HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-10-16342
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
October 16, 1975, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Present: Messrs[ Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr,,William C. Thacker,
Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
Absent: None.
Officers Present:
John.
County Executive, J. Harvey Bailey, and County Attorney, George R. St.
1) The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:15 A. M.
2) The meeting began with The Lord's Prayer.
3) Approval of minutes of June 19, July 2, and July 17, 1975.
Wednesday, October 22.
Ordered carried over until
4e.
Letters from the Highway Department.
"September 22, 1975
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Gentlemen:
Secondary System
Additions and Abandonments
Albemarle County
As requested in resolution by your Board on August 21, 1975, the following
additions to and abandonments from the Secondary System of Albemarle County
are hereby approved, effective September 22, 1975.
ADDITION LENGTH
Section 5 of new location Rte. 729 from Station 31+00
to Rte. 732, Project 0729-002-132,C-501.
Section 6 of new location Rte. 732 from conn. Station
16+10 to conn. Station 22+80, Project 0729-002-!32,C-50t.
ABANDONMENT
Sections 2 and 3 of old location Rte. 729 from conn. Station
26+80 to Rivanna River, Project 0729-002-132,C-501.
0.25 Mi.
0.13 Mi.
0.17 Mi.
0.13 Mi.
Section 4 of old location Rte. 732 from conn. Station 16+10
to conn. Station 22+80, Project 0729-002-132,C501.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
J. E. Harwood, Deputy Commissioner
and Chief Engineer"
"September 22, 1975
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Secondary System
Additions
Albemarle County
Gentlemen:
As requested in resolution by your Board on July 17, 1975, the following
additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved,
effective July t, 1975.
ADDITION LENGTH
CANTERBURY HILLS SUBDIVISION
Lancaster Court - From Bennington Road (Route 1407)
to cul-de-sac.
Surrey Road - From Bennington Road (Route 1407)
to cul-de-sac,
0.03 Mi.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
J. E. Harwood, Deputy Commissioner
and Chief Engineer"
0.07 Mi.
4a. Earlysville Heights Roads. Mr. Charles Perry, Assistant Resident Highway Engineer
said the basic problems with roads in Earlysville Heights have been corrected. However, he
has received some minor complaints from property owners. Mr. Dan Barney has complained about
the cul-de-sac on Ridgemont Road not being located in accordance with the temporary plans. Mr.
Perry said he will make a site review of the roads this afternoon. Mr. Wheeler noted that he
343
would make a report to the Board on this matter on November 12.
4b. Route 231. Request was received from Mr. John H. Robertson on behalf of the Grace
Episcopal Church. He noted that when Route 231 was realigned several years ago, there was a
parcel of excess land abandoned between the new road and the Church. The Church would now
like to have clear title to this land. Mr. Perry asked that the request be carried over to
the next meeting.
4d. Public hearing on an ordinance to vacate a portion of a plat recorded in the Office
of~the Clerk of the Circuit court in Deed Book 417, page 159 for that portion of Section 6,
Hessian Hills, between lot 9, block D, of said ~ubdivision and lot !0, block E thereof. Notice
of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on October 2 and October 8, 1975,
with affected property owners being notified by certified mail.
(Mr. Wheeler noted that his company is involved in the sale and purchase of land in the
vicinity of Sturbridge Road and he would abstain. He handed the gavel over to the vice
Chairman, Mr. Thacker.)
Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission had reviewed the proposed plat and has recommend-
ed to the Board approval of the abandonment of a 50 foot section of Sturbridge Road extending
from the permanent turnaround to the property line at the south. They made this recommendation
basically because this section of Hessian Hills is all single-family. The adjoining property
is z&~ed R-3 and they feel that any extension of any road from high density into this area would
have a detrimental effect on this single-family section. There ms presently one parcel that is
landlocked but could be served by an extension of this road. Parcels 22A and 22, presently of
record, are owned by one property owner who has a 20 foot right-of-way from Georgetown Road.
In order for the owner of parce~ 23 to obtain access from the center of the large area, a deed
of easement would have to be obtained from the owner of Lot 22A, even if the road were extended.
The Planning Commission said if the R-3 land is developed as R-3, it would be best to have the
traffic exit onto to Route 654 or Georgetown Road rather than having it traverse the single-
family section of Hessian Hills. There is also between these properties a wet weather stream
which drains the entire area. For these reasons, the Planning Commission recommends abandon-
ment of this short piece of the 50 foot right-of-way and installation of a permanent turna-
round on Sturbridge Road.
Mr. Thacker asked if this abandonment would landlock parcel 23. Mr. Humphrey said it is
already landlocked. Mr. Thacker asked if there were any other ownership of property that could
have access to a public right of way through this parcel. Mr. Humphrey said parcel 22A has
direct access to this dedicated right of way. However, it is owned mn common with parcel 22
which has access to Georgetown Road by a 20 foot right of way.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
First, to speak was Richard Long, representing Mr. Luther Wright, .Jr. and his sister, Mrs.
Sadler. He asked that this ordinance not be adopted since Mr. Wmight would then have no access
to the public right of way. If his sister sold her property and he would be landlocked.
Mr. Junius Fishburne, Sr., was present representing the Dukes. He said they have 3+ acres
which is appraised at $48,000.00. It ms zoned R-3. He understands in the past it has been the
Board's policy mn subdivisions to make roads come to the proPerty lines so as to have roads
accessible to every area. To now deny that access is a poor Policy.
Mr. William Sihler was present. He said he is the owner of Lot 9 and lives on Lot 8 on
Sturbridge Road. He is familiar with the feelings of the neighbors. The roads in the area have
deteriorated and he understands the Board has insisted the developer have the roads repaired so
they can be taken into the State Highway System. The Highway Department insists that the turn-
around, as shown on the plat, be installed in that format even though it puts a considerable
hardship on Mr. Cooper who lives on Lot !0. If the development had been planned as it now
exists, he feels the State Highway Department would have required the permanent turnaround now
proposed. He urged the Board to approve the vacation of this section of Sturbridge Road. He
said this neighborhood of some 50 lots would be quite upset to find high density development
at the end of what has been planned as a dead-end street.
Mrs. Sadier was present and said She felt her brother had a right to use the exit from
his property. He has been paying taxes on same for over thirty years.
Mr. Bob Cooper the owner of Lot 10 said the developer of this property had made a state-
ment that he was saving a certain parcel of land so as to block development of any other type.
The neighborhood was planned as single-family and he does not know how other traffic could be
channeled through Hessian Hills out onto Old Forge Road and Georgetown Road.
No other member of the public wishing to speak Mr. Thacker closed the public hearing.
Mr. Carwile said he is familiar with the 01d Salem Apartments on Barracks Road. It is a
high-density, multiple-family area developed with 300+ units. To have traffic of that magni-
tude channeled through Sturbridge onto Georgetown Road does not make sense. The roads in this
section of Hessian Hills have been a problem for a long time. Personally, he has worked with
the Highway Department, the County Engineers Office, and the County Attorney to get these roads
into the state system. It was reported to him on last Friday that Mr. Craig has paid money to
the contractors and they will now complete the work that is needed so these roads can be taken
into the system.
B Mr. Wood said he is also familiar with the area. When the Board was considering Old Salem
%&~partments, their main concern was that there be adequate protection for the single-family
residen~ in the area. There is a deep ravine between the two properties Traffic from this
hmgh-densmty area would place an additional burden on Georgetown Road. He said he understands
the dilemna of the other property owners, but the problems have existed for a long time. He
did not know of any zoning that could have 4~ ~he problem that has been presented.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Wright has the right to negotiate a right of way with Mrs. Sadler so
that his property will not be landlocked if she sells her property. As he understands the
344
10-16-75
facts, the Duke property does not have any access at this time and closing this right-of-way
will not reduce any access for that property. Because of the problems with the stream and
the intense development that could occur on R-3 property, he will support adoption of the
ordinance.
At this time, Mr. Carwile offered motion to adopt the ordinance as advertised.
was seconded by Mr. Wood.
The motion
ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF THE PLAT
OF SECTION 6 OF HESSIAN HILLS SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, a certain tract or parcel of land lying in
Albemarle County has heretofore been subdivided under the name
of Section 6 of Hessian Hills Subdivision, the plat of which
is of record in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 417, page 159; and
WHEREAS, there is shown on the said plat a certain
street designated Sturbridge Road, which road is shown as
extending to the southerly property line of the said Section
6; and
WHEREAS, there is further shown on the said plat a
"temporary turn around" for the said Sturbridge Road; and
WHEREAS, the owners of certain lots in Section 6 of
Hessian Hills Subdivision now desire to install and make
permanent a cul-de-sac in approximately the same location as
that shown on the aforesaid plat for the "temporary turn
around"; and
WHEREAS, the said property owners have petitioned the
Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County that the said
plat be vacated as to that portion of Sturbridge Road lying
between the aforementioned "temporary turn around" and the
southerly property line of Section 6 of Hessian Hills Sub-
division;
NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of County
supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, as follows:
S~ction 1 That the subdivision of Section 6 of Hessian
Hills Subdivision shown on a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office
of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book
417, page 159, be, and the same hereby ms, vacated as to that
portion of Sturbridge Road lying between the southerly property
line of said Section 6 of Hessian Hills Subdivision and the
"temporary turn around" shown on the said plat.
Section 2 The vacation set forth in Section 1 of this
Ordinance shall in no way vacate any other street, road, right-of-
way or lot duly platted and recorded on the aforementioned plat.
Section 3 Pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of
Virginia (1950) as amended, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia, shall write in plain legible letters
across the vacated portion of the aforesaid plat the word "VACATED",
and shall also make reference on the same to the volume and page in
which the instrument of vacation is recorded.
Mr. Thacker said he has reservations about taking such action. It will not deny the Duke
property access, but it will deny Mr. Wright access. Even if the 20 foot right-of-way should be
extended, it may not be adequate to provide access under the present county ordinances. He still
has reservations about landlocking a piece of property and will not support the motion.
Mr. Henley said he would hesitate to close a road which he feels is for the benefit of the
whole community. But, as Mr. Carwile had pointed out, the land is already landlocked. He cannot
see turning R-3 traffic through a single family residential community.
Mr. Thacker said this also disturbs him but Mr. Wright's property, at this time, is not
landlocked since the right of way extends to the property line. It~will deny him use of his
property if the Board vacates this right of way.
Vote was taken on the motion at this time and it carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, and Wood.
NAYS: Mr. Thacker.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Wheeler.
4g. Highway matters not on the agenda from the Board members.
at this time.)
NOTE:
(Mr. Wheeler returned
Mr. Wheeler asked if there had been any further report about the roads in Woodbrook Sub-
division, Sections 9 and 10. Mrs. Kathy Tompkins, Woodbrook Homeowners Association,was present.
She said she had spoken to Mr. Lindstrom, the bankruptcy attorney, and he said he was mn the
process of getting estimates for completing the roads. Mr. Wheeler suggested that he be invited
to the Board meeting in November.
Mr. Wood said there have been meetings with the Highway Department, Mr. Lindstrom, and the
county attorneys and he did not think the Board should wait until November. When this discussion
started several months ago, the object was to get the roads into the state system before the
winter and before there could be further deterioration. The County does hold a bond and he would
like to see the board exercise their authority in this matter. Mr. Wheeler said that would take
some time. Mr. Wood asked if the matter could be put on the agenda after lunch and invite Mr.
10-16-75
345
Lindstrom to be present at that time.
Mr. Thacker asked if the bond the county is holding i8 adaquate to bring the roads into
the system. Mr. Warner said Section 9 ms ready;Section 10 is not. Mrs. Tompkins said there
is a question about the sewer pump behind the Melnick property in Section 9. It has never
been properly anchored and has not been accepted by the Rivanna Sewer Authority. She asked
if the bond would cover that repair. Mr. Ashley Williams, Acting County Engineer, said the
State Health Department requires certain things to be done on a pumping station and all items
have not been completed at this time. The Rivanna Authority was told a couple of months ago
that these matters would be completed. Mr. Bailey said the Albemarle County Service Authority
will refuse to take over this pumping station until it is brought up to the specifications
required by the Health Department, but, they have no way to compel these repairs.
4g. Mr. Bailey read into the record a letter from the Highway Department on Summit Road
and WeSt Park Drive, dated September 16, 1975.
"September 16, 1975
Hessian Hills
Albemarle County
County of AZhemarte
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
Attention: Mr. J. Harvey Bailey
Dear Mr. Bailey:
In reference to our meeting last week concerning the drainage
problem at the intersection of Summit Road and West Park Drive, this ms
to advise that we would like to change the present location of our drain
pipe.
As you know, the existing drain pipe is constantly stopPed up at
the outlet end. By changing the drain pipe, it will allow the drainage from
the outlet end of the pipe to outfall on the section of land which is presently
dedicated as a 40' easement proposed for right of way. This section of land is
reserved for the continuation of Summit Road.
I would appreciate your advising me if the County will be agreeable
to this change since there is a possibility that the Board of Supervisors will
be approached about abandoning this section of land.
If the Board of Supervisors decides to abandon this section of land,
then we will need to have a drainage easement prior to the disposition of this
land. Attached is a sketch indicating both the present location of our drain-
age pipe and the new proposed location.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
(signed)
By: C. B. Perry
Asst. Resident Engineer"
Mr. Bailey said Mr. St. John has talked to the people interested in requesting this land.
This is not a formal application but if that does occur the Board will need to request an ease-
ment for drainage.
4c. Route 637. Mr. Fisher said he has written letters to the property owners on Route
637 explaining whY all of the right of ways are being taken from one side of the road. He was
told this was done because the 'teiePhone ip~l~'s mun down one side of the road. However, he
finds that there are 'teIePhone pol'eS on .ho[th Sides of the road. Mr. Perry said the majority
are on the same side of the road. Mr. Wheeler said that Mr. Bailey has been working closely
with Mr. Guy Agnor and the City on the cost of this project. Moaday, Mr. Wheeler met with Mr.
Bailey, Mr. Hendrix, and Mr. Wiley and discussed procedures for
having the Highway Department do the work as opposed to taking b
a final report before the Board in the next two or three weeks.
will present the County with another estimate. The Highway Depa
based on what the Highway Department felt competitive bidding wo
ment may be in a better position to give a lower cost.
would like to refigure the estimate.
the project. They discussed
ids. The said there would be
Mr. Bailey said Mr. Perry
rtment's first estimate was
mid bring. The Highway Depart-
Before reducing any road design, they
4f. Highway matters not on the agenda from the public. Mr. Perry presented to the Board
of Supervisors a sketch of changes which have taken place in the alignment of Route 20 North.
He asked that the Board adopt a resolution abandoning certain sections. Motion was offered by
Mr. Fisher to advertise this matter for a.public hearing on November 20, 1975, at 9:30 A. M.
in the Board Room. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded
vo~e:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
.NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Carwile and Mr. Wood.
346
4f. Mr. Warner said there is a highway matter which has been pending since 1963. This parcel
has been in condemnation stages since that time. It involves Route 601 near Free Union where a new
bridge was built over Moorman's River. By resolution of the Board dated October 16, 1963, certain
sections were abandoned and new sections were added. At that time, one section was discontinued.
When the right of way was bought in fee by the Highway Department, it was bought to the center of
the old section noted as Section 1 on sketch presented to the Board. The half from the center to
the adjacent property was discontinued. This was done in order to provide access to that property
which had_previously fronted on the old road. In trying to negotiate a settlement with this
property owner, the highway department has agreed to deed to the property owner that portion of the
right of way from the center of the old section to the normal right of way line. The highway
department now requests the Board to adopt a resolution abandoning the old section and the High-
way Department will deed the other portion obtained in fee to the adjoining property owner. Mr.
Warner said that in accordance with Section 33.1-164 of the Code of Virginia, when a new facility
is built replacing an old facility, the Board can abandon this section without a public hearing.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, certain changes have resulted in the Secondary
System due to relocation and construction of Route 601,
(Project 0601-002-102,C$0!); a~d
WHEREAS, no public hearing is required in this matter;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the following
section, as indicated on sketch presented to this meeting and
made a part of the Board's permanent file, be abandoned pursuant
to Section 33.1-164 of the Code of Virginia:
Section 1 - 0.35 mile
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded voYe:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None
4g. Highway matters not on the agenda from Board members. Mr. Fisher said that about a year
ago he had asked that white lines be painted on'~the road in front of. Bellair Gulf on Route 250 West.
He asked the status of this request. Mr. Warner said it has been agreed to, but the work has not
been done.
Mr. Wheeler asked about a "No Litter" sign be posted on Route 640.
installed this day.
Mr. Perry said it is to be
NOT DOCKETED. Mr. Wheeler said that Mr. Lindstrom had just arrived at the meeting and he
asked that the Board now continue with a discussion of Woodbrook Roads. Mr. Lindstrom said that
he and Mr. Strickland had discussed disposition of the $5,000 bond that the County presently
holds for completion of the roads in Woodbrook. At present, the bankruptcy estate has no funds
to use in order to complete the roads in Section 9. These costs may have to be shared on a
pro-rata basis with other property owners. The bankruptcy estate owns only two houses. Ail
other houses in Section 9 have been sold.
Mr. Strickland said that everything he has heard indicates that the bond the County is
holding was posted for Section 10. However, he~would be willing to look at any documentation
that proves otherwise. Mr. Lindstrom said he has talked with Fred Payne in the County Attorney's
Office about this bond and asked for documentation on the $5,000.00 cashier check which the County
presently holds. As he understands it, the cashier's check originated from two letters of credit;
one on section 9 and one on section 10.
Mr. Wheeler said the Board has imposed a building permit moratorium on Section 9 and Section
10. In order for the bankruptcy estate to have that building permit moratorium lifted, the roads
will have to be brought up to state standards. Mr. Lindstrom said the estate is not able to do
this at this time. If the bond money is in escrow, he might have to ask that part of this money
be used for the work. Mr. Wood said if Section 9 is not already in the state highway system,
there must be a bond posted for completion of the roads. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands the
work in section 9 except for a couple of chuckholes is essentially complete. There is one manhole
cover above the surface of the road. The roads in Section 10 are much further from being acceptable
to the State Highway Department.
Mr. Wood said when this whole matter started, the object of the Board was to get the roads in
Section 9 into the State Highway System before time for winter maintenance. If this matter is put
off into the future, it is not acceptable. Mr. Lindstrom said the bankruptcy estate has no owner-
ship in section 9 and will hold a meeting with the homeowners association. He has discussed this
with Mrs. Tompkins.
Mrs. Kathy Tompkins said until the homeowners know what cost is involved, they are not in any
position to give an answer on whether they can put up funds for the completion of these roads.
Mr. Carwile suggested the Board adopt a resolution instructing the staff to withhold certifi-
cates of occupancy on homes in Section 9. Mr. Lindstrom said this was done at a previous meeting.
Mr. Carwile said he felt the bankruptcy attorney should also notify whoever holds construction
loans on these houses that they should become involved~ The Board is not going to force this ex-
pense on'~the homeowners. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not think this was within the jurisdiction of
the bankruptcy court.
Mr. Fisher questioned Mr. Lindstrom's remark about the bond. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Strickland
feels that all of the bond is for Section 10. At the last meeting, it was indicated this bond is
for both sections 9 and 10. Mr. Perry has indicated there were two letters of credit on Section 9
and 10 and when one expired the County agreed to put the responsibility in one $5,000.00 bond to
cover both. Mr. Thacker said there was another problem the Board became aware of this morning and
that is a problem with the Albemarle County Service Authority taking over the pumping station.
10-16-75.
347
Mr. St. John said his office is convinced that the $5,000.00 is available for Section 9
if that is the most important section at this time. The Board can require that the work be
done and then pay for that work. The County will not give the $5,000.00 over to any person,
but could make the money available for that purpose in Section 9. Mr. Striokland said it is
easy to say that it only applfes to Section 9 but it ought to be done properly and there should
be some evidence to that fact. Mr. St. John said his office has searched the file and finds no
evidence that it is any other way than what they have said. Mr. Lindstrom said there is only
$200.00 in work to be completed in Section 9. He asked if the County preceded to have the work
done if he would be notified after the work commenced. Mr. St. John said the bankruptcy attorney
should contract for the work and the County will furnish a certificate to whoever is chosen that
the money is available for such work.
Mr. Wood said it had disturbed him to hear Mr. Lindstrom say he was going back to the
property owners for more cash when the County holds this money in hand. He said he would
personally discourage the property owners for paying any more cash as long as the County holds
the $5,000.00. He then offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the agent for the Board
of Supervisors is hereby authorized to release as
much of the bond now posted for roads in Sections
9 and 10 of Woodbrook Subdivision, as is necessary
for repairs of roads in Section 9 so these roads
may be taken into the State Secondary System of
Highways.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried bY the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
NOT DOCKETED. Mr. Wood said there is another
tioning proper~y and has not been taken over by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr.
Lindstrom said he is aware of the problem but he does not think Mr. Melniek should be experienc-
ing any distress. He asked if any portion of this bond would cover that work. Mr. St. John said
the bond that has been discussed is for road work only. There was no separate bonding procedures
for utilities when this subdivision was begun. However, there is a written contract between the
Albemarle County Service Authority and Claude Cotten that would be binding on the bankruptcy
estate. Mr. Cotten was obliged to do this work.
In order to clarify the situation further, Mr. Wood offered motion that the moratorium
presently existing on building permits and certificates of oceupany for lots in Woodbrook Sub-
division, Section 9 and 10, be extended to cover not only those problems encounte~ed~.W~th~heo~v~-
roads but also the problems encountered with the entire sewer system in Woodbrook Subdivision.
The moratorium is not to be lifted until the sewer system is acceptable to the health department
and the Albemarle COunty Servime Authority and ready to be accepted by the Albemarle County
Service Authority for maintenance. This motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
7. Request to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to provide for scenic highway
designation.
Mrs. Helen Milius, a property owner on 250 West, was present in support of this request.
She asked for censideration for two reasons. 1) the Bicentennial; and 2) delay is dangerous.
Route 250 East and Route 29 North have both been lost as scenic highways. Route 250 West is
loaded with sign boards which are unacceptable to state standards. However, if the Board can
give some local protection while trying to have these sign boards eliminated one by one, it is
possible that 250 West can be saved. The uglification of the land is about the same as the
eutrophication of the reservoir. It is a thing the citizens can live with day after day, but
eventually it gets to a disaster stage.
Mrs. James Overby was present and presented to the Board a listing of persons who had
signed in support of scenic designation for Route 250 West. These included homeowners
associations of Farmington, Ednam Forest, West Leigh, and Bellair, also Citizens for Albemarle,
Ivy Citizens Association, Civic League, Greenwood Citizens Council, and the Crozet Women's
Club. Petitions were also circulated within Flordon and Kersarge. Signatures were also obtained
from approximately 79 persons whose property fronts directly on 250 West.
Mrs. Martha Seldon was present in support of the request and showed to the Board several
newspaper articles on the subject. The State has indicated that the localities can adopt an
interim approval for scenic highway designation with a clause saying that once the billboard
problem ms solved an appl'ication will be made to the State for state designation of scenic
highways.
Mr. Michael Gleason said both the Sign Advisory Commission, appointed by the Board of
Supervisors, and the Bicentennial Commission are concerned about scenic designation. They feel
it ms important to the County and it has been carried as one point in the Master Plan of the
Bicentennial Commission.
Mr. Fisher then offered motion to adopt the following resolution of intent.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, intends to amend the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance to allow for scenic highway
designation as provided by State Legislation; and
Further, request the Planning Commission to hold public
hearing on said proposal to amend the County Zoning Ordinance
34.8 -i o-16-75
Mrs. Seldon said there are three other localities who would like to join with Albemarle in
legislation for the removal of signs. It is a much more complex project now than when it was start-
ed. Presently, there is a proposal for scenic designation of Route 6 from Richmond to Afton going
through Goochland, Fluvanna, and Nelson counties and this all needs to be coordinated with the
State. At this time, the motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
o
County.
Request for resolution to support extension of 1-95 logo sign system to 1-64 in Albemarle
Mr. Gleason said this request is similar to one which was brought to the Board last year.
Approximately five million tourists will be traveling through Albemarle County during the 1976
year. The Sign Committee now requests a resolution supporting their going to the State Highway
Department asking for extension of the 1-95 logo system into Albemarle County. They feel there
is a need for this because Albemarle -CharIottesville is designated as one of the three bicentennial
centers in Virginia and a lot of attention will be placed on Albemarle County.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Fisher to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Sign Advisory Commission plans to
request from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
the interstate experimental logo system; and
WHEREAS, the logo system seems to be unique and a better way
to aid tourists; and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle area will see an increase
in traffic during the Bicentennial celebration in 1976;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors does hereby support the Sign Advisory Commission in its
request for extension of the logo sign system into Albemarle County.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Gleason said the Sign Advisory Commission has discovered from the Virginia Association
of Counties that there is already legislation proposed for sign amortization in the next session
of the General Assembly. He asked that the Board of Supervisors join Fairfax County and James
City County in attempting to find a way to eliminate the billboard problem. That does not relate
to scenic highways.
Mr. Thacker said he felt this was basically approved by the Board a year ago and offered
motion to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Sign Advisory Commission on
October 23, 1974 returned its report concerning the state of
signs and sign laws; and
WHEREAS, one of the recommendations of the said Commission
was that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisor's request
General Assembly legislation which would give local option as to
the amortization of signs; and
WHEREAS, no such legislation was enacted by the 1975
session of the General Assembly;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby request the Virginia
Ass~iati~ df Counties to sponsor a resolution in favor of
enabling legislation permitting localities to provide for the
amortization of signs after a certain number of years.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwite, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
9a. Emergency Operations Plan for Albemarle County and 9b. Insta-Phone
Present was William Whitehead, Regional Coordinator, State Office of Emergency Services.
said the Federal Government has a warning system for emergencies but has not agreed to install
this in all jurisdictions in the State. They have agreed only to put in one installation per
planning district. Any warning would come mn on the national warning service and must then be
relayed on a regional system located in an area that has a 24 hour dispatcher service. It is
recommended that this be in the Sheriff's Office. In addition to the primary purpose of acting
as a warning system, the insta-phone has value to the Sheriff's Department on a day-to-day basis.
The State has rented some SCATS lines from the telephone company and will use these lines where
available. The cost is estimated to be $70.00 a month. The Defense Civil Preparedness Agency
has agreed to match funds with the localities, thus making the locality's share about $37.50 a
month or $450.00 a year. The State Office of Emergency Services will administer and take care of
He
349
the installation of the phone. The locality will be billed $450.00 once a year. There will be no
paper work on the locality's part. If the cost should be less than $450.00 the locality will receive
credit on the next year's bill. But, Mr. Whitehead quaranteed that the cost would not exceed
$450.00. The locality also has an option to terminate servmce at any time by giving 90 days notice.
Mr. Wheeler complained that he has often received cards giving notice of warning signals but
has never been called. He said the present system evidently is not working. Mr. Whitehead said
the calls have been going to Mr. Ronny Dower, the Emergency Services Coordinator at the City Fire
Station. He has been returning the cards saying he received the notices, so the County has been
receiving credit. If Mr. Wheeler wants to be notified of each test warnings the County should so
indicate and the coordinator should set up a system so the person at the warning point will pass
on the message. However, this planning needs to be done by the local coordinator.
Mr. Robert Sampson was present and said the plan has never worked. The City is supposed to
notify the Sheriff's Department and they in turn are to notify Mr. Wheeler~ then the County
Executive, and then the Assistant to the County Executive. The system has been in operation for
two years and it has not worked. Mr. Wheeler suggested that the Sheriff be invited to the meeting.
Mr. Sampson said there were four matters before the Board this morning on this matter. The
first is to establish an emergency services organization. Mr. Jim Bowling, of the County Attorney's
Office feels that this establishes a new organization strictly for the County. However, Mr. Sampson
said he interprets it only as a clarification of a roles mn event of an emergency. Paragraph 3 in
the Plan puts the Sheriff's Department under the direct control of the Director of Emergency
Services and centralizes power under one person. Most of the other information contained in the
Plan is redundant because it sets out almost word for word what is included in the State Code.
Mr. Wheeler asked if this ordinance had to be advertised for a public hearing. Mr. Sampson
said yes. Motion was then offered by Mr. Fisher to set November 20, 1975, at t1:00 A. M. as a
public hearing on an ordinance to provide for an emergency se~Pices organization, designation 5f
a director of emergency services a~d his responsibilities, provision for emergency plans, pro-
vision for declaring a local emergency during a disaster or e~ergency or an impending disaster or
emergency, and provision for a coordination of emergency se'r~ces, pursuant to the authority of
the Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency Services Disaster Act of 1973. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Carwile, Fisher, Henley, and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Thacker and Wood.
Next presented to the Board was a resolution setting out the chain of command.
WHEREAS conditions may be such thaT the Director of
Emergency Services is unavailable or incapacitated during a
major emergency and it may become necessary f6r another person
to assume control, it is deemed necessary tO establish a
line of succession.
WHEREAS, moreover, it is required
"Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency Service
of 1973", Section 44-146.19, as amended, cae
division shall have a Director of Emergency
and shall establish a chain of command (e):
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that thc
Board of Supervisors ~shatl be the Director
for the County of Albemarle; and
.nder the
and Disaster Law
h politcal sub-
Services (b)
Chairman of the
f Emergency Services
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the line of succession
be as follows:
1. County Executive, Albemarle County
2. Vice-Chairman, ~Board of SupervSsors
3. Assistant to the County Executive, Albemarle County
Motion was then offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt the foregoing re-
solution. The motion carried by_the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwite, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Next presented was the Albemarle County Emergency Operations Plan.
INTRODUCTION
Emergency operations are actions taken to counteract
an unexpected occurrence. It is.the responsibility of the
County Government to protect its citizens
pected emergencies, or at least, to ease the
suffering of its citizens. To facilitate a r
in time of an emergency, the County must have
of action. The desire on the part of the
to accept this responsibility has required th
operations Plan be written and periodically
Plan, when activated, will be of great assist
dinating the actions of all local and State g
agencies and agencies from the private sector.
n these unex-
personal
kpid response,
a current plan
~ty of Albemarle
~t this Emergency
}dated. This
~nee in eoor-
)vernmental
No one can predict when these emergencies may strike,
or what the intensity will be, nor what their duration will
350 10-16-75
be. Therefore, prudence dictates that Albemarle County must
establish and maintain a state of constant readiness to meet
any and all emergencies as they arise. This is a responsibility
that government owes its citizens.
BASIC PLAN
I. DEFINITIONS FROM THE STATE DISASTER LAW.
Be
~"Natural Disaster" means any hurricane, tornado, storm, floods high water,
wind-driven water, tidal wave, earthquake, drought, fire or other natural
catastrophe resulting in damage, hardship, suffering or possible loss of life.
"Man-Made Disaster" means any condition following any industrial, nuclear
or transportation accident, explosion, conflagration, power failure, resources
shortage or other condition such as: sabotage, oil spills and other injurious
environmental contaminations, which threaten, or cause damage to property,
human suffering, hardship or loss of li~e.
"War-Caused Disaster" means any condition following an attack by an enemy
or foreign nation upon the United States resulting in substantial damage of
property, or injury to persons in the United States and may be by use of
bombs, missiles, shell fire, nuclear, radiological, chemical or biological
means, or other weapons.
"Emergency Services" means the preparation for and the carrying out of
functions, other than functions for which military forces are primarily
responsible, to prevent, minimize and repair injury and damage resulting
from natural or man-made disaster: together with all other activities
necessary or indicental to the preparation for and carryin~ out of the
foregoing functions. These functions include, without limitation, fire-
fighting services, police services, ~medical and health services, rescue,
engineering, air raid warning services, communications, radiological,
chemical, and other special weapons services, emergency transportation,
emergency resource management, existing or properly assigned functions
of plant protection, temporary restoration of public utility services,
and other functions related to civilian protection.
"Major Disaster" means any natural or man-made disaster in any part of the
United States, which, in the determination of the President of the United
States is, or thereafter determined to be, of sufficien~ severity and
magnitude to warrant disaster assistance above and beyond emergency services
by the Federal Government to supplement the efforts and available resources
of the several states, local governments, and relief organizations in
alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby and
is so declared by him.
"State of Emergency" means the condition declared ~y the Governor when in
his judgment, the threat or actual occurrence of a disaster in any part of
the State is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant disaster
assistance by the State to supplement the efforts and available resources
of the several localities, and relief organizations in preventing or
alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering threatened or caused
thereby and is so declared by him: when it is evident that the resources
of the State are adequate to cope with such disasters.
"Local Emergency" means the condition declared by the local governing
body when in their judgment the threat or actual occurrence of a disaster
is or threatens to be of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant
coordinated local government action to prevent or alleviate the damage,
loss, hardship or suffering threatened or caused thereby, provided, however,
that a local emergency arising wholly or substantially out of a resource
shortage may be declared only by the Governor, upon petition of a local
governmng body, when he deems the threat or actual occurrence of a disaster
to be of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant coordinated local
government action to prevent or alleviate the damage, loss, hardship or
suffering threatened or caused thereby.
"Resource Shortage" means the absence, unavailability or reduced supply of
any raw or processed natural resource, or any commodities, goods or services
of any kind which bear a substantial relationship to the health, safety,
welfare and economic well-being of the Citizens of the Commonwealth.
II. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCES.
Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency Services and Disaster Law of 1973, Title 44,
Chapter 3.2,Sect±ons 44-146.13 through 44-146.29, Code of Virginia, as amended
III. PURPOSE AND SCOPE.
To establish policies and procedures for effective direction and control of
emergency operations within the county. This plan will cover actions and anticipated
as well as unanticipated emergency conditions.
IV. SITUATION.
Emergencies of various size and duration may occur within or near the juris-
dictional boundaries of Albemarle County, with or without warning. These emergencies
can develop into disasters witho~ warnmng. They may include:
A. Hurricanes
B. Tornadoes
C. Thunderstorms
D. Floods
E. Conflagrations
10-16-75
E. Conflagrations
F. Explosions (industrial, nuclear, transportation)
G. Major accidents
H. Civil disorders, riots, sabotage, etc.
I. Resource shortages
J. Nuclear attack
K. Others
V. ASSUMPTIONS.
It is assumed that the government will function throughout the duration of these
emergencies. Departments may have to work with fewer employees to accomplish additional
tasks. Assistance may be received from other local governments, State agencies, and
voluntary agencies.
VI. MISSION.
The mission of the Plan and the county government is to establish authorities and
procedures whereby the county can effectively apply its personnel and resources, and
the personnel and resources of the private cOmmunity, state agencmes and other local
governments, to provide for the rapid and orderly response to these emergency conditions.
VII. ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS.
The format of this Plan shall consist of a basic plan with supporting annexes for
the various county emergency response agencies. These annexes are further detailed by
standard operating procedures (SOP). Operating Procedures for various agencies which
cooperate with the county will appear as SOP's to the annexes of the coordinating
county agency. Planning and operating documents of other levels of government which
effect Albemarle County will appear as attachments to this Basic Plan. The annexes
for this Plan are functional. An agency responsible for a particular function will
compose the annex for that function. Updating the annex is the responsibility of
the agency or department head.
VIII. CONCEPT OF OPERATION.
The director of the Albemarle County Office of Emergency Services has the respon-
sibility for the total emergency response of the County. He is assisted by a deputy
director. The coordinator of emergency services will serve as the director's emergency
resources advisor, and liaison officer. The heads of county departments and agencies
with emergency responsibilities will specify their emergency actions in the balance of
this Plan. Emergency operations upon the determination of the director, or his
representative, will be conducted by the department representatives from the designated
emergency operations center (EOC)~.
IX. DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES.
Agencies, both public and private, and departments of the county are assigned
responsibilities as set forth below for emergency operations:
Office of Emergency Services will establish and proVide annexes, as
necessary, for:
1. direction and control of emergency operations
2. communications
3. public information
4. reports to Virginia Office of Emergency Services.
B. Sheriff's Department will establish and provide annexes, as necessary, for:
t. law enforcement
2. traffic control for emergency or accident area
3. security, prevention of looting
4. riot control
5. evacuation of endangered areas
6. coordinate rescue squads operation
7. warning.
Fire suppression organizations will establish and provide annexes, as
necessary, for:
1. fire suppression
2. assist rescue squad in rescue operations
3. disseminate warning by use of sirens.
Department of Social Services will establish and provide annexes, as
necessary, for:
1. provide usual community welfare services as pessible
2. coordinate actions of all volunteer welfare services, including National
Red Cross, Salvation Army, church groups, and any local or other groups
desiring to assist
3. establish evacuation centers for public use
4. establish public service centers to provide counseling as to available
Federal and State assistance programs of HEW (Health, Education and
Welfare), USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), SBA (Small
Business Administration), FHA (Farmers Home Administration), etc.
E. Director df Finance will establish and provide annexes, as necessary, for:
damage assessment with assistance from VPI-SU (Virginia Polytechnic
Institute-State University) extension agent
receive property records to show results of disaster
disaster financial accounting.
F. Purchasing agent will establish and provide annexes, as necessary, for:
35.2
10-16-75
same.
AYES:
NAYS:
2. emergency resources inventory.
G. Health Department will establish and provide annexes, as necessary, for:
1. epidemie control measures
2. identification of the dead assisted by State Police as required
mortuary operations
3. sanitary engineering of water and waste disposal
4. coordinate and control of ~iologicals and radiologicals
5. inspect individual water supplies
6. coordinate operation of package disaster hospitals and the hospital
reserve disaster inventory program.
H. Board of education will establish and provide annexes, as necessary, for:
1. transportation
2. assist social services with public shelter of evacuees.
The director is empowered to add, consolidate, or modify the required annexes,
at any future date, upon his authority.
X. Execution.
upon determination of the director of emergency services, or his representative,
this emergency operations plan will be activated mn part, or mn total. Upon declaration
of a major disaster, a state of emergency, or a local emergency, which affects the
county, this Plan will automatically be in effect. Upon the determination of the head
of any emergency response agency, the emergency annex for that particular agency may be
activated. Affected personnel will be notified as covered in the warning annex. In the
absence of a need for using this Plan, within one year, a special exercise will be held
one year from approval to test and, as necessary, revise the Plan. Revisions of the
annexes are the responsibility of the individual departments with assistance from the
coordinator of emergency services. Revisions of the Basic Plan are the responsibility
of the Office of Emergency Services.
XI. COMPONENTS OF THE PLAN
A. Appendices; as a need is demonstrated authority is granted to the direetor,
0ES (Office of Emergency Services), to add appendices to the Basic Plan.
Appendix 1.
Appendix 2.
Appendix 3.
Appendix 4.
Appendix 5.
Line of succession to position-Director 0.E.S.
Organization chart
Emergency task assignments
Mutual aid and cooperative agreements
Emergency telephone numbers
Bo
Annexes: as need is demonstrated authority is granted to the director,
O.E.S. to add annexes to the Basic Plan.
Annex A
Annex B
Annex C
Annex D
Annex E
Annex F
Annex G
Annex H
Annex I
Annex J
Annex K
Annex L
Annex M
- Direction and control
- Warning/emergency informatidn
- Communications
- Damage assessment/finance
- Search/rescue
- Emergency Welfare
- Law enforcement
- Emergency health
- Debris removal
- Fire service
- Supply/purchasing
- Transportation
- Resource management
Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker to approve the plan and to authorize the Chairman to sign
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher to authorize the Chairman to sign an agreement for the in-
stallation of an insta-phone and to adopt the following resolution;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
$450.00 be and the same hereby is transferred from the General Fund to the General
Operating Fund and coded to 18C3.1 for installation of an insta-phone for a one year
trial period.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
The agreement, as signed, is set out below:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
AGREEMENT
This Agreement between the Virginia State Office of Emergency Services and the
County of Albemarle is in support of the Virginia State Warning Plan.
10-18-75
353
It is agreed the-Virginia State Office of Emergency Services will be the
Administrative, Fiscal and Contract Office and will perform the following acts:
Accept payments from the County of Albemarle for its share of the
Insta-Phone telephone costs.
2. Contract with telephone company for service.
Procure, as available, those Federal and/or State funds to assist in
defraying costs of the system.
Administer the system in accordance with those plans and concepts ex-
pressed within this document and the Virginia State Warning Plan, to
provide for reliable and rapid warning to the County of Albemarle.
It is agreed that Albemarle County will:
Accept the telephone service (Insta-Phone) and use it for warning pur-
poses as contained in the Virginia State Warning Plan and in accordance
with Local Warning Plans.
Pay to the Virginia State Office of Emergency Services Albemarle County's
share of the costs of the system on an annual basis, in advance not to
exceed $450 per annum. The per annum cost will be negotiable from year
to year because of possible fluctuations in telephone rates.
Keep an approved standard operating procedure posted at the Insta-Phone
instrument for immediate use giving current telephone numbers'and/or
other information as to how the Emergency Services Director or his agent
(Coordinator, etc.) may be reached for warning purposes.
Abide by reasonable rules of conduct and language as may bejindicated by
common sense or otherwise spelled out in directives from the Virginia State
Office of Emergency Services.
This Agreement is for a period from installation ~o June 30, 1976.
matically renewed for a one-year period on each June 30 thereafter unle
given in writing ninety (90) days or more prior to the anniversary date
ment or unless it is cancelled with ninety (90) days written notice at
either from the County of Albemarle to the Virginia State Office of Eme
or conversely.
Mr. Whitehead noted that the installation of the telephone will depend
of localities in planning district 10 participating in this project.
It is auto-
ss notice is
of the agree-
sny other time
'gency Services
.n a sufficient--numbers
18. Report from the Chamber of Commerce on convention bureau, Paul Hol~ran. Mr. Holdran said
when he came before the Board last year with this request, he had with him an envelope and five or
six folders which were used by the Chamber of Commerce for attracting conventions to this area. He
then showed to the Board a new convention portfolio which had been drawn by ~embers of the Chamber
of Commerce and noted that this work could not have been done without a libeeal contribution from
the Board of Supervisors. He said the folder was step one. The inside of t
He said that the Chamber of Commerce has placed ads in the New York Times am
ads which will appear in Southern Living,The;..WaIt~Stree~Jo~rnal~The'~'~r~i~
ional New York Times ads. They have worked closely with Michael Gleason frc
Center to be sure that there has been no duplication. There is displayed im
Airport in New York the folder which he displayed to the Board. The Commiss
Industry for the State of Virginia said that this is the most attractive fol
played by any community in the State of Virginia. Phase III ?f their work ~
goes inside of the folder and is a story-type booklet, with pmctures, which
the Albemarle-Charlottesville area and why conventions should be brought her
there was also included in the packet an audited report which was part of th
convention bureau. He said this work was done by a committee composed of se
denoted approximately eighty hours each of work. Mr. Thacker ~aid he was ve
what had been accomplished with the money furnished by Albemarle.
ne folder was step two.
d have a schedule of
a~-Tmave~.~-B~reau~.and~addit-
m the Bicentennial
the John F. Kennedy
moner of the Travel
der to ever be dis-
ill be a booklet which
will say what is in
e. He noted that
e contract for the
ven people who had
ry surprised with
Mr. Wheeler thanked Mr. Holdran for his report.
12. Shirley Holloway. Request payment for medical biIl:
County Park.
Mrs. Holloway said that her son was at Chris Green Lake
is the boundary of the lake. He had moved from one side of t]~e rope to the
pole. Afterwards, he was told by the lifeguard that he was n~t allowed on t
was covered with cresote and he was hurned from the top of hi~ body to his
guards told him to wash off with soap and water. However, la-~er in the day
discomfort she took him to the emergency room at the Martha J~ ffer'son Hospit
seen by Dr. R. C. Shrum. This visit resulted in a $30.00 bill. She asked t
approve payment of same from county funds because there were ~o signs on th~
poles were not properly covered to prevent injury.
Mr. Sampson said he sent the Board a memo explaining the
jury occurred, the Parks Department took a count and about
one else had been burned. He said normally if you rub up aga~
the cresote immediately, there are no unusual side effects. '
accident; one that resulted from operation of the swimming ar,
checked with the County Attorney and been advised that this b
resolution of the Board is adopted.
Mr~ Sampson said the same day this injury occurred, se~b~
polyvinyl. Since that time, there have been no more complain
repairs and the poles given two coats of asphaltium and then
for injuries sustained at
n June holdin~ to the rope which
~ther side of the
he poles. The pole
nkles. The life-
he was in so much
al where he was
hat the County
poles and the
problem. At ~he time this in-
'000 people had used the lake.
No
.nsta cresote4 pole and wash off
~his could be do~sidered a freak
~a. Mr. SampsOn said he had
[11 can be paid only after a
divers covered the poles with
:s. The lake Cas drained for other
~ewrapped with polyvinyl. The
35a
10-16-75
Health Department approved this and said there is no chance this same thing can occur again.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Thacker that the County pay the bills incurred by Mrs. Holloway
in the amount of $30.00. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile.
Mr. Wood said he agreed with ~the recommendation to pay the $30.00, but would like to be sure
the Board ~s not setting a precedent and requested that a proper release be signed so the matter
is ended. Mr. Fisher said he has been to Mint Springs Park on several occasions. The poison ivy
was very high. He asked if the County would treat someone who has an acute sensitivity to poison
ivy in the same manner and said he also is concerned about setting a precedent. Mr. Carwile said
the precedent is set by whoever is sitting on the Board of Supervisors at the time. Poison ivy
is visible and cresote under water ms not. Mr. Thacker said if the Board provides recreational
facilities, they should provide safe recreational facilities.
Mr. St. John noted that the County is not liable for payment of this bill. This is purely
voluntary. It could not be required in a court of law. Mr. Thacker asked if the County maintained
any type of liability insurance. Mr. St. John said if the Board had such insurance it would be
deemed to waive their sovereign immunity. The County is absolutely immune from liability for any
such situation whether or not there be negligence involved.
Mr. Wood asked if he could be assured that approval of this would not bind future boards to
similar action. Mr. St. John said he could not assure that. Mr. Carwile asked if this were not a
discretionary matter with the Board. Mr. St. John said every time the Board acts on a discretionary
matter in a certain way, they commit themselves to acting the same way if another person comes with
a similar situation. Under the law, the Board is required to attempt to apply discretion in the
same way in a given circumstance.
Mr. Wheeler then called for a roll call.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood (Mr. Wood prefaced his motion by saying that he
did not want to tie up the vote when a citizen makes a legitimate complaint. He is worried about
setting a precedent. However, since this is a discretionary matter with the Board and the Board
can approve one and disapprove another such request based on the facts of each, he would vote aye.)
NAYS: Mr. Fisher (prefaced his motion by saying he felt this set a precedent and since there was
no permanent injury, he would not support the motion) and Mr. Henley (stating, he felt this could
have been taken care of for less tha~ $30.00.)
Mr. Wheeler said he had been on the Board for eight years and this is not the first time that
the Board has taken such action on cases. He feels the Board should always be responsible to the
situation at the time.
10. Public hearing to amend and reenact Section 2-53 of the Albemarle County Code, known as
the Equalization of Pay Ordinance. Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily
Progress on October 1 and October 8, 1975.
No one from the public spoke for or against this amendment to the ordinance.
Motion was then offered by 'Mr. Fisher to adopt an ordinance amending and readopting the
Equalization of Pay of members of Certain Boards and Commissions appointed by the Board of Super-
visors of Albemarle County, Virginia; Section 2-63, deleting the Joint Jail Board from the term
thereof and adding the land use tax advisory board.
ORDINANCE AMENDING AND READOPTING THE EQUALIZATION OF PAY OF MEMBERS
OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPOINTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPER-
VISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, 82-53, DELETING THE JOINT JAIL
BOARD FROM THE TERM THEREOF AND ADDING THE LAND USE TAX ADVISORY BOARD.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that Article X, Chapter
2, ~2-53 of the Albemarle County Code is amended and readopted as follows:
~2-53 Equalization Of Pay Of Certain Boards and Commissions
Each member of the following Boards and Commissions duly appointed by the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, shall be paid Twenty-Five
($25.00) Dollars for each and every regularly scheduled meeting of the Board or
Commission actually attended, as set forth in the rules and regulations of that
Board or Commission:
Board of Zoning Appeal; Monticello Area Community Action Organization;
Piedmont Virginia Community College Board of Directors; Thomas Jefferson Plann-
ing District Commission; and Land Use Tax Advisory Board.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood
None.
At 12:20 P.M., the Chairman requested that the Board adjourn into executive session during
lunch to discuss legal matters. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr.
Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None
The Board reconvened at 2:20 P.M. with Mr. Carwile absent at this time.
35,5
23. Dr. Charles Hurt. Request concerning assessment of machinery.
did not return from lunch with the other Board members.)
(Mr. Carwile abstaining
Dr. Hurt said the County requires that a copy of the depreciation schedule used and filed with
the taxpayers federal tax return be filed with the County for assessing business personal property.
Inadvertently, his accountant had used the wrong method of depreciation on his Federal tax return.
This makes no difference in the amount of money he would pay to the Federal government but makes a
difference in the amount of money he paid to Albemarle County for his business personal property.
He discussed tb~s with Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, and Mr. Jones said he could not issue a
refund without first obtaining approval from the Board of Supervisors. Dr. Hurt said he is request-
ing that he be allowed to use the depreciation method on his county return that he could have used
at the time his Federal tax return was filed. Dr. Hurt said ~f he changes his depreciation method
with the Internal Revenue Service it will cost him several thousand dollars and take several months
of time. Approval of this request by the Board of Supervisors would save him a needless accountant's
fee.
Mr. Ray Jones said that currently the Department of Finance assesses business equipment, ex-
clusive of automobile vehicles, at 10% of its cost or 25% of the depreciated book value, whichever
is greater, plus 10% of the cost of all items which have been fully depreciated. This method was
begun mn 1968 as the result of the discontinuance of field assessors and the exemption of household
goods, farm machinery, and livestock. At that time, straight line depreciation was the main method
of depreciation. Currently, various methods are permitted by Internal Revenue Service and they
also allow an accelerated write off of depreciation. Mr. Jones said Dr. Hurt was notified numerous
times of the amount of taxes he owed to Albemarle County. However, no complaints or disagreements
with the assessment method were made until the County attempted to enforce collection of the tax
which was then delinquent. Dr. Hurt is now claiming that the current assessment method results in
inequities when two taxpayers owning similar equipment use different methods of depreciation. In-
ternal Revenue Service recognizes that the useful life of equipment varies for different businesses
and that the method of depreciation used for one business may not be the most beneficial for a
similar business depending on its current profit or loss. Mr; Jones said that he feels that every
taxpayer has the opportunity to elect the method of depreciation which is the most advantageous to
his business within certain guidelines set up by the Internal Revenue Service. These guidelines
establish a certain useful life range and standard for the industry. The useful life of construction
equipment is recommended by Internal Revenue Service as four to six years. The method used by
Dr. Hurt is for three to seven years. Also, a review of other construction firms in the area
showed a three to ten-year useful life and a combination of the straight line and declining
balance methods. Mr. Jones said the Code of Virginia delegates to the Director of Finance the
responsibility for assessing property at fair market value. Since the rapid forms of deprecia-
tion have come into being the Finance Department should now change to a percentage of original
cost declining. He recommended that the Board consider this change for the coming tax year.
Mr. Wheeler asked what Mr. Jones recommendation on Dr. Hurt's request. Mr. Jones said he
could not, under State law, certify that his department had made an error. The Finance Depart-
ment used the same procedure in assessing Dr. Hurt's return as used on all such returns. If the
Board allows a deviation from the Internal Revenue Service depreciation schedule for local tax
purposes, it would have to be done for all taxpayers.
Mr. St. John said this request is to file one depreciation schedule with the Federal and
the State government and another with the locality so as to pay the smallest amount of taxes to
each. (Dr. Hurt objected to this statement). By Dr. Hurt not changing his federal return, he
would be getting the benefit of not taking the maximum amount of depreciation in this year when
he does not need it, having a loss this year, and'the Board is being requested to allow him to
file one depreciation schedule in Albemarle County and a different one with the Federal and
State governments after having filed them all the same the first time.
Mr. Thacker asked what the State enabling legislation says on this matter. Mr. St. John
said the Director of Finance is charged with the responsibility of assessing personal property
at fair market value. Iq is then up to the Director of Finance to determine the method he will
use for making this assessment. Mr. Wheeler asked how the City assesses tangible personal property.
Mr. Jones said the City uses the same method with a slightly higher percentage.
Mr. Wood said there seems to be a difference Of opinion which needs to be resolved. Since
he did not feel that any member of the Board of Supervisors is an accountant he asked if the
County's auditors could be invited to attend a meeting and discuss the various methods of de-
preciation and how the various methods would affect the amount of tax to be paid.
Mr. Thacker asked if this matter came under the State Statute which says the Director of
Finance must certify that there has been erroneous assessment. Mr. 'St. John said that was
correct. This is a procedural problem. The Director of Finance and the County Attorney have
not and will not certify that an error has been made. Unless this is done, the Board cannot
direct a refund. Dr. Hurt had requested that this matter be brought to the Board.
Mr. Thacker said apparently Dr. Hurt's auditor had selected the incorrect method of de-
preciation to use on his Federal tax return and this request is to submit an amended return
for the past two years. Dr. Hurt said that is correct. He is asking that he not be required
to go back to the Internal Revenue Service and have his method of depreciation changed. This
would cost him $2,000.00 and would be of no benefit on his Internal Revenue return.
Mr. Wheeler suggested that this matter be carried over to November 20 and that the county
auditors be present at that time to discuss depreciation methods.
NOT DOCKETED. Mr. Jones requested the Board's endorsement for a change in the method of
assessing tangible personal proPerty. He presented to the Board a new form drafted for this
procedure.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
1976 -RETURN OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY- 1976
Every taxpayer owning or having in their possession tangible property
used in a business or professional occupation, located in Albemarle County,
Virginia, on January 1, 1976 must report same on this return and file on or
before May 1, 1976 with the Director of Finance, Room 200, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901.
NAME OF TAXPAYER
TRADE NAME
MAILING
ADDRESS: P.O. BOX
LOCATION OF BUSINESS
STREET OR
ROUTE
CITY
(1) The original COST of all
Business furniture, fixtures
and equipment (excluding self-
propelled automotive vehicles)
owned January 1, !976:
(a) One (t) year old
(b) Two (2) years old
(c) Three (3) years old
(d) Four (4) years old
(e) Five (5) years old
(f) Six (6) years old
(g) Seven (7) years $ older
(2) TOTAL ASSESSMENT
TELEPHONE NO.
NATURE OF
BUSINESS
ZIP
CODE
Taxpayer use
Space below
(A)
Do not use
This Space
(B)
AUTOMOTIVE VEHICLES, MOBILE
(3) Automobiles
(4) Trucks
(5) Airplane
(6) Mobile Home
HOMES & AIRPLANES
Trade Identif±- Year Date of Office
Name f cation No. Model Purchase Cost Assessme
Use
I hereby declare that the fore-
going statement and figures are true,
· ull and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
TOTAL ASSESSMENT
DATE
Signature of Owner-Officer
(Read Instructions on Back)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY RETURN
Dear Taxpayer:
The Albemarle County assessment policy.for Business Personal Property
was endorsed by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County on October
16, 1975. It will be necessary for the taxpayer to list the total cost
value of all business personal property (furniture, fixtures, machinery,
equipment and tools) according to age of acquisition. (Depreciation book
values are not to be used.) Self-propelled motor vehicles, motor homes,
mobile homes, mobile offices and airplanes must be listed separatelY at
bottom of form under item numbers 3, 4, 5 and 6.
The Albemarle County formula for assessment purposes is as follows:
First Year
Second Year
Third Year
Fourth Year
Fifth Year
Sixth Year
Additions
Additions
Additions
Additions
Additions
Additions
Seventh Year and Older
25%
22-1/2%
2O%
17-1/2%
15%
12-1/2%
10%
of 0rigmnal Cost
of Origmnal Cost
of Origmnal Cost
of Original Cost
of Original Cost
of Origmnal Cost
of Origmnal Cost
It will b~ necessary for the taxpayer to list only the cost values.
These values will be used by the Finance Office to compute the assessed
value. Please attach a copy of your depreciation schedule, showing cost
and date purchased, as filed with the Internal Revenue Service.
Ail Business Personal Property, regardless of age, should be listed
on the form. Ail leased equipment must be reported by the owner.
Yours sincerely,
Director of Finance
Albemarle County
Mr. Jones said that as Director of Finance for the County he has the legal right to do this
without approval of the Board under the powers granted him by the Code of Virginia. However, he
felt it would be best if the Board made this endorsement so that this could be recorded as a part
of the minutes of the Board and the County would therefore have an official record of the action.
(Mr. Carwile returned to the meeting at 2:$2 P.M.)
10-16-75
357
Mr. Jones said that in ten or fifteen years, unless this is recorded in the minutes of the
Board there will be no record as to how this change took place. When the County went to a fif-
teen percent assessment on real estate they also went to twenty-five percent of depreciated value
on this personal property with the thought that this would level out the assessment on both
personal and real property. The procedure adopted use of the tax payers depreciation schedule.
Now, there has been such a change in the methods of depreciation that it has also changed the
procedure. Mr. Thacker asked if in adopting this form and the schedule on same if Mr. Jones was
saymng there should be no difference between personal property and real estate rates. Mr. Jones
said yes. Mr. Thacker said he would assume that if at some future time the rates should vary
then this schedule would also be changed. Mr. Jones said yes. When the Board complies with
existing State law which requires that the Connty assess real property at 100% of fair market
value, with the next assessment, this form will also be changed.
Mr. Henley then offered motion to approve the form as submitted by Mr. Jones.
was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote:
The motion
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
26. Sale of County property--Milton Area. Mr. Jones said at the September 18th meeting,
the Board had requested him to obtain offers from surrounding property owners on a piece of
property owned by the County located in the Milton Airport area on the west side of Route 749
identified as Parcel 3, County Tax Map 9-3 ~d~.'~a~o'~h~:t~i~.~i~e~_~fAl~nd~-'appr~i~ed~'~y the
County's appraising staff. He had contacted Mr. Garrett Kir:~sey and Mr. Gaston Fornes. Mr.
Kirksey had replied that this two acres would be outside of his property and he was not inter-
ested. Mrs. Fornes was present at this meeting and had submitted a letter to be opened at this
Board meeting.
Mr. Wheeler opened the letter and read Mr. Fornes offer of $1,512.56 for purchase of this
parcel of land. Mr. Jones said the real estate department had appraised this property at
$1,000.00 because there was questionable access to the property. Since this offer is more than
expected, he recommended that the Board accept the offer. Motion was then offered by Mr. Wood
to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
the sale of two acres of land located in the Milton Airport area on the west side of
Route 749 identified as Parcel 3, County Tax Map 93, to Mr. Gaston G. Forne.s, at a
price of $1,512.56, is hereby approved.
Mr. Fornes offer was the highest bid by surrounding property owners and said
bid~is hereby deemed by the Board ~o be a bona fide offer, reflecting the fair market
value of the property.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
24. Recommended Values for 1976 Land Use Taxation Program. Mr. Jones said that the 1976
SLEAC Act recommended values on land use have just been received. Agricultural values increased
slightly and forestry values decreased. The recommended values for agricultural and horti-
cultural are: good-S410.00 an acre, medium-S205.00 an acre, fair-S50.00 an acre. The recommended
values for fores~ land are: good-S125.00 per acre, medium-S100.00 per acre~ fair-S60.00 per acre.
Since the Board decided last year to not add on the value of standing timber to the assessment
on forest land, the Board can consider retaining the 1975 values which were: $160.00 for good,
$125.00 for medium, and $90.00 for fair.. Also recommended for open space land was: golf courses-
$1500 to $2000 per acre, swimming and racket clubs-S3,000 to $5,000 per acre and quasi-public
camps-S800 to $1300 per acre. Mr. Jones said that about November 1 people want to apply under
the land use program and would like to know what the values on the property will be before applying.
Mr. Wheeler said he did not think the 1976 values of land will be that much above the 1974
values. Mr. Jones said the Board has to adopt something, but they do not have to take the recommen-
dations above. They can use the same figures as previously used or can make a change.
Mr. Henley then offered motion that the County use the same values on 1976 land use taxation
program as were used one, the 1975 program. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
25. Request for special appropriation. Western Albemarle High School.
Mr. Jones said that the western Albemarle high school is now under construction. The county
has received a portion of a Literary Fund loan and the bond proceeds which were approved through
referendum. Contracts have been let on this project. Many costs are being incurred each month
and to date the Board has made no appropriation. This is needed now for bookkeeping purposes. He
then requested that the Board appropriate $6,564,500.00 for construction of the western Albemarle
high school. The $64,500.00 excess project cost above the Literary Loan and the bonds will come
from interest on bond proceeds. The current law requires that interest earned on bond proceeds
either be used for contract overruns or initial payment on the debt.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
$6,564,500.00 be and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Construction
Fund for construction of the new Western Albemarle High School.
358
AYES:
NAYS:
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood
None.
27. Request for separate audit of the Joint Security Complex. Mr. Jones said the auditors
have recommended that a separate audit be made on the Joint Security Complex since there are two
localities involved and two different forms of state reimbursement received; one from the State
Compensation BQard and the other from the Department of Corrections. The auditor feels the Board
should take the time and the money to do a detailed audit since this is the first year of operation.
This would also be a good document for fiscal planning for the coming year. The cost of the audit
is estimated at $1,500 and the City of Charlottesville has already agreed to pay one-half of the cost.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia that
$750.00 be and the same hereby is appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to
the General Operating Fund and coded to 1A-202.1 for payment of an audit for the Joint
Security Complex.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, HenleM, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
28. Refund. Business and Professional License Tax.
the following resolution:
Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to adopt
WHEREAS, the Director of Finance of Albemarle County, Virginia, has appeared before
this Board and certified that Robert K. Griesbach had previously paid a County Business
and Professional License tax for 1975 and had since closed said business on July 31, 1975,and
WHEREAS, the County Attorney has examined supporting evidence and consents that such
assessment was erroneous;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to the Albemarle County Code, Section
11-38, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby direct a re-
fund of $191.60 be issued to Dr. Griesbach.
FURTHER, all supporting papers verifying this request are to be filed in the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
5. Matters not on the agenda from the public. No one had anything to offer.
6. Request for vacation of a portion of Parkview Property plat.
As requested by Mr. E. 0. McCue, motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Fisher to
advertise for a public hearing on November 20, 1975, at 11:15 A.M. an ordinance to vacate a portion
of a plat of Park View Property in Crozet recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in~:Deed Bood 463, page 274. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
11. Report on annual inspection of Beaver Creek Lake and request for appropriation (This
matter was deferred from September 18, 1975.)
Mr. Robert Sampson said this matter was deferred from last month because Mr. Henley was not
present at that time. Mr. Henley has since looked at the road. Mr. Sampson said he still re-
commends that the road be paved as has been requested for the last two years.
Mr. Henley said he would rather see the appropriation included in next year's budget. Mr.
Bailey said the road needs more maintenance, however it would not be fatal if this were put off
from one year to another. Six thousand dollars is a good amount to put out against what has to
be paid annually on crushed stone. The past couple of years have been easy on crushed stone
because of the excessive amount of rain. Mr. Sampson said to maintain the road it normally costs
$150.00 a year for stone plus about 50 man hours of work from the parks crew. About every one
to one-and one-half years, the road must be regraded, the banks sloped and the ditches cut out.
The County just spent $600.00 for this repamr work in July. He suggested that this would be a
good project for Revenue Sharing Funds.
Mr. Wheeler asked when the work could be done. Mr. Bailey said there should be at least
three to four good weeks left in this year depending on the weather. Mr. Henley asked if the
road from the entrance would have to be surfaced. Mr. Bailey said it would be surface treated
with a double shot of asphalt and stone chips sealed to keep it from unraveling. Mr. Henley
then offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
$6,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and trans-
ferred to the General Operating-Capital Outlay Fund for paving of the road to Beaver
10-16-75
359
AYES:
NAYS:
Creek Dam and coded to 19.10L.2; and
FURTHER SESOLVED that when the exact amount of this expenditure is known the ex-
penditure will be taken from Revenue Sharing Funds.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
13. Report of the County Executive for the month of September 1975 was received as information.
14. Statements of Expenses of the Office Of the Director of Finance, Commonwealth's Attorney,
and the Sheriff's Department for the month o~ September 1975 were received. On motion by Mr. Wood,
seconded by Mr. Henley, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
15. Statement of Expenses for the Joint Security Complex for the month of September, 1975,
was received. Upon motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Wood, the statement was approved as
read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS.:
Messrs. Carwi!e, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
16. Statement of costs incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Joint Security Com-
plex for the month of September, 1975~ along with the statement of the Jail Physician, Paramedic
salaries and salary of the classification officer were received. On motion by Mr. Wood, seconded
by Mr. Henley, these statements were ~pproved as read. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote: J
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
17. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of August, 1975, was received
in accordance with the Virginia State Code, Section 63.1-52.
19. Lottery Permit--American Legion Post No. 74. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded
by Mr. Thacker, to approve a lottery ~permit for the American Legion Post No. 74 for the calendar
year 1976 in accordance with the Board's adopted rules. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker
and carried by the following recorded ~ote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
20a. Appointment--Library Board. Ordered carried over to Wednesday, October 22, 1975.
20b. Appointment--Joint Airport Commission. Mr. Wood offered for appointment to the Airport
Commission the name jof Mr. C. Eugene Arnette for a three year term which will expmre on December 1,
1978. This appointment to replace Mr. William C. Clontz who was not eligible for reappointment.
He then offered motion to appoint Mr. Arnette and to also reappoint Mr. Charles P. Ancona to an
additional three-year term also expiring on December 1, 1978. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
20c. Clarification of Terms foz
years the Board has been making appo]
This practice has recently come undez
fore requested that the terms of Mr.
be adjusted to four-year terms from t
was offered by Mr. Thacker to approve
carried by the following recorded vo'
Welfare Board Members. Mr. Bailey noted that for many
ntments to the Welfare Board for terms of three years each.
attack by the State Attorney General's office. He there-
J. D. Johnson, Mr. J~ T. Henley, Jr., and Mr. Edgar Paige
he beginning of the last appointment to this Board. Motion
this change. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and
e:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
20d. Appointment--Bicentennial Commission. Mr. Wood recommended the name of Mr. Donald
W. Jones as a member of the Bicentennial Commission. Mr. Jones is the assistant, to the President
of the University of Virginia and has expressed interest in serving on the Bicentennial Commission.
This appointment would be to replace Mr. Daley Craig who recently resigned his appointment. Mr.
Wood then offered motion to appoint Mr. Jones. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried
by the following recorded vote:
360
AYE S:
NAY S:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
20e. Appointment--Student Drug Survey Ad-Hoc Committee. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Thacker both
recommended the names of Dr. Robert S. Brown, Blue Ridge School and Dr. A. H. Bishop, III,
of St. Anne's,Belfield School to this committee. Motion to make these appointments was offered
by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
21. Claim against the Dog Tax Fund was received from Mr. G. C. Gentry for two (2) ewes
killed on October 5, 1975. Mr. Gentry had requested $35.00 for each ewe..~0n motion by Mr.
Henley, seconded by Mr. Fisher, this claim was approved for the amount of $%0.00. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: ~essrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
29. Discussion of Proposed City Parking Ordinance and its Effect on County Employees.
Mr. Bailey said the City has commenced passage of an ordinance which will restrict parking
in certain portions of the City. One portion defined as item D of the ordinance reads: that
area bounded on the north by Perry Drive and Parkway, on the east by Park Street, on the
south by High Street, and on the east by Altamont Street. T~.:~e~no~ses all of the area
behind the County Office Building presently used by County staff for parking. A census was
taken of the people affected and a memorandum was directed to Cole Hendrix.
"October 10, 1975
Memo to:
Fmo~:
Mr. Cole Hendrix, City Manager
J. Harvey Bailey, County Executive
Proposed Parking Ordinance
We note with interest the proposed city parking ordinance on permit parking
zones which had its first reading before Council on October 6, 1975, particularly
the area designated under item (d) of the proposal.
The area described in item (d) of the said ordinance embraces the streets on
which the majority of the county employees find parking space. A canvass of the
parking practice of county employees reveals the following:
130 individuals are involved
38 individuals are city dwellers
82 individuals are county dwellers
10 individuals are 'from other locales
Of these:
4 individuals rent parking space
4 individuals ride with others
18 individuals use county transportation
The remaining:
104 park primarily on the streets cited in the
ordinance.
We are certain that the local situation relative to parking has prompted
the city to propose this ordinance. No doubt the use of the streets by the County
personnel contributes to any problems the residents~of this area may be encounter-
ing, causing some inconvenience and annoyance. However, the ordinance proposed
bids fair to eliminate entirely parking by any except the residents of the area.
We feel this will merely shift the problem from one place to another as the present
parkers seek new accommodations. Could not some modifications be made, i[~ item
(d) of the ordinance cannot be removed altogether2
We respectfully request that the plight of the county personnel, particularly
the 38 citizens of the city who are involved, be given consideration along with
whatever august reasons may exist for the imposition of the city's ordinance."
Mr. Bailey said he had talked with the City Manager and the City Attorney. However, his
pleas fell on deaf ears. As an alternative to the parking situation, the City Manager ha~
offered to help the County obtain preferential rates in the city's parking facility. If the
County can get 100 persons to park in the City Parking Garage, the rate would be reduced to
$9.00 a car, per month. This led to a suggestion that the Board might like to adopt a re-
solution relative to this matter. Mr. Bailey then read into the record the following proposed
resolution.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Charlottesville proposes to adopt
an ordinance entitled "An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Section 1~-93.1 of the Code
of the City of Charlottesville 1965, Relating to Permit Pa~king Zones; and
WHEREAS, the said ordinance includes in its provisions (item d) "that area
bounded on the north by Perry Drive and Parkway, on the east by Park Street, on the
south by High Street, and on the west by Altamont Street"; and
WHEREAS, the new effect of the said ordinance will be the elimination of
parking by any motorist other than the residence of the area; and
10-.16-~7,5.
361
WHEREAS, approximately 104 individuals, employees of the County of Albemarle
have used and are using this area for parking their vehicles d~ring County work hours;and
WHEREAS, the denial of this area for use as parking will force these said em-
ployees to other areas more distant from their place of employment, resulting in inconven-
ience to the said individuals and a transfer of the parking congestion now existing from
the area under consideration to another area, effecting no improvement in the overall
parking problems of the C~ty;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, on behalf of its employees, petitions the City Council of the City of
Charlottesville to exclude from the provisions of the said ordinance the area described
in item (d) of its proposal."
Mr. Wheeler said he had been instructed by the Board to meet with the Mayor and the City Mana-
ger. The Mayor could not attend the meeting but said he was sympathetic to the problem and even
though this ordinance had gone through a first reading, he might not support it at the second meet-
ing. However, during his meeting with the City Manager and the City Attorney he was told that they
would recommend adoption of the ordinance and they would further recommend that no further public
comments be heard by City Council. Mr. Wheeler said he pointed out that if the City wants the County
to keep their headquarters downtown and this matter is not urgent, it should be delayed until the
City could improve their bus facilities or the County could make some further arrangements for park-
ing. Mr. Wheeler said he would request that the Board support the resolution just read and ask that
it be hand-delivered to each Council member before Monday night.
Mr. Thacker then offered motion to adopt the resolution as set out above. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
22. Receipt of Audit--Clerk of Circuit Court, Calendar Years 1972, 1973, and 1974 was
received as information.
30. Matters Not on the Agenda from Board Members. Mr. Wheeler said that Miller School is hav-
ing a Centennial Celebration on October 25. He will be out of town and he asked that Mr. Fisher
represent the Board.
Mr. Wheeler said he had-received a communication from Mr. Kelly Reynolds, the Fire Marshal ask-
ing for appointment of a five-member Board of Appeals for the Fire Prevention Code. He asked that
this be placed on the November 20~agenda.
Mr. Wheeler noted receipt of a letter from Mr. T. Justin Moore, Jr., President of the Virginia
Electric and Power Company, requesting compensation to cover the cost of administering the consumer
utility tax and asking that this be granted at a rate of 3% of the amount of tax collected with such
compensation to be allowed in the form of a deduction in making the payment. Mr. Wheeler said he
had also received a letter from the. Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Association of
Counties asking that counties not deal directly with VEPCO but allow the Steering Committee that has
been negotiating electric rates to handle this matter. In yesterday's paper, he noticed an article
concerning the utility tax itself. He feels the Counties might have a fight on their hands to main-
tain this tax. He said elimination of this utility tax from the localities would mean a loss of
about one million dollars in revenue for Albemarle County and he did not feel it would make that
much of a decrease on electrical rates. He urged the Board to contact the local representatives ex-
pressing opposition to this and urge them to fight the matter. Mr. Thacker then offered motion that
a letter be written to Virginia Electric and Power Company stating ~hat Albemarle County would be
represented in this matter by the Steering Committee of the Virginia Municipal League and the
Virginia Association of Counties. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried bY the
following recorded ~ote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Wheeler noted that there had been a number of complaints from the County staff working on
voter machines about the storage of such machines. It seems as though the storage pla'ce now used is
very damp and the machines are deteriorating. He asked Mr. Bailey to check and see if it would be
possible to store the machines in the Wilhoit building, if the County rents same.
Mr. Sampson said the International City Management Association has a newsletter in which the
County will advertise for the position of the County Executive. They would like a statement from the
Board stating whether or not the applications will be kept in confidence and this will be part of
the advertisement. Mr. Wheeler said he has already ruled that all applications will be held in
confidence. ~
At 4:03 P. M., upon proper motion the meeting was adjourned.