1987-09-09i89
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on September 9, 1987, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room 7,
Second Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher (arrived at 2:08 PoM.), J. T. Henley, Jr. (arrived at 9:48 A.M.),
Co Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John To P. Home, Director of Planning and
Community Development.
Agenda item No~ 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:03 A.M. by the
Vice-Chairman, Mr. Way.
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. Lindstrom,
seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve 4.1 and direct the County Executive to write
the requested letter, 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: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley.
Item No. 4.lc Letter from Mr. John T. P. Horne, dated September 3, 1987,
addressed to Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., re: Proposed Changes in Content of the
1980 Census, received as follows:
"Staff has. been informed by TJPDC that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has proposed significant cutbacks in the 1990 Census
Questionnaire originally proposed by the Bureau of the Census. The
changes would actually be implemented with the 1988 Dress Rehearsal
Census and maintained for the 1990 Census. TJPDC has requested its
local governments write OMB before September 15th urging the OMB
cutback proposals be rescinded and the recommendations of the Bureau
of the Census be accepted. Staff has previously provided input to
the Bureau regarding 1990 questions and believes the Bureau's
recommendations more favorably reflect that input.
Staff has reviewed OMB's proposals and agrees with TJPDC's position
that these cutbacks are excessive and would have detrimental affects
on the data resources of local government. Three housing questions
covering housing unit size, plumbing availability and owner/renter
occupancy would be changed from the short form census (100% count) to
the long form census (sample count). The effect of this would be to
decrease the reliability of the data and make it unavailable at the
census block level. In addition, 23 other short and long form
questions have been dropped altogether: 15 housing questions covering
housing cost and value, water and sewer availability and heating
availability; six employment questions covering commuting character-
istics and employment tenure; one question covering f~male fertility,
and one question covering migration. These changes would seriously
erode the County's ability to assess housing quality and improvement
without undertaking its own very costly surveying. In addition, the
various housing programs operating in the County would be at a great
disadvantage in targeting and evaluating their services. Transport-
ation planning, birth rate development and economic assessment
efforts would be greatly hindered by the loss of employment, fertility
and commuting data. The Census provides the most efficient and
effective comprehensive method for collecting data and assessing
190
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
socioeconomic conditions. Information provided is critical to
Federal and State grant programs and their implementation. The
cutbacks proposed would significantly alter the basis for these
activities.
Staff recon~nends that the Board of Supervisors take action opposing
the proposed OMB cutbacks and supporting Bureau of the Census recom-
mendations, and direct the County Executive to write a letter to OMB
with copies to our Federal elected representatives reflecting this
position. Thanks for your consideration of this matter and please
contact me should you have any questions."
Item No. 4.2. Copy of letter dated AugUst 20, 1987, addressed to Mr.
Winston C. Gooding, from Mr. Dun S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, re.: Closing
of Route 627 for purpose of holding a parade~on August 29, 1987, from 9:00
A.M. to 11:00 A.M., received as information.
Ite~ No. 4.3. Memorandum dated August [2, 1987 from Mr. John T. P.
Horne, to Mr. Guy B~ Agnor, Jr., accompaniedl by staff report on the Stormwater
Management Policy, received as follows:
"Enclosed you will find a policy on sto~mwater management which was
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at their meeting
on August 4, 1987. This policy is a direct result of some of the
recent questions that have begun to arise on site plans and subdivi-
sions concerning the method of stormwat~r detention. The policy is a
product of this Department and the Department of Engineering and I
will be available to the Board of SuperVisors to discuss this policy.
The Planning Commission requested that {he Board of Supervisors
review and approve this policy at their earliest convenience.
POLICY: STORMWATERMANAGEMENT ~
SURFACE ¥. UNDERGROUND DETENTION
Section 32.7.4 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 18-22 of the
Subdivision Ordinance authorize the Plahning Commission, upon recom-
mendation of ~he County Engineer, to approve stormwater management
facilities, it is the Commission's policy that where surface detention
facilities are proposed the County Engineer in making such recommenda-
tion consider in addition to technical functioning of such facilities,
the general health, safety, and welfare~ of the public. Such analysis
should be performed on a case-by-case b~sis with consideration to
among other things, the following factors:
Public exposure as expressed by: population density; proximity
to pedestrian ways, play areas and other such areas frequented
by people; potential for loss of life or property due to failure
of the detention system.
The physical design of the proposed surface detention facility
including: ponding depth; steepness of side slopes; potential
for vermin habitat; and other factors related to health and
safety; fencing~ guardrail and other improvements that mush be
installed as part of surface detention; soil erodibility and
stabilization/landscaping requiredl for maintenance.
The physical disturbance required to establish such surface
detention facility together with loss of open space or develop-
able land; the affect of an open detention basin on traffic
circulation and other physical requirements of the site; the
physical aesthetics of the method of stormwater detention.
The Engineering staff will recommend alternatives to surface storm-
water detention where practical. In making such recommendation the
staff will assist the developer in determining the most appropriate
alternative method such as: infiltration trenches; oversizing storm
sewers for capacity, or other practicali methods recognized in practice
that do not require surface detention.
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (3)
The Commission recognizes that subsurface or other alternate means of
stormwater detention may be more expensive to construct than an open
detention pond. It should be recognized that subsurface detention:
Will permit the developer to utilize more land for development or
amenities;
Will provide a more pleasing and marketable residential environment;
Will return value to the property not realizable by surface stormwater
detention; and
Is comparable in maintenance costs to surface detention.
Mr. Agnor said that the Planning Staff as asked to develop a Stormwater
Policy and this is the result. By accepting this item on the Consent Agenda,
the Board will be accepting the Planning Commission's concept of Stormwater
Management. The Board members agreed that they had no problem with this
policy.
Item No. 4.4. Copy of letter dated August 25, 1987, addressed to Mrs.
Paula Lo Brown, from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, re: Improve-
ments to Route 784, received as follows:
"Your letter of August 12, 1987, has left me somewhat perplexed and
dismayed. I must take exception to your statement that the Department
has only one position it will support on road improvements. You seem
to have missed my point that the 'improvements' you recommended are
not improvements at all but merely costly construction which will
leave existing conditions relatively the same.
The Department has found, through bitter experience, that trying to
make improvements within our existing 30' easement is usually a waste
of time and money. It is my feeling that such improvements, as you
have suggested at 'this location, would fall in this category. Laying
back of the slopes without widening the surface will do nothing to
improve the drainage or riding quality of Route 784. To widen the
road and lay back the slopes will require more right'of way than our
current 30' easement provides. It has been my experience that such
widening without hard surfacing soon deteriorates to conditions
similar to those now existing. For these reasons it would be my
recommendation to the Board that spot improvements, beyond those
already undertaken, not be considered along Route 784.
The Department has long held the position that the Board of Super-
visors sets the priorities for improvements on the secondary system.
Should the Board of Supervisors decide that funds fo= additional spot
improvements should be expended on Route 784, I would have no problem
complying with their direction. Should my opinion b~ requested,
however, my recommendation to the Board would be as stated above.
I believe we both agree that Route 784 is an improvement need. Our
opinions vary on what those improvements should beo ~he Board of
Supervisors will soon be undertaking a revision of their six year
secondary road improvement plan. I would suggest that~ you partici-
pate in this procedure bring your views to the Board's attention.
Should the Board include Route 784 as a priority, my ~office will
undertake improvements as they so direct."
Item No. 4.5. Notice dated August 31, 1987, from RapPahannock Electric
Cooperative, of an application filed with 'the State Corporation Commission,
re: To revise its LP-1 rate schedule, received as information.
Item No. 4.6. Notice from the State Department of Education, dated
August 13, 1987, on the award of a grant under Chapter 1 of the Education
Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 for school year 1987-88 in the
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
amount of $398,207, received as information. (Mr. Bowie asked for information
as to what this grant is for.)
Item No. 4.7. Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority Budget for FY
1987-88, received and on file in the Clerk's Office.
Item No. 4.8. Copy of "1987 Statement of Assessed Values for Local Tax
Purposes for Railroads and Interstate Pipeline Transmission Companies," as
prepared by the Department of Taxation, received and on file in the Clerk's
office.
Item No. 4.9. Copy of statements showing the Equalized Assessed Value,
as prepared by the State Corporation Cormmission, as of the beginning of the
first day of January 1987, of property in the Con~onwealth of Virginia and the
State Taxes extended for the year 1987, for the following entities, received
and on file in the Clerk's office:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Telephone and Telegraph Companies~
Gas and Pipe Line Transmission Corporations.
Water Corporations.
Electric Light and Power Corporations.
Item No. 4.10. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for August 25, 1987
received as information. '
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: March 18, 1985; January 21
(Night), May 20, June 10 and July 15, 1987.
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of May 20, 1987, from page 8 to the end.
He found them satisfactory and offered motion for approval. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way~
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Drainage problem at the end of
West Pine Drive in Westwoods Subdivision, discussion of. Memorandum from Mro
Guy B. Agnor, Jr., dated September 2, 1987, received as follows:
"At your August 12, 1987, meeting you requested staff to review the
request by Mr. Edward Allen, in Westwoods Subdivision, regarding a
stormwater drainage problem. You asked that staff determine who is
responsible for correcting the problem aqd how the problem can be
addressed.
BACKGROUND
A 20 foot stormwater drainage and walkway easement currently exists
between lots 26 and 27 in Westwoods Subdivision. The easement
provides pedestrian access for residents to the Blue Ridge Swim Club
property and provides the natural outfall for stormwater from West
Pines Drive. Erosion from the stormwater runoff is occurring within
the easement.
RESPONSIBILITY OF MAINTENANCE
The County Attorney has reviewed this matter and advises that the
legal responsibility for the correctio~ of the erosion problem rests
with the owner(s) of lots 26 and 27. He further states that if it is
determined that the current erosion is lan environmental threat to the
general welfare, then public funds could be used as a r~nedy, ann if
so used, the County would need to be w~lling to undertake correction
of similar situations.
193
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (5)
RECOMMENDATION
This type of improvement and maintenance is not normally provided by
the County and to do so would set a precedent for future improvements
of this nature throughout the County. Maintenance of the drainage
easement is clearly the responsibility of the property owner.
Staff is of the opinion that the maintenance of the walkway easement
is the responsibility of the property owners and/or users of the
easement for a walkway. If use of the walkway easement is a problem
for the property owners of lots 26 and 27, they may elect to petition
the Board for a public process to vacate the pedestrian easement~"
Letter dated August 25, 1987, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., from Mr.
George R~ St. John, received as follows:
"Re: Westwoods Subdivision (Allen) Drainage & Erosion Problem
I was asked to determine who is legally responsible for correcting
the captioned erosion problem.
My opinion is based upon the following facts: When this subdivision
was created, the streets along with certain drainage easements were
shown on the plat and were dedicated to public use. Among those
drainage easements was the one on which this erosion is occurring.
The erosion is occurring totally within the easement. The easement
lies on each side of the boundary between lots 26 and 27, (the
servient tenements) and serves to allow water to drain off the
secondary road at the cul-de-sac (the highway being the dominant
tenement). This cul-de-sac and its outlet road are now part of the
state secondary system. This analysis will address the responsibility
of the owners of the servient lots, the YDH&T, and the County.
The recorded plat of Westwoods clearly shows the easement. This
means that in order to induce the VDH&T to agree to accept 'the roads
into the secondary system, and thus to induce the County to approve
the plat, the developer committed lots 26 and 27 to receive and
accept runoff over the easement in question. It also means that
purchasers of these two lots were charged with notice that this
commitment or obligation had been placed on those two lots. Those
purchasers now stand in the shoes of the developer who placed that
obligation on the lots in the first place, because the easement runs
with the land. The developer himself would not be heard to complain
that runoff is being funnelled over those lots because that is
exactly what the easement was created for and it was he, the developer,
who put it there° He would be left to his own devices to deal with
the runoff as best he could, if he still owned the lots. And since
the present owners stand precisely in the developer'si shoes, legally,
then the conclusion is obvious° They have the responsibility of
dealing with this problem.
Thus it follows that VDH&T has no duty to provide a remedy - it is
doing exactly what the easement gives it the right to do. There is
one qualification here: if YDH&T has designed or constructed its
facilities in a negligent or substandard manner, it would be liable
for damages despite the easement. But there appears to be no evidence
of this. The damage appears to be the result of the ~act the easement
is simply being used as it was intended.
The County has no legal responsibility to correct or pay for correcting
this situation. Expenditure of public funds to remedy this private
problem would in my judgement be legally questionable, unless the
governing body feels the problem is so recurring as to present an
environmental threat to the general welfare and is willing to undertake
corrections of all similar situations."
When Mr. Agnor finished summarizing the memoranda, Mr, Way asked for
questions from the Board members. ~%ere were no questions. Mr. Way then
194
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)~
(Page 6)
asked Mr. Edward P. Allen, Jr., owner of Lot 26 to come forward and address
the Board. '
Mr. Allen said he looked at the Statement of Restrictions, Covenants and
Conditions that applies to Lot 26, and he discovered in a declaration made by
the developer, which is contained in the Statement, that he is not responsible
for the maintenance of any utility or drainage service easement. He said
since this is one of the conditions under which he bought his lot, he is under
no obligation to maintain the easement under discussion. Mr. Allen said an
exception would be if the State Highway Department constructed the culvert in
a substandard manner, making them responsible for maintenance~ In addition,
the drainage easement at issue has no support structures, the rip-rap ends at
ten feet, and no channel exists except the natural one created by the water-
flow. Mr. Allen then quoted from a letter dated July 9, 1987, from Mr. Thomas
B. Trevillian, Civil Engineer for the Countyi~of Albemarle, which stated that
installation of any of the solutions to the drainage problem outlined in the
letter, is of vital importance to insure that the ditch functions properly.
Mr. Allen said if he is forced by the County,s inaction to correct the problem,
he has two alternatives: !) spend the money to make the ditch stable for 200
feet; 2) lower the waterflow onto his loto He said County regulations do not
state that he has to accept drainage at full volume and full velocity onto his
property. His solution would be to dam up the culvert that stops at the edge
of his property, just allowing for a small pipe to drain off the water. Con-
cluding, Mr. Allen said he feels it was a mistake for the County and the State
Highway Department to accept this drainage ditch without a cement culvert
since the other drainage areas in the Westwoods Subdivision all have cement
culverts.
Mro Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if Mr. iAllen has the right to close off
or restrict the drainage ditch on his proper~y. Mr. St. John said assuming
that the drainage structures installed by th~ State Highway Department are not
substandard and are not maintained in a negl%gent or substandard manner, Mr.
Allen does not have the legal right to block-the easement, since this is the
purpose of the easement. The legal effect of the easement is that it gives
the State Highway Department, the dominant tSnant, the right to do exactly
what it is doing. However, assuming that the drainage structures were or have
become defective, the defects should be corrected by the State Highway Depart-
ment for whose benefit they exist. If the S~ate Highway Department will not
correct the defects, the means of self-help Qpen to the "victim" of the defect
is to dam up the culvert; however, ultimately this will become a legal matter
for a judge to decide. In addition, the disclaimer made by the developer and
passed onto the property o%~er means that no outside authority (the State
Highway Department or the County) can force the developer or his successors to
repair or maintain the drainage ditch; it also does not mean that Mr. Allen
can tell the County that it must maintain the ditch. In analyzing the Countyms
legal responsibility concerning the easement,. Mr. Sto John said he does not
believe Mr. Trevillian's letter has any effect or changes the legal posture of
any of the parties involved. In addition, Mr. St~ John said he does not
believe the walkway bestows any benefit to the public, and there would be no
detriment to the public if the walkway were abandoned or closed.
Mrs. Cooke asked when the easement was approved. Mr. Agnor said the
walkway was approved in 1976 when the subdivision was created. Mr. St. John
said the Westwoods walkway is a part of the State Highway system and any
member of the public can use itl there is no language in the restrictions
mentioning the walkway, it just appears as a walkway easement. Mr. Allen said
he is not as concerned with the walkway as he is with the drainage problem,
except as a liability matter if someone gets hurt while using the walkway.
Mro Lindstrom asked Mr. Roosevelt if the' drainage structure is built to
standards. Mr. Roosevelt replied that there is a big outlet ditch which lets
out into the easement; the other drainage ditches which run around the end of
the cul-de-sac to the outlet point are paved and open into the easement where
the water flows out. Mr. Lindstrom asked why;this particular drainage ditch
is different from the others. Mr. Roosevelt replied that he has not looked at
the other drainage ditches so he does not know whether the grades are greater
than the one under discussion, but he believes it was felt this one did not
need to be paved because erosion would not bela problem. He said it appears
when the drainage ditch was constructed, there was some grading done and this
may be why it is eroding. Mr. Bowie asked if a paved ditch was not construc-
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (7)
ted because of the walkway. Mr. Roosevelt said if it was felt a paved ditch
was needed, it would have been constructed that way.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Highway Department plans to do anything about
the matter. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department does not see the
easement as its maintenance responsibility. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any
Highway Department or subdivision plan requirement concerning the paving of
the ditch was not complied with. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway DepartmentTM
responsibility regarding nmintenance was unclear until 1983, when the policy
was firmed up. Under this policy, the Highway Department has no authority or
responsibility to set requirements as to how an easement is constructed beyond
the point where it maintains its right-of-way. Based on the figures Mr.
Trevillian developed, Mr. Michael Armm said he does not expect that any kind
of lining would have been required for this ditch. It appears the calculation
match those done in 1976 and based on this, there was reason to believe that
high erosion would not occur through this channel° Mr. Roosevelt said the
approved subdivision plans on file in his office do not list a requirement for
paving the entire length of the ditch, although some rip-rap was required.
Mr. Bowie said he knows of instances when water was a problem, but the
problem was corrected by either the developer or the property owner. He
agrees with Mr~ St. John's letter where it states the County has no legal
responsibility to correct or pay for correcting the problem. Mr. Lindstrom
said he has had similar problems in his district. It would be easy for the
County to correct this particular problem, but what will happen when similar
problems develop in the future° He feels that private developers benefiting
from their projects should continue to be required to correct these types of
problems. Mrs. Cooke said she was personally involved inthis type of situa-
tion and even after going to court, she had to pay quite a bit of money to
repair something she thought was the Highway Department'slresponsibility.
Mr. Way asked if the Board members wanted to take any action on this
issue. Mrs. Cooke said she has no problem with abandoning the walkway. Mr.
St~ John said this would compound Mr. Allen's problem. Mr. Bowie said the
walkway is for the benefit of the swim club. Mr. St. John said he believes
the owner of the club does not want the walkway. Mro Lindstrom said the
procedure would be to notify the adjoining property owners and the swim club
of a public hearing to abandon the walkway. Mr. Keeler said the walkway is
used by children to get to Westwoods; that the swim club has its own access
off of Owensville Road. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Allen must present a
petition for the abandonment. Mr. Sto John replied no. Mr. Allen said
abandoning the easement on paper will probably not stop t~e children from
using the walkway. Mr. Lindstrom said if the drainage ditch erosion is
affecting the swim club's water, they might be willing to'help Mr. Allen have
the problem corrected. He said he would be willing to have a public hearing
scheduled if Mr. Allen requested it.
There was no further discussion and no motion was made.
Mr. Lindstrom said he received a call from Mrs. Peggy Fitzgerald, of
Lambs Road, and he asked about the status of correcting a _drainage problem at
this location. Mr. Roosevelt said the Ivy Oaks Subdivision is being prepared
for addition 'to the system. As a part of the final inspection, it was deter-
mined that a pipe had been improperly installed in a ditch where it was not
needed. He spoke with Mrs. Fitzgerald and informed her t~at the ditch will
regraded so the water flows back into the subdivision and~not toward the pipe
that outlets towards her house.
Mr. Lindstrom said there are at least three acceleration/deceleration
lanes on Owensville Road, between Garth Road and Route 250 West, that are
quite treacherous, particularly on wet, rainy nights, because the road is not
marked with center lines. He asked if it is possible to mark these roads
lines. Mr. Roosevelt said if a road does not already have a center lins,
normally it is too narrow to support center lines and edge lines. He said he
will look at the particular turnlanes to determine if delineators can be
installed where the turnlanes end. Mr. Lindstrom asked if in the future it
would be possible to require a developer to install lines on deceleration
lanes.
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Lindstrom said there are two roads intersecting in a triangle at the
airport that have no yield signs, and it is quite dangerous. Mr~ Roosevelt
said the approaches were poorly designed, but each approach is marked with
signs and the pavement has been marked with center lines than show which road
has the right-of-way. He feels, however, that the signs and center lines may
be too sophisticated for the average person. He said the best solution might
be to rebuild the intersection under discussion, which could be included in
the revision of the Six-Year Plano Mr. Roosevelt said he will check the sign
system at the location. Mro Lindstrom suggested that a "Dangerous Inter-
section" sign be installed.
Mr. Bowie said on the City side of the Route 20 stoplight going into the
City, a slow moving truck backed up traffic through the stoplight. At this
point he thought the newly constructed road was to be marked with two lanes
going up the hill, but the lanes are not delineated (Route 250 Bypass). Mr.
Roosevelt said the road was supposed to be marked, but it is under the City's
jurisdiction to mark and maintain.
(Mr. Henley arrived at 9:48 A. M.)
Agenda Item No. 7. Lane Babe Ruth Baseball League, request from Mr.
Ronald G. Dimberg, President of the League. iA letter dated August 24, 1987,
requesting financial assistance brought thislmatter to the Board. The letter
is on file in the Clerk's office.
Mr. Dimberg said in addition to requesting financial assistance, he
wanted to advise the Board that the facilities are used by other community
groups, and the field is used to maximum capacity whenever possible° The
request for assistance is to maintain the facility in a way that would benefit
the whole community° Substantial damages occurred last winter when First
Night Virginia (FNV) used the field for a fireworks display. The damage was
repaired by League volunteers before play could start in the spring. Mrs.
Cooke asked if FNV paid a fee to use the field. Mr. Dimberg replied that no
one ever pays a fee. The normal procedure is for the County Parks and Recrea-
tion Department to request permission for an organization to use the field,
but this did not happen in the case of FNV. Mrs. Cooke said she feels any use
of the field should require a fee, and FNV should have paid for the damages.
She then asked who else uses the field. Mr.:Dimberg replied that the Albe-
marle High School JV Baseball Team uses the field on a permanent basis, and
the cosns for this use are rising. Mrs° Cooke asked if any of the other
teams using the field for tournaments pay a feed Mr. Dimberg replied that a
modest fee is charged ($25.00 per team). He said some requests to use the
field are turned down, but generally most requests are granted and no fee is
charged° Mrs~ Cooke suggested that a fee be charged due to the maintenance
problems, and anyone who has a need to use the field should be willing to pay
a fee.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the League owns the field. Mr. Agnor replied that
it is owned by the County. Mr. Bowie said since the property belongs to the
County he is not sure that a fee should be charged. At this time, Mr. Agnor
gave a brief history of the acquisition and use of the field. Mr. Lindstrom
said since the school system contributes wear and tear to the facilities, it
might be something to check out. Mr. Bowie said since the field is owned by
the County, electric usage should be billed to the County and the League can
reimburse it, thus lowering the cost for electric usage°
Mrs. Cooke asked if a standard contract is signed by anyone using the
field, particularly in the case of FNV. Mro Agnor said an agreement is
signed, which sets a fee and spells out responsibilities. Re believes that
FNV would be willing to pay for damage repair if it were is brought to their
attention° Mr. Dimberg said the repairs did not cost any money, just an
enormous amount of time. Mr. Lindstrom said that the Board should consider
Mr. Bowie's suggestion and staff should look at the School Division's use of
the facilities to assess the wear and tear contributed by it. Mr. Agnor said
since the property is county-owned, there should be no problem in having the
electricity put in the County's name.
Mr. Lindstrom made a motion to have the Lane Babe Ruth Baseball League's
electricity usage billed to the County and for the Baseball League to
September .9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (9)
reimburse the County for this usage. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher
Roll
Agenda Item No. 8. Bond Rating, discussion of.
Mr. Agnor briefly summarized his memorandum of July 30, 1987, which
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 a 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 leveliof service to
its citizens plus the historic 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 beginning 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) are:
Financial Advisors
Printing
Rating Agencies Charges
Total
$12 to $15,000
6 to 8,000
10 to 12~000
$28 to $35,000"
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the financial advisors' charge is for the rating
bureaus. Mr. Agnor replied this would be a separate agency, similar to a
counsel, as well as a financial agency that would act as an auditing firm.
Mr. Lindstrom said the information is very helpful, and it might be good to
recycle it when discussion of the Capital Improvements Program takes place
next year. ~
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: To amend the County Code to include
Section 8-1.6 providing for the assessment of new buildings substantially
completed. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 25 and September 1,
1987.)
Mr. Agnor reminded the Board that this ordinance replaces a policy on
this procedure which has been in effect in Albemarle County since 1964, and is
required by a recent amendment to the Virginia Code.
The public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke,
to adopt the following ordinance. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr~ Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE 1
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE BY ADDING A
SECTION 8-1.6 TO PROVIDE FOR THE ASSESSMENT
OF NEW BUILDINGS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED
BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Chapter 8 of the Code of Albemarle is hereby amended
and reenacted to include the following new section:
Sec. 8-1.6 -- Assessment of new buildings substantially completed.
All new buildings substantially completed or fit for use,
occupancy and enjoyment prior to November 1 of the year of completion
shall be assessed when so completed or fit for use and occupancy, and
the director of finance shall enter in the books the fair market
value of such building° No partial assessment as provided herein
shall become effective until information as to the date and amount of
such assessment is recorded in the office of the director of finance
and made available for public inspection. The total tax on any such
new building for that year shall be the sum of (i) the tax upon the
assessment of the completed building, computed according to the ratio
which the portion of the year such building is substantially completed
or fit for use and occupancy bears to the entire year. With respect
to any assessment under this section after September 1 of any year,
the penalty for nonpayment by December 5 shall be extended to
February 5 of the succeeding year.
(Note: At 10:20 A.M., the Board recessed. The meeting reconvened at
10:23 A~M.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Request to amend the service areas of the Albemarle
County Service Authority for water only, from Yancey Lumber Company at Yancey's
Mill. A letter dated August 20, 1987, from Mrs. Sarah Yancey May, received as
follows, brought this matter before the Board:
"On March 10, 1985, we sustained a $300,000.00+ loss due to fire.
The above loss was only for equipment; the tz~e loss was much greater
because it took us 6 months to become operational again and 6 more
months to work the bugs out. This resulted not only in loss of
profits but more importantly loss of employees who were no longer
needed until the sawmill could operate again. This traumatic experi-
ence forced us to search for ways to prevent a recurrence of this
magnitude in the future. We have come to the conclusion a sprinkler
system could help prevent another major loss due to fire.
On August 14th, we, again, had a fire which was kept under control
because it took place during working hours. On August 15, 1987, in
the early morning hours, another fire broke out that resulted in
shutting down the planing mill operation~ until the damaged equipment
can either be repaired or replaced. Thel same conclusion has been
reached that we must be able to install ~ sprinkler system.
We are indeed fortunate to have the Crozet Fire Department which has
responded in each case in a timely manner and has done a fine job,
but they cannot respond until they are notified. The fire company
has to either tank water into the mill or lay line across Rt. 797 and
Rt. 250 backing up traffic. They would have difficulty in having
enough hoses to reach the planer mill and then the water pressure
would not be near the capacity needed. We need more immediate pro-
tection. To achieve this protection of a sprinkler system, we must
have available public water as well water would not insure an uninter-
rupted supply in the event the electrical power was lost during fire.
199
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (11)
As a case in point, all power was shut down by VEPCO during the fire
in 1985.
We ask the Board of Supervisors to favorably consider our request
that the jurisdictional area for the service authority be amended to
allow water service only to R. A. Yancey Lumber Corp. Having water
avai%able will enable us to install a storage tank and a sprinkler
system to help prevent a major loss from fire."
Memorandum dated September 3, 1987, from Mr. John T. P. Horne, was
received as follows:
"This Department has spoken to representatives of Yancey Lumber
Company concerning the request to extend the ACSA jurisdictional
boundary for water only to two parcels located on Rt, 250 at Yancey
Mills. The Lumber Company is an established industry in the County
and is appropriately zoned at this location~ Water service is
relatively nearby along Rt. 797 or Rt. 250 to the north and east of
this property° Staff has toured the property with representatives of
the Lumber Company and can verify that without internal water service
fire fighting at some portions of this site would be!difficult.
The Comprehensive Plan generally supports the continned vitality of
existing industries in the County. Based on the letter submitted by
Mrs. May which describes a history of fire fighting problems at this
site, it appears that water service for fire fighting purposes to
this site would be a significant benefit to this existing industry.
There may be less danger of a significant precedent if water were to
be extended to these parcels in that the extension would be to an
existing industrial use and, therefore, would not be~a speculative
extension.
Should the Board decide to conduct a public hearing, staff will
conduct further research and prepare a staff report for the public
hearing. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Mr. Agnor briefly summarized the memorandum and made reference to Mrs.
May's letter. He said a more detailed report will be prepared if a public
hearing is scheduled.
Mrs. Sarah Yancey May said she received a letter from the Crozet Fire
Department expanding the reasons why it would be helpful for Yancey Lumber
Company to have access to public water. She then reiterated Yancey's request
for public water for fire protection because combustible material causes a
fire to expand rapidly.
Mr. Bowie asked Mrs. May how many fires have occurred. Mrs. May replied
more than the three referenced in her letter, at least fi~e. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if this is characteristic of a lumber operation. Mfrs. May said yes.
Mrs. Cooke asked what surrounds location of the lumberyard. Mrs. May replied
that there are a few residences and some forested areas adjacent to the
property. '
Mr. Henley said because of dust created by the operation of the plant, it
is easy to start a fire. In addition, insurance rates are high because water
is not readily available. Mr. Henley said he supports the request.
Motion was offered by Mr~ Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to set a
public hearing on this request for October 14, 1987. Rol~ was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
2OO
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Agenda Item No. 11. Open Burning Ordinance, discussion of. Memorandum
dated September 2, 1987, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., was received as follows:
"At your August 12 meeting you asked staff to provide you with
options for the disposal of leaves located within the urban area,
should an ordinance prohibiting the burning of leaves be adopted.
The Engineering staff has prepared an analysis for leaf and brush
disposal and developed cost estimates for their implementation. (See
report dated August 31, 1987, from Michael Ho Armm, County Engineer,
entitled "Leaf Collection/Brush Burning - Urban Area," which is on
file in the Clerk's office.)
LEAF AND BRUSH DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
In preparing their analysis, the Engineering Department reviewed leaf
collection service in four different localities in Virginia. Two of
the four composted leaves and two transported them to their landfills
for disposal. Loose leaf collection by vacuum was provided by all
four localities, while two localities also provide bagged leaves
pickup. Ail four localities have existing public works depar~nentso
It is staff opinion that should an ordinance be adopted to prohibit
leaf burning, leaf collection should be provided by leaf vacuum
equipment rather than by bagged leaf collection. A site for the
disposal and composting of leaves and brush should be provided within
five miles of the urban area fringe outside of any drinking water
impoundment watershed.
ASSOCIATED COSTS
The attached report from the Engineering Department provides a cost
analysis based upon a private contractor providing the service. The
approximate cost to a typical single-family detached household is
estimated to be $25 annually for leaf collection. The cost analysis
includes composting site, labor, equipment, overhead and profit
assuming a private contractor is to provide the service.
RECOMMENDATION ~
During one of the Board's public hearings on leaf and brush burning
prohibition, concern was expressed regarding larger tracts of land
located within the urban area, and the {mpact of requiring those
property owners to dispose of their lea~es and brush in some manner
other than by burning. There are two methods by which this concern
could be addressed: ~
Amend the leaf and brush burning County iCode Sections to reflect the
State Air Pollution Control Board regulations which are generally:
- Leaf burning must meet a minimum setback of 300 feet from a structure
unless prior permission is granted by the owner of the property.
- Brush burning must meet a minimum setback of 500 feet from a
structure unless prior permission has been given;
OR
Encourage residents from subdivisions where burning leaves is a
problem to petition the Board of Supervisors under County Code
Section 9-23.2 to ban all open burning of leaves in such area.
Should the Board of Supervisors choose to prohibit all open burning
of leaves and brush in the urban area, staff would recommend the
following:
Direct staff to develop specifications f~r Request for Proposals
(RFP) and solicit proposals from the private sector to provide leaf
collection and report those findings at your January 13, 1988,
meeting;
.201
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (13)
Direct. staff to prepare a study of alternative site locations for
leaf and/or brush disposal within reasonable proximity of the urban
area for your January 13, 1988, meeting;
Request area state legislators to sponsor legislation which would
allow Albemarle County to impose a service district tax on those
individ~als who receive leaf and brush collection services. This
is recommended in the event that the private sector does not provide
the service."
Mrs. Cooke asked if the report lists on the fee charged by local private
collectors. Mr. Agnor said no; however, private collectors were contacted
about their interest in providing a leaf collection service, and only one
response was positive. He said from prior personal experience, he knows
contractors charge by the load, and this fee depends on the number of loads
picked up and the size of the vehicle used. He has no current knowledge
fees. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a site has been decided on for leaf disposal.
Mr. Agnor said no, this was not pursued because staff was not certain there
was a need for this. He said in speaking with City officials, it was i
that the City showed moderate interest in examining the program. Mr. Henley
asked if one of the rock quarries could be used as a leaf disposal site. Mr.
Agnor said yes.
Mro Way said he is in receipt of a petition, with approximately 20
signatures, that encourages the Board to pass an ordinance prohibiting leaf
burning. Mrs. Cooke said the petition comes from the Solomon Road/Bennington
Road area, which is an area that is seriously affected byileaf burning in the
fall.
Mr. Bowie asked if citizens in subdivisions can petition to prohibit
burning. Mr. Agnor said yes, noting this section of the Code has been in
effect for almost ten years, but has never been used. Mr~ Lindstrom asked if
this is done on a subdivision-by-subdivision request basis, would enough
business be generated to provide a feasible disposal mechanism. If leaf
burning is prohibited, citizens must have some option to dispose of the
leaves. Mro Agnor replied that staff feels this would be handled by existing
businesses which already provide this type of service for a fee. He does not
believe anyone would go into the vacuum collection busineSs unless there was
significant need for it, since this type of business requires a large capital
investment and is seasonal in nature. ~
Mro Lindstrom asked if owners of large tracts of land, on a case-by-case
basis, could be allowed to burn debris under controlled cdnditions and after
specific review of the request. Mr. Henley said owners with large tracts of
land usually have their own compost piles. Mr. Bowie said the Board has held!
two public hearings recently and only three people spoke, two were in favor ofl
allowing burning and~one was against. Mrs. Cooke said the person who spoke
for burning has a large tract of land within the urban area° She does not
believe he Us opposed to an ordinance that bans burning, but asked what could
be done to allow burning of leaves and debris on his own property.
Mrs. Cooke said the issue has arisen because of probiems in subdivisions
where residences are close together and lots are small. She believes the best
way to deal with the problem would be on a subdivision-by'subdivisi°n request
~ e
basis, with the majority of property owners supporting Lh~ request for a ban.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned because some subdivisians are close togethe
The smoke will not stay within the boundaries of a particular subdivision and
this will create problems on the fringe of the urban area.~
Mr. Bowie said he would support the burning ban on a subdivision-by-
subdivision basis instead of imposing the ban on the entire urban area. In
the future if a certain percentage of small neighborhoods ~in an area request
the ban, then perhaps the whole area could be so designated. Mrs. Cooke said
she believes homeowners' associations will have to get together to designate
areas for the ban. She said the Board should consider th~ petition before
it, and she suggested that a public hearing be scheduled Eased on the petitior
to include adjoining subdivisions and/or property owners s~rrounding the one
requesting the ban.
202
Sept~nber 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. St. John said he believes a map must be made up or the subdivisions
that will be affected by the ban must be specifically named. Mrs. Cooke
agreed with him. Mr. Bowie asked how many people live in Hessian Hills versus
the number of people who signed the petition. Mr. Lindstrom said he believes
about ten percent of the residents signed the petition. Mrs. Cooke asked if
this number is sufficient to initiate a public hearing. Mr. Bowie said he is
concerned because he does not think anyone knew the request for a public
hearing would come up at this meeting. He asked if more signatures could be
obtained on the petition. He said he does support the petition; however, this
is only 19 signatures in support of a ban in the entire urban area. He said
if a significant number of people in the Hessian Hills area signed the
petition, he would be more supportive of a public hearing.
Mr. Way asked if it would be worthwhile for the County to send a letter
to possible interested parties to inform them'of the method available to
request a ban on burning. Mr. Bowie said he does not believe that most people
are aware of this option. Mrs. Cooke suggested that the people interested in
affecting the ban in the Hessian Hills area circulate the petition to obtain
more signatures so a public hearing can be initiated. She also suggested that
a letter be sent to all homeowners' associations in the urban area advising
them of the options available to residents of subdivisions.
Mrs. Cooke asked if public comments will, be heard today. Mr. Way said
this is not a public hearing. There was no further discussion.
Agenda Item No. 12. County-Wide Dog "Leash" Law, discussion of. Staff
Report dated September 3, 1987, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., follows:
"BACKGROUND
At your August 12 meeting you requested staff to study a county-wide
leash law, and a leash law for the urban area, with cost analysis on
each; consider a requirement of liability insurance; study license
rates charged in the county, solicit comments from trainers, breeders;
define a vicious dog, and evaluate Augusta County's operation.
As a result of your request, there have been meetings mnong the
Animal Control officers, Police Chief, County Attorney and Deputy
County Bxecutive for Public Safety. TheCe have been conversations
with breeders, trainers, the National Humane Society, and the Augusta
County Administrator's office.
CURRENT OPERATIONS
In Order to establish a beginning point, the following describes the
current operation:
There are two Animal Control officers that respond to calls based on
a priority system of biting dogs, rabid animals, dogs destroying
property, stray dogs and license/vaccination checks as time allows.
The two officers each travel 2500 miles per month and respond to an
average of 15 20 complaints per day, and up to 40 50 per day
during a rabies scare. The recent concerns about rabies and pit
bulls has created a back log of calls which has not allowed any time
for license/rabies checks. (At least one day per week between the
two officers should be allocated to license and vaccination checks.
According to health authorities, the most effective control of rabies
is an effective vaccination program with proper enforcement, and the
best enforcement is periodic checks on owners.)
Currently the two officers work five days per week from 8 a.m. to 5
p.m. They are on call at night and on weekends° Emergency calls are
frequent. The average amount of overtime results in compensatory
time off for each officer of approximate!y four days per month.
The current cost of the Animal Control oPeration is slightly under
$60,000, with revenues from license and kennel fees of $23,000.
Current license rates are $5 for females land males, and $3 for
neutered or spayed, $15 for kennels up to 20 dogs, and $25 for
kennels up to 50 dogs.
2O5
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (17)
Adopt Augusta County ordinance - requires one additional officer
(reactive enforcement) or four additional officers (proactive
enforcement).
Staff has not prepared draft ordinances for your review until an
alternative has been considered and selected. Depending upon the
alternative selected, the Board may also elect to consider amending
County ordinances on tag and kennel license fees to-fund, in part,
additional staff and related expenses. State Code limits dog
licenses to $10 for each dog, regardless of category (County license
is $5 for male or female, $3 for neutered or spayed), and $50 for any
block of kennels, with kennels being allowed to be blocked by 10, 20,
30, 40, or 50 dogs (County license is $15 up to 20 dogs, $25 up to 50
dogs). Currently the County has issued 2200 licenses for male and
female dogs, 2000 licenses for neutered or spayed dogs, 147 licenses
for kennels up to 20 dogs, and 11 licenses for up to 50 dogs. The
various combinations prevent making reasonable esti~mates of revised
license fee revenues until some selection of changes in the current
fees are made, but it is obvious that the current fees are less than
half of the State allowed maximum, and no matter what combination of
fees are considered, the revenues will not fund the enforcement costs.
Staff will answer any questions this report generates, and respond
with recommendations if requested." ~
Mr. Lindstrom asked if charges are set with sensitivity to getting
to comply with the ordinance, and if charges are raised,%will there be less
compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Agnor said because of an increased work-
load, time constraints and availability of manpower, it has not been.possible
to do a door-to-door check for compliance with the ordinance, nor has it been
possible to enforce the ordinance the way it should be done. However, with an
additional officer, the area-by-area checks would be reinstituted. Mr.
Lindstrom asked how the $5 and $3 fees were set. Mr. Ag~or replied that the
Board set the fees approximately two years ago, at the request of the Voices
for Animals. Mr. Lindstrom asked why the limit is $5. Mr. Agnor replied
when the fee was adopted, this was the limit allowed to ~e imposed.
Mr. Bowie asked why when a dog warden picks up a dos and takes it to the
SPCA, the County's cost cannot be recovered for this. Mr. St. John said it is
not necessary to calculate the actual time the dog warde~ spends apprehending
a dog, but there must be a rational basis to determine thD fine. Mr.
said it may be possible to figure the average cost of apprehending a dog; that
the County does not want to discourage people from pickin~ up their dogs. Mr.
Bowie said if a dog has a license, there is no choice about picking it up
because the money is owed to the County. Mr. Agnor said if the dog is
licensed, the Animal Control Officer delivers the dog back to the owner. In
the case of an unlicensed animal, it is taken to the SPCAi, vaccinated, and is
held there until claimed. When the owner picks up the dog, the vaccination
and boarding fees are paid and the animal is licensed, bu~. there is no fee for
apprehending the dog or taking it to the shelter.
Mr. Way said the Board has received several letters supporting a county-
wide leash ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said one of the letters concerns a dog
who lives in a subdivision that is not covered by a leash:law. He said he
gets frustrated with the notion of enacting a county-wideileash law when the
County Code already has a provision to deal with this type of situation. He
believes if a dog is picked up and the cost to recover it is substantial,
owners will do something to avoid the occurrence.
Mr. Henley said he can support something like that. Mr. Bowie said this
seems fair to him. Mrs. Cooke asked for confirmation that there is no fee
charged when a licensed dog is picked up and it is taken directly to the owner
by the dog warden. Mr. Agnor replied affirmatively. Mrs. Cooke said this is
something the Board needs to address. Mr. Agnor said often a summons is
issued for a violation when the dog is returned to its owner; there are no
fees charged, but charges are made for a violation of the law. Mr. Bowie
there must be someway to collect a fee for the time and money expended. Mr.
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Agnor said fees are only collected by the Finance Department, in the County
Office Building.
Mr. Lindstrom asked staff to draw up a report as to approximate costs for
a collection fee, and how this fee would be most effectively and efficiently
administered. He does not support a county-wide leash law; part of the
problem is that people do not understand what their rights are under the
current law. For instance, one of the letters states a dog warden informed a
citizen that 90 percent of the people in a subdivision are needed to support a
leash law. He said this is not true; he thought the Board was only requiring
that 51 percent of the residents need petition to have a public hearing
scheduled on a leash law for that subdivision~
Mr. St. John read a portion of the vicious dog ordinance. He said a dog
does not have to bite someone once or twice to be deemed a vicious dog. If
the dog has evidenced a disposition to attack human beings without provocation,
it is a criminal offense to keep the dog unless it is confined. If the dog is
not confined, it then becomes a misdemeanor with a $1,000 fine or 30 days in
jail, or both. In addition, the dog may be impounded until such time as the
owner can provide evidence of some provision to keep the dog confined. He
said nuisance dogs running at-large and vicious dogs should not be dealt with
as one problem. The vicious dog ordinance prOvides an adequate remedy for the
vicious dog problem. Mr. St. John stated that the Board car~lot enforce
ordinances, and cannot enact any ordinance which guarantees that a judge will
administer a severe enough penalty to suit the Board and the victims of dog
bites. In addition, the Board cannot enact an ordinance which involves the
County to an extent where the person who is bitten can remain totally unin-
volved in the enforcement process; that is, the victim does not have to appear
in court or swear out a warrant. If that person is unwilling to get involved,
the Board can do nothing.
Mr. Bowie said one letter stated a person was bitten by a dog, the dog
was picked up, the parties went to court, andithe owner was ordered to keep
the dog confined and did not. He said someone must now complain again, but to
the proper authorities. Mr. St. John said another warrant must be issued for
the violation; this time, it will be deemed a~second offense and presumably a
more severe penalty will be levied, but the B~ard cannot usurp the functions
of the judicial branch. Mr. Bowie said no one can do a thing unless someone
identifies the dog and the owner and lodges a complaint. Mr. St. John said
this applies to vicious dogs; however, concer~ing the leash law, the dog
warden can enforce this without a complaint b~cause he sees the offense
himself whenever he sees a dog running loose,i
Mr. Lindstrom said he would personally support the addition of an animal
control officer, with some expenses defrayed by a fee related to the collec-
tion of the dogs. He would consider a leash law in the growth communities of
the County because of the growing population densities in these communities.
Outside of these areas, property owners in subdivisions have the option to
request the Board to adopt a leash law for a particular subdivision. He said
the cost of properly enforcing a county-wide leash law would be prohibitive or
the law would be irrelevant.
Mr. Bowie said he g~nerally agrees with ~r. Lindstrom. However, he takes
exception to inclusion of all the growth area~ under a leash law without some
evidence from the majority of the people thatithey want a leash law.
Mrs. Cooke suggested that a clarificatio~ or update be sent to homeowners'
associations concerning the County's present Bog ordinances, along with the
information on the ban on burning. She said she supports the addition of
another animal control officer, and an increase of fees, including a fee for
collection and return of a dog to an owner.
Mr. Henley said he will not support an increase in ~le license fee, since
all owners will be charged because of the peoDle who are creating the problem.
Mr. Lindstrom and Mrs. Cooke both said they did not speak of increasing the
license fee. Mrs. Cooke said she was speaking of collection fees and the
costs involved in returning dogs in violation of the ordinance.
Mr. Way said he agrees with what has bee~ said. In addition, he is
willing to consider the possibility of a leash law within the growth area if
2_.07
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (19)
that is the desire of the Board. If so, then a public hearing should be
scheduled for that purpose. If not, staff should be instructed to draw up a
report concerning the suggestions that have been made.
Mr. Bowie said he wanted to clarify that he would be willing to consider
a county-wide leash law if there is evidence that a majority of the people
want it. Mr. Way said this would be the purpose of a public hearing. Mrs.
Cooke asked if it would be possible to include the announcement of the public
hearing in the information packet to the homeowners' associations. Mr.
Lindstrom said the ordinance must have a very specific designation of the
territory where it will apply. He asked if it has to be more specific than
"as shown on such and such a map." Mr. St. John said a map is the most
specific way to do this° Mr. Lindstrom said to have a metes and bounds
designation will be a great deal of work for staff. To do all this work just
to have a hearing to test a law is not practical. He said this work should
not be done until it is likely that the Board will enact this ordinance. Mr.
Way said there seems to be a fair amount of interest in this subject, and
there has been no public hearing on it.
Mr~ Lindstrom then offered motion to: (1) indicate support of an addi-
tional Animal Control officer, with the staff to provide whatever is needed to
incorporate this into the budget and hire that person; (2) staff to provide a
report on the average collection cost for animals picked up, and when that
data is available, it is to be the basis for the Board to adopt a charge as
part of its rate structure; (3) select date for public hearing to receive
public input on the idea of a "leash" law, without exception, in the urban
area of the County, the communities of Crozet and Hollymead, and the Village
of Scottsville. After some discussion about whether or not to set a date for
a public hearing, the date was set for November 4~ 1987. This motion was then
seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs° Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher~
Agenda Item No. 13. 911 System, discussion of enhanced system.
Mro Agnor then briefly summarized his memorandum of September 1, 1987,
received as follows:
"BACKGROUND
The Joint Dispatch Center Board has requested the County and City to
support the implementation of an Enhanced 911 or E 911 System. This
add-on system to the existing 911 service is a computer assisted
program which provides the call taker (dispatcher) with immediate
information regarding the number, and location of the telephone used
to dial 911, and directions to find the location of the caller.
Other benefits of the system are provided in the memorandum (on file)
from Michael Carroll.
COSTS AND TIMING
Staff has obtained from NACo, information of other localities who
have implemented an E 911 system and information from consultants who
have experience in developing these programs for localities. From
review of this information, it is evident that the deVelopment of an
E 911 system will involve a significant commitment of staff time and
funding for the County~
Approximate Costs - $618,000 Centel start-up
$250,000 County Locator system
$868,000 Total
$190,550 Annual ongoing/maintenance cost
Approximate Time Line - Two years
The Centel start-up costs are primarily for equipment and switching
systems costs. The locator system will involve completing a Master
2O8
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Address Guide and developing a geographic locator number to be
matched to each phone number in the County, The City will use
existing street names and building address numbers.
PROJECT FINANCING
Section 58.1-3813 of the State Code permits localities to impose a
surcharge on telephone users in order to defray the costs associated
with establishing an E 911 system. It has been estimated by the
Joint Dispatch Center that the surcharge necessary to fund the
start-up costs for Centel would be approximately $0°50 per month for
City and County users over a 24 month period. This does not include,
however, the $250,000 costs associated with developing the master
address and locater numbering system in the County~ When factoring
in this additional cost, County telephone users would be paying
approximately $0°85 per month over the 24 month implementation
period. Once the system was complete and on-line, the surcharge
would be reduced to cover only the ongoing maintenance and operation
of the system estimated to be approximately $0.30 per month for City
and County users.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors take the following
sequential actions:
Conduct a public hearing for a special telephone utility tax which
would be used to implement and operate an E 911 system. (The City
of Charlottesville has already held a hearing on this and agreed to
impose the tax subject to the County doing the same);
Request the Joint Dispatch Center Board, perhaps through an E 911
Task Force, to develop an E 911 Implementation Plan and schedule
for completion; ~
- Enter into an Agreement (along with the City of Charlottesville)
with Central Telephone Company - Centel - to establish an Enhanced
911 system."
Mr. Agnor asked Mr. Michael Carroll, Manager of the 911 Dispatch Center
explain an Enhanced 911 System. '
Mr. Carroll said the system provides for basic 911 service for the
majority of citizens in Albemarle County, with a few exceptions. The calls
made to 911 go to the dispatch office. Such a system is in place in most
municipalities in Virginia. Enhanced 911 makes a considerable difference for
emergency response people. When a call is received, it references a data
base a~d a printout lists the originating ~
telephone number, along with the
name of the subscriber and the location of th~ telephone. The data base can
be programmed to list additional pertinent information about a particular
location, such as: the home of a handicappedlor disabled person, a hazardous
materials location, instructions on the best route to a difficult location.
Another benefit of the Enhanced 911 system is it pinpoints a location even
if the caller is too distressed or does not know or cannot tell from where he
or she is calling. Mr. Carroll said he has worked with Centel to put together
the Enhanced 911 system, and it will take cooperation between Centel, the
City, the County and the University to make the system work. Centel is
willing to provide the Enhanced 911 system. The estimated cost for the system
is approximately $620~000; the system does not require a firm locator for it
to be implemented; however, some type of address reference information should
be programmed into the system, such as a master street address guide. He said
the Virginia State legislature, in a joint resolution, has suggested that all
localities go to the Enhanced 911 system, and the State Code provides for
municipalities to levy a surcharge on a utility bill to provide for implement-
ation and upkeep of such a system. Mr. Carroll recommended: 1) the Board
direct the Joint Dispatch Center Management Board to continue negotiations
with Centel to come up with a system that is reasonable, workable and econom-
ical to implement in the County and the City;.2) as soon as it is legal and
practicable, that money be allocated for the implementation of the system
through the enactment of a surcharge on a utility bill; 3) those concerned
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (21)
continue to work and develop the best kind of system for the County and the
City.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the County had a street identification project at one
time funded by a special grant. Mr. Tucker replied that it did not take place
because the County did not get the grant. Mr. Agnor said a system is in place
which numbers and nsmles the streets in subdivisions, but most areas of the
County have no system of location identification. Mr. Bowie said he assumes
public telephones would be covered by the system. Mr. Agnor confirmed this.
Mr. Carroll said all telephones for state, local and federal governments are
exempt from the surcharge, but they are included for service. Mr. Lindstrom
id he spoke with a person who felt the monies should be levied to general
revenue because everyone in the community would have access to the system
whether or not they had a telephone. He asked if staff had taken this into
consideration. Mr. Carroll said the process used nation- and state-wide is to
use a surcharge. Mr. Agnor said staff did not consider general taxes. Mrs.
Cooke asked if the enhanced system will allow personnel to trace the call to
where it is coming from, including crank calls. Mr. Carroll said personnel
will know where every call comes from because as soon as the call is initiated,
it is "captured" by the system, and a printout is made even if personnel do
not get to answer the call. He said some municipalities have a system that
rings back the caller on calls that are cut off before anyone speaks.
Mr. Henley asked if the University will be exempt from the surcharge.
Mr. Carroll replied yes because of the telephone system it now has, which is
not compatible with the Enhanced 911 system. However, if the technology is
developed to update its system, it will be able to have the Enhanced 911
system installed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to set a
public hearing for October 21, 1987, on the question of adding a telephone
surcharge for implementation of the 911 enh~zced system, iRoll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstromand Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 14. Clean Community Commission, CAC3 Annual Report.
Ms. Judy Townsend, Director of the Clean Community Commission, presented
some brief highlights of the Commission's 1986-87 program and its plans for
the coming year. She said the recycling centers collected over 1,000,000
pounds of newspapers, 250,000 pounds of glass and 8,000 pounds of aluminum,
with the proceeds going to Workshop ¥, who operates the recycling centers.
She summarized the various activities and programs of the preceding year. In
addition, CAC3 has a newsletter which is mailed to individuals and businesses
in the community six t~mes a year.
Mr. Bowie commented that the 1,000,000 pounds of newspaper collected and
recycled represents several thousand trees that have been saved. Mrs. Cooke
said it would be good to have a recycling center in the northern part of the
County. Ms. Townsend replied that they are looking at possible sites. Mrs.
Cooke asked if sites are planned to coincide with shopping centers as conven-
ient dropoff sites. Ms. Townsend replied that this is being considered.
Mr. Way thanked Ms. To~send and commented that the cAc3 is doing good
work. There was no further discussion. ~
Agenda Item No. 15. Appropriation: CAC3 Grant. Mr. iAgnor mentioned
that the 1987-88 grant for the Clean Community Commission has been received in
the amount of $6,891. An appropriation of that amount is needed so that the
funds may be disbursed. Motion to adopt the following resolution was offered
by Mr. Lindstrom:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that $6,891.00 be, and the same hereby is,
appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to Code
210
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
1-1000-91033-930300, for the Clean Community Commission; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is effective
this date.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vo~e:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 16. Northwestern Health Systems Agency, Request for
Funding. Memorandum dated September 3, 1987, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr
was received as follows: ''
"As you may remember, the NWVHSA came before the Board of Supervisors
last February requesting a onetime grant of $3,612 to help carry them
through FY 1986-87 after federal funds were terminated in October
1986. This request was denied by the Board at its February 11 meeting.
Since 'that time, the 1987 General Assembly increased the state
appropriation for HSA's from two cents to six cents per capita to
match local contributions. Encouraged by this additional State
participation, the NWIq4SA has sent formal funding requests to al/ 32
cities and counties in the HSA. Based on 6 cents per capita, NWVHSA
is requesting a onetime grant of $3,612 from Albemarle County to
remain operational through June 1988, at,which time they hope to be
fully funded by the State."
Mrs. Betty King said Mr. James Heilman is the Board's appointee to the
NWVHSA's Board of Directors. His term has expired and NW~SA has not yet
requested that the Board either reappoint Mr. Hei!man or designate someone
else to take his place. She said NWVHSA is requesting onetime funding to help
carry them through the currenn year. NWVHSA has already received funding from
one county and that county is in the process of approving a second appropria-
tion because it was recognized they needed NWVHSA when they ran into trouble.
She said N-WVHSA's Board of Directors and its Advisory Council believe the
organization is needed, at least until the State completes its study on how
health planning should be handled in the State of Virginia. NWVHSA hopes the
State will decide that this will be a state-run program. Mrs~ King then
commented on some benefits Albemarle County has received through this program,
such as: production of a fill on safety and coping techniques for caregivers
of the elderly (in cooperation with JABA) and ithe publication of a resource
manual for Region Ten residents, in addition to programs HSA has been involved
with during the past year. She concluded by saying she would answer any
questions Board members might haveD
Mr. Way asked Mr. Heilman if he had any comments to make~ Mr. Heillan
replied nOo Mr. Way said that when this request came before the Board in
February he supported it primarily because he feels this organization contri-
butes significantly and in particular to the County's elderly population. He
said he continues to feel this way.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the localities listed~in the report are funding their
share of the costs. Mr. Agnor replied that 121of the 32 counties have already
approved funding and 20 of the counties are pending. Mrs. King believes
NWVHSA was turned down for funding by Fluvanna County last year because it did
not endorse a recommendation for a nursing hom~ in that area, but they have
since. Mro Lindstrom said he believes the request is the same. Mrs. King
said different localities are providing funds at different times. She said
they are asking for funding from localities at some point during two fiscal
years. In addition, a number of localitiss were receiving free service during
this time or at the expense of another locality. She said NWVHSA is trying to
be fair to the localities who contributed funding. In the future, NWVHSA will
be charging fees to any locality to which they~provide services, but which has
not made a contribution.
211
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (23) will come
Mr. Lindstrom asked where the County funds for this request/ Mr. Agnor
replied from the General Fund Carry-Over Balance or the Board's Contingency
Fund. Mr. Lindstrom said the request was not granted earlier because there
seemed to be no future solution. Since the General Assembly may approve this,
Mr. Lindstrom said he would make a motion to grant the request out of the
Board's Contingency Fund. Mrs. Cooke asked if this is a onetime request. Mr.
Lindstrom said that is all he is approving it as, and the memorandum states
this is a onetime request now that they apparently have the additional funding
from the General Assembly.
Mr. Bowie asked for confirmation that this is a onetime request. Mr.
Agnor asked Mrs. King if the study results in the State not fully funding the
HSA's and just gives them matched appropriations, will the}ISA be back to
request funding. Mrs. King replied that the NWVHSA would try to do anything
else in order not to have to come back. If they went through the regular
budget process for 32 localities, NWVHSA would have to hire one or two addi-
tional staff people for several months of the year, and this just does not
make sense.
Mr. Way said there is a motion before the Board and asked if there was a
second to the motion. Mr. Way said hearing no second, the motion dies.
Mt.Way asked if anyone wished to make a different motion° Hearing none, Mr.
Way said the matter is disposed of.
Agenda Item No. 17. Executive Session: Personnel an~ Legal Matters.
At 12:53 P~M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adjourn into
executive session for the stated purposes. Mr. St. John said the legal matter
has to do with litigation titled Albemarle County vs. Elbe~t Williams. Mr.
Lindstrom said he understands that the matter of choosing Mr. Fisher's replace-
ment on this Board is not a subject for executive session. Mr. St. John said
that is correct. Mr~ Bowie then seconded the motion° Roll was called and the
tion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
The Board reconvened into open session at 2:08 P.M., with Mr. Fisher
being present at this time and assuming the chair.
Agenda Item No. 1Sa. Appointments: Crozet School Site Selection Com-
mittee. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to appoint
Mr. Henley as the Board's representative on this con~nittee.~ 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.
Agenda Item No. !8b. Appointment: Agricultural/Forestal District
Advisory Committee° No name was offered for this vacancy.
Agenda Item Noo 18c. Appointments: JAUNT Board. Mr. Fisher said he had
called Judge Jannene Shannon and she sees no conflict in continuing to serve
on this Board. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mro Lind-
strom, to reappoint both Mso Jannene L. Shannon and Mr. Peter T. Way 'to the
JAUNT Board of Directors, both terms expiring on September 30, 1990. 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.
Agenda Item No. lsd. Appointment: Library Board. Motion was offered by
Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to appoint Mrs. Shirley B. Dorrier to the
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board of Directors for a term which will
212
sxpire on June 30, 1991.
following recorded vone:
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Roll was called and the motion carried by the
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley~ Lindstrom and Way.
- NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 19. Announcement: Virginia State Forest Festival. Mr.
Fisher said Buckingham County Ruritan Club annually sponsors the Virginia
State Forest Festival. This year, festivities begin on October 3, 1987, at
10:00 A.M., in Dillw~. Board members are invited to participate°
Agenda Item Noo 21. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda From the
Board or Public~
Mrs. Cooke said she received a letter from Ms. Charlotte Humphris,
requesting that the Board officially name the Auditorium in the County Office
Building. She suggested that the Auditorium be named the "Lane Auditorium" so
when a function is held there it will be automatically known as that. Mrs.
Cooke requested that the Board consider this suggestion because the building
will always be known as the "Lane Building," because of the many years this
building was used for educational purposes. She feels the name should be
retained in some manner.
Mr~ Fisher said Mrs. Cooke raised two questions: 1) whether to name the
auditorium, and 2) what the name should be. Mr. Bowie said he is surprised at
how many people do not know the building was the Lane High School. Mrs. Cooke
said she has made her recommendation and there is no question in her mind that
it should be named and that the name should be Lane Auditorium.
Mr. Henley said he has no problem with this. Mrs~ Cooke thanked him~
Mr. Fisher said the Board might want to give nmming the Auditorium more
consideration since other people may have names they want to have considered.
Mr° Lindstrom suggested that the Board decide~if they want to n~ne the audito-
ri~un at all, and then solicit, for a specific period of time, community
suggestions for a name.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Henley, to seek a name
for the auditorium in the County Office Building, by suggestions from the
public addressed to the Board of Supervisors at the County Office Building,
~d that this be advertised for November 4, 1987. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote~:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher,iHenley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Henley said he had read the minutes Of January 21, 1987 (Night), and
found them to be in order.
Mr. FiSher said he had read the minutes Of July 15, 1987, pages 22 to the
end and had found a couple of typographical errors only~
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded, by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the
minutes read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher,iHenley' Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 20~ Discussion: Process for filling Samuel Miller seat
on the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John to summarize the options open to the Board,
including timetables.
Mr. St. John summarized his letter to the Board, as fOllows: the proce-
dure is divided into two parts - 1) appointing an interim replacement until an
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (25)
election can be held; 2) holding an election to elect a person to serve out
Mr. Fisher's unexpired term (December 31, 1989). Mr. St. John said the State
Code provides that the interim appointment be made from among the qualified
voters of the Samuel Miller District within 30 days of the vacancy (September
15). If the Board does not act, the Circuit Court makes this interim appoint-
ment. There is no prescribed procedure to use in selecting an interim member
and no time limit is put on his or her term, but the term lasts only until an
election is held. The procedure for holding the election is to begin within
15 days after the vacancy occurs, as follows: a petition is filed with
the Circuit Court requesting a writ of election, which orders the County
Electoral Board to hold an election. This writ sets out the date, filing
deadline, etc. The Board has the option of using the November 1988 general
election or it can ask for a special election. Mr. St. JOhn said he has
discussed the ramifications of the available options with the Secretary 'to the
State Electoral Board, and it is much simpler to use the date of a general
election because the filing date is already set by law. However, this will be
a special election whether it is held on the same day as the general election
or not. If the Board wishes for the election to take place prior to November
8 sometime between January 1 and September, the trigger date is the date
198 , ..... = -~--+~on and all dates and deadlines are counted
the court issues the wrln o~ ~ ,
back from that date. Mr. St. John said it is most urgent that the Board start
the process of making the interim appointment.
Mr. Agnor said the March 8, 1988, primary, known as Super Tuesday, puts
even further complications on the time that a special election can be held.
The Board cannot hold a special election 60 days in advance of that date; the
election must be held on a Tuesday; after that date, the Voting machines are
secured and locked for a period of time. If the special election is held,
it would have to be after December 15 and no later than January 5; if it goes
beyond January 5, April 5 is the next available date to begin the election
system process.
Mr. Lindstrom said this will not be a problem if the Board decides to use
the November 1988 general election for-the special election. Mro St. John
id that is correct. However, if the Board has a reason for wanting a
special election, Mr. St. John will see how this can be accomplished; the
Board should do what it thinks is best from 'the public standpoint.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the person running in the special election will be
elected to a four-year term or will that person be required to run again in
1989. Mr. St. John said Mr. Fisher's term expires December 31, 1989; the
person elected would only serve the unexpired portion of his term and another
election would be held in November 1989, to elect someone to begin a new term
on January I, 1990. The person appointed now only serves until the special
election takes place.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the costs of a special election which coincides with
the general election versus having the election on some other date. Mr. James
Heilman, Registrar, said he estimates the cost for a separate, special e
would be between $4,000 and $5,000. If the election were held in November
1988, the only cost would be printing costs for the extra ballots and possibly
the costs for legally required advertising for the specialielecti°n- Mr. St.
Job3~ said if the general election is used, the petition for writ of election
can be filed with the Circuit Court any time after September 15.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the most democratic way tg approach the issue
is for the elected representatives (the Board members) to make the selection
rather than the court. He said it is simpler, cheaper, more straightforward
and more understandable to use the general election since so many complexities
are involved. The Board should appoint someone to fill the vacancy, the term
to expire on election day in November 1988.
Mrs. Cooke agreed with Mr. Lindstrom. She feels the appointment should
be approached with the same attitude and responsibility that is important for
any appointment the Board makes. Mrs. COoke suggested the~iBoard make the
appointment itself and give the public an opportunity to sdbmit applications
to fill the vacancy, with a deadline date for receipt of applications. The
Board would then review the applications and make a decision based on the
strength of the application and the qualifications of the person.
214
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Lindstrom said, if possible, the Board should make a public announce-
ment as to which legal avenue it will take, including the date of the special
election, since anyone seeking the appointment needs to know this. In addi-
tion, the Board should advertise it will receive applications and resumes.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that September 17 be the deadline for receipt of
applications; a public hearing be scheduled in the Samuel Miller District to
hear public comments; the Board make a decision by October 14; the public
hearing be scheduled for September 30.
Mrs. Cooke said she has no problem with Mr. Lindstrom suggestion.
However, she is concerned that the Board may not have time to interview all of
the applicants even though the interview process is very important. In the
event that the Board does not have time to interview all of the applicants, a
set of questions should be drawn up for the applic~lts, to be mailed along
with the applications° Mrs. Cooke said she considers this one of the most
important appointments that will ever come before the Board. A serious
decision must be made and the Board should have as much information, input and
insight into the person who will be appointed, as possible.
Mr. Lindstrom said it is a delicate matter and the more involved the
Board gets, the more danger there will be of personal involvement. He feels
strongly that the only basis to go on is that the person is to serve as the
representative of the Samuel Miller District, a~d the best example of the kind
of person to select is the kind of person the~voters in that district did
select, Gerald E. Fisher, until the voters have a chance to speak to it. In
looking at the 30 day deadline for interviews~and such, Mr. Lindstrom said he
has no objection if this can be done.
Mrs. Cooke said she would not feel comfortable appointing anyone to the
Board that was not ready, willing, and able to answer some concerns she has
about their qualifications. If there is no time to conduct personal inter-
views, a questionnaire should be drawn up with each Board member submitting
questions that concern him or her. Mrs. Cooke said she is concerned with the
applicants' concerns for Albemarle County.
Mr. Lindstrom said a list of questions would enable everyone to have an
equal "crack" at them. Mrs. Cooke agreed. Mr. Way said written questions
have a real advantage because everyone knows them°
Mr. Bowie asked if there is a prohibitio~ against having the election on
Super Tuesday~ is it different from a generalielection. Mr. St. John said
Super Tuesday is considered a primary election; all deadline dates must be
complied with as if it were not a primary. M~. Heilman said he spoke with the
Secretary of the State Board of Elections and he was told that it was pro-
hibited. ' ~
Mr: Way said he hms no problems with what has been discussed. He supports
the Board making the appointment, and he has no difficulty with the November
1988 election.
Mr~ Bowie said he agrees with Mr. Way~ However, he has doubts as to
whether interviews are appropriate in this appointment. He believes the key
to the whole issue is the public hearing, andlhe feels the public hearing
should be in the Samuel Miller District. Mr. Bowie asked Mrs. Cooke if the
the questionnaire will be public information° Mrs. Cooke said she has no
problem with that.
Mro Lindstrom said because of the time element, the Board members should
schedule another meeting to try to come up with the questions and the process
for distributing the applications and the questions. After some discussion
about the date of this work session and the form of the questions, motion was
offered by Mr~ Lindstrom to adopt the following procedure:
The Board of Supervisors, by October 15, 1987, will make an
appointment to fill the vacancy;
The Board of Supervisors will call for a special election to
coincide with the general election in November 1988, to fill the
seat by vote;
September 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (27)
3. By advertising and whatever other way, receive applications, resumes
and responses until 5:00 P.M. on September 24, 1987, so staff can
get responses in the mail to the Board members;
4. Set a meeting for Friday, September 11, 1987, to set questions and
state they will be available in the Clerk's Office the following
week;
5. Set a public hearing for September 30, 1987, at 7:30 P.M., at either
Murray or Meriwether Lewis Elementary School;
6. The purpose of the public hearing will be to receive con~nents of the
residents of the Samuel Miller District regarding the filling of
this vacancy; and
7. The Board is dedicated to making a decision by October 14, 1987.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Way. Roll Was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley,~Lindstrom and Way°
None.
Mr. Way asked Mr. St. John if there is a definite procedure to be used
in replacing Mr. Fisher in the capacity of chairman. Mr..St. John said the
vice-chairman is a separate office from the chairman, and the vice-chairman
does not automatically become chairman. The Board members must elect a new
chairman.
Mr. Lindstrommade a motion to appoint Mr. Way as chairman until the next
organizational meeting. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Mr. St. John said it
would be better to wait until the chairmanship is vacant. Mr. Lindstrom asked
if it would be necessary to fill the vacant position of vice-chairman, or
could it be left open. Mr. St. John said it can be left open temporarily.
At this time, on behalf of the Board members, Mr. Lindstrom presented Mr.
Fisher with a token of their esteem for the years of effort and trouble Mr.
~isher has put up with in guiding Board members. Mr. FisHer thanked the Board
members.
Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn. At 3:25 P.M., motion was offered by Mr.
Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn this meeting until September 11,
1987, at 3:00 P.M. 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.