1987-08-12August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on August 12, 1987, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived
at the meeting at 9:15 A.M.), Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at the meeting at 10:16 A.M.), and 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. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and
Community Development.
Agenda Item No.. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
9:08 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way,
seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve Item No. 4.1 and Item No. 4.2, and to
accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
Item No. 4.1. Memorandum dated August 4, 1987, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor,
Jr., which follows, entitled "Federal Aid for Jefferson-Madison Regional
Library," approved as requested.
"The Virginia State Library and Archives (VSLA) is required by State
law to inform local governing bodies of any grant-in-aid made avail-
able to jurisdictions. Each year VSLA informs us of the Federal aid
available to Jefferson-Madison Regional Library, and Albemarle must
approve this expenditure before the funding can be provided.
Staff requests your approval of the Federal allocation of $11,874 for
FY 87-88 and authorization for the County Executive to submit the
necessary forms to ¥SLA."
Item No. 4.2. Memorandum dated August 5, 1987, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor,
Jr., re: 1987 Community Improvement Grant - Compliance Items, was received.
The following resolution and policy were approved as requested:
"As was required with the 1985 Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG), there are several items which must be approved prior to the
execution of this most recent grant award. They include:
- Nondiscrimination Policy;
- Certification of Compliance with Title!VIII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1968; and
Designate Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg as the Environmental Certifying
Officer who will be responsible for providing notice primarily to
the State historic and archaeological agencies regarding the
rehabilitation projects.
Staff recommends your approval of the attached Community Improvement
Grant compliance items. Should you have any questions concerning
this matter, please feel free to contact me."
115
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has been offered and intends to
accept federal funds authorized under the Housing and Community
Development act of 1974, and
WHEREAS, recipients of funding under the Act are required to
take action to affirmatively further fair housing,
THEREFORE, the County of Albemarle agrees to take at least one
action to affirmatively further fair housing each calendar year,
during the life of its project funded with Community Development
Block Grant funds. The action taken will be selected from a list
provided by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Develop-
ment.
NONDISCRIMINATION POLICY
It shall be the policy of the Board that all persons are entitled to
equal employment opportunities and that it does not discriminate
against its employees or applicants for employment, because of race,
religion, color, national origin, age, sex, handicap, or other
nonmerit factors provided they are qualified and meet the physical
requirements established for the position.
Item No. 4.3. Letter dated July 16, 1987, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel,
Commissioner, along with copy of "Final 1987-88 Construction Allocations and
Six-Year Improvement Program," received and on file in the Clerk's office.
Item No. 4.4. Copy of letter dated August 5, 1987, addressed to Mr. Mark
Lorenzoni, signed by Mr. J. A. Echols, Assistant Resident Engineer, re: Road
race permit, Route 601 concerning arrangements for road race on Saturday,
August 29, 1987, from 8:00 a.m. to 8:45 a.m., received and on file in the
Clerk's office.
Item No. 4.5. Memorandum dated July 23, 1987, from Mr. John T. P. Horne,
re:~ Hydraulic Road/Whitewood Road Intersection, received ~as follows:
"Enclosed is a package of information concerning pas~ discussions and
analysis of the Hydraulic Road/Whitewood Road intersection. The
letter dated March 20, 1987, from Mr. Dan Roosevelt seems to be the
current position of the Department of Transportation on any improve-
ments at this intersection. As you can see, however, the pedestrian
analysis of the intersection conducted by the Planning Department
generated widely differing information from that generated by the
Department of Transportation (¥DOT). Any improvement~to this inter-
section would be a Secondary Road improvement project~ and would,
therefore, need to be included in the Six-Year Secondary Road
Improvement Plan.
It is my opinion that the Planning Commission continues to be very
interested in addressing this issue and does not feellthat the
current position of the Department of Transportation Should be
treated as a final resolution. I believe any progress on this
situation is going to require some firm instructions to the
Department of Transportation by the Board of Supervisors and a
somewhat more creative approach towards analyzing the~situation than
has been evidenced byVDOT in the past. This Department fully
intends to discuss the issue once again during our analysis of the
Six-Year Road Improvement Plan this fall. At that time we will
attempt to conduct further analysis of the situation.
I believe Mr. Lindstrom requested this information and you may wish
to forward it to him. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me."
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Way said he concurs with the staff report, it is a dangerous situa-
tion. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Lindstrom has discussed the memorandum with Mr.
Tucker. Mr. Lindstrom thinks the intersection should be examined with the
review of the Six-Year Plan and any improvement incorporated into that plan.
Item No. 4.6. Copy of letter from Mr. Patrick A. McMahon, State Division
of Tourism, along with copy of "1986 Travel in Virginia, An Economic Analysis,"
received and on file in the Clerk's office.
Item No. 4.7. Copy of "Employment and Wages in Virginia, 2nd Quarter,
1986," from the Virginia Employment Commission, received and on file in the
Clerk's office.
Item No. 4.8. Letter dated August 4, 1987, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., requesting additional information regarding adverse impact implications
re: Intercontinental Energy Corporation Application to locate cogeneration
facility near the Orange/Albemarle County line, resulting from a letter to Mr.
Guy B. Agnor, dated July 29, 1987, which was received as follows:
"July 29, 1987
Commonwealth of Virginia
State Air Pollution Control Board
Central Virginia Regional Office
7701-03 Timberlake Road
Lynchburg, Virginia 24502
Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.
County Executive
401Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Mr. Agnor:
On July 2, 1987, a permit application was received from Intercon-
tinental Energy Corporation to locate a cogeneration facility near
the Orange/Albemarle County line on Rt. 231. The equipment will
consist of a 1,454 x I0 B~U/hr. burner (using fuel from coal gasi-
fication) and a 2,758 x 10 BTU/hr. natural gas turbine. Preliminary
estimates are that this facility will emit 500+ tons/year of volatile
organic compounds and 1000+ tons/year of carbon monoxide and nitrogen
oxides. I am writing to notify you of this matter and solicit any
comments you wish to make.
A public hearing will be held to receive comments on this proposal.
Notice of the time and location of the hearing will appear in The
Daily Progress.
I shall appreciate receiving any comments within five work days.
Sincerely,
(Signed) T.L. Henderson
Director, Region III"
Item No. 4.9. Notice from Virginia Power dated July 3, 1987, for revi-
sion of Schedule 19 rates for Cogeneration and Small Power Production.
Attached is a letter from Mr. George W. Williams, Executive Director, Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority, dated August 5, 1987, stating the 'effect of this on
the Rivanna's proposal to sell excess electricity~.~for~ the hydroelectric
facility at the South Rivanna. · ~
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
Item No. 4.10. Notice from the State Corporation Conmission dated
July 10, 1987, on an application of Lynchburg Gas Company to revise its
tariffs, received as information.
Item No. 4.11. Memorandum dated July 30, 1987, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor,
Jr., County Executive, re: Bond Rating, received as follows:
"At your meeting on July 15, a request was made of staff to
determine,
- How long it would take to get a bond rating review.
- Approximately how much it would cost.
The two rating bureaus for municipalities are Moody's and Standard
and Poors. Both of these have priorities on reviews with first
priority being given to those localities entering the bond market in
the immediate future. In this case it normally takes six to eight
months to prepare the necessary documents including an official
statement which requires collection of the last ten years of data.
This type of review is really evaluating the financial strength of a
specific bond for a specific amount of borrowing to fund a specific
project rather than evaluating the locality's level 6f service to its
citizens plus the historical cost of providing this service.
The second priority for evaluating the localities' financial rating
without issuing bonds is more time-consuming. Normally represent-
atives of the rating bureaus visit the localities, review the future
planning, and do a rather thorough job of determining the strength of
the locality from a legislative, management and financial standpoint.
This type of review is difficult to get a definite b4ginning date of
review and takes approximately 12 to 18 months to complete. There
are long delays if there is a lot of activity in the.bond market at
the time. The projected costs (excluding the cost of considerable
staff time) is:
Financial Advisors
Printing
Rating Agencies Charges
Total
$12 to $15,000
6 to 8,000
10 to 12~000
$28 to $35,000"
Mr. Fisher said the memorandum on the bond rating seems to be a status
report rather than a decision. Mr. Agnor said staff understood that the Board
wanted information on what it would require in time and money to seek a bond
rating. Mr. Fisher asked Board members to keep the memorandum so it could be
taken up later on the agenda or on a future agenda.
Item No. 4.12. Memorandum dated July 14, 1987, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor,
Jr., re: Virginia Housing Fund, received as follows:
"Staff has recently been made aware of the Virginia~ousing Fund
Program offered by the Virginia Housing and Development Adminis-
tration (Vt{DA). Approximately $22.5 million will be made available
to profit and non-profit organizations for successful proposals that
provide housing for lower income families, the elderly, disabled or
homeless. Awards will be made from a revolving loan fund with a
maximum term of 10 years and interest rates are to be no lower than a
U.S. Government/Agency security (notes and bonds). The maximum
application loan amount is $250,000 and Vt{DA will hold the deed of
trust for funded projects.
While the County would'not be a likely candidate for funding from
this program, due to our not being a direct provider Of housing,
staff does intend to make other local agencies aware of this program
and support their applications. These agencies include, among others
the Jordan Development Foundation and the rehab and/or development of
Scottsville School; MACAA, which could use the proceeds for a transi-
August 12, 1987 (Regular'Meeting)
(Page 5)
118
tional shelter for the homeless; and Shelter for Help in Emergency
(SHE), which could use this program to relocate its emergency
shelter.
Should you have any questions concerning this program, please do not
hesitate to contact me."
Item No. 4.13. Planning Commission minu~es for July 28, 1987, received
as information.
Item No. 4.14. Letter dated August 7, 1987, from Mr. William C. Porter,
Jr., County Administrator, County of Louisa, with attached resolution,
endorsing resolution to defer proposed improvements to Route 29 North until
comparative data on alternative bypasses can be complied, received as infor-
mation.
Item No. 4.15. Letter dated August 6, 1987, from Mr. Edgar A. Appling,
Jr., County Administrator, Fluvanna County, endorsing resolution to defer
proposed improvements to Route 29 North until comparative data on alternative
bypasses can be compiled, received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: March 18, 1985; October 1
(Night) and October 8, 1986; February 18, March 17, April 1, May 13, June 3
(Afternoon), June 10 and June 17 (Night), 1987.
Mr. Way said he had read the minutes for February 18, 1987, and June 10,
1987, pages 1 through 9, and found them to be correct.
Mr. Bowie said he had read the minutes for October 8, 1986, page 8 to the
end, and June 10, 1987, pages 9 through 16, beginning with Item 8 and ending
with Item 13a, and found them to be correct, i He said in the minutes of
October 8, 1986, page 11, regarding the gift !of the bench in memory of Mr.
Munford Boyd, the Chairman commented that there should be a clause in the
motion allowing the County to relocate the bench if that becomes necessary.
However, the motion did not state this. Mr. Mowie said he asked the Clerk to
check to see if the tape contained this information. He said if the informa-
tion was not left out, the item should be brought up again. Other than this,
the minutes are correct. Mr. Fisher asked Mr.. St. John if the statement about
possible future relocation of the bench was communicated to the donors. Mr.
St. John said he did not know.
Mr. Henley said he had read the minutes of April 1, 1987, and they are in
order.
Mr. Fisher said he had read the minutes of June 3 and June 17, 1987 and
found them to be in order. '
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded Mr. Way, to approve the minutes
read. (NOTE: Mrs. Cooke arrived at the meeting at 9:15 A.M.) Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYES: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
After the roll was called Mrs. Cooke said she had read the minutes of
October 8, 1986, pages 1 to 8, ending at Item #7, and May 13, 1987, pages
1 to 14, ending at Item No. 10, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Way made a motion for approval of those minutes. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowie. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYES:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
Agenda Item No. 6e. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Fisher mentioned the Flea Market on Route 250 East, and said he was
at the site on Saturday night, and it looked to him as if people are camping
there overnight. Mr. Bowie said it is private property, and he thinks some
people leave their sales trailers parked there. He has not seen any lights at
night. Mr. Horne said the Zoning Administrator is working on it, and he will
check on the matter. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Home to provide a monthly status
report on the matter.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters. Discussion: Parking in Woolen
Mills Area.
Mr. Way asked if this agenda item could be deferred until Ms. Cecile
Clover arrived. Mr. Fisher said yes.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters. Discussion: Tom Adams - Old Brook
Road.
Mr. Tom Adams was not present at this time. The item was deferred to
later in the meeting.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters. Resolution to'accept Dunromin Road
into the State Secondary System and Guarantee Performance'Bond.
Mr. Agnor said everything has been prepared and the road is ready to be
taken into the State system. Staff is recommending that, by resolution, the
County guarantee the roadway for the period of time required by State Highway
Department procedures. Staff does not expect any problems or expenditure of
funds, but there must be a guarantee should any problems come up.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie~ to adopt the
following resolution as requested. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and~Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of
Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident
Highway Department, the following road in Clearview Meadows Sub-
division:
Dunromin Road
Beginning at station 0+10, a point common with the edge of pave-
ment of State Route 676 and the centerline of Dunromin Road,
thence in a southwesterly direction 873.19 feet to station
8+83.19, the end of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed
right-of-way and drainage easement along this requested addition as
recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the C~ircuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 525, page 231A, and Dee~d Book 953, page
408.
AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby
guarantees, for a period of one year from the date of'acceptance into
the Secondary System of Highways, Dunromin Road in Clearview Meadows
Subdivision against defective materials and/or workmanship up to a
maximum of $3,750.
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
Agenda Item No. 6d. Highway Matters: Construction Guarantee at Meri-
wether Lewis Elementary School and Stone Robinson Elementary School.
Mr. Agnor said this is a request to adopt a resolution that all work
necessary to comply with entrance permits issued by the Department of Trans-
portation, at Meriwether Lewis and Stone Robinson schools, will be completed
as required.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the
following resolution as requested. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the development and improvement
projects at Meriwether Lewis Elementary School and Stone Robinson
Elementary School, new or improved entrances to the public roadways
are to be construc~d~ and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department o~ Transportation requires a
bond to guarantee the completion of all necessary work within the
public right-of-way.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation that all work required in conjunction with the entrance
permits on the above projects will be cOmpleted to Virginia Depart-
ment of Transportation standards.
Agenda Item No. 6e. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Way asked Mrs. Waltene Eubanks, resident of Esmont, to come forward
and address the Board.
Mrs. Eubanks said there is growing concern about the intersection of
Route 627 and Route 826 in Porters. She said Route 826 is a substandard road
that intersects in a "T" shape with Route 627. Mrs. Eubanks said her husband
was the latest victim in an accident occurring when he attempted to come out
of Route 826, which is recessed to the driver's right. At this location there
is a bank approximately ten feet high, approximately five feet wide, with a
fence running 250 feet which is covered with overgrown brush. This completely
blocks vision of a driver making a left turn and the vision of drivers in
approaching vehicles. Mrs. Eubanks said Mr. Roosevelt, of the Highway Depart-
ment, looked at the bank and recommended removal of the fence, grading of the
250 foot strip, and recession of the bank approximately 20 feet to give
drivers clear vision. Mrs. Eubanks said the approximate cost to the County is
$6,000. Mr. Roosevelt's other recommendation is the placing of a warning sign
or caution lights warning of the turnoff. She said even with neighbors
clearing some of the brush, there would be no guarantee of safety. Mrs.
Eubanks requested that the Board lend assistance in getting something done
about the problem. She then introduced Mrs. Debra Agee.
Mrs. Debra Agee said the road is very ba~. The driver of the school bus
also feels this way. Mrs. Agee said it is not safe for school children who
must wait for the bus on the road.
Mr. Fisher said the $6,000 figure is for!construction costs, but it is
private property. Mrs. Eubanks said yes, andiher understanding is that the
Highway Department has the right-of-way up to,the fence, but not including the
fence, which would need to be moved. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt if he had
reviewed the situation. Mr. Roosevelt confirmed that he had looked at the
location, and the cost is approximately $5,500 to $6,000. However, an ease-
ment will be required and at one point the easement might be 15 to 20 feet
wide. The cost estimate does not anticipate widening the road or the shoul-
ders of the road, just grading back the bank, but without permission nothing
feasible can be done to improve sight distance. Mr. Roosevelt pointed out
that this is just one of many sight distance problems throughout the County.
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
If the Board sees fit to give this location priority, the Board needs to
recognize that if it is going to embark on a policy of spot improvements,
there is a need to set priorities.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt if there were any such spot improvements
budgeted in the current fiscal year. Mr. Roosevelt said no. Mr. Fisher aske(
Mr. Roosevelt how he would reco~nend approaching property owners about obtain-
ing the necessary easement for construction. Mr. Roosevelt said he does not
anticipate having any problem in meeting with the neighbQrhood group, drawing
a sketch, and staking out what land is needed for the easement. It is neces-
sary to have a permanent easement, otherwise the property owner, or a future
property owner, could replace the fence where it is now located. Mr. Roosevel
said he would be willing to handle that part of the project if instructed so
by the Board.
Mr. Way said that Route 627 is one of the few residential areas in the
Scottsville District with houses right next to each other, on a highly
road. He understands what Mrs. Eubanks is talking about ~in terms of safety at
the intersection, especially for the children who wait for the school bus. He
asked if there is anyway the Board can help to accomplis~ the improvements.
Mr. Way then asked Mrs. Eubanks if there would be any problem obtaining the
easement, even though she cannot speak for the Taylor's, ~the owners of the
property in question. Mrs. Eubanks said she hopes not. Mr. Fisher said if
anything is to be done, the easement must be obtained first. It is not
practical for the Highway Department to go ahead unless there is intent on
part of the Board to move forward with the rest of the project. Mr. Roosevelt
agreed with Mr. Fisher. He said the Six-Year Plan revision is coming up this
year, and if the Board intends to consider this project, he would be willing
to work with Mrs. Eubanks, or someone from the community,~to complete the
necessary preparations for the project.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Roosevelt if he can develop a list for the Board
indicating the other locations in the County needing th~ same attention. She
said she has no problem with the request now before the Board. However, if
there are other locations that are just as critical, Mrs. Cooke thinks the
Board should look at the list and begin prioritizing the needs. She asked
ill. the Highway Department considers a need based on what the citizens are able
to-accomplish on behalf of the project, such as acquiringia needed easement.
Mrs. Roosevelt said Mrs. Cooke is referring to the gravel road improvement
policy, where first priority is given to projects where the right-of-way has
already been donated. Mrs. Cooke suggested the Board direct staff to draw up
such a list so as to inform citizens of the Board's intention to address
problems based on citizen involvement and enthusiasm. Mr, Horne said the
Planning staff has planned to do something similar to wha$ is being talked
about, but not necessarily every sight distance problem since there are so
many. Mr. Roosevelt said such a list already exists for the urban area based
on a study completed by the Planning staff. Mr. Roosevel~ said he will
attempt to prepare the list requested. ~
Mr. Fisher said he has a request from a Mrs. Allen, And asked if she is
present. Mr. Edward Allen came forward in her place, andihe handed Board
members copies of the plat of his property in the Westwood Subdivision. Mr.
Allen said they live on a cul-de-sac at the end of West Pines Drive. Indicat'
lng his property line on the map, Mr. Allen said there is!a drainage ditch
coming off the State highway cement culvert, the only drainage area for the
entire cul-de-sac. The runoff drains from the culvert onto the properties,
developing a widening channel between the property lines. Depending on the
amount of rainfall, the runoff may overflow onto the adjoining properties.
addition, there is a 20 foot walkway easement which is used constantly by
people, which is becoming unsafe. Mr. Alien said he has a letter from Mr.
Thomas Trevillian, County Engineer, recommending that the problem be
immediately. Mr. Allen said Mr. Trevillian's letter states that the problem
should be corrected, it lists three recommendations, but concludes by saying
the County has no funds to correct the problem. Mr. Alien said he does not
care who corrects the problem, but since the water is coming off a State road
into a State maintained culvert, it is the State's responsibility to maintain
the drainage ditch.
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
122
Mr. Fisher said the Board understands the problem, but it does not have a
solution. The Board must address this problem and find out where the respon-
sibility belongs and what needs to be done. Mr. Fisher asked staff to draw up
a report for the agenda of September 9, 1987, making a recommendation as to
how to correct the problem.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters. DiScussion: Tom Adams
Road.
Old Brook
Mr. Tom Adams, President of the Fieldbrook Property Owners Association,
said they have learned there are plans to improve Old Brook Road, and
residents are happy about that. Mr. Adams then introduced Mr. Paul Via to
speak to the Board about concerns residents have now.
Mr. Paul Via said he has spoken to Mr. Roosevelt about a problem concern-
ing a section of road, of unpaved gravel and a very steep hill with a blind
curve, between the Raintree and Fieldbrook Subdivisions. What concerns them
now is pedestrian traffic utilizing the road as a "walkway," bicycle traffic,
speeding cars, and rising dust that makes vision at this point in the road
poor. Mr. Via said there have been two accidents on the curve in the winter-
time; there are no guardrails and the cars slide right down the hill. Mr. Via
asked when the planned improvements will be ~one. He said the road has been
scraped and gravel has been placed, but soon after potholes again appear,
giving the road a washboard effect. It has become very, very dangerous.
Mr. Fisher said this is not the only piece of gravel road in the County.
He asked Mr. Roosevelt its status. Mr. Roosevelt said the project has been
advertised, with bids to be received on August 25, 19.87. Assuming that the
bids are within the Engineer's estimate, the project will be discussed at the
September Transportation Board meeting. Once approval has been received and
contracts have been signed, work can begin. Mr. Roosevelt said he anticipates
that work will begin October 1. :
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Roosevelt what kind of railing or safety features
will be installed on the northbound side of the road. Mr. Roosevelt said a
guardrail will be installed, probably one of the last items to be done. Mrs.
Cooke asked if anything can be done temporarily as a safeguard. Mr. Roosevelt
replied that will not be practical.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters. Discussion: Parking in Woolen
Mills Area.
Mr. Way directed the Board members' attention to a letter written by Ms.
Cecile Clover concerning the parking problem At the end of East Market Street.
He said a group of residents who live on the street are pursuing the possibil-
ity of having residential parking only on this section ofthe street.
Ms. Clover, Of the residents association~ said there is extremely limited
parking on the street. People who come from Outside of the area to fish in
the river strew garbage onto the street, and Vandalism and thefts have taken
place along the street. It is the general feeling among residents that if
parking is limited to residents, this might discourage any walk-ins, and any
true fisherpersons will be willing to walk the distance necessary to get to
the river. Ms. Clover also believes it will probably cut down on people
hanging about in an area which is not a particularly safe area. Ms. Clover
said there is parking available upriver. Because of the parking problem,
residents sometimes cannot find a place to park on the street and neither can
guests of residents.
Mr. Fisher said the Board understands that there are a lot of problems,
but the specific request is to have "permit parking" on.the street. Ms.
Clover said the idea is if you cut down on general vagrancy, the true fisher-
man would not mind parking further away and w~lking in, and the people who are
not really interested in fishing will eventuaJly move on.
Mr. Way asked Mr. St. John if legally the' County can restrict parking on
a public street to just residents. Mr. St. John said his research has shown
that the County has no power to do this. The part of the street that is in
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
the County is considered a part of the Secondary Highway System; the State
Department of Highways and Transportation has the power to regulate parking on
the street, and the Board can only make a recommendation to Mr. Roosevelt's
department. There is a statute that allows counties to issue permits and
charge for parking on public streets, but under case law this does not apply
to Albemarle County; the County is not on the list of counties authorized to
do this. Mr. St. John said he does not believe the County has the power to
restrict parking on a public street.
Mr. Way asked if the staff would look into the situation and come up
a recommendation for the Board. Mrs. Cooke said Ms. Clover has a legitimate
request and she would like to see something done about it.
Mr. Bowie said he has had calls over the years from residents complainin~
about the parking. He recalls an instance where a rescue squad vehicle could
not get down the street because of the haphazard and ill~gally parked vehicles
belonging to non-residents. Mr. Bowie said he concurs with Mrs. Cooke that
there should bes~me.wa~- to control the parking.
Mr. Fisher said one option is to go to the legislat6re and ask for
authority to regulate the parking. He said permit parkiqg may not be the
alternative; some other mechanism where the County has the authority to do
something might be found; the Board is looking for a solution, not a partic-
ular application. Ms. Clover concluded by saying Mr. Jeff O'Dell, with the
State Historic Landmarks Commission, will begin a survey ~in October; a proper
survey must be completed first; the whole Woolen Mills area is an hist
significant area and they are very enthusiastic about it.
(NOTE: Mr. Lindstrom arrived at the meeting at 10:16 A.M.)
The meeting was recessed at 10:16 A.M. and reconvened at 10:28 A.M.
Agenda Item No. 7. Pen Park Boundary - Relocation of. Memorandum dated
August 4, 1987, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., follows:
"Attached is a proposed agreement between the City of Charlottesville
and the County of Albemarle for the relocation of the boundary at Pen
Park and a petition to be filed in court following execution of the
agreement. This request by the City is in lieu of a~petition for'
annexation as provided for in the 1982 Annexation and Revenue Sharing
Agreement. Under the 1982 Agreement, theCity couldlpetition for the
annexation of Pen Park without opposition from the County. The
process proposed by the City is simpler, less costly~and more expedient.
The County Attorney's staff has reviewed the attached documents and
the Engineering staff has reviewed the plat of the property and
written description of the property. All of these d6cuments have
been found to be in order. Staff recommends your approval of the
attached resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board to execute
the boundary line relocation agreement."
Mr. Agnor briefly explained the process that will take place in order fo'
the City of Charlottesville to annex Pen Park into the corporate limits of
City. Mr. Agnor pointed out that amendments to the plat were made so it
comply with the boundary lines shown in the Revenue Sharing Agreement.
Mr. Fisher asked if this Agreement has been advertised. Mr. Agnor
replied it will not be advertised until the Agreement has~been accepted by
both the City Council and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Fisher asked if the
City Council has officially taken action to request the Board to cede this
territory. Mr. Agnor replied yes, that was the initiation of the whole
process, by letter in April, 1987. Mr. Bowie said at the time of the Revenue
Sharing Agreement, this was preordained. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Michael Armm iJ
he has examined the metes and bounds and found them to be in agreement with
the Revenue Sharing Agreement. Mr. Armm replied affirmatively.
Mr. Fisher said the original process contemplated the annexation of the
property rather than a boundary line adjustment. Mr. St. John said the
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
124
original agreement did not state which section of the Code it would be done
under; if the result is the same and if the County is bound to do it under
that agreement, the feasible thing is to do it the simplest way possible. Mr.
Fisher asked if this will ultimately go to the Circuit Court and become a
Court Decree. Mr. St. John said yes, it is not effective until that happens.
Mr. Fisher said if the process meets all the terms of the Revenue Sharing
Agreement, the Board should go forward with it.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the
following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors for the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, that the Chairman is hereby authorized to
execute on behalf of the County the following document, in form
approved by the County Attorney:
Agreement between the City of Charlottesville and the County of
Albemarle entitled "Mutual Boundary Line Relocation Agreement"
providing for the addition of Pen Park to the City of Charlottes-
ville.
A copy of such document shall be kept on file with the minutes
of the Board's meeting at which this resolution was adopted.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion~which carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
MUTUAL BOUNDARY LINE
RELOCATION AGREEMENT
This Agreement is between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, (hereinafter
called "County"), acting through its BoArd of Supervisors, and the
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, (hereinafter called "City"), acting through
its City Council: ~
SECTION I. PURPOSE
C The 1982 Annexation and Revenue Sharing Agreement between the
ity of Charlottesville a~d Albemarle Cdunty states that "the City,
may if it chooses, petition for annexation of that property presently
owned by the City, adjacent to its corpQrate limits, known as Pen
Park." The agreement states further that the County will not oppose
that annexation. The purpose of this Agreement is to effectuate the
addition of the area known as Pen Park to the City, without a formal
annexation. Recognizing ~he time and expense involved in even
uncontested annexations, ~he City and the County hereby agree,
pursuant to Virginia Code_sections 15.1~1031.1 et seq., to relocate
their mutual boundary so that Pen Park is located within the corpo-
rate limits of the City ofCharlottesville.' '
SECTION II. DESCRIPTION 1F PROPERTY
The property to be added to the City consists of approximately
258.387 acres, and is des%gnated as "Parcel A" on the attached plat
prepared by Gloeckner, Lincoln & Osborne, Inc., dated December 23,
1986, and revised March 3~, 1987 and June 26, 1987. The property is
m~re fully described by m~tes and bounds in the written description
prepared by the Charlottesyille Department of Public Works, dated
February 10, 1987, and revised June 26, 1987, and also attached
hereto.
SECTION III. PUBLICATION OF THE NEW BOUNDARY LINE
The County Board of Supervisors and the City Council shall cause
a description of the new agreed upon boundary line to be published
once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper having general
125
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
circulation in the City and the County. Preparation of the boundary
description shall be the responsibility of the City.
A copy of this agreement shall also be posted at the front door
of the Circuit Courts for the City and County.
SECTION IV. PETITION AND HEARING
Within thirty (30) days after publication as provided in Section
III, the City Attorney and the County Attorney shall petition the
Circuit Court for the City of Charlottesville, setting forth the
facts pertaining to the desired relocation of the boundary line, and
a description of the new boundary line. Any costs associated with
the preparation of the petition or the filing in Court shall be the
responsibility of the City.
SECTION V. APPROVAL OF THIS AGREEMENT
This agreement shall be effective when it has been signed by
both jurisdictions, following the adoption of resolutions approved by
majority votes of the City Council and Board of Supervisors.
Agenda Item No. 8. Stone Robinson Elementary School~- Approval of Sewage
Discharge Permit. Memorandum dated July 20, 1987, from Mr. John T. P. Horne,
follows: ~
"The redevelopment of Stone Robinson Elementary School will necess-
itate the installation of a small sewage treatment plant which will
discharge into the Rivanna River near Milton. Due tO recent changes
in the Code of Virginia, the State Water Control Board cannot accept
the application for this discharge permit from the e~gineers for the
School Board until they have received notification f~om the governing
body or the appropriate official that the discharging facilities are
consistent with all local ordinances. Receipt of notification by the
State Water Control Board that the application is complete is a
condition of issuance of the building permit. Representatives of
this department, the Health Department, School Board~ and State Water
Control Board have met on site and have agreed in principle as to the
needed improvements for the installation of the facility. The State
Water Control Board will not issue construction permits for the
facility until the discharge meets stream limitations. The staff of
this department, therefore, cannot see any inconsistency between the
issuance of this discharge permit and local ordinances.
It appears that the State Water Control Board requires approval with
specific wording. I would like to request that the Board of Super-
visors authorize you, as County Executive, to issue m letter consistent
with that wording."
Mr. Agnor requested that the Board authorize him to mend a letter to the
Water Control Board indicating that the proposed application, location, and
operation of the facility is consistent with all ordinancss adopted pursuant
to Chapter 11 (Section 15.1-427 et seq.) of Title 15.1 of ~he State Code. Mr.
Agnor assured Board members this is the case, but staff wanted the records of
this meeting to reflect that authorization was requested and provided.
Mr. Fisher asked who will own and operate the treatment plant. Mr. Agnor
replied the County school system will own the plant and will also operate it.
Mr. Fisher said he does not think the school system is expert in the operation
of sewage treatment plants of any type. He said with the problems the County
has had with plants operated by public agencies, it seems to him the plant
should be owned and operated by one of the service authorities and be built to
their standards. The service authorities are in that business and should be
responsible for problems that may occur. Mr. Agnor said Mr. William Brent,
Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, is at this
meeting, and he has been sufficiently involved in the operation of plants to
be able to help in getting this plant under the operational responsibility of
the Rivanna Authority. As a member of the Rivanna Authority Board, Mr. Agnor
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
.i28
agrees with Mr. Fisher in terms of expertise needed to operate the plant;
however, that would depend on the sophistication of the plant. If it is
required that the Rivanna Authority operate the plant, the School Board will
have to pay for that service.
Mr. Fisher said with the increased technology, testing, and standards
that the State Water Control Board is putting out, it is impractical for the
School Board to incur more costs when people are already in place that have
the equipment, expertise, and manpower to operate such a plant. Mr. Bowie
concurred with Mr. Fisher, but said this will be worked out as the process
takes place. The issue before the Board today is whether the plant will
comply with County ordinances and the Board should proceed with this. Mr.
Fisher said he thought this issue should be addressed so that a part of the
Board's approval is that the plant will be owned and operated by either the
Rivanna or the Albemarle County Service Authority.
At this time, Mr. Lindstrom made a motion that the language be approved
on the condition that the plant be owned and operated by either the Rivanna or
the Albemarle County Service Authority, whichever is appropriate, and the
Board is to receive a report as to the implementation of that part of the
motion by its meeting of September 9, 1987. However, after further discus-
sion, Mr. Lindstrom withdrew the motion, and said perhaps the Board should not
take any action until a report is received on August 19, 1987, as to whether
or not the plant can be owned and operated by'I either the Rivanna or the
Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Agnor said Mr. William Brent is at
the meeting and perhaps he can shed some light on the issue.
Mr. Brent said according to the Four-Party Agreement, any retail customer
must be a customer of the Albemarle County Service Authority. By the same
agreement, the Albemarle County Service Authority cannot operate a treatment
plant, so the school will have to be a customer of the Albemarle County
Service Authority, and the Albemarle County Service Authority will have to
request the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to undertake the operation of
the school's plant. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority would bill the
Albemarle County Service Authority who, in turn, would bill the school. It
would be necessary to incorporate the school into the jurisdictional area for
sewer service. Mr. Fisher asked if the school can have a plant without it
being incorporated into the service area. Mr! Home replied only if the
school system operates the plant itself.
Mr. Bowie said he would hate to see a needless delay in obtaining the
building permit for the school project itselfl If the Board is not taking
action today, he is requesting that action be taken at the next meeting, and
staff find out if there is a problem. Mr. Brent said the request would have
to go before the Albemarle County Service Authority Board. The Albemarle
County Service Authority Board's action would be to request the Rivanna
Authority to operate the plant, which could take several weeks.
Mr. Lindstrom said he did not want to word a motion that will leave out
something essential, or include a requirement that cannot be done. If staff
can make a report by the next meeting, it would be better to defer action
until that time. Even if nothing more is known, action can be taken at that
time.
Mr. Fisher said he wants to see the plant operated by the Rivanna Author-
ity. In the long-term, when the equipment in the plant begins to wear out and
problems begin to develop, it would be better to have the plant under the
control of the Rivanna Authority so the Authority can decide when maintenance
or replacement is required. Mr. Bowie said he thinks this will delay the
building permit process. He said he will not make a motion today, he will
wait until next week. However, at that time, he will make a motion for
approval whether or not anything further has turned up.
Agenda Item No. 9. Request from Mr. David C. W. Charters to amend
service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water only -
Route 684.
Mr. Charters was not present at this time, so the item was shipped
temporarily.
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
Agenda Item No. 10. Auxiliary Police Force Study - Revisions and Recom-
mendations. Memorandum dated July 28, 1987, from County Staff follows:
"A report dated June 5, 1987, titled Auxiliary Police Committee
Report was discussed by you at your meeting on June 11, 1987. You
requested additional information from staff on phasing, training and
duties. Concerns by you were also expressed regarding the arming and
arrest powers of the Auxiliary Police. The subject was scheduled for
a work session at the Board meeting on August 12, 1987.
A staff committee consisting of the Police Chief, County Attorney and
Deputy County Executive for Administration and Public Safety, along
with Mr. Bowie met on July 27 and August 4, 1987, to review the
report in view of your comments and concerns. Based on this review
and the above committee's interpretations of your concerns, the
following revisions to the initial report are recommended:
Page 2, Recommendation - (Add this sentence to beginning of
Recommendation) The Board of Supervisors accept the report as
revised and endorse the creation of an Auxiliary Police Unit.
Selection, Screening amd Testing - No Change
Phasing and Training - (4th sentence) The recommendation is
that reserves be phased into the unit as they reach various
levels of training and that no Auxiliary Police~be armed with
weapons of deadly force, and that no officer be'~sworn in until
they reach level three below.
Level Ome- (delete description of level one in,original report,
'replace with) Volunteers working in records, acting as fill-ins
for communication clerks, typing, filing, etc. with no police
authority or law enforcement duties. Work to b~ performed under
a full-time Service Division employee of the department. (Note:
Applicants for Auxiliary Police status will be considered
volunteers until level two training is reached.)
Level Two - (delete description of level two in ~riginal report,
replace with) After 60 hours of police training, the Auxiliary
Police may work with a full-time police officer as a nonuniformed
ride-along with no arrest powers.
Level Three - (delete level three of original report, replace
with) After successful review by the Chief or ~is designee, and
completion of 120 supervised hours in field work plus 60 hours
of additional police training, the Auxiliary ma~ be uniformed
and equipped but not armed with weapons of deadly force. The
Auxiliary Police will be sworn in and assume the! powers of
arrest at this level only while under the superv:ision of a
full-time officer and when on official auxiliaryl duty.
On Page 6 - Add Item E.
The Board of Supervisors shall review the effectiveness of
the Auxiliary Police Unit in two years after commencement
of service (between January 1 and July 1, 1990) and may add
or delete powers or even discontinue the Unit.
Attached is a copy of the original report with the above deletions,
additions and changes inserted for your convenience (~eport with
amended date August 5, 1987)."
Mr. Agnor summarized the memorandum from County Staff, Mr. Bowie said he
appreciates the report. He said he wants to recommend one. change in the
revisions; that is, on page one, number one, under Yhasing~and Training,
sentence four: end the sentence after the words "deadly force," remove the
words "and that," begin another sentence with the word "no." Mr. Bowie said
this will clarify what was discussed previously. Concerning anticipated
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
128
development, the plan will be reviewed in 1990, and with training and time
requirements, four to five hours per month to get the 60 hours of training, a
person will not be able to get to Level 3 before the review. In addition, it
will take the average person in excess of one year to get through Level 2.
The advantage of this program is that Level 1 is strictly volunteer. Mr.
Bowie said approval of this plan today will mean one year before anything will
happen, except that the Board will see the reports, the training plan, and
conduct public hearings.
Mrs. Cooke said she was not present when this was originally discussed.
She asked what the cost is to the County for training volunteers, and what the
obligation of the trainee/volunteer is to the County for the money expended on
training. Mr. Bowie replied there is no contractual agreement. However, the
actual cost depends on how efficient management wishes to be. Mr. Bowie
briefly described the proposed training process for trainees/volunteers,
relating this to the cost involved.
Mrs. Cooke said she has no problem with volunteers doing clerical work.
Her problem is with the amount of time and effort it will take to train a
volunteer to the point where he can be of some help to an officer in the
field. She said a volunteer is just a voluntAer and is under no obligation to
show up, do, or continue once training is over. Mrs. Cooke said she does not
think the County can rely on volunteers, since there is no leverage to control
them. She would rather see the time, money and effort expended on dedicated
professionals. On the surface, the concept sounds very good; however, other
than clerical work, Mrs. Cooke said she has r~servations and concerns about
the program, i
Mr. Bowie replied that beyond the Level i requirements, throughout the
state, a minimum of 16 to 20 hours of service per week is required in order to
be in the unit. If a person does not fulfill this requirement, they are out
of the unit. He said a person who spends a year in the unit, and gets to the
ride-along phase, is usually a dedicated person. Under the plan, the cost of
20 volunteers does not equal the cost of one full-time person; the volunteers
will give assistance to and make a police officer's life safer and protection
of people better. Information he has from several police chiefs is that the
presence of an armed or unarmed auxiliary police officer increases the effec-
tiveness of the police department, and saves money.
Mrs. Cooke asked what control there is to require volunteers to live up
to the obligation they have undertaken. Mr. Bowie replied that staff did not
want to develop guidelines until the conditions now before the Board had been
modified. He said, however, that police officers have been hired and been
trained here, and then have left to go somewhere else, probably to a better
job, but that is life; there is no guarantee even with full-time employees.
Mr. Henley said the Joint Security Complex haS a large turnover after guards
are trained; some of the guards leave to go with other police forces, and the
County would probably lose some volunteers who want to become police officers.
Mrs. Cooke said she would like to have these questions clarified in her mind
before she can support the plan. She would rather take chances with the time,
effort, and money in training someone who will be on-board, under benefits,
with a little more incentive than a volunteer. However, if it can be proven
to her that she is wrong, Mrs. Cooke said she will listen. Mr. Bowie said he
has been advised by the Personnel Department that future vacancies in the
County's police force could be filled from th~ reserve unit, since they will
have already had the proper screening and training, and they will be local
people.
Mr. Bowie made a motion that staff reco~endations and changes, including
the modification made by Mr. Bowie to the paragraph on page one, be approved.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley.
Mr. Lindstrom said when the matter was discussed previously, he had
reservations about arming the volunteers and that has been addressed. He also
had reservations about the kind of work situations the volunteers would be
involved in, and that has not been addressed. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not
sure this question can be addressed while maintaining theessence of the orig-
inal proposal. Speaking by surmise, Mr. Lindstrom said if he were a police-
man, the mos~ important thing to him would be predictability and knowing
exactly what he had to work with. With a trained, uniformed, full-fledged
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
police officer who is a professional, there is an element of predictability
that will not be present with someone who, although trained, is unarmed and is
not a professional police officer. He said if the County needs backup officer~
for crowd .control, parade security, and at scenes of disaSter, that is fine.
However, When the volunteers are placed in vehicles in the company of profes-
sional officers, they are in an unpredictable situation, and there is a
question of whether the volunteer will be an asset or a liability. Mr.
Lindstrom said that in a situation dealing with suspects for an undetermined
period of time, while waiting for a backup to assist him, a professional
officer would best be assisted by another professional. Mr. Lindstrom said he
feels that if he were a police officer, he would have reservations about
working with a volunteer as a backup. Another concern relates to the standard~
a person would be required to adhere to after completing training. He asked
if this person will be part of a personnel standards review, or will further
use of the volunteer be determined in an arbitrary manner, Mr. Lindstrom said
he does not favor the recommendation the way it is now.
Mr. Bowie said some of the questions Mr. Lindstrom asked are valid, and
will be addressed over the first year of the program, including what specific
duties each level will encompass. At this time, staff needs time and direc-
tion as to which course to follow. The report just recommends proceeding with
the program. There is no appeal policy, if a person cannot "hack it" that
person is out.
Mr. Way said his perspective is that this is an experimental program, and
he feels the County needs to augment its police force at this time. He does
not feel the County is in a position to take on additional full-time police
officers, and this program is a solution to relieve that situation. Mr. Way
said the program has safeguards built in, the program will be reviewed by the
Board, and it has been developed together with members or,the Police Depart-
ment. With the thought and study given to the program, an opportunity should
be~afforded to see if the program can be successful.
Mr. Henley asked which other localities have this program. Mr. Bowie
said Waynesboro, Staunton, Augusta County, Arlington, and either Richmond or
Henrico County. Mr. Henley asked if staff had talked to anyone from those
counties about their programs. Mr. Bowie replied that staff had telephone
contact with them. Mr. Henley asked if anyone involved in the programs
expressed any dissatisfaction with the programs. Mr. Bowie replied no;
however, each was sent a questionnaire and their replies were unanimous, that
two to six officers would have to be added to the police force if volunteer
units had not been used. In Arlington the units are unarmed and are used
mostly for traffic control. Mr. Lindstrom asked for clarification about the
Arlington units. Mr. Bowie replied the volunteer units are uniformed, they
are sworn when they are under the supervision of a police officer, and
normally they are not armed. Mr. Lindstrom said that as unarmed people their
activities are restricted to certain tasks, short of ride~along. Mr. Bowie
replied that in the ride-along situation at Level 3, those who have proven
themselves have arrest powers and sometimes assist an off~cer, but this is on
an individual basis, not as a general rule. Mr. Lindstrom said he has no
problem with the approach Arlington uses; however, he feels uneasy about
putting the volunteer units in a confrontation situation. Mr. Bowie replied
that no one who was not at Level 3 would be put in a confrontation situation.
Mr. Fisher thanked staff and the others who participated in putting the
report together. He said, at first, he did not believe this was the right
thing to do; however, the revisions have allowed him to loOk at the proposal
on its own merits. He said his first observation is that all volunteers have
costs; costs for selection, training and supervision. Volunteers provide an
enormous service, and with increased state regulation on training, it becomes
increasingly difficult to find volunteers. He said Mr. Lindstrom's argument
about non-professionals riding in vehicles concerns him. Mr. Fisher said he
believes this should be done by people who are paid and trained, and under
control of the Chief of Police, to do what they are assigned to do. He said
he has a problem with giving approval to something that will go on for almost
three years, particularly the ride-along issue.
Mrs. Cooke concurred with the remarks made by Mr. Lindstrom and Mr.
Fisher. She said if the proposal before the Board confined volunteerism to
recordkeeping and crowd, disaster and traffic control, she could support it.
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
180
However, with the additional provisions, she cannot support the proposal
because the professionalism the County deserves is lacking. Mrs. Cooke said
she has no problem with the first two provisions of the proposal, but she
cannot support the proposal with any provision that would consider a volunteer
backup in serious situations. ~
Mr. Way said police officers are out there now by themselves, there is no
backup, and this proposal provides the opportunity for that backup. He said
the County cannot afford to put two officers in a patrol car, so what is
actually being said is that there will be no backup. Mrs. Cooke said an
officer's concern about his non-professional backup would be an added burden.
If each patrol car needs two officers, volunteers working in other divisions
of the Police Department might allow for the release of professionals to
perform this duty. Mrs. Cooke said she cannot support anything other than
professionals in patrol cars, fully trained, with weapons, to handle volatile
situations.
At this time, roll was called on the foregoing motion which failed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bowie, Henley and Way.
Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Fisher said since it is a tie vote, under the Board's rules of proce-
dure, the vote may be reconsidered if someone wishes to make such a motion.
Mr. Bowie said he is sure no one will. He said the Board is voting down a
program that will give a lot of help in the near future to the Police Depart-
ment. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not have any problem with a substantial
amount of the revised report, but he cannot vote to send people off in a
direction that will result in something he cannot support now or three years
from now. He said if staff feels there is still some benefit to the develop-
ment of the volunteer program, with respect to nonconfrontation situations, he
would like to see this. If manpower can be freed-up, or some burdens can be
alleviated, and volunteers will be willing to do this, he can support this;
however, he cannot support putting volunteers in a confrontational situation.
Mrs. Cooke said the volunteer program could very easily give volunteers
firsthand experience of what police work is about, to the point where the
program would accelerate them into Level 3, and they may decide polic~ work is
what they want to do. Mrs. Cooke said for the County to put itself in the
position of depending on volunteers in the Level 3 step, she does not think
is proper.
Mr. Henley said he does not think the C~unty has many police officers
acting as clerks now. Mr. Bowie said one oflthe things volunteers would do is
to make follow-ups to telephone calls, which~officers now make. Mr. Way said
if the committee that developed this program~feels there is still an oppor-
tunity for this, he would support it. If volunteers can help in a significant
way, it would be impractical to drop the whole program. Mr. Bowie said if
something is not done, nothing will happen, it will become a dead issue.
Mr. Agnor said the Board might want to Consider the approval of Level 1,
with Level 2 to be reworded so that after 60 hours of training, volunteers
would work with full-time police officers in, the jobs of working traffic,
crowd control, rapid mobilization of law enforcement manpower, and emergency
situations, leaving out the nonuniform ride-along program from Level 2. In
addition, the Board's review of the program could take place before anyone
moves to Level 3, with development of Level 3 taking place after review by the
Board.
Mr. Way said, personally, he would rather have staff meet and if staff
feels this program is still practical, come back to the Board with this rather
than instituting this program now without any input from Chief Johnstone or
anyone else. Mrs. Cooke said she has no pro~lemwith that. Mr. Lindstrom
said the way Mr. Agnor describes the programiwould be acceptable to him.
However, even if Level 3 is instituted in the way Mr. Agnor said, Mr.
Lindstrom does not want this to imply that h~ endorses ride-alongs; he does
not. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels Mr. Way's Suggestion is appropriate. Mr.
Bowie said the original committee has been dismantled, and he suggests, if
what he has heard is correct, that Level 1 be the concept, instead of Level 2,
specify the five non-confrontational duties, delete Level 3 until the Board
131
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
has looked at the program in two years and make that decision then. Mr. Bowie
said he does not believe this proposal needs to go back for a lot of discus-
sion. Mr. Lindstrom said on the five items, he would like as little ambiguity
as possible in the direction the Board is giving. He does not know what major
civil disturbances are, but that can be confrontational and politically
tricky. Mr. Lindstrom said he is comfortable with items one, three and five.
Mrs. Cooke said setting up the program in the manner suggested will indicate
what the motivation for volunteering is. Mr. Lindstrom then said he has no
problem with uniforms, especially where a volunteer is dealing with the
public.
Mr. Bowie made a motion to approve the creation of an auxiliary police
unit, and accept the staff's revised report, dated August ~, 1987, (copy on
file with the records of this meeting), with the followingl changes:
Phasing and Training - (4th sentence) Change to read~: "The recommenda-
tion is that reserves be phased in to the unit as they reach various levels of
training and that no Auxiliary Police be armed with weaponk of deadly force.
No officer shall be sworn in until they reach Level Three below."
Level Two - Delete in its entirety.
Level Three - Renumber as Level Two. Delete numbered~sentences 2 and 4;
leaving only the following as duties:
working traffic, crowd control or security for parades, civic
events, etc.;
2. working at scenes of disasters; and
crime prevention, public relations or other similar type police
activities.
Mr. Fisher suggested that Level 3 be deleted in its entirety. Mr. Bowie
agreed. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion, which carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
(NOTE: Mr. Bowie and Mr. St. John left the room at 1L:50 A. M.)
Agenda Item No. 11. Comprehensive Plan Review Status Report. Memo-
randum dated August 5, 1987, from Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community
Development.
Mr. Home gave a brief summary of the activities taking place at the
Planning Commission level by two subcommittees, the Land Use Subcommittee and
the Transportation and Public Services Subcommittee, which is outlined in the
following memorandum from V. Wayne Cilimberg.
"Since January of this year, two subcommittees of the Albemarle
County Planning Commission have been meeting on an alternating
bi-weekly basis to review and make recommendations on ~pecific
Comprehensive Plan issues. At this time, the subcommittees have
completed work on the following:
Land Use Subcommittee:
Rural Residential Policy Strategies for rural residential
growth management including special use permit provisions,
development rights, minimum/maximum development lot size,
minimum non-development (residue) lot size, and additional
development rights in exchange for reserved acreage in open
space.
Growth Area Policy - Strategies for growth area land use includ-
ing functional description of growth areas, residential and non-
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
residential land use types, and guidelines for location of land
use types.
Urban Area and Community Land Use - Growth area boundaries,
residential land acreage capacities, and residential and
non-residential land use locations.
Transportation and Public Services Subcommittee:
Economic and Population Analysis
employment projections.
Endorsement of population and
Roadway Planning Process Endorsement of county roadway func-
tional classification system, consideration of criteria-based
rating system to prioritize roadway projects, and endorsement of
annual roadway project review process (in conjunction with
Six-Year Secondary Highway Plan).
Water and Sewer Policy - Strategies for central water and sewer
system provisions in county growth areas and endorsement of
area-wide, coordinated water and sewer facility master planning
process.
Public Facilities and Services Policy - Strategies for provision
of public facilities, public services and human services sup-
porting growth policies and enhancing the Capital Improvement
Program and Budget Program Review process; and endorsement of a
comprehensive public facilities plan.
Housing Policy - Strategies for provision of more affordable
housing, eliminating substandard housing and meeting housing
needs for the disadvantaged; endorsed creation of county housing
committee to assess housing needs and mechanisms to address
market deficiencies.
Transportation Services - Strategies for provision of pedestrian
access, bicycle access, airport and rail services, and public
transportation.
Urban Area and Community Public Facilities and Roadways -
Recommendations for currently propoSed public facilities and
roadway improvements, including anticipated need and location.
Urban Area and Community Utilities - Recommendation for currently
proposed water, sewer and urban drainage projects, including
anticipated need and location.
Over the next eight weeks, each subcommittee will be completing its
work. The Land Use Subcommittee will be addressing village bound-
aries and land use designations, open space planning and environ-
mental, scenic and historic resources. The Transportation and Public
Services Subcommittee will be addressing.village roadway and public
facility project recommendations, countylfiscal resources and private
facilities and services of public benefit. At the conclusion of the
subcommittee work, staff will be compiling the recommendations and
actions, of the subcommittees in a preliminary draft document. Staff
would recommend that this information be reviewed by the Board of
Supervisors in a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Such a
meeting could likely be held in late OctOber or early November. From
that meeting, the Commission can proceed to finalizing a draft of the
Comprehensive Plan for public review and~comment. It is not expected
that the Planning Commission's recommended Comprehensive Plan will be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors before the end of the year.
Should you have any questions regarding the Comprehensive Plan
status, please do not hesitate to contact me."
During the presentation Mr. Horne said there are about eight weeks of
work left to complete the full subcommittee work, and he hopes to be able to
133
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
bring a unified document, explaining the recommendations, to the Board within
a short time after that. Mr. Home said the Planning Commission has instruc-
ted staff to present this brief update to the Board at this time, at the
Board's request, asking that a joint meeting on the report not be held until
after the full Commission has had a chance to look at the subcommittee work in
a unified document. Mr. Home said he would answer any questions on the areas
listed in the report.
No one had any questions or comments to make at this time.
Agenda Item No. 12. Set public hearing date to adopt Section 8-1.6
providing for the assessment of new buildings substantially completed.
Memorandum dated June 29, 1987, from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of
Finance, received as follows:
"Due to the recodification of Title 58, Code of Virginia, which
resulted in minor changes in the wording of Section 58.1-3292, I am
requesting that the attached Section 8-1.6 be adopted and added to
the Albemarle County Code.
This section relates to the County's policy of continuous real estate
assessments of new construction. Currently all new cOnstruction in
the County is taxed on a pro rata basis from the day of completion
through December 31 even though it was not completed or possibly even
started as of the normal January 1 assessment date.
Section 58-811 and 58-811.1, Code of Virginia, provided for this
method of real estate assessments by 'Resolution' of the local
governing body. A 'resolution' adopting this method of assessment
was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1964. The recodification
of Title 58 to Title 58.1 changed the word 'resolution' to 'ordinance.'
The Virginia Attorney General's Office has issued an opinion that the
resolution passed by the Board of Supervisors is sufficient to
satisfy the 'ordinance' language of Section 58.1-3292, however,
adoption of 'the attached ordinance would alleviate any future ques-
tions on this matter. The attached Section 8-1.6 was~drafted by the
County Attorney's Office after a review of this situation."
At the end of the presentation, Mr. Agnor asked the Bdard to set a date
for a public hearing to adopt Section 8-1.6 of the County Code.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to set this
matter for public hearing on September 9, 1987. Roll was Called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. ~
Agenda Item No. 13. Annual Report, discussion of. Memorandum dated
August 5, 1987, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, received as
follows:
"Although the 1985-86 Annual Report has just recently'been published,
preparations for the 1986-87 Annual Report should begfn now if a fall
publication date is to be achieved. For this reason, ~and since there
has not been a review of the Annual Report although this is the
second year of publication, staff is requesting direction from the
Board before proceeding with the 1986-87 report. Issues of concern
are whether the Board wishes to continue publishing an annual report,
and if so, what changes or improvements would the Board recommend.
As you know, the 1985-86 Annual Report was printed and distributed
during the first week of June by the County Executive's Office,
having been produced last year by the Personnel Department. Due to
time constraints and the hope that typesetting costs would be reduced
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
134
by using the same text and the same printer, this year's report was
purposefully similar to the 1984-85 report in scope and size. Only
minor changes in the organizational layout were made and several
charts and graphs added.
The 1985-86 Annual Report was distributed to all County departments,
all board and commission members, local service agencies, board
members and the top management group of the Chamber of Commerce, the
University of Virginia, local hospitals and banks, public officials
and other numerous organizations and individuals. Reports were also
made available to the public on the first floor of the County Office
Building and at the main and branch libraries. Out of 2500 copies
printed this year, 1800 have been distributed, with 700 remaining
reports available for returning teachers and for several open houses
sponsored by organizations such as the Welcome Wagon, the League of
Women Voters, and Focus, this fall.
The cost of producing an annual report is approximately $2.00 per
copy. Last year 3000 copies of the report cost approximately $6,000;
this year the cost of 2500 copies was $5,000. This year's costs,
which were proportionally the same as last years, break down in the
following way:
Typesetting and Layout
Printing and paper for inside pages
Color for inside pages
Color processing and printing of cover
Photographs
$1500
1500
700
1000
300
$5000
Based on this division of costs and without sacrificing the quality
of the publication, cost savings on the Annual Report could possibly
be realized by eliminating the full color cover or by using in-house
publishing software for typesetting and layout.
In putting together an annual report, staff seeks co~ents and
suggestions from the Board on format, design, graphics, etc., but
more importantly staff requests direction from the Board on some of
the larger decisions that give an annual report its shape and con-
tent, notably the ultimate purpose of an annual report and the
audience for which it is intended."
Mr. Fisher said he found the 1985-86 Ann~al Report much improved over the
first report, and a useful tool for communicating to people. He would recom-
mend that the report be continued; staff did a good job.
Mr. Way said he agreed with Mr. Fisher; ~he report was well done. Mr.
Henley said he gets a whole lot of annual reports and he does not read any of
them; he thumbed through the current report because his picture is in it. He
said he is not sure it is worth the money.
Mr. Way asked if a copy of the report is being sent to the schools. Mr.
Agnor said yes. Mr. Way said that this report would be very helpful on
government day. Mr. Agnor said copies of the report are sent to the school
division for distribution to the schools.
Mr. Agnor pointed out that color processing and color for the inside
pages was an extensive part of the cost of printing the report. He asked
Board members if they wished to change this. Mr. Fisher replied that he
thought an attractive cover helps to make some people pick up the report and
read it, even though their picture is not in it. Mr. Fisher said he thinks
the report should be continued, and he does not have any recommendations for
changes.
Mrs. Cooke said she supports Mr. Fisher's~analysis of the situation, and
she has no problem with the report.
Mr. Henley said he questions whether the report is actually used.
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Agnor said staff will start on the next issue of the report and will
try to have it out by the fall of this year.
(NOTE: Mr.. Bowie returned to the meeting at 12:01P. M.)
Agenda Item No. 14. Reappropriations (FY '86-87 to FY '87-88). Memoran-
dum dated August 7, 1987, from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance,
received as follows:
"The following reappropriations of 1986-87 fiscal year funds are
requested in order to complete projects started in 1986-87 but are
not completed.
GENERAL FUND:
Board of Supervisors
Board Minutes Compensation
County Code Update
Computer Upgrades
Crozet Library Sidewalk
County Executive
JPA & Fontaine Avenue Study
$ 2,000.00
8,035.00
507.00
3,150.00
$ 13,692.00
$ 10,000.00
Personnel
Early Retirement Plan
Pay & Classification Plan
Finance
Professional Services-Beneplus
Division of Motor Vehicles
Tax Map Binders
Furniture & Equipment
Vehicle Purchase
Data Processing Equipment
$ 6,900.00
18,640.00
$ 25,540.00
$ 1,750.00
8,000.00
1,000.00
375,00
8,000.00
8,500.00
$ 27,625.00
Fire Department
$ 1,100.00
Planning
Comprehensive Plan - Consultant
Transportation Modeling Contract
Comprehensive Plan Printing
Planning Commission Minutes
Engineering
State Route 678 at Ivy
Keene Landfill
Ivy Landfill
Staff Services
Repairs & Maintenance
Supplies
Parks & Recreation
Radio Communication System
$ 6,000.00
2,000.00
2,700.00
3,000.00
$ 13,700.00
$ 8,500.00
11,000.00
74,000.00
$ 93,500.00
$ 10,268.00
214.00
$ 10,482.00
$ 8,475.00
GRAND TOTAL GENERAL FUND
$ 204,114.00
SCHOOL FUND:
Radio System
Furniture & Fixtures
School Bus Seat Repair
Meriwether Lewis Furniture
Benefits Safety Coordinator
GRAND TOTAL SCHOOL FUND
23,898.16
1,524.95
14,230.00
14,750.00
28,000.00
82,403.11
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 23)
GRANTS
Victim Witness Grant
GRAND TOTAL GRANTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND:
Court Square
Data Processing (Equipment)
Fire Department (Fire Truck)
Engineering
Peyton Drive
Hydraulic Road Pathway
North Berkshire Road
Dunromin Road
Route 678 Relocation
Staff Services
Gas Pump Canopy
Re-Roofing Jailor's House
Security System County Office Building
Jailor's House Improvements
Schools
WAHS Field Development
Crozet School
Meriwether Lewis School
Stone Robinson School
Burley School
Parks & Recreation
Meadows Comm. Center-Heating & Air Con.
Greenwood Comm. Center-Heating & Air Con.
Scottsville Comm. Center-Heating & Air. Con.
Chris Greene Lake
Crozet Park
Ivy Creek Tenant House
Red Hill Baseball Field
Scottsville Comm. Center - Roof
Southern Swimming Facility
Rivanna Park
GRAND TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
SCHOOL REFURBISHMENT FUND:
Miscellaneous School Repairs
GRAND TOTAL SCHOOL REFURBISHMENT FUND
STORM DRAINAGE FUND:
Windham/Jarman Gap
Smithfield Road
Berkmar Detention Basin
Four Seasons Basin
Birnam Detention Basin
Berkeley Storm Sewer-Phase I
Berkeley Storm Sewer-Phase II
Lynchburg Road
Solomon Road
Four Seasons Channel
Bennington Channel
Rio Heights
GRAND TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE FUND
3,217.83
3,217.83
29,798.76
48,469.00
181,990.00
$ 1,325.00
5,000.00
3,800.00
750.00
17.,750.00
$ 28,625.00
$ 5,500.00
6,000.00
12,225.00
10,000.00
$ 33,725.00
$ 9,911.82
67,470.47
3,679,550.89
1,453,149.08
.1,481,737.25
$6,691,819.51
3,000.00
8,535.00
6,110.00
27,714.75
12,200.00
4,730.56
2,230.00
10,840.00
197,760.29
346,952.31
620,072.91
$7,634,500.18
1,934.55
1,934.55
$ 10,923.60
1,161.80
47,240.71
36,313.70
90,648.91
1,508.62
48,180.00
8,000.00
15,000.00
19,000.00
19,964.00
12,000.00
$ 309,941.34
GRAND TOTAL ALL REQUESTS $8,236,111.01
137
August~12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 24)
Details of these reappropriations are on file in the Finance Depart-
ment and are available on request.
The above reappropriations represent all requests received from the
various departments and additional ones in these major funds of which
I am aware are required. An additional request will be submitted at
a later date to cover other miscellaneous funds and grants which have
not been finalized at this point.
Approval of these reappropriations as detailed on the attached form
is requested."
Mr. Agnor briefly outlined and summarized the reappropriations report and
memorandum, dated August 7, 1987. At the end of the summary, Mr. Agnor said
he would answer questions. Discussion took place about the new fire truck,
which has already been delivered and the air circulation system at the Scotts-
ville Community Center. Mr. Agnor noted a correction relating to the Pay and
Classification Plan. The correct amount is $8,640.00 (the original amount
being a typographical error).
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve,
as corrected, the reappropriation of 1986-87 fiscal year funds to FY 1987-88
for completion of projects started in 1986-87 that are no~ completed, as set
out in full above. Roll was called and the motion .carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
(NOTE: Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 12:05 P. M.)
Agenda Item No. 15a. Appropriations: Fire Service program Funds.
Memorandum dated July 28, 1987, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive,
received as follows:
"Funds from fire insurance premiums allocated by the State to local
fire departments for FY 87/88 have been received in the amount of
$49,472.51, or $7,067.50 per company for the seven volunteer compa-
nies in the County. The budget estimate was $33,000 or $4,714.29 per
company. Attached is an appropriation form reflecting the additional
mnount of $2,353.21 for each company.
You will note on the form that the $49,472.51 is derived from the
General Fund Balance, rather than revenues from the State. This is
due to the State check being dated June 29, which must be recognized
as 86/87 realized revenue instead of 87/88 revenue. Being received
as 86/87 State revenues, the $49,472.51 will be carried into 87/88 as
a part of the 86/87 Carry Over Balance, and disbursed in 87/88 from
the fund balance, as shown on the form. The 87/88 revenues from the
State will be reduced by $33,000.
Appropriation of these additional funds and adjustments to the
revenue accounts is requested as shown."
Mr. Agnor summarized the memorandum concerning the Fire Service Program
Funds, and asked if anyone had questions. There were none~
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the
following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $16,472.51 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the General Fund and coded to the various volunteer fire departments as
an adjustment to the Fire Service Program appropriation.
AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 25)
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15b. Appropriations: Drug Education Grant. Memorandum
dated June 4, 1987, from Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet, School Superintendent
received as follows:
"At its meeting on May 26, 1987, the Albemarle County School Board
approved an application for funding by a non-competitive grant for
drug education through the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of
1986.
Albemarle County will serve as the local educational agency to
administer the project which has the following objectives: to train
teachers and staff and provide them with appropriate materials, to
promote substance abuse education, to promote parent awareness, and
to provide for peer resistance and drugrfree youth activities in the
school's community.
It is requested that a separate account under Federal Programs be
created for revenue and disbursement of these funds. The budget and
additional information is attached."
Mr. Agnor summarized the memorandum and the report from Mr. N. Andrew
Overstreet. At the end of his su~r~ary, Mr. Agnor recommended that the Board
approve the request for the appropriations to be incorporated into the School
Board's grants for the current fiscal year, in the amount shown.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the
following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $19,893.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated
from the Drug Education Fund to be used for the Drug Education
Program.
AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion iwhich carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
Not Docketed: At 12:10 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Mr. Way, to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, re: the Ethan Miller letter in the form of pending litigation.
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
(NOTE: The Board reconvened into open session at 1:33 P. M.)
Roll
Agenda Item No. 16. Discussion: Banning Certain Breeds of Dogs.
Mr. Lindstrom said since he does not know how the discussion will pro-
ceed, and since his in-law's have given him and his wife a mixed breed of dog
which has some pit bull in it, he will abstain from discussion of the subject.
However, if the Board decides on a course of action that does not involve
dealing with that particular breed of dog, he will sit in on the meeting.
139
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Fisher said a group of citizens had approached the Board at a meeting
last month and requested that the Board take action to ban pit bulls, as a
breed, from the County. Since that time, there has been much public discus-
sion, and he has received conflicting information about pit bull dogs. At
this time, the Board will receive a report from the County Attorney, which the
Board requested, as to its authority, under State law, to control specific
breeds of dogs.
Mr. St. John read a letter he had written to the Board concerning his
opinion about the banning of pit bulls. The letter said, in Mr. St. John's
opinion, Virginia law does not give counties the power to ban pit bulls;
however, Code Section 3.1-796.93 appears to enable counties to require con-
finement of these dogs. Mr. St. John read that section of the Code, which
authorizes counties to prohibit the running at large of all or any category of
dogs in all or any designated portion of such counties during such
months as they may designate. Governing bodies may also require that dogs be
confined, restricted, or penned up during such periods. Mr. St. John said
there is another statute that allows the County to prohibit the running at
large of dangerous or vicious dogs, in addition to the regular enabling
legislation for what is called a "leash law." Mr. St. John said he did not
think any of the legislation authorizes the County, as a legislative matter,
to declare that a given breed or given type of dog is deemed vicious. Mr. St.
John said pit bulls, or those dogs commonly called pit bulls, will have to be
dealt with under Section 3.1-796.93. From a legal standpoint, Mr. St. John
does not believe enforcement of this requirement will be extremely difficult
because of the difficulty in identifying specific dogs as.~pit bulls. In his
opinion, that difficulty amounts to a legal impossibility when talking of a
court proceeding to enforce such an ordinance; the County ~ill have the burden
of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that any specific dog is, in fact, a pit
bu~t.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John to explain the vicious ~dog law that is
already a County ordinance, and how it works. Mr. St. John said the County
does not have a definition of what a vicious or dangerous ~dog is in the
present ordinance. No dog is presumed to be vicious because of its breed,
appearance, or size. If the dog has a record of attacking or biting people or
other animals, the individual dog's past behavior determines whether the dog
is deemed vicious or not. The dog is presumed not to be v~icious until it has
est.ablished its viciousness through its behavior. According to Common Law,
every dog is entitled to one bite, and that law is still valid today. Once a
dog attacks someone, unprovoked, the owner is on notice that the dog has a
propensity to do this, and it would be deemed to be a vicious dog. However,
under state and federal constitutions, what is called constitutional rights
flows to people; the owners of dogs have rights, not the dogs themselves.
When an attempt is made to enforce a violation against an~ such law, it is
against the owner, and it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the
dog fits the description of the offender.
Mr. Fisher said other people have rights also, those who do not own dogs.
People who are attacked have rights, and the issue is how to balance these
rights. He said what he is hearing from people in the SamUel Miller District
has to do with dogs interfering with their rights to use the public roads and
their own property in freedom and without threat of other people's dogs who
are not controlled or confined. Mr. Fisher said a larger issue is at stake,
and that is the right of people to enjoy their own property and free public
right-of-way without being threatened by any dog. ~
Mrs. Cooke said in addition to rights, people have reSponsibilities which
are attached to those rights. She asked if the law speakslto these responsi-
bilities. Mr. Fisher answered that there are penalties if~you own a vicious
dog. Mr. St. John said if anyone allows a vicious dog to run at large, that
person is subject to criminal and civil penalties. Mrs. Cooke said then we
are talking about responsibility as well as rights. Mr. St. John said he
mentioned rights because in some of the materials he received an argument was
made that it is unlawful to discriminate against one breediof dog. You can
discriminate according to breed if you can prove that a given dog of a
certain breed is, by nature, vicious; there is no prohibition against discrim-
ination among dogs on any basis you see fit, as there is discrimination among
people. Mrs. Cooke said she thinks the basis of the discussion taking place
is the responsibility of dog owners. Mr. Bowie asked if a specific breed were
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 27)
140
banned, if a dog of mixed breed would be included in the banned breed. Mr.
St. John said that is what he means by the difficulty in enforcing the law.
Mr. Bowie said if a dog bites someone, a first bite, the owner is not free
from suit and/or claims; it is not a criminal matter at that point. Mr. St.
John agreed and said an owner would not be prosecuted for allowing a vicious
dog to run at large in contravention of the Statute if the dog had never
exhibited any viciousness before. Mr. Bowie~asked if a dog attacked another
animal if the dog could be deemed vicious. Mr. St. John replied yes, in the
case of an unprovoked attack on a human being or another domestic animal.
Mr. Fisher said what is before the Board is a request to do something;
the Board did not promulgate the idea of banning a certain breed of dog; the
Board is responding to a request and concern~ The opinion of the County
Attorney is that banning a certain breed of dog would be difficult if no~
impossible to enforce.
Before opening the discussion to the public, Mr. Fisher asked that people
be brief because of the number of people present who might wish to speak.
Mr. Randy Raines said he was asked to read a statement, on behalf of the
concerned citizens of the Hollymead Subdivision, concerning the problem of
dangerous dogs running at large in their community. The statement described
the threat the residents of Hollymead are under because, under the present
laws, the owner of these dogs cannot be required to keep them on his property,
which borders the Hollymead Subdivision. The statement described the attack
and killing of a pet cat in its own yard by the dogs, and the warning given to
a Cub Scout den mother by the dogs' owner that it was not safe for them to be
in a particular area because of the danger p~sed by his dogs. In addition,
during a period of several months, the dogs ~ere seen on virtually every
street in Hollymead. The residents want clear and effective measures taken by
the County to assure that the dogs will no longer be a threat to the Hollymead
community, even though the present laws protect domestic animals to a greater
degree than these laws protect people and pebs. The residents of Hollymead
believe the laws on dog control need to be ckanged, and offer suggestions for
legislation incorporating some or all of the ~ollowing: 1) a clearly defined
means of determining that a dog is dangerous ~efore it attacks a person or
another animal; 2) the establishment of effective means to confine and iden-
tify dogs that are ruled dangerous; 3) requir~ that owners of such dogs obtain
liability insurance in case the dog causes i~jury; 4) require that such dogs
be enrolled in obedience ~lasses; 5) felony charge leveled against the owner
of a dog that aggressively attacks and seriously injures or kills a person; 6)
attach restrictions on granting of kennel licenses that would take into effect
the impact on residents in the area; 7) establishment of a county-wide leash
law. The residents of Hollymead ask the Boar~ to follow a recommendation of
Dog Warden Hall, which calls for the addition of a third animal control
officer so as to ensure adequate enforcement power. In conclusion, Hollymead
residents offered assistance to help develop Legislation in this matter. (A
copy of the complete text of the statement is-on file in the Clerk's office.)
Mr. Chuck Hudson, who lives in Hollymead, said when the pet cat was
killed, it occurred 30 feet from his home. He has a year old daughter who
plays in his backyard, and even though dog owners have rights, he feels that a
child's rights and a parent's rights to allow a child to play safely in her
own backyard is ten times more important than!those of a dog or dog owner.
Mr. Hudson said legislation must be looked at, and he wants the Board members
to recognize that there is a problem. Instead of saying the Board cannot do
anything, it should do something to solve the~problem. Mr. Hudson said
government statistics show that since 1984 there have been 28 deaths caused by
dogs, and it is estimated that 18 or 19 were caused by pit bulls. We must
learn from the tragedies in other areas and not wait for something to happen;
do something now. In conclusion, Mr. Hudson asked that the laws and rules be
looked at in the hopes of changing them to protect citizens.
Sheriff George Bailey said he was the on~ who asked for the present
ordinance on vicious dogs in 1971. At that t~me, he went to a household to
serve civil papers, and when he knocked on the door he was accosted by three
large German Shepherds who were preparing to attack him. He pulled out his 38
and backed into his car and did not have to shoot the dogs, but he was close
to shooting two of them, which he would have done had he not been able to get
back into his car. When the owner came out, he told him about his vicious
141
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 28)
dogs and that the owner should do something about them. Sheriff Bailey said
he could not do anything because the County did not have any ordinances at
that time. During a night three months later, a Mr. Billy Bright became stuck
in a snowbank near the same house and it is believed he approached the house
to ask to use the telephone. Early the next morning it was discovered that
the same three dogs had attacked and killed Mr. Bright. Sheriff Bailey said
he does not believe anyone should have to be bitten by a dog before something
is done. He said he would like to see something done about any vicious dog,
be it the Police Department, the Sheriff's Department, or animal control
officers. If there is a complaint from any neighborhood that a dog is vicious
people of authority should be able to tell the owner of the dog that the dog
is vicious and the owner will have to keep it penned in or on a leash; it does
not matter what kind of dog is involved. Sheriff Bailey said he does not
believe a first bite should be the criteria used to determine this.
Ms. Deidre Luttrell, who lives in Albemarle County, said she is a profes-
sional obedience instructor, and that she has had several pit bulls in train-
ing classes and she has found them to be wonderful dogs. She said there is no
point in banning a particular breed, but that individuals in a breed do have
problems. As a responsible dog owner, Ms. Luttrell said she feels strongly
that the County should have a leash law. As a person who raises and trains
Australian Shepherds, she has found it extremely frustrating that while her
dogs are under control, others dogs in the County are not~ She has been
involved in several instances where her dogs have been in idog fights,
because her dogs were protecting her from other dogs. This is a problem the
County should address. She said she sympathizes with the position of trying
to determine what constitutes a vicious dog; it is the responsibility of every
dog owner to maintain a dog under control; there is no reason or possible
excuse for allowing a dog to run at large. Ms. Luttrell concluded by urging
th~ Board to institute county-wide, non-breed specific, mandatory legislation
for all responsible dog owners.
Mrs. Debbie Small said she is a responsible dog owner, a parent of two
small children, and she would hate the thought of either of her children being
injured, bitten, or terrorized by any type of dog running at large, regardless
of the breed. Mrs. Small said there is a problem throughout the United States
of .irresponsible dog owners, the people who acquire dogs and then do things to
make them reflect whatever image they feel they need to reflect. Mrs. Small
said "pit bull" has become a term which describes a breed of dog that does not
actually exist. She said she owns two American Pit Bull Terriers and attended
a two year college course on dog obedience instruction, wh~ich also included
dog behavior, psychology, and animal behavior. Mrs. Small said she has
trained and raised several breeds of dogs, and she has found that the pit
bulls she has raised are loving, affectionate, and gentle.~ However, dogs are
animals and can be trained to be something less desirable,~ and this is true of
any breed of dog owned by an irresponsible pet owner, and to be afraid of this
particular breed of dog is not necessary. Mrs. Small then showed Board
members a photograph of her child asleep with a pit bull terrier, and in an
emotional state, Mrs. Small said because of the stories her child had heard,
he was afraid to sleep. Instinctively the dog knew something was wrong and it
stayed with the child until he fell asleep. Mrs. Small said this was because
of the dog's love and instinctive nature, with no training~ She said dogs can
be anything owners want them to be, and it is sad the media has caused nation-
wide hysteria. Mrs. Small then cited the 28 deaths caused by dogs in the
United States, of which 18 or 19 were caused by pit bulls.~ Mrs. Small said
this is not true. While speaking with Mr. Lockwood, head Of the Humane
Society, she was told the numbers are not correct, that some of the dogs
listed as pit bulls were a mixed breed of dog, of unknown heritage, and were
incorrectly labeled as pit bulls.
Mr. Fisher said the issue before the Board is the protection of people on
their own property, and their right to enjoy their own property.
Mrs. Liz Nottingham, who lives in Hollymead, asked that the task force
mentioned by Mr. Raines be considered by the Board, on an emergency basis, to
try to formulate an ordinance which would be fair to dog owners and citizens.
She said at least three Hollymead residents would be willing to serve on the
task force, and they have enough factual information to formulate something
that will be workable on a county-wide basis.
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 29)
14£
Mrs. Nottingham said her immediate concern is the situation in Hollymead.
Referring to the statement Mr. St. John made about confining vicious dogs, she
said the residents know the dogs in the Hollymead area have committed vicious
acts. She asked how the residents can have those dogs confined before school
opens in the fall. Mr. St. John replied that the immediate remedy to the
situation should be handled by a magistrate, where a warrant can be sworn out
and served against the owner for harboring and keeping vicious dogs and allow-
ing the dogs to run at large, and the Commonwealth Attorney's office would be
able to assist. If the situation is as described, Mr. St. John believes the
dogs will be declared vicious, and the owner will be required to confine the
dogs, will be leveled with a fine, and a judge might order that the dogs be
destroyed. This is the remedy in this specific situation. Mrs. Nottingham
thanked Mr. St. John, but said the residents would still like to have the task
force formed to come up with some solution to the problem on a county-wide
basis. Mr. St. John said another remedy would be the institution of a civil
proceeding because the residents' rights are being violated by the situation;
this is a nuisance process, and would require the services of an attorney.
Mr. Raines said a civil proceeding is scheduled for August 28 against the
owner of the dogs by the owner of the cat that was killed in Hollymead. Mr.
St. John asked if there had been a preliminary hearing, and Mr. Raines said
yes, a civil trial is to follow. Mr. St. John said in a nuisance suit, a
person can ask for and obtain a preliminary injunction in a life-threatening
situation; the judicial system is in place to deal with this kind of emergency;
the Board is not the only forum, or the appropriate forum to deal with a
particular emergency situation involving a dispute between neighbors. Mr.
Raines said until a human is attacked it is still a question of how a judge
would decide a dog is vicious. To clarify what he said earlier, Mr. St. John
advised Mr. Raines that in order to be deemed vicious, a dog has to demon-
strate a propensity for viciousness. Referring to the German Shepherds
mentioned by Sheriff Bailey, Mr. St. John said the dogs did not bite anyone,
but the dogs' behavior would demonstrate this~propensity for viciousness. He
said that kind of behavior and the behavior of the dogs near Hollymead, is
enough to constitute vicious action.
Ms. Katrina Katrin, said she is a breeder of Australian Shepherds and a
qualified obedience instructor. She agrees with what Hollymead residents have
said. As a resident of the County, she feels it is essential that the County
establish a leash-law. It is frustrating to be a responsible dog owner and
have other dogs come onto her property, urinate and such, dig and cause other
damage, in addition to harassing her and her dogs. Ms. Katrin said this is
the responsibility of a dog owner, and laws should be instituted to control
this. In addition, Ms. Katrin feels that vicious dog laws can be difficult to
define. Her dogs bark, warn, and sometimes snarl, when people enter her
property, but they are under her control and do what she commands. Ms. Katrin
said she does not feel a specific breed should be penalized; it is not fair to
responsible owners and breeders who are doing a good job maintaining tempera-
ment, attending obedience training, and keeping their dogs confined. The
Board should take the overall problem into consideration.
Ms. Frances Evans, a breeder, an exhibitor, assistant to a professional
handler, with college courses in dog psychology and animal care, said there is
a great deal of ignorance which is responsible for some of the hysteria taking
place. As an animal lover, Ms. Evans is upset by the lack of a leash law.
She has more than 20 dogs on her property, and without the funds for fencing,
animals come onto her property, spread diseas~ and parasites, and disturb her
dogs causing them to become noisy. Ms. Evans~said it is unkind to allow
animals to run loose because statistically a dog can live up to ten years
longer if it is kept restrained. Ms. Evans said with a shrinking world and a
growing population, if people are to be able ~o keep pets in the future, all
must learn to live together. In relating owning a pet to owning a car, where
you must meet specific qualifications in orde~ to become a driver, Ms. Evans
said it might be that in the future a person will have to meet certain
qualifications to own a pet, and that might not be unreasonable. Ms. Evans
said among the breeds classified under the pit bull "umbrella" is one known in
England as the "Nursery Dog" because these dogs are so reliable with babies.
Mr. Michael Walsh said he wrote a letterlto Board members which stated
what he thought about the breed of dog under discussion. He said what is
needed is a good, generic, county-wide leash law, which will apply even when a
i43
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 30)
dog from a non-leash law area runs into an area covered by a leash-law. He
said the County has a good vicious dog law, but the law must consider whether
or not a dog is provoked into a bite, or whether it is defending property.
Mr. Walsh said literature he received from the Humane Society of the United
States suggested that if an owner is shown to be running vicious dogs, or
letting dogs run at large, the owner be made to take an obedience training
course. In addition, Mr. Walsh said he likes the idea of adding another dog
warden to County staff because the system is overworked. Even though Mr.
Walsh does not believe a task force is needed, members of his club would be
willing to si in on the task force.
Ms. Anna Bruce said she raises Alaskan Malamutes, a large breed of dog.
Ms. Bruce said a required obedience training class is essentially for the dog
owner, and the dog will not benefit unless the owner wants it to. An owner is
taught how to handle a dog, and this will not do any good unless the owner is
willing to undertake the training and work with the dog at home.
There were no further comments from the public at this time.
Mr. Fisher said he received a telephone call from a person who raises pit
bulls, and this person feels the same as many of the people who spoke today,
that the problem is created by any dog running at large. He said he agrees
with this, pit bulls are not the only dogs causing problems in the County.
Mrs. Cooke said she once had a notion that a dog needed to be free.
However, after two of her dogs were killed because they were allowed to run at
large, she learned her lesson about owner responsibility. The issue before
the Board concerns owner responsibility, not dog responsibility. Ever since
she was elected to the Board, there have been suggestions that there should be
a.~county-wide leash law. As a representative of the urban area of the County,
Mrs. Cooke said she receives numerous dog and cat nuisance complaints. She
has worked with homeowners associations to enact leash laws in various sub-
divisions in her district. Mrs. Cooke said she is amazed that people who live
in the rural areas of the County have the same problems as urban dwellers in
this respect. Because of this Mrs. Cooke proposes that the Board seriously
consider, and instruct staff, to come up with an ordinance addressing a pet
leash law for Albemarle County. She said she has found that cats can be just
as destructive as dogs; not just one breed of animal is at issue. The issue
concerns animals and responsible pet owners. Mrs. Cooke Said staff should be
instructed to come up with some kind of language the Board can deal with.
Mr. Way said he has no objection to Mrs. Cooke's proposal. He said
other issues need to be studied in addition to this; he is not sure he will
support a county-wide leash law. Mr. Way said he is receptive to the possibi-
lity of being convinced it is appropriate, but he will not support it at this
time.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has been listening to the discussion, and it does
not appear the Board's action will involve a breed specific ordinance. Con-
cerning Mrs. Cooke's suggestion, he would like to see the language of such an
ordinance. Obviously, a public hearing will take place sO other people who
feel strongly can speak. In a county of 740 square miles~ where much of the
county is not urbanized, Mr. Lindstrom questions how such~an ordinance will be
enforced without a staff greater than that of the police ~orce. He said the
problem is not with law-abiding pet owners, but with people who have abandoned
dogs, or just do not act responsibly. The problem is catching the owner and
being able to prosecute whether or not the County has a leash law. Mr.
Lindstrom said he is concerned that in the vast reaches of the County, a leash
law is just giving lip service to public concern. However, he would be
receptive to looking at a leash law which applied to the Urban area and the
communities designated in the Comprehensive Plan, where an ordinance can be
better enforced. Mr. Lindstrom said he is reluctant to endorse a county-wide
leash law for the practical problems it imposes, but he is willing to see how
such a law would operate.
Mr. Way said in addition to the study requested, some suggestions listed
in the statement made by Mr. Raines should also be included: defining exactly
what a vicious dog is and if this definition can be tightened up, and the
suggestion about liability insurance. Mrs. Cooke said defining what con-
stitutes a nuisance should also be included. In addition, Mrs. Cooke urged
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 31)
144
staff to solicit comments of professional people and the SPCA, and to consider
also the humanitarian approach to animals.
Mr. Bowie said he is reluctant to ask staff to develop an ordinance wh'ich
he does not intend to support. He thinks such an ordinance will lead to more
problems. However, the urban area is a different problem. In his own sub-
division, each morning he is greeted by a dog that just trots in to say hello.
This dog would be in violation of the law, and he enjoys this greeting each
morning. In addition, his own dog is fed by another neighbor who calls it to
come, which would also be in violation of the law. Mr. Bowie said there are
too many problems with a county-wide leash laW, and he would not even consider
a "cat leash law."
Mr. Bowie said Hollymead has a specific )roblem, and he has been informed
that a petition is not required to enact an emergency leash law. In addition,
a boundary does not end at a subdivision's lines; by law, contiguous property
where dogs are located can be included in a subdivision leash law. Mr. Bowie
suggested that residents of Hollymead take Mr% St. John's advice and look into
civil proceedings; this is an immediate actioh to a specific local problem,
and he is willing to support a subdivision leash law. He said, in general, a
problem with a leash law is that when a dog is in an area and the owner does
not live in that area, the owner is not covered by the leash law. Mr. Bowie
asked that the Board consider a penalty to the owner of a dog running lose in
a leash law area, whether or not the owner lives in the area. There are
expenses incurred to pick up such a dog, and the owner should be responsible
for paying these expenses, and then be allowed to pick up the dog at the SPCA.
Recurring incidents should incur increased expense to the owner.
Mr. Bowie continued by saying that anyon~ who has a kennel license has a
responsibility for keeping dogs in the kennel~ but if the dogs are running
free, there should be something that can be done about it. Mr. Bowie said he
agrees that what "vicious" means should be defined. However, it does not make
any difference if this is defined, if there is no way, short of an attack, to
determine what is vicious; there should be some way to do this without waiting
for such an attack. Mr. Bowie said this definition should be included in the
ordinance. In addition, Mr. Bowie said whether or not a leash law is enacted,
there should be some way a citizen can protec~ himself from dogs or cats
running at large that are out of control. Mri Bowie said concerning the
immediate problem at Hollymead, the Board can~enact a leash law on an emer-
gency basis if this is asked for.
Mr. Fisher said as the County's population has grown with more people and
pets, he has seen more and more conflict. There will come a time when pets
will not be allowed to run at large, but the ~uestion is when. That is the
real question the Board must consider, in addition to how this will be
enforced. Mr. Fisher said he has received complaints from mostly rural areas,
from people who want to use the public roads or their own backyards. The dogs
are not pit bulls, generally the breed is unkhown, but the dogs are big and
are bothersome. This is a question of the rights of these people. Mr. Fisher
said at first he was against the idea of a county-wide leash law, but he has
grown increasingly concerned that the time is near when a leash law must be
considered for dogs. The dog issue is one that must be dealt with, and Mr.
Fisher said he would consider a leash law for the entire county; enforcement
is a/most impossible on a piecemeal basis. People with large acreage can have
dogs loose on their property, however, once the dog enters onto a street or
road, the owner is responsible; this is where the responsibility must be put.
Mr. Henley said he does not think enforcement will be a problem; you do
not do away with laws because they cannot be enforced all the time. Mr.
Henley said he has a kennel license and ten dogs, and the dogs are tied up
unless he takes them out with him. However, his neighbor's dog has destroyed
goose nests because that dog is allowed to run loose. Mr. Henley said when he
was first elected to the Board, he was not in favor of a leash law. However,
he is leaning in that direction more and morel He requested that staff take a
look at Augusta County's leash law, and find out what kind of problems they
have in enforcing the law.
Mr. Lindstrom asked why the County has to step in and enact a law where,
in Mr. Henley's case, the owner of the dogs causing the problem is known.
When he receives calls from people complaining about a neighbor's dog, he
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 32)
tells them to contact the neighbor and complain, but the person complaining
does not want to do this. Mr. Henley said even if this is done everyday, the
neighbor does not pay attention to the complaint. Mr. Lindstrom said he has a
problem with adopting a county-wide law because someone is afraid to take up
the issue with their neighbor. Mrs. Cooke said in dealing with this kind of
problem she has found that people want to avoid a confrontation with a nei
because they live close together, and an ordinance would eliminate this type
of confrontation. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Bowie's suggestions and the possibi-
lity of defining areas where the County would have leash laws, is one thing.
If people live in urban densities, they are entitled to certain benefits that
people in rural areas do not have. He said he has a real'iproblemwith solving
neighbor to neighbor disputes on a county-wide basis.
Mr. Bowie said if a neighbor has a recurring problem with a particular
dog, the answer is not to require 60,000 people to put leashes on their dogs.
Something should be included in an ordinance that if someone is having this
kind of problem, the dog warden can go and pick up the dog. But someone must
make a telephone call to lodge a complaint, otherwise nothing can be done.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if only a judge can declare a dog vicious.
Mr. St. John said yes, essentially. He said an ordinance can be drafted
giving criteria for the judge to use in defining a vicious dog, but there will
be loopholes to deal with. If the Board wants staff to define what vicious-
ness is, or set out criteria for this, staff will do this using examples cited
in the sample legislation received as a guideline. Mr. Fisher asked if the
County's vicious dog ordinance is as strict as permitted under State law. Mr.
St. John said yes. Mr. Fisher asked if anything could be done to improve the
penalty or the ability of the County to convict an offender under the ordi-
nance. Mr. St. John said he would look into this. Mr. Way asked if the term
"nuisance" dog is included in the County's ordinance. Mr. St. John replied
no', the only way to deal with that is through a leash law.
Mr. Lindstrom said there is a difference between an innocent dog who just
w~nders around and a dog who is a persistent nuisance and ~causes problems. In
the case of a nuisance dog, the County Dog Warden should Pick up the dog and a
fine be levied against the owner; a second offense would lead to a signifi-
cantly larger fine; and a third offense would incur all the consequences of
the law, giving some latitude in the case of an innocent, wandering dog. A
nuisance dog can be defined as repeatedly violating other people's property
where the owner will not take responsibility. Mr. Lindstrom said if this kind
of distinction can be made, the idea of a leash law is a little more palatable
Mr. St. John reminded Mr. Lindstrom about the vicious dog ordinance, and the
ordinance allowing for the destruction of a dog who kills livestock or poul-
try, even if the dog is not vicious towards anything else.
Mrs. Cooke said she thinks all the bases have been cOVered, and all Board
members are aware of all the concerns of the public and other Board members.
Mr. Fisher asked staff to use a broad approach in whatever!is drafted so
constrictions can be instituted as opposition is expressed, Mr. Lindstrom
said he would prefer taking a narrow approach and see how far it goes. Mr.
Fisher said staff will put something together, and he asked Mr. Agnor if he
understood what is requested. Mr. Agnor replied that staff will draft some-
thing.
At this time, Mrs. Nottingham turned in a petition containing 199 plus
signatures requesting that Hollymead Subdivision be included under the "Leash
Law." She asked if the Board would vote on the petition tOday. Mr. Fisher
replied not unless someone proposes an emergency dog leash~ordinance. Mrs.
Nottingham asked Mrs. Cooke if there was a time frame on what Mrs. Cooke
proposed. Mrs. Cooke replied it will be when staff comes back with a report.
Mr. Bowie asked how many people live in the Hollymead subdivision. Mrs.
Nottingham replied 235 people. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the~figure represents
households or people. Mrs. Cooke said she does not think that matters. Mr.
Fisher said there is no absolute requirement on what percentage is needed to
apply for an emergency ordinance. Mr. Fisher asked if the!request was to
deSignate the Hollymead community or just the subdivision.~ Mrs. Nottingham
replied the Hollymead subdivision. Mr. Bowie read the introduction to the
petition, and said he did not know if the required number 6f signatures is on
the petition. Mr. Fisher said it does not matter; a motion to enact an
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 33)
emergency ordinance or to set a public hearing is in order. Mr. Agnor asked
if a metes and bounds description is required in the advertisement for the
public hearing. Mr. St. John replied a map of the area affected must be part
of the advertisement. If the offending owner's property is to be included, a
map must be drawn including that adjoining property.
After some further discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded
by Mr. Lindstrom, to set for public hearing on September 16, 1987, consider-
ation of a leash law for Hollymead Subdivision. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vone:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
The meeting was recessed at 3:10 P.M. and reconvened at 3:21 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 9~ Request from Mr. David C. W. Charters to amend
service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water only -
Route 684 (Tax Map 55, Parcel 34).
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Charters to come forward to present his request to
the Board. Mr. Charters said his request is to extend water from a hydrant
which is close to a cottage he is building for farm help on his property. Two
alternatives are to extend water service from an existing well a distance
away, or to drill another well. Mr. Fisher asked the size of the parcel. Mr.
Charters replied 14 acres.
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Home to give the staff's review, which follows:
"Enclosed is a map illustrating the parcel owned by Mr. Charters
which is subject to his request for extension of water service. When
the Service Authority water line was extended along Route 684, the
frontage of some parcels west of Route 684 were placed into the
jurisdictional boundary for existing structures only. This parcel
has a small strip west of Route 684 and east of a stream which was
placed into that jurisdictional area. There were and are, however,
no existing structures in that area and,-therefore, no water service
was provided.
The jurisdictional area at Crozet follows the boundary of the growth
area except for the fringe parcels along existing service lines such
as referenced above. Mr. Charters does not reference any water
quality or quantity probelms as a reason for the request. While this
pond does drain to the Lickinghole Creek drainage area and, therefore,
to the runoff control basin, the staff would be concerned as to the
precedent set by the granting of this request beyond the growth areas
unless there was a demonstration of ware= quality or quantity problems.
Should the Board of Supervisors choose to~ set a public hearing for
this matter, the staff will conduct a more thorough review of this
request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me."
When Mr. Horne was finished, Mr. Fisher said the question before the
Board is whether or not to set a public hearing to amend the Albemarle County
Service Authority service area boundaries for Water only. Mr. Henley asked
Mr. Charters if the cottage will be on a separate tract from the farm. Mr.
Charters said the cottage will be located on the edge of the 14 acre parcel,
approximately 40 yards from Route 684, convenient to the hydrant. Mr. Henley
said the service area was changed, and he does not see why it cannot be
extended at this time to include the cottage. Mr. Lindstrom said in other
cases the distinctions have been that a need has been demonstrated other than
just for convenience, and the service is extended to an existing residence;
this request does not meet either of the two distinctions. Mr. Henley said he
had informed Mr. Charters this is usually done because of water quality or
because of an insufficient water supply. Mr. Henley said he can still support
the request.
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 34)
Mr. Fisher said the Board turned down a similar request a few months
earlier. He feels the Board will have a problem if an even hand on extensions
of water service is not maintained. Mr. Henley made a motion to set a public
hearing for September 9, 1987. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom
said he is not inclined to support the request. Roll was called on the
foregoing motion, which failed by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Henley, and Way.
NAYS: Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 17. Discussion. Ordinance: Prohibition on open burning
in certain areas.
Mr. Fisher said since last week's meeting, he has talked to one of the
engineers in Henrico County to ask how that county is handling leaf collec-
tion, etc. He was advised that Henrico's system is similar to Albemarle
County's in that most garbage collection is done by private contractors.
Henrico had a problem with leaf collection and was not able to do it without
signing a multi-year contract to collect leaves. If the leaves are bagged,
collection is free;, if a vacuum is used, a flat fee of $20 is charged even
though the cost is more. Mr. Way asked where the leaves are taken. Mr.
Fisher said the leaves are mulched on site at the landfill, using the mulch on
site, and selling whatever people are willing to buy. Mr. Fisher said Henrico
also has a public garbage collection system for people who do not want to deal
with a private contractor. He said by licensing a particular contractor over
a multi-year period, the contractor was willing to purchase the equipment
necessary for the collection of leaves.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Fisher knows how many residences are served
and what the service cost. Mr. Fisher said he does not know. Mr. Henley said
if anyone wants to enjoy big trees and a lot of shade, they should be willing
to solve the problem of getting rid of the leaves. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr.
Bowie if he is in support of a ban on leaf burning. Mr. Bowie said yes, if:
1) the leaves could not be dumped in a landfill; 2) the County does not pay
for the pick up, that people pay for pick up if the leaves cannot be burned.
Mr. Henley said the County has to pay money to reseed the places where the
landfill is, the leaves will make excellent mulch for the County. Mr.
Lindstrom said some money would be made on the mulch that could not be used
for the County. Mr. Agnor said some of the counties that Were contacted have
compost piles that are just getting bigger and bigger; the mulch is used more
as a soil conditioner. Mr. Agnor said he would not encourage the County to go
into leaf collection on the basis that the mulch will be a useful by-product.
He said the difficulty is the time period that people expegt the service to be
provided. Mr. Lindstrom asked what the City does with the~leaves. Mr. Agnor
said he does not know. -
Mr. Fisher said a public hearing was held on a new ordinance. The Board
heard testimony at last week's meeting. Mr. Fisher said no way will be found
to collect leaves until a prohibition ordinance is enacted~ Once this is
done, the market system will'work well to collect the leaves, but the biggest
issue is how the landfill will deal with the leaves. Mr. St. John said if the
ordinance is enacted and nothing is in place as a means for disposal of
leaves, the ordinance is not likely to be enforced, or pressure will come to
bear to repeal the ordinance for a number of possible reasons. With no
alternative in place, the County will have assumed this responsibility. Mr.
St. John questions whether an alternative should be in place before enacting
the ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said the informal solution will be to dump bags
of leaves on county roads. He said if the County tells people that they
cannot burn or dispose of leaves, the County should come up with a solution to
deal with the problem. Mr. Fisher suggested enacting the ordinance to take
effect January 1, 1988, which will give staff time to figure out how to deal
with it, there will be time to budget for it, and to contact private contrac-
tors. Mr. Bowie said the Board would be adopting an ordinance that is not
enforceable, there is no way to pick up the leaves and no place to dispose of
them, and no idea what to do with the leaves after they have been disposed of.
If the ordinance is enacted, the County will be committed to spending money.
Mr. Bowie said he does not intend to support enactment of ~he ordinance. Mrs
Cooke said leaves are a real problem in the urban area, and the issue must be
addressed. She does not think the County can ignore the problem any longer
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 35)
because of the densely populated areas that are experiencing city problems.
The County has allowed development to occur, has encouraged growth in areas,
and has created city problems, and these problems must be addressed in an
urban manner. Mr. Henley asked if any homeowners agreements ban burning. Mr.
St. John said he does not know of any that do; the County does not monitor any
homeowner's agreement for that purpose. Mrs. Cooke said she is aware of one
development in which deed restrictions address this problem. Mr. St. John
said in order for the ordinance to be workable, the practical measure that is
needed to go along with it, must be put in place at the same time as the legal
prohibition; one will not work without the other. Mr. Fisher agreed. Mr. St.
John suggested that the ordinance take effect in one year, with instructions
given to staff to come up with a solution as to disposal on a given deadline.
Mr. Lindstrom made a motion for the item to be deferred until October 12,
1987, with instructions to staff to develop proposals for dealing with the
leaves when the ordinance has been passed. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion.
Mr. Henley said staff should come up with a way of providing a place to
dispose of leaves, and not worry about the County getting into the leaf
collection business right now. Mr. Lindstrom asked staff to see if there is
someway the leaves can be compacted, along with other stuff, and be adapted
for use as fuel in county-owned heating plants. Mr. Way said he would .support
that kind of a motion. However, he is concerned about the large tracts of
land located in the urban area. He would like to see a way for these people
to obtain a permit for exemptions. Mr. Agnor~said a method is set out in the
County Code for subdivisions to petition the Board to impose a leaf burning
ban on a particular subdivision. When this is done, the subdivision assumes
the responsibility for disposal. From a legal standpoint, this will be a
request by a subdivision and not something imPosed on all subdivisions.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion Which passed by the following
recorded vote: ~
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher,~Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 18. Smoking Policy, proposed for the Albemarle County
Office Building on McIntire Road. Memorandum dated August 7, 1987, from Mr.
Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, follows:
"Attached for your review and consideration is a proposed smoking
policy for the County Office Building. This policy has been devel-
oped by the County Executive's staff in response to several requests
from employees to regulate work area smoking. It has also become
apparent to staff, in light of recent studies documenting the harmful
effects of smoking on non-smokers and increasing community pressure
to ban smoking in public facilities, that the County needs to address
this major health issue with a formally adopted policy.
Adoption of a restrictive smoking policy,.is seen as an idea whose
time has come, since non-smoking policies are becoming the national
norm rather than the exception. Thirty percent of all businesses
restrict smoking in the workplace; thirty-four states regulate
smoking in public places. As you are probably aware, the U. S.
Surgeon General has declared smoking the nation's single most
important preventable cause of disease and premature death. Follow-
ing suit, the federal government has recently instituted a policy
that limits smoking to specifically designated areas in all federal
buildings. ~
Locally, smoking policies have been adopted by Sperry, Comdial, State
Farm Insurance, Martha Jefferson Hospital, and the University of
Virginia Hospital.
Staff attempted to take into consideration both the background
research and the specific needs and concerns of County citizens and
employees. Last January, a smoking survey was sent to all general
government employees for their comments and suggestions on a smoking
policy for the County Office Building.
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 36)
Employee responses clearly indicated the need to implement a policy
that restricts smoking. Of the 212 employees returning the survey,
87% were non-smokers, 83% of whom indicated they were bothered by
smoke at work. Employee responses also indicated that a policy
restricting smoking to specifically designated areas would be sup-
ported by most employees, both non-smokers and smokers.
The proposed policy is based on the results of this survey and on the
basic premise that non-smoking should be the norm for the County
Office Building. This proposed policy has been presented to all
Department Heads, who have discussed it with their staff. Employee
feedback has generally been positive.
Although employees are principle users of the building on an everyday
basis, citizen usage is an important factor in considering this
proposed policy. Staff has difficulty in measuring citizen interest
or response to the policy, but believes that a majority of citizen
users would support the policy.
The proposed effective date for implementation of th~ policy is
October 1, a date that allows some time to adjust to the policy.
During the interim period between adoption and implementation, the
County will offer a smoking cessation course for all interested
employees."
PROPOSED
ALBEMARLE COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING SMOKING POLICY
Effective Date October 1, 1987
PURPOSE
As an employer, the County is concerned about the well being of its
employees and is committed to providing a healthy, comfortable and
productive work environment. One Way of achieving this goal is to
implement a policy that respects the rights of non-smokers and helps'
smokers adjust to restrictions on smoking. This proposed smoking
policy has been formulated after careful review and consideration of
all available information including the results of our own employee
survey.
POLICY
Smoking by occupants and visitors is prohibited throUghout the County
Office Building except in the designated area identified as "Smoking
Permitted", which is a room located on the second floor off the
auditorium lobby.
ENFORCEMENT
The success of this policy will depend on the consideration and
cooperation of smokers and non-smokers. Ail employees are asked to
share in the responsibility for adhering to and enforcing the policy.
Supervisory personnel have a responsibility to see that the spirit
and intent of this policy is complied with, and to enlist the cooper-
ation of all employees in accomplishing this objective. The needs
and concerns of both non-smokers and smokers should be recognized.
Copies of this policy will be distributed to all employees. Signs
displaying the following statement will be posted at all building
entrances: "Smoking permitted in the designated smoking area only."
Ashtrays will be provided in the smoking room and at all entrances.
ASSISTANCE FOR SMOKERS
Employee efforts to stop smoking will be encouraged and supported.
To this end, the County will provide a shared cost reimbursement
program for employees who wish to attend one of the aPproved
community sponsored "stop smoking" programs.
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 37)
Mr. Agnor gave a brief summary of the process used for review of the
proposed smoking policy. At the end of his summary, Mr. Agnor recommended
that the Board review the policy at the end of six months to determine if any
adjustments or amendments are necessary. Mr. Way asked the size of the
proposed smoking area. Mr. Bowie said it is a reasonable size, with windows
that can be opened. Mr. Bowie said he has spoken with employees, and he
intends to support the smoking restrictions. However, he will oppose any
harassment, any means to legislate smokers out of existence, or any kind of
vindictive behavior in this regard. He said he believes most smokers do not
want to smoke, and that generally they are considerate of non-smokers rights.
Mr. Bowie said that when a large number of people are in the building to
attend a meeting, ashtrays will be needed in the foyer, since you cannot stuff
large numbers of citizens into one small smoking room. In addition, he said
with an average time of 15 minutes to smoke a~cigarette, including going up
and down to get to the smoking room, what will happen with an employee who
smokes six cigarettes a day. Mr. Bowie said he accepts and supports the
proposed policy.
Mrs. Cooke said she feels that with this.policy in effect people who
smoke will cut down on cigarette consumption. In addition, she asked if there
is any way to keep track of how many people the policy has helped to break the
smoking habit so the information is available'when the policy comes up for
review. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the policy prevents people from going outside
of the building to smoke. Mr. Agnor replied no.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the
following policy:
Smoking by occupants and visitors is prohibited throughout the County
Office Building except in the designated area identified as "Smoking
Permitted," which is a room located on the second floor off the
Auditorium lobby.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 19k. Appointment: School Board.
Mr. Bowie acknowledged the contribution of Mr. Robert E. Taylor in the
time he was on the School Board, and he thanked Mr. Taylor and said he appreci-
ated working closely with him. Mr. Bowie said two applications were filed and
reviewed, and the public hearing was held last week. Mr. Bowie then nominated
Mrs. Sharon Wood as the Rivanna District representative on the School Board.
He said one of the key factors in his selection of Mrs. Wood is her involvement
in the school system. He then gave a brief history of Mrs. Wood's activities
in the school system and in the community. M~. Lindstrom seconded the nomina-
tion. Mr. Fisher asked Mrs. Wood if she would like to make a statement. Mrs.
Wood said she is pleased with the nomination. She knows she has a few things
to learn, but she does have an understanding of the system and feels she can
do a good job.
Roll was called on the foregoing nomination and the motion passed with
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, iHenley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
Appointments:
Agenda Item No. 19a.
Agenda Item No. 19b.
Agenda Item No. 19c.
Advisory Council on Aging.
Agricultural/Forestal District Advisory Committee.
Alcohol Safety Action Program.
Agenda Item No. 19d.
Agenda Item No. 19e.
Agenda Item No. 19f.
Agenda Item No. 19g. Land Use Classification Appeals Board.
Mr. Fisher asked for nominations for any of the above positions.
nominations were made.
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 38)
Industrial Development Authority.
JAUNT Board.
Jordan Development Corporation.
No
Agenda Item No. 19h. Appointment: Pay/Classification Plan Revision
Committee. Memorandum dated July 30, 1987, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County
Executive, follows:
"You will recall that FY 87/88 is the year for engaging a consultant
to examine the Pay and Classification Plan. That work is scheduled
to commence this month and be completed by the end of October. Andy
Overstreet, Carole Hastings, and I believe this study is very impor-
tant, and warrants a committee of two members each from the Board of
Supervisors and School Board to meet periodically with the consultant
to consider policy matters of the Plan, provide responses to ques-
tions by the consultant or Dr. Hastings as revisions~are considered,
and give board oversight to the review process. Additionally, a
separate staff committee comprised of general government and school
division employees is being created as an advisory group to the
consultant on employee perspectives.
It is requested that the Board appoint two of its members to serve
this function. I would estimate it would entail approximately four
meetings in a ten week period. A similar request is being made to
the School Board.
Mr. Fisher recommended that Mr. Bowie and Mr. Way be appointed to this
committee. Mr. Lindstrom made a motion that Mr. Bowie and Mr. Way serve as
the Board's representatives to revimw the Pay and Classification Plan. Mrs.
Cooke seconded the motion. After some discussion, roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lind!strom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 19i. Appointment: Emergency Planning Committee.
Memorandum dated August 5, 1987, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive,
follows:
"The State Department of Waste Management has advised localities that
Federal law, which deals with identification and cleanup of toxic
chemicals, requires that the Governor appoint a State Emergency
Response Council which, in turn, is required to designate local
emergency planning districts and appoint local emergency planning
committees.
The State Council has been appointed, and the districts have been
designated. Albemarle and Charlottesville are designated as a
district. The planning committee appointments by the' State are
scheduled for completion by August 17. Nominations for appoint-
ment to the local committees have been requested by the State by
August 10. The duties and compositions of the local Committee are as
shown on the attached sheets. You will note the committee is to have
a minimum of two nominees for each of five groups.
Prior to this State initiative, the Emergency Services Coordinator
for the County and City began work on the development, of an emergency
response plan for chemical hazards in this region. A~ committee of
emergency service providers was formed to work on the!plan. The
committee is comprised of the following:
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 39)
Virginia Department of Emergency Services - Keith Spafford
Charlottesville Fire Department Deputy Chief Bill Walton
Jefferson's Country Volunteer Firefighter's Association
J. B. Morris
Fluvanna County (for County and firefighters) - Edgar A. Appling
Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department - R. G. Golladay
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Bill Pahuta
UVA Police Department - Chief Mike Sheffield
Charlottesville Police Department Lt. Aurie Schwarting
Lake Monticello Rescue Squad - John Maple
Mineral Unit, Louisa County Rescue Squad - Unknown
Charlottesville Department of Public Works Bruce McNabb
Albemarle County Service Authority Bill Brent
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Paul Shoop
UVA Environmental Health & Safety Officer - Ralph Allen
UVA Medical Center Department of Emergency Medical Services
Scott Wiley
Martha JeffersOn Hospital Department of'Emergency Medical Services
Edwina Juillet
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission - Nancy 0'Brien
Thomas 3efferson Emergency Medical Services Council Brenda Barbour
Charlottesville/Albemarle Emergency Services Michael Carroll
Recognizing the timetable imposed on us to nominate committee appoin-
tees, it is recommended that staff be authorized to coordinate with
City staff and forward nominations to the State, using members of the
existing committee and ~king additional nominations as needed to
comply with the State's guidelines for committee membership."
After Mr. Agnor briefly summarized his memorandum, Mr. Fisher said the
consensus is to allow staff to make the appointments as requested.
Agenda Item No. 19j. Appointment: JPA-Fontaine Area Study Advisory
Committee.
Mr. Agnor said that since Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Fisher are members of the
City/County/University Planning and Coordination Council, they may want to
make the two appointments, but the object is for the Board to make the appoint-
ments. The two appointees, as representatives of the County, will serve in an
advisory capacity to the Technical Committee Of the Planning and Coordination
Council and to the consultant that will be employed as of September 1. Mr.
Lindstrom said the Board should make the appointments. Mr. Fisher agreed.
Mr. Agnor said staff would submit a list of names at the next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda From the
Board or Public.
Mr. Fisher said it is time for the Board to submit legislative matters to
Virginia Association of Counties if they are to be considered at the annual
meeting in November. He asked if anyone had any items for consideration.
Mr. Bowie said the matter of allowing County police officers the same
authority as City police officers to write tickets, etc.
Mr. Fisher said the permit parking issue, discussed earlier, is another
matter to be considered. ~
Mr. Fisher said the School Board is in the process of looking at sites
for a new Crozet School. The decision on the!Meriwether Lewis School involved
both the Board of Supervisors and the School Board, Since the School Board is
doing the Crozet School on its own, it might be a good idea to communicate to
them to reconstitute the Site Selection Committee, or seek some new members to
that committee. .~
!53
August 12, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 40)
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board had to do anything to deal with a pedes-
trian crossing at the Whitewood Road/Hydraulic Road intersection, discussed at
an earlier meeting. Mr. Agnor said that staff's recommendation is that the
matter be dealt with during revision of the Six-Year Secondary Highway Improve-
ment Plan, to be started in the fall and consummated in the winter.
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn. At 4:28 P.M., motion was offered by Mr.
Way, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn the meeting. Roll was called and
the vote carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.