1990-04-11April 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on April 11, 1990, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Buflding, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman,
F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and
Mr. Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
9:02 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris
and seconded by Mr. Bain to accept items on the consent agenda as information.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Letter dated March 26, 1990, from the Department of Historic
Resources stating that Seven Oaks Farm and Black's Tavern have been entered in
the National Register of Historic Places, received as information.
Item 4.2. Notice dated March 30, 1990, from the State Corporation
Commission, enclosing a copy of the Application of Virginia Electric and Power
Company for an expedited increase in electric rates, to be effective May 1,
1990, received as information.
Item 4.3. Notice dated April 2, 1990, from the State Corporation Commis-
sion, enclosing a copy of the application of Appalachian Power Company for a
permanent increase in its Virginia retail jurisdictional base rates on an
annual basis, received as information.
Item 4.4. Copy of Audit of the General District Court for the year ended
June 30, 1989, has been received from the Auditor of Public Accounts (and is
on file), received as information.
Item 4.5. Copy of Audit of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Security
Complex for the year ended June 30, 1989, has been received from Robinson,
Farmer, Cox Associates, Certified Public Accountants (and is on file), re-
ceived as information.
Item 4.6. County Executive's Financial Report for February, 1990, was
received as information as follows:
April 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
45
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET REPORT
FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1989 TO FEBRUARY 28, 1990
GENERAL FUND:
1989/90 RECEIPTS
REVENUES EST. REVENUE YTD
BALANCE COLLECTED
YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES 47,205,381
COMMONWEALTH 4,071,669
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 182,370
TRANSFERS 886~595
TOTAL 52,346,015
36,834,892 10,370,489 - 78.03%
2,337,314 1,734,355 - 57.40%
32,374 149,996 - 17.75%
886~595 0 + 100.00%
40,091,175 12,254,840 - 76.59%
89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD YTD YTD
GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION 3,281,497
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 1,190,246
PUBLIC SAFETY 5,116,640
PUBLIC WORKS 1,878,248
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 3,291,121
EDUCATION 27,003,594
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL 1,860,606
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1,425,255
TRANSFERS 4,104,946
NONDEPARTMENTAL 3~193~862
TOTAL 52,346,015
2,211,730 1,069,767 + 67.40%
770,795 419,451 + 64.76%
3,696,792 1,419,848 + 72.25%
1,249,617 628,631 + 66.53%
2,190,624 1,100,497 + 66.56%
17,933,334 9,070,260 + 66.41%
1,242,817 617,789 + 66.80%
885,218 540,037 + 62.11%
3,083,451 1,021,495 + 75.12%
2,657,326 536~536 + 83.20%
35,921,704 16,424,311 + 68.62%
SCHOOL FUND:
REVENUES
1989/90 RECEIPTS
EST. REVENUE YTD
BALANCE COLLECTED
YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TRANSFERS-IN
TOTAL
504,313 406,855
17,793,385 10,360,535
357,600 0
27~431~258 17~926,990.
46,086,556 28,694,380
97,458 - 80.68%
7,432,850 - 58.23%
357,600 - 0.00%
9,504~268 - 65.35%
17,392,176 - 62.26%
EXPENDITURES
89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
INSTRUCTION
ADMIN., ATTENDANCE, & HEALTH
PUPIL TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES OPERATION & MAINT
FACILITIES
TOTAL
36,026,619 20,301,775 15,724,844 + 56.35%
1,632,075 1,165,647 466,428 + 71.42%
4,071,242 2,803,842 1,267,400 + 68.87%
3,883,929 2,629,809 1,254,120 + 67.71%
472~691 377,411 95,280 + 79.84%
46,086,556 27,278,484 18,808,072 + 59.19%
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND:
REVENUES
1989/90 RECEIPTS
EST. REVENUE YTD
BALANCE COLLECTED
YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
NONREVENUE RECEIPTS
FUND BALANCE
TRANSFERS-IN
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
383,000 228,089 154,911 59.55%
527,040 75,000 452,040 14.23%
15,382,730 4,327,059 11,055,671 28.13%
1,424,520 1,424,520 0 100.00%
1~431~570 1~421~070 10~500 99.27%
19,148,860 7,475,738 11,673,122 - 39.04%
89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION 251,594
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 29,908
PUBLIC SAFETY 619,795
PUBLIC WORKS 2,223,089
EDUCATION 13,263,116
PARKS, RECREATION ~ CULTURAL 2,010,555
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 216,495
TRANSFERS 534~308
TOTAL 19,148,860
230,459
0
305,284
368,578
11,201,507
652,684
114,222
0
12,872,734
21,135 + 91.60%
29,908 + 0.00%
314,511 + 49.26%
1,854,511 + 16.58%
2,061,609 + 84.46%
1,357,871 + 32.46%
102,273 + 52.76%
534,308 + 0.00%
6,276,126 + 67.22%
April 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
46
OTHER FUNDS:
1989/90 RECEIPTS
REVENUES EST. REVENUE YTD
BALANCE COLLECTED
YTD YTD
METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 0
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 30,299
MODERATE REHAB. GRANT 0
CDBG-AHIP 0
GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 0
FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 0
DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 0
FOOD SERVICES 1,470,530
CHAPTER I 510,628
CHAPTER II 51,893
MIGRANT EDUCATION 49,000
MISC. SCHOOL GRANTS 89,200
FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT 0
DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT 0
DRUG EDUCATION GRANT 0
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH 0
SLIAG PROGRAM 0
CBIP SEVERE 4i9,823
E. D. PROGRAM 557,501
COMMUNITY EDUCATION 683,960
TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND 361,511
MCINTIRE TRUST FUND 10,000
JOINT SECURITY 2,193,225
JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL 1,035,195
JOINT DISPATCH FUND 717,862
JOINT RECREATION FACILITY 152,230
STORM WATER CONTROL FUND 852,331
VISITOR CENTER FUND 67,735
DEBT SERVICE FUND 2~670~037
TOTAL 11,922,960
OTHER FUNDS:
4,223
23,089
542,282
157,178
24,013
108,486
77,073
749,424
239,069
3,833
12,281
5,435
0
0
0
0
93
78O
1,913
280,960
203,831
9,407
1,473,872
536,885
498,083
30,726
31,697
45,156
1,643~451
6,703,240
(4,223)+ 0.00%
7,210 76.20%
(542,282)+ 0.00%
(157,178)+ 0.00%
(24,013)+ 0.00%
(108,486)+ 0.00%
(77,073)+ 0.00%
721,106 - 50.96%
271,559 - 46.82%
48,060 - 7.39%
36,719 - 25.06%
83,765 - 6.09%
0 - 0.00%
0 - 0.00%
0 - 0.00%
0 - 0.00%
(93)+ 0.00%
419,043 - 0.19%
555,588 - 0.34%
403,000 - 41.08%
157,680 - 56.38%
593 - 94.07%
719,353 - 67.20%
498,310 - 51.86%
219,779 - 69.38%
121,504 - 20.18%
820,634 - 3.72%
22,579 - 66.67%
1,026,586 61.55%
5,219,720 - 56.22%
89/90 EXP/OBLIG BAiANCE EXP/OBLIG
EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD YTD YTD
METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 0
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 30,299
MODERATE REHAB. GRANT 0
CDBG-AHIP 0
GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 0
FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 0
DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 0
FOOD SERVICES 1,470,530
CHAPTER I 510,628
CHAPTER II 51,893
MIGRANT EDUCATION 49,000
MISC. SCHOOL GRANTS 89,200
FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT 0
DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT 0
DRUG EDUCATION GRANT 0
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH 0
SLIAG 0
CBIP SEVERE 419,823~
E D PROGRAM 557,501
COMMUNITY EDUCATION 683,960
TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND 361,511
MCINTIRE TRUST FUND 10,000
JOINT SECURITY FUND 2,193,225
JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL 1,035,195
JOINT DISPATCH FUND 717,862
JOINT RECREATION FACILITY 152,230
STORM WATER CONTROL FUND 852,331
VISITOR CENTER FUND 67,735
DEBT SERVICE FUND 2~670~037
TOTAL 11,922,960
5,951
20,490
538,389
157,178
60,711
400,000
56,014
835,194
278,881
31,020
29,302
45,254
0
0
0
0
11,276
246,773
257,383
322,565
250,337
0
1,484,721
995,344
473,771
63,177
11,359
45,156
1,643~062
8,263,308
(5
9
(538
(157
(60
(400
(56,
635,
951)- 0.00%
809 + 67.63%
389)- 0.00%
178)- 0.00%
711)- 0.00%
000)- 0.00%
014)- 0.00%
336 + 56.80%
231,747 + 54.62%
20,873 + 59.78%
19,698 + 59.80%
43,946 + 50.73%
0 + 0.00%
0 + O.OO%
0 + O.OO%
0 + O.OO%
(11,276)- 0.00%
173,050 + 58.78%
300,118 + 46.17%
361,395 + 47.16%
111,174 + 69.25%
lO,OOO + o.oo%
708,504 + 67.70%
39,851 + 96.15%
244,091 + 66.00%
89,053 + 41.50%
840,972 + 1.33%
22,579 + 66.67%
1~026~975 + 61.54%
3,659,652 + 69.31%
April 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
4-7
Item 4.7. Monthly Bond Report for Arbor Crest Apartments for February,
1990, received as information.
Item 4.8. Copy of Planning Commission Minutes for March 27, 1990,
received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: November 8, December 6(N) and
December 20(N), 1989; January 10, January 17(N), February 21(N) and March 26,
1990.
Mr. Way had read the minutes for November 8, 1989, Pages 26 through 36;
January 10, 1990, Pages 11 through 22; and March 26(A), 1990, Pages 1 through
8, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for January 17(N), 1990, and made the
following minute book correction: On Page 5, paragraph one, the second line
should read, "...law when more than 50 percent of the property owners in a
subdivision have..."
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes for February 21(N), 1990, Pages 12
through the end, and made the following minute book correction: On Page 22,
paragraph six, the second sentence should read, "To launch into something like
this the way it was presented to the Board is not fulfilling the ~esponsi-
bility that he accepted when he took the oath of office to become a Supervisor
of Albemarle County."
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes for March 26(A), 1990, Pages 9 to the
end, and found a minor typographical correction.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the
minutes as read and corrected. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: West Leigh Subdivision Roads -
Posted Speed Limits.
Mr. Agnor said the Board received a request at its meeting on March 14,
1990, from Mr. Frank Haynes to set a speed limit for roads in West Leigh
Subdivision. Staff was directed to answer the following questions raised
during discussions at that meeting:
1. Had the Homeowner's Association of West Leigh officially requested
this?
2. Would the Board be setting a precedent by their action on West Leigh
for future private roads, and how many roads might be affected?
3. Do the private roads created prior to the County's ordinance enabling
such roads (adopted 1977) require different treatment, or cause different
precedents? and
4. What would be the impact on staff to develop recommendations regard-
ing speed limits within private road subdivisions, and enforcing those speed
limits if enacted?
Mr. Agnor said with regard to the West Leigh Homeowner's Association, a
letter from the Chairman of the Association indicates that they support Mr.
Haynes' request?
Mr. St. John has indicated that no precedent would be set by the Board's
action and that any such action for future roads could be determined on a
case-by-case basis. One distinction that the Board may wish to consider is
setting speed limits only on private roads dedicated to the public but pri-
vately maintained. This would limit the number of private roads the Board
April 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
48
would have to consider. Currently there are numerous private roads within the
County,-but very few that are dedicated to the public while being privately
maintained.
Mr. Agnor reported that the Engineering staff recommends the establish-
ment of speed limits following the same criteria used by the Virginia Depart-
ment of Transportation (VDOT). Their recommendation for local residential
streets is 25 miles per hour. Any major through roads, however, which are
privately maintained will require more detailed analysis by Engineering staff
prior to making a recommendation. He said the processing time would depend on
the availability of road plans and the number and length of roads involved.
Mr. Agnor said if the Board decides to adopt a policy for establishing
speed limits in subdivisions with private roads, it should consider limiting
the policy to roads where the right-of-way is dedicated to public use and are
privately maintained.
Mr. Agnor said the County Police Department makes no distinction between
patrolling privately maintained roads and publicly maintained roads. However,
they respond on request only for using radar to check for speed limit viola-
tors on privately maintained roads.
Mr. Agnor said the list of private roads is 10 pages long. There are
only about 30 roads, however, that are dedicated to public use but privately
maintained. He pointed out that when the policy is set for West Leigh, it
opens up the opportunity for other subdivisions to make the same request.
Mr. Bain asked if the County Police Department has the manpower to
enforce the speed limit if such a policy is set. Mr. Agnor said radar is set
up in subdivisions on a request basis. He said radar is set up infrequently
even on public roads. He does not anticipate much of an impact on this aspect
of enforcement.
Mr. Bain said he is concerned that subdivision residents may get the
impression that a greater amount of enforcement will result from approval of
such a request.
Mr. St. John said there are two issues involved. The first is giving the
speed limit the force of law. Currently, a policeman could observe someone in
West Leigh driving 50 miles per hour and can do nothing. Any road or street
that is open to the public, as opposed to being dedicated to the public, is
patrolled by the police for criminal activities, and they are authorized to
apprehend offenders. There are certain traffic crimes that can already be
enforced on private roads, such as driving under the influence or reckless
driving. However, for a speed limit to have the force of law, an ordinance
must be adopted. The second issue is the degree to which this ordinance would
require additional manpower for enforcement. Mr. St. John said a speed limit
could be established in West Leigh without assigning police officers to go
there more than they presently do. A citizen who "clocks" a driver in excess
of the speed limit could get a warrant for the offender.
Mr. Bowie said before an ordinance is adopted adding areas to either the
dog leash law or the leaf burning law, a petition is required from the majori-
ty of the residents of the area. He personally feels that the same thing
should be required from these residents.
Mr. Bain said he would like to know exactly which roads are involved
throughout the County and how many people would be affected by the ordinance.
Mr. Agnor said it would take some time to gather the information. Mr. Bain
suggested that this item be delayed until May 9. There was no objection by
Board members.
Mr. Perkins asked if the County would have to do traffic studies in every
subdivision to establish speed limits. Mr. Agnor said the study would be done
on the through roads only. Mr. Perkins said VDOT bases their speed limits on
how fast the cars travel. He asked the basis of the County's traffic studies.
Mr. Agnor said the State Code indicates that the County can set a speed limit
following an engineering study. The County interprets that to mean that the
road design is the basis for the speed recommendation.
April.
11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
There was no further discussion of this item.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Request from property owners in Ridgemont Subdivi-
sion to name the road "Minor Mill Road".
Mr. Cilimberg said the residents of Ridgemont Subdivision request that
approximately 1,200 feet of private road west of Route 20 North, directly
opposite Route 621 be named "Minor Mill Road". The road used by the Ridgemont
Subdivision is in the approximate location of a road used by the Peter Minor
family at Ridgeway Farm in the early 19th century. The Ridgeway house and the
remains of the flour mill nearby can still be accessed by this road. He said
naming this road will help maintain the historical significance of the site.
Mr. Bob German, resident of the area for 22 years, said the residents who
live on this private road have spent about $12,500 having the road graded and
finished. He said all of the owners and occupants on the road have signed the
petition.
Mr. Way said the residents usually agree to pay for the road signs. Mr.
German said he would agree to do that.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris to adopt the following resolution
naming approximately 1,200 feet of private road west of Route 20 North,
directly opposite Route 621 as "Minor Mill Road". Mr. Way seconded the
motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
WHEREAS, the property owners of the Ridgemont Subdivision request
the naming of approximately 1,200 feet of private road west of Route
20 North, directly opposite Route 621; and
WHEREAS, such road used by the RidgemontSubdivision is in the
approximate location of the road used by the Peter Minor family at
Ridgeway Farm in the 19th century; and
WHEREAS, the Ridgeway house and the remains of the flour mill
nearby can still be accessed by this road; and
WHEREAS, the property owners believe the naming of this road will
help maintain the historical significance of the site;
BE IT RESOLVED, THEREFORE, that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby names that 1,200-foot portion of
private road west of Route 20 North, directly opposite Route 621 as
"Minor Mill Road".
Agenda Item No. 6c. Other Highway Matters from the public and the Board.
Mr. Roosevelt said Mr. Gerald Fisher, former member of the Board of
Supervisors, reported that he had two problems with VDOT when he was as a
Board member. There was a lack of information about VDOT schedules and a lack
of understanding concerning certain VDOT policies. Therefore, Mr. Roosevelt
felt he should offer to meet with the Board to discuss any policies needing
clarification. Regarding the lack of information regarding advertisement
schedules, Mr. Roosevelt volunteered to advise the Board on a quarterly basis
of current schedules. He said if there is other information the Board would
like, he will be happy to cooperate in giving it.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 9:40 A.M.)
(Mr. Bowie left the meeting at 9:43 A.M. and returned at 9:45 A.M.)
Mr. Bowie asked if the Board could be notified of delays during the con-
struction stage of road projects. Mr. Roosevelt said he would make a separate
report on a monthly basis of the construction status of highway projects.
April 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
5O
Mr. Bowie asked when the bridge north of Stony Point on Route 20 is to be
replaced. Mr, Roosevelt said the area around the bridge and the construction
site is a swampy area. Until it is dry, it is not feasible to continue con-
struction. He said the project was shut down for the winter because of the
combination of wet grounds and cold weather. However, the contractor has been
notified that the partial shutdown is removed. Mr. Roosevelt said he cannot
say when the project will be complete because of the unique conditions of the
site.
(Mr. St. John returned at 9:50 A.M.)
Mr. Bowie reported that he, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bowerman went to
Culpeper to give the County's presentation at the VDOT pre-allocation hearing.
He said they were well received.
Agenda Item No. 7. To amend the Albemarle County Service Authority
service area boundaries to change Tax Map 77, part of Parcel 25 (Blue Ridge
Hospital site in the Southeast quadrant of the intersection of 1-64 and Route
20 South), from "water and sewer" to "Limited Service" for water and sewer to
existing structures only and to change Tax Map 77, Parcels 27, 29 and 30A
(Michie Tavern site on Route 53) from "water and sewer" category to "Limited
Service" for water and sewer to existing structures and all structures shown
on the final site plan approved July 20, 1989, and November 13, 1989, (de-
ferred from March 7, 1990,) County Service Authority re: Blue Ridge Hospital
site and Michie Tavern.
Mr. Bowie said this item has been deferred until today so that proper
notification could be made. He said he has learned that the Area B PACC Study
for the Blue Ridge site is underway. Also, as staff analyzed the situation in
which the law requires that the County have its utility plans, zoning ordi-
nances, and subdivision ordinances in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, it
became apparent that other locations in the County fall into the same category
as the Blue Ridge site. Staff is compiling a list of locations having a
conflict with the Comprehensive Plan so that the Board may consider them. He
said he personally feels that action today seems premature in light of the
fact that the Area B Study is underway and more information will be available
at that time.
Mrs. Humphris pointed out that Mr. Bowie is expressing his personal
opinion on this matter and not reflecting the thoughts of the entire Board.
Mr. Bowerman said he viewed the Comprehensive Plan as a guide for land
use development and the goals and objectives of the community. He did not
understand that the zoning ordinance and the land use ordinances had to be in
exact step with the Comprehensive Plan by State law.
Mr. St. John said Code Section 15.1-456 says that no public facility,
including utilities, shall be constructed or extended until such time as the
Planning Commission fines affirmatively that the extension of those utilities
is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Planning Commission can
be overruled by this Board, of course. However, it is a State mandate that
the utilities be coordinated with the Comprehensive Plan and that the agencies
to do that are the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The Plan
is usually a guide and may not be specific; but where it is specific, then
those specifics must be consistent with other ordinances. Since this situa-
tion has existed for years, and since a committee is in the process of study-
ing this area to determine an ultimate plan, Mr. St. John said there would be
no legal exposure if the Board defers action until the results of the commit-
tee's study are known. In fact, he feels that is the logical thing to do.
Mr. Bain said realistically speaking, the Area B Study came about only
because of action taken by the Board to implement the State law to have the
County's land use in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. St. John said he is simply pointing out that there is no legal
pitfall as a result of delaying action. Mr. Bain said the reverse is also
true. The Board can take action today, and amend the Plan in the future as a
result of the Area B Study if necessary. Mr. St. John said that is correct.
11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
· Mr. St. John said the State Code specifically gives certain legal status
to the Gomprehensive .Plan. However, as long as this piece of property is
owned by the University of Virginia, it is not subject to that statute. The
one danger is that the University could sell this property to a private owner,
and it would be subject to the County's land use laws. A private owner could
then use the inconsistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the land use
plan against the County. He said if the Area B Study con~nittee is working in
good faith, and the University claims there is no intent to sell the property,
then there is no legal precipice in his opinion.
Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing at this time. Mr. Raymond M. Haas,
Vice President for Administration of the University of Virginia, came forward
to speak. He introduced the University's attorney, Mr. Jim Mingle. Mr. Haas
said the University is requesting that the Board refrain from taking action to
change the service area boundary for the Blue Ridge Hospital to limited
service for existing structures only. He said while the Change is permissible
under the law, it would severely affect the University's ability to use its
land for its teaching research and patient care services. At stake is the
vitality of the joint agreement with the City and the County on land use
planning. He would like to give the agreement a chance to work. Under the
terms of the agreement, the City, County and University have a neighborhood
study currently underWay. The objective of the study is to see if the three
agencies can reach an agreement on the appropriate use of the area under
review. He said the target is to see if the County's Comprehensive Plan and
the University's Master Plan for Land Use and Facilities can be brought into
harmony. To avoid unnecessary confrontation and to permit the land use
agreement to take its course, the University proposes that the Board
take no action on the proposed cut in service to the Blue Ridge Hospital site.
Secondly, the University would proceed to develop a land use plan for the Blue
Ridge Hospital grounds, laying out possible road networks and building sites
and capacities. Mr. Haas said the University would like to have the neighbor-
hood study proceed as scheduled, setting a deadline for completion. Mr. Haas
said if, and when, an agreement on the land use at Blue Ridge Hospital can be
achieved, then an appropriate resolution to the issue of water and sewer
service will become obvious to everyone. Mr. Haas said if a land use agree-
ment cannot be reached, or if objectionable projects come up in the meantime,
the Board can take whatever measures it feels are appropriate to protect the
County's interests. The University, of course, can do the same. Mr. Haas
then reported everything that is being considered for potential development at
the Blue Ridge site at this time. He said a small orthotics building in which
artificial limbs would be manufactured is planned. The renovation of one of
the present buildings to make it useful by the elderly as a transition place
between the hospital and home is being considered. There is also the poten-
tial for a radiation therapy facility. He said these are the only plans being
considered by the University for this property. None of these projects are
controversial and all are subject to the County's review under the agreement
already in effect. He said the Board could choose to take action to curtail
the University's water and sewer service at the Blue Ridge Hospital or choose
to give the planning agreement a chance to bring the respective land use plans
into harmony. Mr. Haas feels the County has nothing to lose by making the
second choice. He feels that taxpayers would have a lot to lose by the first
alternative. For these reasons, the University is formally requesting that
the Board refrain from changing the water and sewer service at this time and
allow the land use agreement to proceed.
Mr. Way asked how the use of the property would be curtailed by amending
the service area as Mr. Haas had indicated. Mr. Haas said the proposal is to
limit the water and sewer service to the present facilities only. Therefore,
the University presumably would not be able to develop the facilities just
described if the Board acts to amend the service area. Mr. Way said as long
as the Area B Study includes these facilities, then the Plan can easily be
amended.
Mr. Way said he is assuming that Mr. Haas is guaranteeing that no devel-
opment will take place at this site until the Area B Study is complete. Mr.
Haas said he is not opposed to having that type of agreement. That is why he
described every potential development the University may have in mind for the
site. He said that, assuming the Study takes a reasonable amount of time to
complete, the University can be very specific with regard to its development
plans. He said if the worst case should happen (the University plan to
April 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
52
develop something which the County absolutely opposes), the County will still
have the option of changing the service area again. He said the County has
nothing to lose by refraining from taking action until the Study is complete.
There were no other members of the public present to speak regarding this
issue, and the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Cilimberg to give a reasonable deadline for comple-
tion of the Area B Study. Mr. Cilimberg said based on the Lewis Mountain
Neighborhood Study which took about eight months to get to the Planning and
Coordination Council (PACC), he would estimate January 1, 1991.
Mr. Bain said he appreciates Mr. Haas' comments regarding the vitality of
the three party agreement and his use of the term, "unnecessary confronta-
tion''. HoweVer, Mr. Bain said last Fall, when the development plans for the
Blue Ridge site were fairly concrete, and before the County received them,
neither Mr. Haas nor anyone else from the University was speaking about the
vitality of the agreement nor possible confrontation as a result of the
UniverSity's actions. He feels it is incumbent upon this Board to proceed
with action today. He said Mr. Haas does not control the University and
cannot speak to bind the University to a development agreement. Regarding
taxpayers being the losers, Mr. Bain said the Board took a position last fall
regarding the Blue Ridge site development plans because it was concerned about
the taxpayers of Albemarle County. Mr. Main said once the Area B Study is
complete, the County can certainly amend the Comprehensive Plan in accordance
with a development plan from the University. He pointed out, however, that
the University is a State institution and as such is not bound by the County's
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bain then offered a motion to amend the service area boundaries of
the Albemarle County Service Authority to delete the Blue Ridge Hospital site
and the Michie Tavern site and to limit service to water and sewer to existing
structures only.
Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. She said the people who have been
elected as Supervisors in Albemarle County owe allegiance to the residents of
the County. If the service area remains as is, the situation favors whatever
the University decides to do in the future. She said recent history makes her
uneasy about what plans the University might develop. It is within the realm
of possibility that this property could change hands, and the whole complexion
of the area could change. She said she wants to cooperate with the University
and operate within the spirit of the three-party agreement, but the coopera-
tion must work in both directions. Mrs. Humphris said this action is not an
attempt to curtail activities, and no one will be losing anything. The action
will, however, put th~ County in the position of having its land use consis-
tent with its Comprehensive Plan. She said that is important, and that is why
she is supporting this motion.
Mr. Cilimberg said the motion included the Michie Tavern site for water
and sewer.to existing structures. He pointed out that the advertisement for
Michie Tavern indicated existing structures and structures shown on the final
site plan approved July 20, 1989, and November 13, 1989. Mr. Bain incorporat-
ed that stipulation into the motion, and the seconder concurred.
Mr. Bowie said he does not feel that opposing the motion means voting
against the interests of Albemarle County. He said each Supervisor is doing
what he feels is best for Albemarle County. Since the Study is underway, he
feels it is best to wait for the results.
Mr. Bain said he is not interested in confrontation with the University.
When he campaigned for the position of Supervisor, he made the point that this
is one community and all parties need to work together. However, that has not
been the history of the community. Mr. Bain said he feels that it is appro-
priate at this time that the Comprehensive Plan comply with the State Code as
indicated by Mr. St. John.
Mr. Bowerman said he feels the spirit of the three-party agreement was
violated last fall by the proposed development in the Blue Ridge Hospital
area. The result of that difference of opinion was settled when the proposed
development was withdrawn. He said the University has gone a long way in
)ril 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
taking a step toward the County in terms of abiding by the three-party agree-
ment. He said there was no study of this area underway in the Fall, and the
action taken by the County was appropriate. Recognizing that a study is now
taking place under the auspices of the three-party agreement, Mr. Bowerman
feels there is nothing to be gained by taking the action proposed today to
amend the service area until the study is complete, He said the service area
boundary can be amended at any time during the study in the event the Univer-
sity proposes a specific project that is objectionable to the interests of
Albemarle County. He said he would not support the motion because he sees a
spirit of cooperation developing and he wants to do whatever is possible to
foster that cooperation.
Mr. Perkins asked how the action proposed by the Board to amend the
service area would specifically affect the three projects Mr. Haas had de-
scribed. Mr. Haas said his understanding is that the University would have to
come back to the County and request permission to provide water and sewer
service for these projects. Mr. Perkins asked if these projects require new
buildings. Mr. Haas said the project for the elderly would be principally a
renovation. The other two projects would be free-standing structures.
Mr. Way said he sees this action as putting into effect what is already
described in the Comprehensive Plan. He said he does not see this as a
confrontation with the University. He said the fact that the area is being
studied under the three-party agreement has no affect on this action to make
the land use consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Way said by support-
ing this motion, he is not saying that the County will oppose the development
proposals Mr. Haas has described. He just feels that the same treatment
should be given to the University as would be given to any other developer.
Roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie and Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Bowie said action cannot be deferred indefinitely after a public
hearing without re-advertising. He said he would support a motion to defer
action to a reasonable deadline for the ongoing study to be completed. Mr.
Bowerman said he feels that six months is adequate time for the study to be
completed. He said he served on the PACC Technical Committee and feels that
if a priority is placed on this Study, six months is reasonable. He said he
would like to put some pressure on all parties to expedite this process. Mr.
Bowie said the October 10 Board meeting is six months from this meeting.
Mr. Bowerman offered a motion to defer action to amend the service area
boundaries to October 10, 1990. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
Mr. Bowie said this item will be dropped from the agenda.
Not Docketed: Mr. Bowie said today is Youth in Government Day. Young
people from the two area high schoolS are visiting various departments of
local government. Several young people will be having lunch with the Board.
He introduced the students in the audience and asked them to stand. The
students present were David Buckland from Crozet; Jenny Halbert from White
Hall; Melissa Bowman from Crozet; Jason ~St~Z%.m~ from Charlottesville;
Michael Morris from White Hall; Theresa Dowell from Scottsville; and Laura
Perkins from Crozet.
(The Board recessed at 10:34 P.M. and reconvened at 10:45 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 8. Department of Forestry's Strategic Planning Evalua-
tions.
Mr. Michael T. Griffin, Regional Forester, said over the past five years
the Department of Forestry has followed a strategic plan, a copy of which Mr.
April 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Griffin distributed to Board members. He reported that the Forestry Depart-
ment hopes to plant about 86,000 acres in Albemarle County during the planting
season this year. He said the fire season usually starts around the first of
March. This year there have been about 230 fires statewide over less than 500
acres. That is about 20 percent below the normal figures. The average for
the five-year period statewide is about 1680 fires by this time of year over
11,000 acres. He said the average for Albemarle County is 37 fires. This
year there have only been eight fires ca~m~ra'A than 10 acres. He said the
wet weather and good fire prevention training have helped lower the figures
this year. Mr. Griffin reported that the Heard's Mountain Fire Tower is being
turned over to the landowner because the Department of Forestry has no further
need for it. He concluded by inviting the Board to a helicopter fire training
exercise at the Forestry Department's facility off of Fontaine Avenue.
Mr. Bowie asked if this evaluation is a new process for the Forestry
Department. Mr. Griffin said the plan has been in effect for five years. He
said the Department has been trying to address the priorities outlined in the
plan by citizen groups in the early 1980's. Plans regarding forest manage-
ment, fire management and insect and disease control are outlined in the
strategic plan, and the Forestry Department prepares an evaluation based on
those plans. He said the evaluation is a new procedure by the Forestry
Department.
There was no further discussion of this subject.
Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: Northfields Subdivision Plat showing,
Division of Lot 30, Block B, Section 6 (Plat drawn by B. Aubrey Huffman and
Associates, Ltd., dated January 23, 1990).
Mr. Bain said a member of his firm represents the applicant on a specific
matter, and he would abstain from the discussion to avoid any appearance of
conflict of interest. Mr. Bain left the meeting at 10:55 A.M.
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"STAFF COMMENT: Staff had originally scheduled this item for review
by the Planning Commission on the consent agenda. Staff may not
approve this division administratively in accordance with Section
18-13(a) which states in part except in the case of a "family divi-
sion'' as defined by Section 18-56 of this chapter the Director of
Planning shall not approve any such plat which he determines to be
located in the urban area, communities and villages as set forth in
the Comprehensive Plan'. This property is located in Neighborhood II
of the urban area. The plat has been scheduled for full review by the
Planning Cox~ission due to a letter of objection received from an
adjacent property owner.
Staff has reviewed the applicant's proposal for compliance with the
Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. Staff opinion is that the proposed
division complies with the Ordinances with minor revisions. Staff
recox~ends approval of the proposed division subject to the following
conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The final plat shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. Indicate Tax Map and Parcel number;
b. Note deed book reference for sewer easement.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission considered this item at its
meeting on March 20, 1990. The question was raised by the Commission as to
whether this lot should be vacated in order to create the two lots being
requested. It was also questioned as to whether the adjacent property owners
had acquired a vested right to having the lot remain as is since that is what
property owners were shown on the plat when they purchased their land. Based
on these questions, the Commission voted to deny the subdivision of this lot.
~ril 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Cilimberg said since the Commission's action, Mr. St. John has written a
letter dated March 21, 1990, in which he commented on the two questions
raised. He indicated that the lot does not need to be vacated in order to
subdivide, and the property owners have no vested right to have all lots
remain as shown on the plat. Therefore, the County Attorney's opinion is that
the Commission's denial of the plat cannot be sustained in court unless there
are separate grounds for such denial. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has found no
additional grounds for denial and continues to make its original recommenda-
tion for approval of the request to divide the lot.
Mr. Bowie asked for an example of separate additional grounds. Mr. St.
John said the division must meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. He
said this is a by-right division and does meet the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. Mr. St. John said this is a large lot in the middle of land that
was put to record as a subdivision. Citizens bought lots in the subdivision
and assumed that the plat they were looking at would be the final, permanent
character of the subdivision. He said if the lot is large enough under the
Zoning Ordinance to be divided, then the owner has the legal right to divide.
The property owners have no vested right to permanent lot size in that Subdi-
vision.
Mr. St. John said he was present at the Planning Commission meeting, and
advised the Commission that he would try to defend the Commission'S decision.
Mr. St. John said he should have told the Commission that he could not defend
their position because the plat was entitled to approval as a matter of law.
He found an Attorney General's opinion to that effect after the Commission
meeting. Regarding the private restrictions which the developer put on this
Subdivision, Mr. St. John said that is a separate issue which the Board cannot
use as grounds for denial. If the division of a lot meets County ordinance
provisions, it is entitled to approval. The private restrictions are not
enforceable by the County. Mr. St. John said that is a matter for the judi-
cial branch to decide.
Mr. Jim Hill, representative for the appellant, said he agrees with the
Planning staff and Mr. St. John's analysis of the situation. He said the
applicant has the right under the County's Zoning laws to divide the lot, and
is abiding by those regulations.
Mr. Harold Taylor, resident of Northfields Subdivision, asked the Board
to review this matter again. He pointed out that the adjacent property owners
had not been notified of this meeting while property owners over one-quarter
of a mile away were notified. On that basis, he feels the hearing should be
delayed until proper notification takes place. Mr. Taylor asked if property
across the street from the land in question is considered as adjacent proper-
ty. Mr. Cilimberg said all adjacent property owners are notified, and the
same people were notified for the Planning. Commission meeting. Mr. Taylor
said he brought this same matter to the Commission's attention on the night of
that hearing as well.
Mr. Taylor continued by showing the Board a copy of a plat from the
Virginia Land Company which he said was made available to purchasers of lots.
He showed amap which indicated the size of lots in the Subdivision. He said
the lots are 125 feet wide on the property directly across from the lot in
question. Other lots in the area are 120 and 135 feet wide. He said one of
the attractive things about Northfield Subdivision is' the amount of space
between the homes. Mr. Taylor said Lot 31 is 110 feet wide because 30 feet
has been chopped off. Mr. Taylor said that action is not considered as a
subdivision of the property, and he feels that it is. The 30-foot section is
being added to Lot 30 for a total width of 170 feet, and two 85-foot lots are
being created. Mr. Taylor said the owner will be coming to the Board to do
basically the same thing on Lots 26 and 27. He said this Subdivision has
restrictions that were set by the developer. The restrictions state that lots
shall not be subdivided unless approved by the Northfields Co~unity Associa-
tion. He said that approval has not been obtained for this lot division.
Also limits are established for setbacks on the sides of the lots, and the
setback limit is not being met on Lot 31. Mr. Taylor said he feels the
subdivision of this lot will be detrimental to the property owners in the
entire subdivision. Mr. Taylor said for years there were stakes marking the
lots in question indicating 140-foot widths. He said, in his opinion, this
division is bordering on fraud, and he hopes that the Board will not permit
~ril 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
perpetration on the people. He said he finds it hard to accept that when
deed and plat are recorded, it is possible to make changes with no thought
of the impact on the entire area. He said the-entire Subdivision is affected
by Such changes. He asked the Board to deny the appeal because it will
destroy the character of the neighborhood.
Ms. Alice Velemoss said she is new in Charlottesville and has lived in
Northfields for over a year. She said she is frightened because she has been
told that she does not have a chance against the Virginia Land Company. Ms.
Velemoss handed out pictures of the property in question. She said in the
last 18 months, the lake has disappeared and seven houses have been
constructed. She is trying to be an understanding neighbor and accept change.
However, this lot is being changed to add even more hQuses closer together.
She has been told that Virginia Land Company is so sure of the Board's deci-
sion that the driveway has already been built on this property. She said she
hopes the Board can see from the pictures what this subdivision will mean to
th~ neighborhood. She has small children and wants to preserve the neighbor-
hood as ir'is. She asked Board members to come out to the area and look for
themselves.
Mr. Dan Salters, a homeowner in the neighborhood, said within two months
of buying his home in Northfields, the lake was drained. He said it had been
stocked with fish, and the children were able to fish there. Now there are
seven little houses in a row which are causing the value of the remaining
property to lessen. He said the homeowners are supposed to approve the
division of a lot according to what is written on his deed. Mr. Salters said
the community will have to go to court to try and stop the division of this
property. He feels it is unfair because homeowners do not have the kind of
money that Virginia Land Company has to pay for preserving their neighborhood.
He asked the Board to weigh its decision carefully.
Ms. Linda Franklin said she is representing her parents who live in
Northfields. She asked if a lot size is defined by its square footage or by
its frontage. She said the lots look huge at the back, but the frontage is
small. She said nothing could be done on the back of the lots except allow a
herd of cows to graze. She said the houses being built by Virginia Land
Company are advertised as having 1500 square feet of ground floor. If the lot
is 85 feet wide, she said it is obvious that the houses will be very close
together.
Ms. Franklin also wondered if other property owners could divide their
lots and build a house next door. She said her father purchased a small piece
of land from Dr. Hurt because her father did not want another house built
beside him. On that piece of property was a small well house no longer in
use. She said her parents were told that they could not convert the well
house or tear it down and put a dwelling there without rezoning the property.
If that is the case, how is it possible that Dr. Hurt can do it with less
permission than a homeowner wou~d need. She said she had not planned to
address the Board, but these questions had occurred to her as she listened to
the discussions.
With no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed and the
matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Cilimberg said the owners of lots across the street from the lot in
question apparently were not notified of this appeal and should have been.
Mr. Bowerman said if the issue was raised at the Planning Commission, the
notification should have been resolved before coming to the Board. Mr.
Bowerman immediately moved that this item be deferred to May 2 until the
appropriate property owners are notified. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Mr.
Bowie said he would support the motion, but it seems the conflict is between
the two parties.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs.--~ai~ Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Mrs. Humphris asked if it is possible for the County to require that lots
in Subdivisions cannot be further subdivided. Mr. St. John said he does not
~ril 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
e 14)
the County can enact a regulation which would preclude re-division.
said the enabling legislation allows the County to set standards for the
size, Setbacks, accessibility by roads, utilities and density. However,
is no legislation that allows the County to prohibit the re-division of
land. The buyer must be aware of the deed restrictions. Mr. St. John said
the enforcement of deed restrictions lies within the power of the courts.
Mr. Way asked if it is legal for the driveway to be built on the vacant
lot mentioned during this discussion. Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, said
assuming that an entrance permit was obtained from VDOT, it is legal to put a
driveway on the lot.
(Mr. Bain returned to the meeting at 11:30 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Presentation: Police Department Volunteers Program.
Mr. John Miller, Chief of Police, introduced Mr. Dan Gruber, the Volun'-
teer Coordinator for the Volunteer Program. Chief Miller said he attended a
meeting of 25 members of the American Association of Retired People, 25
sheriffs and 25 police chiefs. This group met because of a growing problem in
offering police services to an aging population. To meet these needs, several
agencies throughout the country initiated volunteer programs to identify the
problems of the elderly. He said the findings indicate a large pool of
experienced retired volunteers. The AARP brought together these groups and
asked them to design a model volunteer program for the community. The model
would help law enforcement agencies provide services and involve a volunteer
program geared toward getting senior citizens involved. He said the Albemarle
County Police Department began by identifying an energetic, enthusiastic
person with management skills as its Volunteer Coordinator. He said Mr.
Gruber is currently working with the Crime Prevention Council, has been active
in the community, and is a management consultant. Mr. Gruber is now in the
process of identifying areas within the Police Department in which volunteers
will be invited to participate. Job descriptions are being written and will
be distributed to the volunteer pool to determine areas of interest. Chief
Miller said the volunteers will be interviewed and go through background
checks. Volunteers will be working in the property and evidence area, in
criminal investigations by doing follow-up work on the telephone, and in crime
prevention, crime analysis, and records and communications areas. He said
volunteers will not wear a gun and badge or go out and enforce the law. Chief
Miller said he is excited about the program and feels that Albemarle County
will be viewed as a model in this area.
Mr. Gruber said there is a large, talented, and untapped population in
Albemarle County, and he feels that vital people can be used in this volunteer
program in the areas Chief Miller just described. Mr. Gruber said he is
starting with job descriptions so that everyone knows what they. are doing
before they do it. He said he thinks the Board will be pleased with the
program. The biggest asset of this program is allowing time for police
officers to become more effective in law enforcement. He said this program
will also make the public more aware of the role of the police officer and
foster more cooperation with the Police Department. He said a great deal of
the work will be telephone work to back up and reinforce the police force. He
said that is the most visible portion of the volunteer work. Otherwise, the
program deals mainly with behind-the-scenes activities.
There was no further discussion of this program.
Agenda Item No. 11. Revision to Personnel Policy - Probationary Term for
911 Center.
Mr. Agnor said the 911 Joint Dispatch Center is administratively support-
ed by County staff. Therefore, employees at the Center are covered by County
Policies. According to County Personnel Policy, new employees serve a six-
month probationary period with the exception of Police Officers. They serve a
twelve-month probationary period if they have no experience in Virginia law
rnforcement in order to allow sufficient time to provide basic training to
meet State certification requirements. Communications officers and their
supervisors require similar training and need more probationary time to
11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
e 15)
58
~lete their training. Mr. Agnor said a revision to the County Personnel
to authorize the twelve-month probationary period for 911 Center
employees is requested.
Mrs. Humphris offered a motion and Mr. Bowerman seconded it, to change
the Personnel Policy to add the words, "and communications officers and
supervisors of the Joint Emergency Dispatch Center..." to the Probationay
Terms section of P-23.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12a. Appropriation: Roof Replacement/Health Department
Mr. Agnor said the County and City jointly own the Thomas Jefferson
District proPerty on Rose Hill Drive. The State pays an annual fee for
its use, which provides funds for insurance and routine maintenance costs.
The City maintains the building, and the County manages the rental/repair
account. He said the older phase of the building has roof problems and the
roof must be replaced. Bids for replacement have been taken by the City for a
total cost of $26,700. The rental account has a balance of $9280, leaving
$17,420 needed for the project. In order for the replacement to proceed, an
appropriation of $8710 for one-half of the cost is requested from the Board's
Contingency Reserve.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bain adopting the
resolution set out below for the appropriation as requested. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR
FUND
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
89190
CAPITAL
ROOF REPAIRS AT HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100051020800902 HEALTH DEPT.-ROOF $8,710.00
1100095000999990 CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT (8~710.00)
TOTAL $ 0.00
REVENUE DES CRI PT I ON AMOUNT
$ 0.00
TOTAL $ 0.00
Agenda Item No. 12b. Appropriation: Fire Services Fund.
Mr. Agnor said the 1989-90 Fire Service revenue of $58,570.63 exceeded
budget projections by $2,570.61. He said these funds are restricted for use
in purchasing fire equipment or training. The total amount for past years has
been distributed to the volunteer fire companies. He said the State gave
$367.12 per company more than was estimated in the budget. The Board is
requested to authorize the distribution of the extra revenue to the volunteer
fire companies.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris
adopting a resolution set out below appropriating the funds as requested.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
%pril 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) 59
IPage 16)
FISCAL YEAR 89/90
FUND GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DISTRIBUTION OF FIRE SERVICE FUNDS IN EXCESS OF
PROJECTION.
EXPENDITURE
SOST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100032020560702 NORTH GARDEN $367.23
1100032020560802 SCOTTSVILLE 367~23
1100032020560902 CROZET. 367.23
11100032020561002 EARLYSVILLE 367.23
1100032020561102 EAST RIVANNA 367.23
1100032020561202 STONY POINT 367.23
1100032020561302 SEMINOLE 367.23
TOTAL $2,570.61
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100024000240417 FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM $2~570.61
TOTAL $2,570.61
Agenda Item No. 12c. Appropriation: Gypsy Moth Fund.
Mr. Agnor said that Federal funds for~ the Gypsy Moth Progrs]nneed to be
appropriated to incorporate them into the County's financial records for
proper disbursement. The total appropriation needed is $133,902.68, of which
local funds total $3,250. The appropriation includes salaries for fifteen
part-time employees, travel for reimbursement for personal vehicle use, salary
and benefits for the coordinator, reimbursement to the County for use of a
County pool car, and postage and supplies for rmailings to property owners.
Spraying costs are paid directly by the State. Mr. Agnor said the $3,250 has
already been appropriated in the 1989-90 budget. This action is to transfer
it to a special fund to be used in the Gypsy Moth Program.
Mr. Bain offered a motion adopting the resolution set out below to
transfer funds as requested. Mr. Perkins seconded, the motion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr~ Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR 89/90
FUND GYPSY MOTH
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: AMENDMENT TO FY 88/89 GRANT AND NEW FY 89/90
GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1123034010110000 SALARIES-REGULAR $101,348.63
1123034010210000 FICA 7,573.39
1123034010221000 VSRS 4,282.56
1123034010231000 HEALTH INSURANCE 1,862.16
1123034010232000 DENTAL iNSURANCE 156.00
1123034010241000 VSRS GROUP LIFE INSURANCE 391.00
1123034010270000 WORKER'S COMPENSATION 996.07
1123034010390000 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 50.00
1123034010520100 POSTAL SERVICES 1,188.78
1123034010550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE 8,511.81
1123034010550110 TRAVEL-POOL CAR EXPENSES 4,197.63
1123034010550400 TRAVEL-EDUCATION 600.00
1123034010600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,398.04
1123034010601400 OTHER OPERATING SUPPLIES 596.61
1123034010601700 COPY SUPPLIES 400.00
1123034010800700 ADP EQUIPMENT 350.00
TOTAL $133,902.68
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2123033000330001 GRANT REVENUE-FEDERAL $130,652.68
TRANSFER FROM GEN'L FUND 3~250.~00
TOTAL $133,902.68
%pril 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
~Page 17)
6O
Agenda Item No. 12d. Appropriation: Jail Fund.
Mr. Agnor said the City and County jointly operate the Regional Jail. He
~aid they have an agreement which says that funds remaining at the end of an
audit year are returned to the City or County. If there is a shortfall of
funds, the City and County must provide a supplementary appropriation. He
said the Jail Board has been able to return monies to the localities in nine
out of 11 years. Mr. Agnor pointed out that the expenditures were within the
appropriation, but revenues, primarily from the State, were short of the
expected amount by $62,544. The County's share based on usage of the facility
is $18,138. The Jail Board is requesting an appropriation in accordance with
the agreement. The amount would come from the Board's contingency.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the shortfall amount from the State represents.
Mr. Agnor said the per diem rate decreased and the revenue from the State for
use of the jail decreased. Mr. Bowerman said it is commendable that even
though the population in the Jail increased, the expenditures were Within the
projections.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mrs. Humphris adopting the
resolution set out below for the appropriation as requested. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR
FUND
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION;
89/90
GENERAL
TO COVER REVENUE SHORTFALL IN JOINT SECURITY
FUND.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100033020700002
1100095000999990
JOINT SECURITY
CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT
TOTAL
$18,138.00
(18~138.00)
$ 0.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
TOTAL
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
public and the Board.
Mr. Way said at the recent budget hearings the appropriation for JAUNT
was increased. However, Mrs. Wilson indicated that there would probably be a
shortfall in the local match for the current fiscal year due to the increase
in handicapped ridership. Mr. Way said the maximum amount of shortfall would
be $4,500. Mr. Way said he told Mrs. Wilson that the Board will expect her to
do everything possible to absorb the shortfall. He wanted the Board to know
that the JAUNT Board is aware of the problem, but there may be a future
request for money. He said the JAUNT Board is planning to increase the rates
in rural areas for handicapped ridership to solve this problem in the future.
In order to increase the rates, a public hearing must be held. Mr. Way said
the JAUNT Board has done that in the past. There was no objection from Board
members for the JAUNT Board to hold the public hearing.
The Board recessed for lunch at 11:50 A.M.
The Board reconvened at 1:36 p.m., with Mr. Way absent.
Agenda Item No. 13a. Work Session: Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act,
Report.
Mr. J. W. Peyton Robertson, Jr., Watershed Management Official, presented
the following report dated March 29, 1990:
11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
61
"Earlier reports to you from this office have tracked the progress of
the-Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and the development of regulations
for the designation and management of land in Chesapeake Bay Preserva-
tion Areas. This report will more closely examine the final regula-
tions and describe specific components for developing a local program.
Staff comment is provided following the description of the regula-
tions. An analysis of the regulations in comparison with existing
ordinances in Albemarle County was conducted by this office and the
Department of Planning and Community Development. The report has also
been reviewed by the Water Resources Committee. This report should
provide insight as to the approach which Albemarle County might pursue
in adopting the provisions of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act
regulations.
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regula-
tions
The regulations are divided into six parts:
o Part I, Introduction
o Part II, Local Government Programs
o Part III, Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation
Criteria
o Part IV, Land Use and Development Performance Criteria
o Part V, Implementation, Assistance and Determination of
Consistency
o Part VI, Enforcement
PART I
INTRODUCTION
This section outlines the authority for the regulations and lists a
number of definitions for terms used. The pertinent language for
application of the regulations is as follows: 'Other local govern-
ments not in Tidewater Virginia may use the criteria and conform their
ordinances as provided in these regulations to protect the quality of
state waters...'
Discussion:
The above language gives clear authority to Albemarle County to adopt
the provisions of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regulations and
incorporate the criteria into local ordinances.
PART II
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
This section outlines the rationale for developing a local program..
Counties and towns are encouraged to cooperate in developing a local
program. In addition, Section 2.1 of the regulations sets out the
goals of a local program: 'local programs shall encourage and pro-
mote:
i)
protection of existing high quality state waters and resto-
ration of all other state waters to a condition or quality
that will permit all reasonable public uses and will support
the propagation and growth of all aquatic life, including
game fish, which might reasonably be expected to inhabit
them;
ii)
safeguarding the clean waters of the Commonwealth from
pollution;
iii) prevention of any increase in pollution;
iv) reduction of existing pollution; and
v)
promotion of water resource conservation in order to provide
for the health, safety and welfare of the present and future
citizens of the Commonwealth.'
11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
19)
62
Discussion:
Albemarle County would have to decide whether or not to work with the
City of Charlottesville in developing a local program. The Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission could also be involved in
developing a regional approach to designation of Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Areas.
Goals i v above are in general agreement with the Water Resources
section of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. The Bay Act
regulation language is more specific in reference to preventing any
increase in pollution and in reducing existing pollution, though these
objectives are inherent in the Comprehensive Plan. It is worth noting
that an objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to 'Review and support,
where appropriate, Chesapeake Bay protection initiatives.'
Section 2.2 of the regulations sets out the elements to be included in
a local program. The first two of these elements are perhaps the most
relevant in terms of immediate steps to be taken by the County. They
are:
1. The.development of a map which delineates Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Areas and;
2. Establishment of performance criteria which apply in those
areas.
The rmmaining elements of section 2.2 involve revisions to existing
ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan to bring them into conformance
with the map and criteria.
PART III
CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREA DESIGNATION CRITERIA
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas include three possible classifica-
tions for land:
1. Resource Protection Areas (RPA's)
2. Resource Management Areas (RMA's)
3. Intensely Developed Areas (IDA's)
Resource Protection Areas are the most restrictive of the designations
and are to consist of 'sensitive lands at or near the shoreline that
have an intrinsic water quality value due to the ecological and
biological processes they perform or are sensitive to impacts which
may cause significant degradation to the quality of state waters.'
RPA's are thus the areas immediately adjacent to critical resources
which might be negatively effected by human impacts.
Resource Management Areas 'shall include land types that, if impro-
perly used or developed, have a potential for causing significant
water quality degradation or for diminishing the functional value of
the Resource Protection Area.' RMA's are thus areas landward of the.
RPA which are not as critical in the sense of need for stringent
protection, but which may still be important in terms of their poten-
tial to cause impacts within the RPA.
Intensely Developed Areas are a third designation which may be used at
the option of the locality as an overlay of Chesapeake Bay Preserva-
tion Areas for cases where a fairly dense pattern of development
already exists. The regulations allow that this designation may be
used for 'Areas of existing development and infill sites where little
of the natural environment remains...' At least one of the following
conditions must be met:
Development has severely altered the natural state of the
area such that it has more than 50 percent impervious
surface;
B. Public sewer and water is constructed and currently serves
~ril 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
63
the area by the effective date (of the regulations). This
does not include areas planned for public sewer and water;
C. Housing density is equal to or greater than four dwelling
units per acre.
Discussion:
Resource Protection Areas: Designation of Resource Protection Areas
in Albemarle County seems fairly straightforward. RPA's are similar
in concept to a buffer area, much like the building and septic setback
currently employed in the watersheds of public water supplies. The
resource which is being protected is the actual stream but the area
which is critical in terms of impact includes land immediately adja-
cent to streams. RPA's could thus be designated as a 100 foot buffer
or conservation zone along all tributary streams within the County
(which is in keeping with the statutory language of protecting state
waters). In addition, non-tidal wetlands within the County could be
identified, mapped, and included as Resource Protection Areas.
Resource Management Areas: Designation of Resource Management Areas
could be accomplished by more than one approach:
RMA's could include categories such as the limits of the one
hundred year flood plain, highly erodible soils, and steep
slopes.
The entire County could be designated as an RMA, an approach
being considered by Fairfax and Prince William Counties (both
are included as Tidewater counties in the Act). This
approach, while it may seem more stringent, recognizes the
fact that any land use within a given jurisdiction will have
some impact on the water resources within that area.
Intensely Developed Areas: Designation of IDA's is at the discretion
of the locality. An overlay for Intensely Developed Areas could be
accomplished for Albemarle and would seem appropriate for large parts
of the City of Charlottesville if a cooperative effort is.made.
Albemarle County might choose to designate those areas within the
urban fringe which are currently served by water and sewer and have a
housing density greater or equal to four dwelling units per acre as
IDA's.
PART IV
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
This section of the regulations sets out the criteria for the use of
land within Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas and identifies the
purpose of these criteria as accomplishing the goals identified in
Part II. The criteria are intended to meet the following objectives:
o to 'prevent a net increase in nonpoint source pollution from
new development;
o achieve a 10 percent reduction in nonpoint source pollution
from redevelopment; and
o achieve a 40 percent reduction in nonpoint source pollution
from agricultural and silvicultural uses.'
These goals and objectives are in keeping with the overall strategy
developed as part of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The Bay Agreement
was signed by the states of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania and
the District of Columbia. It identified as a goal the overall reduc-
tion of nutrients to the Bay of 40 percent by the year 2000.
Section 4.2
Section 4.2 lists general performance criteria which apply in Chesa-
peake Bay Preservation Areas. Language in most of these criteria does
~ril 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
~ 21)
64
not differ significantly from existing provisions in a number of
ordinances which Albemarle County employs in controlling land use.
Summaries of the criteria are provided below:
No more land shall be disturbed than is necessary to provide
for the desired use or development.
Indigenous vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum
extent possible.
Best management practices shall be maintained through
agreement with the local government.
Ail development exceeding 2500 square feet of land distur-
bance shall be accomplished through a plan of development
review process.
Land development shall minimize impervious cover consistent
with the use or development allowed.
Land disturbing activity which exceeds 2500 square feet
shall comply with the local erosion and sediment control
ordinance.
On-site sewage treatment systems not requiring a VPDES
permit shall:
a. Be pumped out at least once every five years;
b. Provide adequate drainfield capacity for a reserve
drainfield site equal in area to the primary drainfield.
Post development runoff pollutant loadings shall not exceed
the pre-development loadings based upon average land cover
conditions.
Agricultural activities shall be conducted in accordance
with a soil and water conservation plan based upon the Field
Office Technical Guide of the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture. Such a plan shall be approved by the local conserva-
tion district no later than January 1, 1995.
10.
Silvicultural activities are exempt from the ordinance but
must utilize water quality protection measures prescribed by
the Virginia Department of Forestry in the Best Management
Practices Handbook for Forestry Operations.
11.
Local governments shall require evidence of all wetlands
permits required by law prior to authorizing grading or
other on-site activities to begin.
Discussion:
Note the similarity between the performance standard in #8 and the
County's existing Runoff Control Ordinance. Criteria #11 would give
additional protection to non-tidal wetlands in Albemarle County.
There are currently no state regulations for protection of non-tidal
wetlands and jurisdiction is under the Corps of Engineers as part of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Many of the criteria support specific Comprehensive Plan objectives,
such as the use of Best Management Practices, wetlands protection, and
filter strips along both drinking water supply tributaries and those
streams outside of the watershed. Septic maintenance (#7) is a
recommendation of the Groundwater Protection Study completed by the
Planning Department.
Individual criteria or the entire list of criteria could be included
in any approach the County might wish to pursue. These criteria could
either be incorporated into existing ordinances or adopted as part of
~ril 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
e 22)
65
a separate code section which refers specifically to Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Areas.
It should also be noted that the above criteria apply only within
Preservation Areas. They would apply to the entire County if all
lands outside the Resource Protection Areas (the remainder of the
County) were designated as Resource Management Areas. Otherwise they
would apply only to specific areas designated (as outlined in Dis-
cussion, Part III above). This distinction is important in consi-
dering application of criteria #4 and #7--single family homes would be
subject to erosion and sediment control if the entire county were
designated as an RMA, they would not be subject to this condition if
only land such as flood plain were included in RMA's.
Section 4.3
Section 4.3 of the regulations describes additional criteria which
apply specifically within Resource Protection Areas. Within RPA's,
the only allowable development is for water dependent facilities or
redevelopment (keep in mind that the RPA is i~nediately adjacent to
state waters--a water dependent facility would include a structure
such as the concession stand at Chris Greene Lake).
Section 4.3 also includes buffer area requirements. The buffer is
described as 'a 100 foot buffer area of natural vegetation that is
effective in retarding runoff, preventing erosion, and filtering
nonpoint source pollution from runoff .... ' The regulations allow for
a reduction of the buffer to 50 feet under certain circumstances, but
stress that the functional value of the buffer area is to be main-
tained.
Provisions are included for a reduction in the agricultural buffer:
To a minimum width of 50 feet when the adjacent land is
enrolled in a federal, state or locally funded agricultural
best management practices program.
bo
To a minimum width of 25 feet when a soil and water quality
conservation plan, as approved by the local Soil and Water
Conservation District, has been implemented on the adjacent
land.
Discussion:
The allowances for reduction of the buffer area are made only when it
can be demonstrated that the best management practices in place
achieve a reduction in nonpoint source pollutants equivalent to a 100.
foot buffer. The agricultural provisions for reducing the buffer area
give authority to the local Soil and Water Conservation District (in
Albemarle County, the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation
District) for insuring that a soil and water quality conservation plan
is being implemented and achieving nonpoint reduction goals.
The remainder of Part IV describes exceptions to specific provisions
in the regulations. These exceptions still require administrative
review and approval. The key exceptions are:
o redevelopment
o utilities
o within RPA's:
wells; passive recreation; historic
preservation
PART V and PART VI
IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT
These sections of the regulations will not be reviewed in detail since
they apply mostly to implementation timetables and program adoption
dates for Tidewater localities which are required to comply with the
provisions of the Act. Albemarle County would not be required to
follow these schedules and could implement criteria as desired. Part
april 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
V does allow for certification of a local Program by the Chesapeake
Bay-Local Assistance Board: 'Upon request, the board will certify
that a local program complies with the Act and regulations.'
Enforcement action is taken primarily in cases where local governments
which are required to implement the criteria fail to do so. Other
legal proceedings are referred to the Attorney General's Office for
appropriate action.
POTENTIAL PROGRAM FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY
The procedure which Albemarle County would follow in order to adopt
the provisions of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and
Management Regulations is described below. The first step would
involve mapping of Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. Existing
mapping resources could be utilized with additional information
obtained as necessary. The following mapping information is currently
available:
1. Limited information is available for critical slopes.
2. Stream networks are shown on U.S.G.S. quad sheets and could
be enhanced from other sources.
3. Soils maps for Albemarle are recent and provide good informa-
tion.
Non-tidal wetlands have been mapped as part of the National
Wetlands Inventory and could be further verified through
other sources.
A hypothetical map is attached to show what possible RPA and RMA
designations would look like. This map shows a 100 foot buffer
designated along the Rivanna River and tributary streams. The buffer
is also drawn around non-tidal wetlands which have been identified
from National Wetland Inventory maps. The 100 foot buffer in combina-
tion with the areas of non-tidal wetlands would comprise the Resource
Protection Area.
The RMA designation is shown only for the one hundred year flood plain
and does not include other possible categories such as critical slopes
or poor soils.
OPTIONS:
RPA's RMA's IDA's
1. Designate a 100
foot buffer along all
streams and non-tidal
wetlands in Albemarle
County.
1. Designate additional
land adjacent to
streams (flood plain),
critical slopes, or
poor soils as the RMA.
1. Designate high
density areas with
existing water and
sewer as infill or
intensely developed
(density of 4 du/ac
2. Designate the entire or greater).
County as an RMA.
NOTE: The County could opt to use only the RPA designation, or could
designate RPA's and RMA's but not have a category for IDA's.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends designating a 100 foot buffer along all tributary
streams and contiguous non-tidal wetlands as a Resource Protection
Area. This buffer area would be applied to all streams within the
County and would accomplish the following objectives:
1. Improved water quality to benefit both local and downstream
interests;
2. Recreational benefits for fishing and boating activity;
~ril 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
3. Improved habitat for aquatic and terrestrial species of
plants and animals;
4. Preservation and enhancement of scenic qualities along
stream corridors and;
5. Preservation of open space.
This buffer could be reduced if Best Management Practices (BMP's) were
employed for a particular site. Except on agricultural land, the
buffer could not be reduced to any less than 50 feet.
The current language pertaining to septic and building setbacks within
the watersheds of drinking water impoundments could be maintained with
minor modification. This would result in a tiered approach, whereby a
greater degree of water quality protection is afforded in relation to
public water supply but recognition is given to the importance of
protecting all stream water quality within the County as being within
the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Staff recommends designating the one hundred year flood plain along
stream courses as a Resource Management Area (at a minimum). This
designation would be in concert with current flood plain restrictions
and would allow additional review of activities occurring in sensitive
lands along stream courses. Other critical components such as poor
soils and critical slopes could be analyzed as part of the mapping
process, and decisions made at a later time as to whether or not to
include those areas as part of the RMA.
Adoption of the provisions of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act is
in the interest of Albemarle County for a number of reasons:
Additional protection could be provided for streams in the
County which are not currently subject to the provisions of
the Runoff Control Ordinance or stormwater provisions of the
subdivision ordinance;
The current Scenic Stream overlay for the Moormans River does
not provide enough specific information as to how the adjacent
shoreline should be managed and new criteria would enhance the
protection of existing high water quality;
The criteria in the regulations and designation of Chesapeake
Bay Preservation Areas is in keeping with the goals of the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to protect local water
resources and support Chesapeake Bay initiatives;
Preserving areas along watercourses would enable the attain-
ment of goals to provide open space for public recreation as
is currently being pursued in the Rivanna greenway project.
Items for further consideration:
If Albemarle County adopts provisions in the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Act regulations, which areas will be mapped and
what criteria will apply in those areas?
After having chosen a particular mapping approach, what will
be the effect of the regulations on different land uses within
the areas designated?
o What agency in County government will be responsible for
implementation and enforcement of the regulations?
o How much staff time will be required to produce maps of
Chesapeake Bay Preservation areas and what will be the cost of
additional resources necessary to delineate those areas?
These items can be addressed when the Board of Supervisors makes a
decision as to what degree they wish to pursue implementation of the
~pril 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
68
regulations in Albemarle County. The amount of resources required to
implement the regulations and the net effect on individual landowners
will vary considerably depending on which approach is taken."
Mr. Robertson Said implementing these regulations, mapping, and incor-
porating the provisions into the County ordinances will require a lot of staff
time and resources. At this time, there is not a requirement for Albemarle
County to adopt these provisions, but the Board can pick out specific provi-
sions from the regulations to use.
Mr. Bain asked the intent behind the Intensely Developed Areas (IDA),
i.e., housing density equal to greater than four dwelling units per acre. Mr.
Robertson said IDA designation was intended to accommodate situations where
there presently was high density and provide a mechanism by which any redevel-
opment in those areas could put in place some sort of water quality protection
through a reduction in pollution. It is essentially a redevelopment scheme
and is not intended to promote future growth.
Mr. Bowie asked if the purpose of this report is for direction in devel-
oping an ordinance. Mr. Robertson said "yes". These Acts should be incor-
porated into County ordinances or proceed with mapping. As he previously
stated, not all of the steps in the report need to be followed, but initially
localities have been required to begin mapping.
Mr. Bowie asked if designating the entire County as an PuMA is one of the
recommendations. Mr. Robertson said he would recommend designating as a
minimum those areas close to streams and water bodies for an additional buffer
zone. (Mr. Way returned to the meeting at 1:46 p.m.)
Mr. Bowerman said when there is major development in the County and a
significant stretch of land is graded, in the absence of lakes and ponds
downstream from the site, all of the sediment that leaves the area ultimately
ends up in the Chesapeake Bay. Even thoough the County has a runoff control
ordinance and a soil erosion ordinance, there is still a significant amount of
sedimentation that gets off site. In the Carrsbrook area there are four
existing lakes/ponds remaining which literally were changed in character by
the development along the west side of Route 29. He has seen this happen.
Although the runoff control ordinance and the soil erosion ordinance were in
place during development of those sites along Route 29 and the development met
County standards, the lakes still filled with sediment. He can only conclude
that this is a result of direct development upstream. He then asked if the
County, through use of the Act can strengthen its ordinances. He also in-
quired as to whether there are any funds available to clean these lakes/ ponds
because they act as environmental areas for the Bay. Mr. Robertson said new
regulations for stormwater management are being drafted that includes revi-
sions to erosion and sediment control law which will be an option for locali-
ties to adopt under the Stormwater Management Program. These regulations
include stormwater management planning on a basin wide scale and put into
place facilities to collect stormwater and exact pro rata share contributions.
Legislation failed this year which would have allowed placement of a
stormwater utility fee to collect and pay for maintenance of those facilities.
With regard to construction, the utilities can be funded through pro rata
share contributions based on the off-site improvements required under the
State Subdivision Code. The Act regulations are a tool more related to the
immediate environs of streams in terms of adjacent buffers.
Mr. Cilimberg said he is not aware of any funds available through the
Chesapeake Bay Program for general maintenance other than fees. Mr. Robertson
said the monies that are going to Tidewater localities to implement the
Chesapeake Bay regulations are mostly from the Council on the Environment
through grants under the Coastal Zone Management Program. Mr. Bowie asked if
the County would be eligible for any of those grant funds. Mr. Robertson said
he did not know.
Mr. Bain asked if the County can strengthen its ordinances to control
these problems during the construction process. Mr. Cilimberg said the County
Engineer is presently reviewing County regulations in an attempt to apply them
on a more comprehensive basis. The County Engineer has expressed concern that
the County's stormwater management application is not applicable to the entire
)ril 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
26)
growth area. Mr. Agnor co~ented that if~ the County must have a storm-
management plan it has to be by basin.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the County does not have additional powers as a
result of the Chesapeake Bay Act, since these areas feed into the Chesapeake
Bay. Mr. Robertson replied "yes".
Mr. Perkins asked if this program is tied in with other Chesapeake Bay
Programs, i.e, forestry and agricultural programs. Mr. Robertson replied it
is in the sense that the provisions in the Act speak to other programs and
were done with the cooperation of those groups. Ail of the programs are
integrated and cooperative.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission is interested in this area, but
has not had an opportunity to review this information. With the additional
authority and legislation that the County has, it would seem appropriate to
refer this report to the Commission to develop a comprehensive program to
bring back to the Board for implementation and consideration. Mr. Bowie said
that seems reasonable, but there are areas that require some more background
material before any meaningful discussions can take place. One of the areas
is designation of part of the County for certain requirements. Mr. Bain said
he agrees with Mr. Bowie. Certain requirements such as setbacks and buffers
may be something to do county-wide. He does not think the mapping will
require much staff time. Mr. Robertson said that is correct.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks time is an important factor. If this is
going to take a considerable amount of time, it would seem that a designation
be made first and then take up the issues one by one for inclusion or exclu-
sion. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board could decide to authorize the mapping to
determine the area in which to apply the regulations, what criteria to immedi-
ately apply, if any, and then address the remaining criteria over a period of
time. Mrs. Humphris said she would feel more comfortable if the Board had an
overall idea that it was working toward and then Concentrate on the details.
She asked who would handle that. Mr. Robertson responded that the Planning
Department would.
Mr. Bowie said there are three minimum recommendations in the report
which relate to designating a 100 foot buffer, septic and building setbacks
and one hundred year flood plain designation; and that this report go to the
Planning Commission for further study and a recommendation on how to implement
and what to do. Mr. Robertson responded that is a correct assessment.
Mr. Bain said before sending this to the Commission for study, he would
like to have a general idea of the amount of staff time that would be involved
to implement the various recommendations. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff could
provide an initial recommendation next month.
Although this is not a public hearing, Mr. Bowie asked if there were any
comments from the public. Ms. Sherry Buttrick of the Piedmont Environmental
Council, said PEC thinks this is a terrific idea and hopes that the County
will move forward with all possible dispatch to do all the necessary things to
make this a top priority for timely implementation. She thinks the Board
needs to consider casting the whole Comprehensive Plan in the direction of
getting growth out of the environmentally sensitive areas. Through these
recommendations, the County has the opportunity to get state certification of
a local plan which would be important and a step in the right direction. If a
timetable can be established and the staff is available, it is important to
proceed with haste.
There was no further discussion except the consensus of the Board for
staff to prepare a report for the May 9 meeting on how much staff time it
would take to further study and implement the recommendations outlined in the
report.
Agenda Item No. 13c. Jefferson Country Fire & Rescue Association Report.
(Report initially presented at the March 21, 1990 Board meeting.)
Mr. John Hood, President, Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association,
first introduced Mr. David Hunter, Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Square and
%pril 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
70
Mr. J. B. Morris, Vice President of Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Associa-
tion. At this time, JCFRA is asking the Board to implement primarily things
that do not require new funding in terms of volunteerism, i.e~, approve the
personal property tax exemption annually of one vehicle per volunteer and free
admission to local Parks and Recreation facilities. $CFRA is also asking the
Board to fund out of the $100,000, reserve $22,000 for the two rescue squads,
$30,000 for a volunteer coordinator, $5500 for a Basic Life Support Coordi-
nator, $4000 to fully fill out the insurance funds for the rescue squads
accident and death policies, and with the remaining funds to address the issue
of aerial service. He explained that fire companies cannot provide full fire
protection to large buildings without aerial service. This is regarding any
building of substantial size that is one story, any building of two stories or
higher and any building with significant property value involved, multiple
apartment complexes, etc. Since it will take at least six months to write the
specifications for an aerial apparatus, a year to build it and then decide
where it will be stored, he thinks it would make sense to rent the service
from the City of Charlottesville. He has discussed this with Chief Taliaferro
of the City Fire Department who has agreed to this at a cost of $262,614.
That cost is based on seven full time people, and $4000 for over all repair
and fuel costs. Also with the flexibility of an aerial company, he hopes to
implement an urban ring business inspection program to allow firefighters to
visit and become familiar with businesses on a regular schedule.
Mr. Bowie asked the County Executivewhat actions the Board has taken
thus far regarding the fire companies. Mr. Agnor said the Board set aside in
reserve for next year $100,000. From that reserve, the Board agreed to
allocate level funding of $22,400 for both Western Albemarle and Scottsville
Rescue Squads. The Board indicated that it would level fund insurance for the
rescue squads and the fire companies at a cost of $4420. The Board indicated
that it would wait until after this work session to consider funding the
Emergency Medical Services Coordinator position at a cost of $5510. If the
Board considers funding the Volunteer Coordinator position, that would cost
$30,000. Those four items would take $62,330 from that $100,000, with a
remaining balance of $37,670. The staff does not have a cost based on allow-
ing free entry to County parks. Regarding the exemption from personal pro-
perty taxes, if the average volunteer pays $250 yearly in personal property
taxes, then it would cost $81,250 in lost revenues to the County.
Mr. Bowie asked if the City has aerial service. Mr. Hood said the City
currently has two aerials and has ordered a third one.
Mr. Bowie asked for staff recommendations. Mr. Agnor said he recommends
the Emergency Coordinator position be funded in this budget cycle and the
Volunteer Coordinator position be funded in the following year's budget cycle.
Mr. Bain said at a previous meeting he requested a breakdown on the
number of calls but he has not received that information. Before making a
final decision he wants to first review the information.
Mrs. Humphris asked the cost of continuing the free annual vehicle decal
for volunteers. Mr. Agnor said that cost is approximately $4000.
Mr. Bowie suggested that if the Board agrees to a personal property tax
exemption there be a cap on the amount allowed so as to be fair to all of the
volunteers. He basically supports the concept of everything that has been
requested, but he first wants to make sure it is fair and properly handled.
Without any real staff input, he is lost as to what to do next. Mr. Agnor
said the staff did not do much work because it wanted to wait until this work
session to see what areas the Board wanted to focus on.
Mr. Bowie said he has a problem understanding the process whereby the
aerial service works. If there is a fire in the County would the City not
automatically dispatch the aerial unit. Mr. J. B. Morris said "no"; the
service is only dispatched if it is specifically requested and then the County
must call in staff to man it because the City does not provide the manpower.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the entire concept of volunteerism needs to be
looked at because of what is happening with it, not only locally but also
nationally. It seems to him these volunteer firefighters are having other
duties thrust on them that do not involve fighting fires and they are having
~ril 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
to train in other areas. He wonders if by making these people train in rescue
and firefighting functions, it is not pushing them away. He thinks that if
the County is going to require these people to have all of this training, then
it needs to start looking at a paid force. That is why he would like to know
who is doing what and if there is any duplication of effort.
Mr. Bowie asked if firemen are required to be first responders. Mr.
Morris said to the best of his knowledge no fire company in Albemarle County
requires an individual to be qualified both as a firefighter and as anEmer-
gency Medical Technician, but it is encouraged. Most companies require a new
member within the first year of service to reach a level of training equiva-
lent to Firefighter I classification and EMT classification. Mr. Hood said in
many cases, lives have been saved by firefighters who had some medial train-
ing. The state has a state certified course with licensing for first respon-
der, EMT and for the firefighters.
Mr. Bowie said he would like to see these things broken down with costs,
phasing and recommendations.
Mr. Hunter said one of the parameters in preparing the report on volun-
teerism was to design it in a way that the program would not be affected if it
was totally volunteer, or if the volunteers worked alongside a paid service,
which is being done across the country. For example, in Ohio there are
approximately 100 volunteers working alongside a paid service. The volunteers
man the buildings overnight and on weekends. Those 100 volunteers are esti-
mated to save the city $200 million per year. The program is designed so as
not to damage the reasons volunteers are working. It is difficult to attract
people and retain them alongside someone who is getting paid to do the same
job.
Mr. Way said he is in agreement with the initial recommendations.
Mr. Bowie said with an item as large as the aerial service, there needs
to be some staff input on how to implement and phase the service. Mr. Bain
said he would like to know what other localities are doing. Mr. Bowie sug-
gested that staff bring back to the Board its recommendations and how to
implement those recommendations
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris that staff prepare for the May 9
meeting, costs, phasing and recommendations on the requests included in the
JCFRA report. That is to include the five items listed under the Individual
Volunteer Incentives, the Volunteer Resource Person, aerial equipment and
Basic Life Support Coordinator position. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Mr.
Hood asked that the Volunteer pension plan and Volunteer insurance program be
deleted for the time being because they are not prepared to move forward with
those items, but will bring them back during the proper budget cycle. Mrs.
Humphris then added that those two items should be omitted from the requested
recommendations. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Perkins asked if there is any basis to assess structures that have
need for an aerial ladder truck so the owners pay the costs rather than every
taxpayer in the County. Mr. Agnor said there is a fire district program in
Virginia allowed for local governments, but the program does not allow assess-
ment of certain costly buildings that require ladder service. It requires an
assessment on all property within that district to support the cost of fire
protection. The impact fees can include such costs in terms of a single cost
at the beginning of the project, but not as a continuing cost.
There was no further discussion at this time.
Agenda Item No. 13b. Solid Waste Task Force Recommendations.
Mr. Tucker presented the following memorandum dated April 4, 1990:
April 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(page 29)
72
"As requested, staff has prepared a comparison of alternative organ-
izational structures to manage solid waste disposal operations
in Albemarle and Charlottesville.
BACKGROUND
The December, 1989 report of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Solid Waste
Task Force recommends the City and County form some type of authority
to take over the operation of the Ivy Landfill and eventually assume
responsibility for all waste management activities except collection.
The Task Force recommended either the expansion of an existing autho-
rity (the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority) or the creation of a new
authority. For the purposes of this discussion, the advantages and
disadvantages of four options will be reviewed:
I. Status .Quo - continuing the intergovernmental contract
between the City and the County.
II. Expanding the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
III. Creating a new Authority.
IV.
Creating a solid waste authority which would utilize the
existing structure and some of the staff of the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority.
A major reason for looking at a change from the existing organiza-
tional structure is the changing environment of solid waste management
in Virginia. Due to the newly adopted Solid Waste Management Regula-
tions, dramatic new standards and procedures have been established for
the construction, operation, maintenance, closure and post closure of
solid waste management facilities. Preliminary estimates from the
City and County's engineering consultant indicates these regulations
will require an expenditure in excess of $10 million at the Ivy
Landfill during the next two years. These expenses, coupled with the
State's recycling mandates of achieving a ten percent recycling rate
by 1991, a 15 percent recycling rate by 1993, and a 25 percent recycl-
ing rate by 1995 will require major changes in landfill and solid
waste management operations and financing for both the City and the
County.
I. STATUS QUO
This option would retain the existing City/County arrangement for the
operation of the Ivy Landfill. The operation is based on a contract
between the two jurisdictions which sets out funding arrangements for
capital improvements and annual operations. The Ivy Landfill is
structurally part of the Public Service Division of the Department of
Public Works of the City. The County Engineer has input on major
policy and engineering decisions. This current arrangement could be
expanded to implement additional elements of a Solid Waste Management
Program, however the existing contract would have to be amended.
Advantages:
o Easiest, least disruptive alternative.
Disadvantages:
Problems with long term financing. The City and County do not
have equal borrowing authority, i.e., City issues bonds by
ordinance, County by referendum.
As this program moves from a $1 million portion of the budget to
a $10 million operation, it will require a higher level of
managerial oversight.
o The new regulations and operations will require a higher level of
April 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
73
expertise than currently exists on the staff. The need to add
these new staff members will put an increasing amount of pressure
on the operating budgets of the City and County.
Neither the City nor the County has the space to house this
expanding operation, possibly requiring either the leasing or
construction of new office space.
o A fee supported program could be utilized, but would probably be
more difficult than an authority arrangement.
II. EXPAND RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
A preliminary research of the State Code and the authorization docu-
ments for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA), indicate that
there does not seem to be any statutory problems in RWSA handling
solid waste disposal activities for the City and County. A public
hearing and an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of RWSA
would be necessary to increase its purposes to include solid waste
disposal. However, Article VIII, Section 8.1 of the Four Party
Agreement, entered into on June 12, 1973, between the City, the
County, the Albemarle Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority recites that it is an essential part of the financing
plan for RWSA and therefore, after bonds have been sold, it cannot be
amended, modified or otherwise altered in any way that would adversely
affect the security for the payment of the bonds. In order to carry
out that provision, it provides 'this agreement can be modified or
amended only with the consent of the political subdivisions, Rivanna
and the trustee'. The trustee is Sovran Bank. Preliminary indica-
tions are that Sovran Bank would non be willing to enter into any
agreement without getting the written consent of the holders of the
bonds, which is probably not practical and could be impossible.
Advantages:
o Ability to use existing structure and staff.
o Board of Directors directly responsible to elected officials.
o Less costly, eliminates need for duplication of administrative
structure and physical facilities.
Disadvantages:
o Articles of incorporation would need to be amended.
o Four Party agreement would need to be amended.
o Potential to jeopardize bond rating of RWSA.
o Problems in obtaining approval from bond trustee and bond hold-
ers, may be impractical if not impossible.
o Major legal and financial constraints.
III. CREATE A NEW AUTHORITY
This option would allow the Board of Supervisors and City Council to
create a new authority to implement the Solid Waste Management Program
and provide, any or all, of the range of waste collection, handling,
sorting, disposal and/or recycling services required. The authority
could be created in any way the two jurisdictions desired.
Advantages:
o Complete freedom on the part of the elected officials to design
the program.
April 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Disadvantages:
74
o Cost substantial (estimated at over $300,000) initial cost to
create new administrative structure, set up new board and make
initial capital improvements.
o Need to rent office space.
o Need to develop legal, administrative, payroll and retirement
systems.
o Time commitment on current staff to develop and implement the
organizational structure.
o No direct tie or accountability to the elected bodies of each
jurisdiction.
o Timing - will take substantially longer to create a new authority
and adequate staffing.
o Will require greater up-front funding from the City and the
County.
IV. RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
This option is the creation of a separate legal entity which would
have the identical board of directors as the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority. The Executive Director of RWSA would also be the Executive
Director of this authority. In addition, a Solid Waste Advisory
Commission, consisting of local citizens is proposed, which would
function as a local Planning Commission to provide advice and recom-
mendations for the governing bodies of the City and the County.
Advantages:
o Ability to use existing structure.
o Ability to build on existing staff and employ new solid waste
specialists.
o System already in place to accept existing employees.
o Physical structure in place.
o Board of Directors directly responsible to and accountable to the
Board of Supervisors and City Council.
o Executive Director responsible to two Boards with identical make
up to avoid any conflict of priority.
o Independent bonding authority and ability to raise funds indepen-
dent of local taxes.
o Board of Directors has strong ties to the solid waste collection
systems in both jurisdictions.
o Could be implemented relatively easy and quickly.
Disadvantages:
o Added responsibility to existing staff.
S UMMARYAND RECOMMENDATIONS
Given a review of all of the options, it is staff opinion that the
Board and Council proceed with documents to create the Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority with a Board of Directors identical to the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority. This proposed authority will house the
April 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
75
newly created position of Recycling Coordinator and put both jurisdic-
tions on a fast track of meeting the new State regulations both in the
area of landfills and recycling. Once the authority has been created,
we recommend the early establishment of the Solid Waste Advisory
Commission to begin the development of a master plan for the implemen-
tation of the recommendations for recycling for both jurisdictions."
Mr. Tucker said City Council has not reviewed this report but does plan
to do so at its next meeting.
Mr. Bain said he is concerned about the long range in terms of a solid
waste authority being independent and not tied into any existing authority.
He also is concerned that the report did not address the possibility of this
being a regional authority. He knows of some interest from outlying counties.
He then asked if there is a breakdown of the $330,000 initial cost. He also
noted that there are advantages coincident of Recommendation No. III and
ReCommendation No. IV that were not listed. Also, no matter which option is
chosen, office space would be rented whether in the RWSA building or somewhere
else. He then asked what cost and timing is envisioned as for start-up of the
authority. Mr. Tucker said some of the costs primarily relate to the need for
additional staff although if RWSA is utilized, some of the present staff can
also be used. It is envisioned that the financial manager for RWSA be the
same for the authority. The Executive Director of RWSA and the authority
would be one in the same. If a new authority is created completely separate
from RWSA, staff envisions that a complete administrative structure must be
created. Creating a structure from scratch, it could be more difficult to
provide the benefits to maintain existing staff at the landfill. It would
also be a longer process in terms of timing when starting from scratch.
Mr. Bowie said he has a problem with solutions to problems being to
create a new anything, another level, agency, etc., especially if something
presently in existence can be used by "beefing it up". It would seem to be
better business.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Bain is correct in that staff did not address the
regional aspects of an authority. That does not mean that if at some time in
the future another jurisdiction wanted to be added that could not be done.
Mr. Bowie said when he was on the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission this issue was discussed, but he does not think this is the time to
consider a regional concept. The immediate problem of the landfill needs to
be considered at this time.
Mr. Bowerman said except for certain areas, Recommendations No. II and
No. IV are the same. It is utilization of the same people, the same struc-
ture, there is some legal distinctions because of some bonding requirements
and there are some disadvantages for one that do not appear in the other. It
seems to him that "a rose by any other name is still a rose." It seems to him
that there are problems associated with No. IV that are not identified and
that are going to require more money. He thinks that No. IV is too neat a
package.
Mr. Bowie disagreed with Mr. Bowerman. The problems with No. II all are
legal issues caused by the fact that there is already an agreement in opera-
tion. Ail of those problems can be avoided with No. IV. Mr. Bowerman said
this report implies that since RWSA is already in place, it can take on all
these additional responsibilities and it would not cost any additional money.
Mr. Tucker said that was not the intended impression. It seems to him that if
there is an existing staff, an executive director and someone in an admini-
strative capacity who can take the initiative to go ahead and start developing
the staff that is needed for operating the solid waste activities of this
community, that would put the community further than if it had to start
completely from scratch. Mr. Bowerman said his point is that it is going to
cost more and be more difficult to implement than what is indicated in this
report and he does not want to be under any illusions.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the County needs to look at the long term. It is
important that the staff consist of people whose focus is on solid waste
disposal. He has no problem with No. III. It may take a little longer to
April 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
start with and may cost a little bit more, but the staff will be focused on
the one'issue.
Mr. Bowie acknowledged that Mr. George Williams, Executive Director,
RWSA, and Mr. William Brent, Executive Director, Albemarle County Service
Authority, were present and asked if they had any comments. Both responded
"no'i ,
Mr. Bain asked if the same recommendations are to be presented to City
Council. Mr. Tucker said the identical report is going to City Council. This
report was written jointly by County and City staffs.
Mr. Bowie said he is not particularly influenced by what decision the
City makes and he supports No. IV.
Mrs. Humphris said it bothers her to see No. III with one advantage and a
whole list of disadvantages and No. IV with one disadvantage and a list of
advantages because she knows that is not a balanced objective look at the
situation. She sees a push in the direction for No. IV and that bothers her a
great deal. Solid waste management is going to be the biggest business that
the County will be involved in for the immediate future. It seems to her it
requires an executive director who is an expert in solid waste management.
The issue is too important to say, in the interest of time, that it is easier
to undertake No. IV when it might be in the County's interest to have the
solid waste management authority with its job being to manage solid waste
instead of a juggling act of waste and water.
Mr. Bowie asked who would appoint the Board of Directors. Mr. Agnor
responded City Council and Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Bowie said at this particular time he intends to support No. IV
because he thinks it is in place to serve Albemarle County and the City, and
he does not know what a brand new authority would end up encompassing once it
got into the mainstream. He has no problem with starting with an expansion of
RWSA to get an authority in operation and splitting it off to a more clearly
defined role in the future.
Mr. Way said he is inclined to support No. IV, but he has heard some
worthy arguments and would like to wait a week to make a decision.
Mr. Tucker stressed that the estimates in the report are "soft numbers".
The staff has not done a lot of work in terms of the numbers.
Mr. Perkins said he is inclined to support No. IV because it is supposed
to be relatively easy and can be done quickly. He thinks this can be compared
with any corporation that acquires another corporation where they still main-
tain one CEO. It does not mean that additional people cannot be hired. He
thinks the County needs to proceed quickly. If the Board discovers later that
the authority needs to be expanded on a regional basis or a new authority
created, then it might be easier to create a new one later rather than dis-
solve one that has already been created.
Mr. St. John said No. IV is the creation of a new authority but with the
same people in the same place. It is still a new authority.
Mr. Bain asked if it would affect the operating budget, resources or
bonds for RWSA if Mr. Williams became executive director of this new autho-
rity. Mr. St. John said "no", this would be a totally separate function.
Mr. Bain asked for more specific information on the start-up costs for
Recommendations No. III and No. IV. Mr. Bowie suggested that this item be
placed on the April 18agenda.
Mrs. Nancy O'Brien, Executive Director, TJPDC, said regardless of which
avenue the Board chooses, there is no reason participation cannot be on a
regional basis. There is a lot of interest in the four rural counties in
addressing this issue. She asks that the Board keeps its options open to a
regional concept.
There was no further discussion at this time.
April 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
77
Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session.
Mr. Bowie requested an executive session for personnel matters pertaining
to applicants for appointment.
Mr. St. John requested an executive session for legal matters pertaining
to the Clarke suit vs. Board of Supervisors and the case involving the nativi-
ty scene.
At 3:43 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
go into executive session for legal matters (Section 2.1-344.A7) and personnel
matters (Section 2.1-344.A.1) as outlined above. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(The Board reconvened into open session at 4:35 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Executive Session.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to certify the
Executive Session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened an
executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section-2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certifica-
tion by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such executive meeting
was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Super-
visors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only
public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by
Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certifica-
tion resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were
identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed
or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr~ Perkins and
Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bain, to appoint Mr.
Bowerman to the Rivanna Park Committee. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to appoint
Mrs. Jane Dittmar as Mr. Bowie's substitute on the Policy Board of the Private
April 11, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Industry Council. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Way, to appoint Mr.
Mark F. Osborne, to replace Mr. Donald J, Wagner, the Charlottesville District
representative on the Albemarle County Service Authority Board, with said term
to expire on April 16, 1994. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Bain, to reappoint
Mr. Werner Sensbach as the University of Virginia's non-voting member on the
Albemarle County Planning Commission, with said term to expire on December 31,
1990. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public and the Board.
Mr. Bowerman publicly thanked Mr. Donald J. Wagner for his eight years of
service on the Albemarle County Service Authority Board.
Mrs. Humphris commented that not having the minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting available on the Wilton property rezoning request had made
the Board's decision difficult last week.
Mrs. Humphris suggested that Board members should note that the memo from
staff concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Route 29 indi-
cated that the document would be available late May or early June.
Mr. Perkins reminded Mr. Way that nominations were needed for appointment
to the Rockfish Scenic River Advisory Committee, and that since the river was
in the Scottsville District, Mr. Way should make the nominations.
Mr. Bowie asked if a date and time for the next joint meeting with the
School Board had been set. He was advised that no date was discussed. Mr.
Bowie said he would discuss it with the Chairman of the School Board.
Mr. Bowie noted that the Board needed to set a time to approve the budget
or adopt the appropriation ordinance for 1990-91 on April 25. He asked if
4:00 p.m., was satisfactory, which was agreed on by all of the Board members.
Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn. At 4:45 p.m., there being no further
business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.