its effects. He added that if work is concentrated on the problem immediately, the res- ervoir can be saved for future use. Col. Carroll B. Smith was next to speak, he said that rep- resentatives of the State Water Control Board and State Soil & Water Conservation District Com- mission also took the tour. Col. Smith proceeded to read a letter received from the Soil & Water Conservation District Commission and the Farm Bureau's reply: "Mr. John A. Smart, President Albemarle County Farm Bureau Charlottesv±lle, Va. 22901 Thank you for the invitation to view the problems of erosion and sedimentation, as related to land clearing, land disturbing, and urban development. You and your associates are to be complimented for your interest in the problems, as well as your sincere desire for workable solutions to prevent future problems associated with urban development. Ail sites that we visited showed evidence of erosion in the past. One site still had an active gully; however, work was being done on the gully when we were there. In general the areas we visited were adequately seeded, or had been seeded naturally and minimum erosion was taking place. We did see some small areas that were in need of additional conservation treatment. There were a large accumulation of sediment in the stream near the reservoir. We can only generalize on the sources of this sediment. There is no doubt that urban development con- tributed to the sources of sediment. Roads, road construction, agriculture and possibly other sources also contributed sediment to the stream. The County of Albemarle adopted an Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and Program effective June 30, 1975. This Ordinance and Program properly implemented and enforced will do much to overcome erosion problems that the County is encountering. Key sections of the Ordinance are: Section 5 - Approval Required for Certain Activities and Conditions; Section 6 - Submission of Plans and Specifications; Section 7 - ReView of Plans and Specifications; Section 7-4 - Per- formance Bonds and Security; Section 8 - Inspection; Section 10 - Enforcement. Training needs in plan review, inspection, and enforcement should be determined. Provisions should be made for sufficient manpower to carry out intent of the Ordinance and Program. We hope the County will take all necessary steps to make the Albemarle County Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and Program effective and worthwhile. Sincerely, Henry H. Williamson Erosion and Sediment Control Specialist" "Mr. Gordon Wheeler Chairman, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Charlottesville, Virginia Enclosed is copy of a letter from the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission, dated 29 August 1975, reference problems of erosion and sedimentation as related to land clearing, land disturbing and urban development. As a matter of background, you are already aware of our efforts over the past several years to prevent erosion in Albemarle, parti~cularly in the area of the Rivanna Reservoir, and to bring to your attention locations where major erosion was taking place. Most of these reported locations were on the lands of developers, on which soil disturbing activities, e.g. grading for road-building, landscaping and dam-building, were taking place without the proper use of erosion control practices. In our opinion, corrective action taken on these reported locations of erosion was slow, ineffective and certainly less than vigorous, even though we know that you as Chairman of the Board, took prompt measures to initiate action, some of which resulted in warrants being sworn out against offenders. However, action on some of these warrants was delayed and delayed and finally dropped. In May of this year while in Richmond on a visit to the Virginia Farm Bureau, I called on Mr. Jensen, Executive Director of the State Water Control Board and asked his advice. He conferred with Mr. Joe Wil~son, Chairman of the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission and they jointly suggested we invite them by letter to view the situation around the Reservoir. We did this in early June and forwarded you a copy of the correspondence. Representatives of both agencies came up on 26 August and jointly with Mr. Lloyd Wood as your representative, we conducted them on a tour of erosion sites in the vicinity of Ivy Creek and the large gully on Pantops. As their letter indicates, they were considerably impressed by the large amount of erosion that had taken place and noted the areas in which it was still active. Their oral appraisal was that although enforcement apparently had not been too effective in the past, they saw nothing that could not be corrected under the new Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and Program adopted by the County effective 30 June 1975, provided that, inspection, plan review, and enforcement personnel were sufficient in number and well trained to .carry out the intent of the ordinance. On behalf of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, I concur in that appraisal and recommend that sufficient trained personnel be assigned to insure on-the-site inspection and full implementation of the new Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and Program. Respectfully yours, John A. Smart, President" Mr. Fisher asked if the inspector assigned to this job is adequately trained by Mr. Smart's standards. Mr. Smart said if the inspector could call in an engineer when he had questions, his training was probably adequate at present. He then added that the Farm Bureau could possibly help train the inspector. Colonel Smith said no inspector can be effective unless he conducts on-site inspections. Mr. Thacker requested copies of the two aforementioned letters be sent to each member of the Board, and that Mr. Hartwell Clarke be present at the next meeting of the Board (Thursday, September 18, 1975) to report on progress and make recommendations to advance the enforcement of the ordin- ance. No. 6. Appeal to State Compensation Board: Mr. Ray Jones reported that on August 25, 1975 a letter was received from the State Compensation Board stating a 5% cut was being imposed on all monies, and that all new hiring was frozen. Mr. Jones said that on August 31st, an employee of the Finance Department resigned, and Mr. William S. Bradshaw was promoted, leaving two vacancies which must be filled. He requested the Board to pass a resolution requesting the State Compensation Board to make an exception, and allow the replacement of these two employees. Mr. Jones then requested for Sheriff George Bailey the replacement of one deputy who is due to retire on January 1, 1976. Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Carwile, to adopt the following resolutions: WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors are aware of the financial position of the State of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors are aware of the request of the Compensation Board to reduce costs by 5% pursuant to a letter from Fred G. Pollard, Chairman, dated August 25, 1975; and WHEREAS, the Department of Finance has a vacancy due to the resignation of one Clerk II on August 31, 1975; and WHEREAS, a vacancy in the appraisal staff was created as the result of the promotion of Mr. William Bradshaw to Director of Real Estate Assessment on August 21, 1975. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the two positions above are necessary to the continued efficient operation of the County in the assessment and collection of taxes and that the Board of Supervisors hereby respectfully requests the Compensation Board to continue to participate in these salaries as set forth in a letter dated on June 13, 1975. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, is aware of the fiscal situation of the Commonwealth of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Board is also aware of action taken by the Compensation Board, effective August 27, 1975, in this matter and outlined in letter from Fred G. Pollard, Chairman under date of August 25, 1975; and WHEREAS, the Sheriff of Albemarle and two members of this Board appeared before the Compensation Board on July 3, 1975, to request participation in the salaries of additional deputies, feeling these positions are essential to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, the Sheriff now anticipates a vacancy in his staff on January 1, 1976, due to the retirement of one deputy; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of .Albemarle County, Vir- ginia, does hereby request that the Sheriff be allowed to fill this position upon vacancy. Role was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None. Mr. Wheeler. No. 7. McIntire, Site Development Plan appropriation: Mr. Robert Sampson requested this item be deferred to Thursday, September 18, 1975. (Request granted.) No. 8. District Home Board, Deed Approval: Mr. Sampson said the District Home needs approval for the Chairman of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to sign a deed, turning over 1.9 acres of land to the State Highway Department on Route 799. Mr. St. John said he has seen the subject deed, and it meets his approval. Mr. Wood then offered motion authorizing the Chairman to sign the following deed: THIS DEED, made this 6th day of October, 1975, by and between the Counties of Albemarle, Alleghany, Augusta, Bath and Rockbridge and the Cities of Charlottesville, Covington, Lex- ington, and Waynesboro, Virginia, parties of the first part, and the Commonwealth of Virginia, party of the second part; WITNESSETH, the consideration of the sum of $1.00 paid by the party of the second part to the parties of the first part, receipt' of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties of the first part hereby grants and conveys unto said party of the second party in fee simple, with general warranty, the land located in Wayne Magisterial District, in Augusta County, and described as follows: Being as shown on sketch approved by Mr. R. L. Moore dated July 16, 1975 for Route 799, and described as follows: Lying on the northwest (right) side of the survey centerline and adjacent to the centerline of present Route 799 from the lands of Cecil Edward Harding, Sr. at appro- ximate Station 0+00 to a point in the lands of the parties of the first part at approximate Station 8+00; thence, lying on the west (right) side of the survey centerline and adjacent to the center of present Route 799 from the lands of the parties of the first part at the last said station to a point in the lands of the parties of the first part at approximate Station 326 9-1~-75 (Night) 9-15-75 (Afternoon) more or less, land of which 0.90 acres is inc'luded in the existing right of way and 1.00 acre, more or less, is additional lands; and being a part Jof the same land acquired by the parties of the first part from by deed dated and recorded in Deed Book , Page , in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of said County. For a more particular description of the land herein conveyed, reference is made to photo copy of said sketch, showing outlined in RED the land conveyed in fee simple, which photo copy is hereto attached as a part of this conveyance and recorded simultaneously herewith in State Highway Plat Book , page The said parties of the first part covenants that he is seized of the land in fee simple herein conveyed; that he has the right to convey the said land to the party of the second part; that he has done no act to encumber the said land; that the party of the second part shall have quiet possession of the land, free from all encumbrances and that he will execute such further assurances of the said land as may be requisite. The said party of the first part covenants and agrees for himself, his heirs, successors', and assigns, that the consideration hereinabove mentioned and paid to him shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation for land, and for damages, if any, to the remaining lands of the party of the first part which may result by reason of the use to which the party of the second part will put the land to be conveyed, including such drainage facilities as may be necessary. WITNESS the following signatures and seals. Motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile, and carried by the following recorded vote': AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None. Mr. Wheeler. No. 9. Appointments: Advisory Council on Aging: September 18, 1975. Mr. Thacker requested this appointment be deferred until Thursday, B) Library Board: 18, 1975. Mr. Thacker requested this appointment be deferred until Thursday, September c) Advisory Committee, South Rivanna River Reservoir Study: Mr. Sampson recommended the appoint- ment of Mr. John Humphrey,. County Planner, to the position. Motion was then offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher, to appoint Mr. Humphrey to the aforementioned Committee. Role was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None. Mr. Wheeler. At 11:10 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher, to adjourn this meeting until Monday, September 15, 1975 at 4:00 P.M. in the CoUnty Office Building Board Room. Role was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None. Mr. Wheeler. ~ ~~ Chairman An adjourned meeting was held on September 15, 1975 at 4:00 P.M. by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in the Board Room of the Albemarle County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Meeting was adjourned from September 10, 1975. PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwi!e, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler, and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: None. Mr. Wheeler called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M., and stated the C~ounty had received the report of the National Sheriff's Association on the County Sheriff's office. Sheriff Bailey will meet with the Board on Thursday, September 18, 1975 to discuss their findings. He added that he was only given two copies, and that the part the Board is most concerned with regarded space. The two copies were given to Mr. Carwile and Mr. Thacker to read before that date. Mr. Wheeler said he received a telephone call from the Chairman of the Electoral Board stating the need to move the Ivy voting precinct from St. Paul's Church to Murray School, and that this has to be approved by the Justice Department. Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Carwile to adopt the. following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby concur in a request from the Albemarle County Electoral Board that the polling place for the Ivy Precinct be changed from St. Paul's Church to the Murray Elementary School. Role was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. At 4:14 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Thacker to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Role was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None.