1986-11-02November 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
071
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
November 12, 1986, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 97, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy Bo Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
County Attorney; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive; and Mr. John T. P.
Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M. by the
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Items No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Way offered motion, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom,
to approve Items 4.1 and 4.2 on the consent agenda and to accept Items 4.3 through 4.11 as
information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Item No. 4.1. Appropriation: Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
memorandum from the County Executive dated November 5, 1986 was received:
The following
"The County currently has interests in four (4) work elements of the FY 1987
MPO work program. They include:
o Maintaining our socio-economic/land use database (Comprehensive
Information System);
o Recommendations for transportation improvements for U. S. 29 North
area and southern city/county area;
o Private and public sector options for new transit service in urban
area;
o Administrative functions related to MPO.
Staff is requesting appropriations, at this time, for the funding of only
two of these elements: the maintenance of our existing database system
(CIS) and the administrative costs associated with MPO functions. The
appropriation amounts to $14,598, of which $13,503 is reimbursed through the
Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA), and $1,095 is considered our
in-kind match. Appropriation request for the additional projects listed
above should follow, once funding details have been finalized."
The Board approved an appropriation of $14,598.00 for the funding of Metropolitan
Planning Organization projects. The following resolution was adopted:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $14,598.00 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from
the Grant Fund to be used for funding of 1986-87 Metropolitan Planning
Organization Projects;
AND FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Item No. 4.2. Appropriation: Thomas Jefferson Health Risk Reduction Grant.
The following memo, dated November 4, 1986, from the County Executive explained the request:
"The Thomas Jefferson Health District has again this year requested the
County to act as the contract agency for a Health Educator position. This
position continues to implement the Health Education Risk Reduction program
begun last year, which accomplishes among other things, needs assessment and
plans educational programs for the community and health department staff."
The Board approved an appropriation of $25,616 to be used for Thomas Jefferson Health
Education Risk Reduction Program. The following resolution was adopted:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $25,616.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the Thomas Jefferson Health Education Fund to be used for Thomas Jefferson
Health Education Risk Reduction Program for the period of October 1, 1986 to
September 30, 1987.
AND FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
072
November 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item No. 4.3. Notice from State Corporation Commission, dated October 30, 1986, re:
Application by The Potomac Edison Company to revise its fuel factor and cogeneration tariff,
was received as information.
Item No. 4.4. Letter dated November 3, 1986 from Judy S. Gough, Department of Finance,
re: Refunds on Business and Professional Licenses, Real Estate and Personal Property Taxes
made from July 1 to October 31, 1986 was received as information.
Item No. 4.5. IRS Form 8038 for a refunding Bond Issue From the Industrial Development
Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia for H.C.M.F., XV Limited Partnership, was received as
information.
Item No. 4.6. Notice from State Corporation Commission, dated October 20, 1986, re:
Approval of Virginia Electric and Power Company's Expenditures for New Generation Facilities
and for a Certificate of Public Convenience, and Necessity was received as information.
Item No. 4.7. Annual Report, dated September 23, 1986 from Donald R. Henck, Executive
Director, James River Alcohol Safety Action Program, was received as information.
Item No. 4.8. Copy of James River Alcohol Safety Action Program - Financial Statements
for the year ended June 30, 1986, along with its annual report, was received as information.
Item No. 4.9. County Executive's Financial Report for First Quarter, FY 86-87 was
received in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-605. The following memo dated Nov-
ember 3, 1986 accompanied the report:
"Messrs. Jones and Tucker have completed the fiscal year 1986-87 first
quarter budget reviews with all department heads in general government.
There does not appear to be any indication of any serious problems of
underfunding at this time. Several departments will need transfers from the
budget allocation in the Personnel budget to fund prior year's merits.
There were significant overexpenditures for liability insurance in the Board
of Supervisors ($4,948 or 41%) and the Police Department ($6,454 or 16%)
which may require some corrective action later during the year. In Per-
sonnel, the line item for Workman's Compensation exceeded the budget by
$5,817. Also, in Personnel, there is an unbudgeted cost of $8,000 for
consultants to inventory hazardous materials in county and school facil-
ities, prepare a program on how to handle hazardous materials, and establish
an ongoing hazardous materials awareness program. This cost was caused by a
Federal law passed in 1984, which was effective July 1, 1986. Under the
law, the Environmental Protection Agency has designated a substance as being
hazardous if it can catch fire, if it reacts when mixed with other sub-
stances, if it is explosive, if it is corrosive, if it is toxic, or deemed
to be harmful in any way. There are over 400 substances already on their
list. Many of these materials are used in the operation of various depart-
ments of the County. The combined added cost for Workman's Compensation and
the Hazardous Waste Program will be impossible to absorb in that budget;
however, we are not requesting any appropriations because it may be possible
to solve the problem at a later date by transfer from some other area of the
budget.
The constitutional officers (Sheriff, Clerk of Circuit Court and Common-
wealth's Attorney) will require salary adjustments in January. As you know,
the State will give all of its employees that have not reached the top of
their scale a merit increase in January 1987. This merit increase of 4% to
5% will be automatic if requested by the principal officers. It is also in
addition to a 5% equity increase that was granted in July 1986. The State
will provide funding for all approved salary changes in these three offices.
Several of the offices in the Old County Office Building (Commonwealth's
Attorney and Clerk of Circuit Court) are experiencing higher levels of
telephone costs. These offices have considerable long distance usage and
this is the first year under the new system installed with the renovation.
Staff is looking at the cost of alternatives for long distance dialing.
The prior decision to carry only liability insurance on automobiles appears
to be working very well. To date there have been only two accidents that
had to be covered by local funds. One involved a parked vehicle being
damaged by a falling tree limb in a ra2Lnstorm and the other involved a deer.
You may recall the County saved $50,000 by deleting collision and comprehen-
sive insurance this year. This savings would replace five to six vehicles.
Revenues are difficult to evaluate in the first quarter. However, based on
the 1986 property tax assessment and assuming a 98% collection; revenue from
real estate should exceed budget estimates by $0.5 million and personal
property by $0.15 million. If the economy remains at the current level,
sales tax should be $0.25 million above estimates. Utility taxes appear to
be overestimated by $0.1 million. Overall, the first quarter revised
revenue estimates indicate a net of $0.75 million in excess of budget
estimates for local revenues in fiscal year 1986-87.
November 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
073
Item No. 4.10. Cove Creek Industries - Industrial NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System) Permit - memorandum from Guy B. Agnor, Jr., dated November 6 1986 was
received as information: ' ·
"At your meeting on November 5, 1986, staff was requested to obtain more
information regarding the above NPDES permit. State Water Control Board
(SWCB) staff indicates that Cove Creek Industries, which is a wood pre-
serving industry, pressure treating fence posts and some flat lumber, is now
required (due to a change in Federal regulation) to obtain a permit for
stormwater runoff from the property.
Under this permit, the SWCB will monitor surface, groundwater and stream
flow from the site quarterly during the life of the permit, which is five
years.
If runoff standards are not met during any monitoring period, corrective
action is required. Prior to this current NPDES Permit requirement, the
site's stormwater runoff was monitored in October 1984, and all samples
tested for heavy metals were below their testing limits. All wood pre-
serving chemicals are recycled and no discharge of these materials is
permitted.
The notice of application for permit that we received from the SWCB is the
only direct notice we will receive. Within about two weeks, public notice
for comment will be given through the local newspaper. Should you have any
questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me."
Item No. 4.11. A complete copy of the application from State Corporation Commission
dated October 17, 1986, re: Application by the Potomac Edison Company to Revise its Fuel and
Cogeneration Rate Tariffs was received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: December 11, 1985; January 15, February 5,
(Afternoon), August 20 (Afternoon) and October 15, 1986.
Mr. Way stated he had read the minutes for January 15 and found them to be satisfactory.
Mr. Henley said he had read December 11 from page 14 to the end and found them to be in
order.
end.
ing).
Mr. Bowie said he had read all of February 5, afternoon, and October 15, page 8 to the
He asked that the Clerk check the time of adjournment on October 15 (afternoon meet-
There being no other changes recommended, Mr. Way offered motion to approve the minutes
which had been read and Mr. Henley seconded. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Request from Tim Kolly.
Mr. Fisher said that Mr. Timothy Kolly wished to make a short presentation. Mr. Kolty
explained that on September 30, 1986, he had been involved in a traffic accident at the
intersection of Routes 677 and 250 West. He said that he had been preparing to turn from
Route 677 onto Route 250 going east. He stated there were two cars approaching from the
east, one in the through lane and the other in the deceleration lane. As he moved out into
traffic, a third car, completely obstructed from view by the car in the deceleration lane,
hit the front end of his car, doing extensive damage. Mr. Ko!ly was cited for failure to
yield the right of way but not fined as the judge felt he was not to blame. Mr. Kolly showed
the Board a sequence of photographs taken from the same spot. He stated that the speed limit
coming over the crest of the hill on Route 250 approaching that intersection is 55 mph.
There are no warning signs about the intersection until the hill has been crested. Mr. Kolly
said he had written the State Highway Department for a record of traffic accidents at that
site. The numbers are not overwhelming, but the changes in the numbers for this year since
the deceleration lane has been built, are overwhelming. Three accidents have taken place
there this year. Mr. Kolly stated he believes some change must be made. Ideally there
should be a traffic light at that intersection with flashing lights at the other side of the
crest of the hill. If that is not feasible, he feels that the speed limit should be lowered.
Another possibility might be to move the warning signs to the other side of the crest of the
hill where they would be of help.
Mr. Fisher stated that Mr. Roosevelt has looked at that intersection before. A study
was done by the Traffic Engineer from Culpeper. He concluded that 55 miles per hour was a
safe speed since 85 percent of the drivers were going at that speed. Mr. Fisher asked Mr.
Roosevelt if he had any comments. Mr. Roosevelt said he did not have enough information to
make an analysis at this time. He did mention that speed limits are set by taking a sampling
of people using the road. Many studies have shown that speed limits should be set at a speed
drivers feel is safe or the limits are not obeyed. He said he will take the pictures and
information and report on it next month.
Mr. Bowie said there had been a similar problem on Route 621. A study was done and the
signs were moved, which helped the situation. He feels moving a sign is something that can
be done rapidly. Mr. Fisher told Mr. Kolly that Mr. Roosevelt will review the situation. He
asked Mr. Roosevelt to send a copy of his written report to Mr. Kolly.
O74
November 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Agenda Item No. 6b. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Way reported that the flashing light on Route 20 South in front of the Scottsville
Elementary School has been off for quite some time. Mr. Roosevelt told him that the opera-
tion of the light is the responsibility of the School Board. He stated that the school had
been advised of the problem. Mr. Way suggested that this board notify the school as a follow
up.
Mr. Way also asked Mr. Roosevelt about Route 622. Mr. Roosevelt explained that the
right-of-way across one parcel still has to be obtained.
Mr. Fisher asked for an update on any progress on the Route 29 North statement. He
asked if any progress had been made setting up a meeting with the City Council. Mr. Agnor
stated there had been no response from the City as yet.
Agenda Item No. 7. Report: Solid Waste Transfer Station.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff and engineering report, excerpts of which follow.
The feasibility of a solid waste collection system for Albemarle County was
initially analyzed and reported to the County Board of Supervisors in a 1977
report from the Solid Waste Collection System Committee. Basically, the
report concluded that a limited number of collection stations strategically
located around the County was a reasonable collection compromise between the
two landfills and multiple "Green Box" sites. Compaction units at the
stations were deemed economically advantageous to handling uncompacted
material. Daily inspection and maintenance of each site was thought to be
desirable. With these conclusions, the Committee recommended a program be
established to locate and service up to seven collection station sites. It
was further recommended that the County provide supervision for the program,
that the equipment for sites be rented, and that wastes be hauled by con-
tract to the Ivy Landfill. The Keene Landfill was to be limited to inert
material disposal. Private haulers were to be permitted to use collection
stations under a fee schedule to be established.
The County is now faced with a very short life expectancy for the Keene
Landfill .... A collection station in this area could be expected to handle
a large percentage of domestic wastes currently going into the Keene Land-
fill and allow for an orderly closing of this facility.
The following cost comparison between a transfer station and a new landfill
is presented as a conceptual overview. The figures show costs relative to
present day dollars.
20 Year Capital Costs - Total
Transfer Station:
$160,000 - Salvage of Land = $120,000
Landfill:
$1,345,000 (No salvage of
Land
Annual Operation Costs
$121,400
$52,000
Total Over 20 Year Period
Transfer Station:
Landfill:
$2,548,800
$2,385,000
It is important to note that solid waste handling technology is constantly
in a state of change and that the transfer station is not a final solution
for the disposition of solid waste. It provides us with flexibility in the
ultimate handling of the material. The capital costs for a transfer station
site are considerably lower than that of a landfill. If we were to change
course in our handling of solid waste we could vacate the site and recover a
considerable amount of capital expenditure.
Staff believes the Keene area is a logical first site for a collection
station. The Comprehensive Plan review process now underway provides an
ideal opportunity to more thoroughly address this matter based on current
needs and development trends.
The recommendation made in a letter from the County Executive to the Board, dated
November 7, 1986, is as follows:
"The Planning Commission will be evaluating the overall solid waste collection needs
of the county during their current review of the Comprehensive Plan. The need to move
forward on a replacement option to the existing Keene landfill, however, is crucial.
It is therefore recommended that if the Board concludes that the Keene landfill
operation is to be replaced by some operation other than the Ivy landfill, that staff
be authorized to begin site feasibility for a transfer station in the Scotts-
ville/Keene area and report those findings to you prior to the FY 87-88 Capital
Improvement Program review."
November 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
O75
Mr. Way asked what inert materials are. Mr. Tucker said that at landfills inert
material refers to brush. Mr. Tucker explained that as a means to save money, staff feels
the transfer station would not need to accept brush. Mr. Way said he supports the comments
of the staff and feels that eventually there should be stations in other parts of the county
also. Mr. Tucker stated that the goal is to make this the best transfer station possible.
It should be easily accessible, well designed and landscaped. Mr. Way asked how much land is
required. Mr. Tucker responded two acres are needed. Mr. Fisher said he had talked to some
representatives of a national trash collection firm. They have set up a transfer station
system in another county. The representatives told Mr. Fisher that most groups going into
this type of system, prefer to do it under contract rather than to buy equipment. Mr. Tucker
pointed out that with the rapidly changing technology, it is better to have the service under
contract to avoid being stuck with outdated equipment.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what percentage of the existing Ivy landfill area would be required
to dispose of the waste picked up at the transfer station. Mr. Michael Armm, County Engi-
neer, explained that the present Keene landfill operation contributes only five percent of
what goes into Ivy. He said he does not believe that the transfer station will have a
significant impact on the life of the Ivy landfill. Mr. Agnor said if the Board agrees with
the staff recommendation, this will be the first step in a county-wide program.
Mr. Way then offered motion that the Board. conceptually agree with the staff report and
recommendation and authorize the staff to move forward. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowie added that he had been on a committee last year that went over this problem so
there is a full report on file in the Planning Office. That committee had three recommenda-
tions: 1. Proceed with replacement for the Keene landfill; 2. Increase the attempt to
support recycling so as to reduce the amounts that go into the landfill; and 3. Find some way
to extend the life of the Ivy landfill. Mr. Armm Stated that RFP's were solicited a year ago
on ways to minimize the amount of space that is needed at the Ivy landfill. The plan is
called a Refuse Dry Fuel Plant which would take the products coming into Ivy and change them
into a pelletized fuel. A potential consumer for this product is the boiler plant at the
University.
Mr. Horne stated that one of the firms responding to that RFP implied that a series of
operational and administrative changes at the landfill could extend its life. Mr. Fisher
said the landfill is operated jointly by the City and County. If the operation is not being
run efficiently, there is a direct obligation to correct it.
Roll was called at this time and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8.
Applications.
ZMA-85-27 and SP-85-77.
S. L. Williamson.
Request to Withdraw
Mr. Agnor read the following letter from Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney,
dated November 5, 1986:
"Enclosed please find the original of a letter to me from Clyde Gouldman,
attorney for S. L. Williamson, Inc. In it, as attorney for the firm, he
requests withdrawal of the above-captioned applications. Please proceed
accordingly.
I will be forwarding to you shortly the report of my investigation into this
matter which was requested by the Planning Commission.
If you have any questions, Please let me know."
Mr. Agnor stated that Mr. Payne recommends that the Board approve withdrawal of ZMA-85-27
and SP-85-77 in order to remove them from the Board's agenda. He said that on next week's
agenda there will be a report on the alleged violations of the existing permits and a recom-
mendation on the abandonment of the existing permits.
Mr. Bowie offered motion that ZMA-85-27 and SP-85-77 be withdrawn without prejudice. He
suggested deferring action on the abandonment of the existing permits until a report on the
alleged violations is received by the Board. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Appropriation: Dunromin Road.
Mr. Agnor explained that Dunromin is one of four roads recently approved to be taken
into the Secondary System of Highways if property owners participate in the cost. The
property owners have completed their contribution and the funds deposited in the County's
treasury. A contractor for the work has been acquired. For the process to be consumated the
Board needs to appropriate $5550.00 for the project. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt
the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $5,500.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the Capital Improvements Program Fund to be used for improvements to
Dunromin Road;
AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
OTB
November 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Way seconded the foregoing motion. 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.
The Board recessed at 9:57 AiM. and reconvened at 10:01 A.M.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: To Consider Extending Albemarle County Service
Authority Service Area for Water and Sewer to the existing Structure only to include Parcel
09-20, Tax Map 60A. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 28 and November 4, 1986.)
Mr. Horne explained that this is a request to extend water and sewer to an existing
dwelling near the intersection of Georgetown and Barracks Road. There is some documentation
of drinking water problems with the well. There are no sanitary facilities installed at the
house. Mr. Horne said the staff recommends a "limited service" category (water and sewer
services to the existing structure only). Mr. Lindstrom asked the size of the parcel. Mro
Horne said approximately two acres. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any sewer line had been extended
into the watershed area since the adoption of the current Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Horne said
he believed this would be the first time. Mr. Fisher asked the zoning of the property. Mr.
Horne said it is RA. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if the Board's policy on the watershed
would be compromised by extending a sewer line. Mr. St. John said he felt it would not
jeopardize that policy. Mr. Lindstrom asked if someone elSe acquires the property and a
request is made to rezone, would granting that request create a problem. Mr. St. John stated
he feels that granting this application will not give strength to future rezoning requests.
The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Bessie Flowers, the applicant, said she was
ing the extension of water and sewer to the existing house on the property. She stated that
she was planning to occupy the house. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Bowie said he feels the extension makes sense because properties all around this
property already have water and sewer service and he will support the request. Mr. Lindstrom
asked what the extensions will cost. Mr. Horne said the total cost would be approximately
$10,325 including fees and actual construction. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the cost will be paid
by Mrs. Flowers or the Service Authority. He also asked the .cost for water only. According
to Mr. Horne's figures, it will cost $3,825 for the water alone, and $6,500 for sewer alone.
Mr. Lindstrom said it seems to him that a septic field can be installed more cheaply than
extending the sewer line. Mr. Fisher asked if the land presents difficulties to a septic
system. Mr. Horne replied that a septic system seems to be feasible. Mr. Lindstrom
explained that in the County most people don't have public sewer or disposal hookups, they
have septic drainfields. It might cost substantially less than a sewer hookup. Mr. Fisher
asked Mrs. Flowers if she was aware of the costs of running the water and sewer lines up to
her property. Mrs. Flowers stated she had been told that the cost stated was the cost if the
Service Authority did the work. She should be able to have the work done more cheaply by a
private contractor. Mr. Lindstrom said he was uneasy about the sewer line extension. Mrs.
Cooke asked if this construction will take place right away. Mrs. Flowers said she would
like to have it by the end of the year. Mr. Lindstrom said he supports the extension of the
water line only. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve the application for the
extension of water service to the existing structure only on Tax Map 60A, Parcel 09-20. Mrs.
Cooke seconded the motion and said she does not see the need for the sewer line extension
since there is the possibility of a septic field on this property.
Mr. Bowie said he would not support the motion for water alone. Mr. Fisher stated that
this property is not in a growth area. Mr. Henley said he would support the motion, but
would also have voted for the sewer. Mr. Lindstrom said there is no evidence that there will
be & problem with putting in a septic system. With no further discussion, roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Lindstrom.
Messrs. Bowie and Way
Agenda Item No, 10. Public Hearing: To Consider Extending Albemarle County Service
Authority Service Area to Meriwether Lewis School site for water service only to include Tax
Map 58, Parcels 69, 69A, 69B, 69G and 69H. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 28
and November 4, 1986.)
Mr. Horne said this request for water service only is to serve the new Meriwether Lewis
school. There are a number of small parcels of land being incorporated into the school site.
The main parcel, 69, is where the school will actually be located. Most of the rest of the
site will be made up of the playing fields and drainfieldso The extension of water service
to all of the parcels may be the most prudent thing to do; however, the staff believes that
the structures will probably be located only on Parcel 69. Mr. Fisher asked if the School
Board owns all of the parcels. Mr. Agnor said he believes there is one parcel subject to
condemnation proceedings. Mr. Fisher asked if the school is not the owner, how service can
be extended to another owner. Mr. St. John said he was not sure of the status of the condem-
nation procedure at this point. He believes it is in the appraisement stage. Mr. Way asked
if there is public water service on other properties in the area. Mr. Horne explained that
the waterline is in the street right across from the school site, but this would be the first
extension of water service to the northwest side of Route 676.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Fisher asked if there was anyone from the School
Board present. No one else came forward to speak, so the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie stated he would support the request. Mr. Henley said he would support it
subject to the School Board having control of the property. Mrs. Cooke also sa2Ld she would
November 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
077
support a motion with that clause in it. Mr. St. John said that the clause Mr. Henley wants
added is unusual, but all right. Mr. Horne said he feels the extension can be approved for
Parcel 69 .only. He is 98 percent sure that is where the structure will be located. Mr.
St. John said that would be the best thing to do.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to extend the ALbemarle County Service Authority
service area for water only to Tax Map 58, Parcel 69. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Mr.
Agnor said the site plan also shows structures on Parcels 69 and 69G. Mr. Horne said he did
not think there is anything on Parcel 69G since the Planning Commission review. Roll was
called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Request: Virginia Discovery Museum
Mr. Agnor indicated to the Board that a letter, dated November 6, 1986, from Mrs.
Constance Palmer, President of the Board of Directors, along with a financial statement and
details on the program were included in their materials. Mrs. Palmer came forward to address
the Board.
Mrs. Palmer introduced three members of the Board of Directors, Mrs. Frank Hereford, Mr.
Jim Murray, Mr. Tom Dingledine, and the executive director, Mrs. Jeanne Finan, to help answer
questions. Mrs. Palmer gave a brief history of the museum, describing it as a "hands on"
museum. She explained that the purpose of the museum was to encourage children to explore,
touch and learn by doing.
She said the museum's programs offer access to the arts, sciences, history and
Virginia's rich cultural heritage. She gave examples of the programs in those areas. She
added that the museum would be serving school groups by enriching the school curriculum
through field trips. She told the Board that the Museum had set a goal of $175,000 in
capital funds to be raised by the end of this year. She stated they have raised $140,000
thus far. She said they are asking Albemarle County to consider a $5,000 challenge grant to
the Museum. If the County is willing to do this, the museum will be eligible to apply for a
grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts for up to $5,000. If the Virginia Commission
for the Arts should approve this request, the County's $5,000 would actually be increased to
$15,000. She stated the Museum had recently received a $5,000 challenge grant from
Charlottesville City Council. Mr. Fisher asked how long the Board would have to consider
this request. Mrs. Palmer informed the Board that the deadline for application to the
Virginia Commission is March 3, 1987 with the money then being available in July of that
year. She further explained that the museum's Capital Fund Drive ends December 31, 1986.
They hope to reach their community goal by the end of this year.
Mr. Fisher said he had visited the museum and feels it is a valuable asset to the
community. The question is whether the Board is willing to make an appropriation now without
the request going through the regular budget process. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is an
admission charge for the school children. Mrs. Palmer responded that for the schools the fee
is discounted. Normally the fee is $2.50 for adults and $1.50 for children. The school
groups are charged $1.00 per child, with no charge for the accompanying adults. Mr. Way
stated he had no problem with this request and feels it is an extension to the children's
education. He would like the County to be a part of this from its inception. Mrs. Cooke
said she also will support it. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he has a problem with making
appropriations out of the regular budget process. He said he will probably support the idea,
but would prefer to see it in the context of the budget process.
Mrs. Palmer said that this is a capital fund drive, and not a request for operational
funds. This money is to get the museum solvent for this first year. Mr. Fisher said he is
impressed with the effort and energy expended by this group and he can see the product. He
said he intends to support the appropriation.
Mr. Way then offered motion to approve the request of the Virginia Discovery Museum for
$5,000 by adopting the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $5,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
Capital Improvement Fund for the Virginia Discovery Museum;
AND FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the foregoing motion. Mr. Bowie stated that he agreed with Mr.
Lindstrom that the Board should not fund programs outside of the budget cycle. However, the
museum has raised the money itself, and this is a challenge grant.
Mr. Agnor stated that a capital type request should be distinguished from an operational
one. This $5,000 request can be allocated out of the capital fund. Mr. Bowie asked Mrs.
Palmer if they intend to come in annually for help with operating expenses. Mrs. Palmer
replied that she would like to see the County and the City take this project into their
budget through the School Board, rather than as a separate entity. There was no further
discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Status Report: Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program.
Mrs. Nancy O'Brien, Executive Director of the Planning District Commission, introduced
Mr. Blake Caravati, the new contract planner for the Albemarle County Housing Program. Mr.
November 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Horne presented the following letter, dated November 5, 1986, from himself to Mr. Agnor.
Excerpts from the letter follow:
RE: Moderate Rehabilitation Program Activities Report
"Much of the monetary expense of the program to date has been incurred in
the preliminary or start up expenses. The salaries of the two positions that
operate the program and virtually all of the discretionary expenses have
been charged to that budget code. Now that some units have been rehabili-
tated and are in the Program, the County is receiving payments from HUD for
the operation of those units. I am now working with the Department of
Finance to transfer some of the expenditures now charged against the start
up expenses to the operational expenses. The enclosures list a number of
promotional activities that have been undertaken by the Department in order
to promote this program. We have recently begun discussions on the produc-
tion of a series of paid commercial announcements on Channel 29 which will
be aired throughout the months of November and December. These expenses
will be charged to the start up expenses and will be kept within the current
project budget.
This Department continues to work on all avenues that we can identify for
the acceleration of this program. Obviously the number of units entered in
the program to date is somewhat disappointing. We have had general
discussions of this problem with HUD and received indications that those
localities attempting to do scattered, small scale, rural rehabilitations
have encountered this problem almost Uniformly. We would welcome any
suggestions by the Board of Supervisors as to activities that could be
undertaken in order to promote the program. We would also welcome any
referrals from members of the Board of Supervisors of persons that they may
be aware of who may be interested in this program."
Mr. Horne explained that the start up expenses are costs to get a program going and are
separate from operational costs. Most of the discretionary expenses have been charged to
start up expenses. Now that some units are rehabilitated, the program is receiving payments
through HUD on those units and is beginning to switch some of the expenditures to an on-going
line item, or operational budget. Mr. Horne went through the expenses incurred by the
project and reviewed the promotional activities to date. Mr. Fisher asked if this is the
last large block of units available in Virginia. Mr. Horne answered yes. Mr. Fisher stated
that these units have been allocated to Albemarle County and now the County cannot find
enough people to take advantage of the program. Mr. Horne explained that there are plenty of
units that qualify, but there are complications in dealing with this program. It is not a
grant program. The people have to get their own financing. The program simply may enhance
the qualifications of the person applying for a loan in the opinion of a banker. This is
much more complicated than if there were money in hand that could be granted to someone. Mr.
Fisher stated that perhaps this sort of cost would make it more attractive for larger groups
of units than trying to do it for just a few. Mr. Horne added that the staff is trying to do
the program in scattered units, and that makes it somewhat more difficult.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this program could be used to rehabilitate a major structure. Is
there something the Board could do to facilitate interest from medium-sized groups? Other
than County properties, would a shift in emphasis help? If scattered site use is an impedi-
ment to the function of this program, should the Board consider a different emphasis?
Mr. Horne stated that the staff had contacted a number of owners in the urban area, some
of the larger landlords. They are aware of the program. The perception seems to be that
they feel all units should be done under this program or none at all. Mr. Lindstrom asked
about the time frame. Mr. Horne said the program extends through June 30, 1987, the end of
this fiscal year. There would be the possibility for an extension if there were units in the
process, evidence that the program was proceeding.
Mr. Way said the results thus far are extremely disappointing. He asked if anyone had
contacted people on the state level to discuss the program. Mr. Horne stated that there are
State representatives of HUD who deal with a number of programs with whom the staff is
continually in contact. However, this program does not have the same administrative proce-
dures as other programs in which the state is involved. Mr. Fisher asked if there were some
other solution besides scattered sites that should be considered. Mr. Horne said that no
person is ready to take on a large number of these units. Mr. Fisher stated he might change
his mind on the scatt~ered site idea if there are other opportunities. Mr. Bowie asked if
units can be combined into one big package. Mr. Pete Bradshaw said he has a current project
consisting of ten individual units and they are being considered together. One owner pur-
chased all of the units. If the properties were owned by separate individuals, the individu-
als would have to form some sort of corporate entity. The bank would be uncomfortable with
separate individuals. Mr. Bradshaw added that the banks are excited about the program in
general, but they look at the_individual when lending money. He said there are a number of
investors in the area looking for properties but there is a problem finding units for sale.
Current owners are reluctant to make application and get into the program. Mr. Bradshaw said
there is an individual in the area who would consider doing all the units in one project.
Mr. Fisher asked the staff to keep the Board informed on the progress of this program.
Agenda Item No. 13. Request re: Charlottesville Municipal Band Room.
Mr. Joe Goldsmith, President of the Municipal Band, made the following presentation:
Several months ago, we were informed that the County was considering renova-
tion of the band room area to allow expansion of the Social Services Depart-
ment. We have since corresponded with the Mayor and City Manager's Office
and Gerald Fisher, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, with respect to
this possible renovation.
November 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
079
It is our understanding that this renovation could ~begin any time after the
first of the year. At that point, the band would have to curtail its opera-
tion to the extent that we would have to rehearse on the stage and have use
of a limited amount of space to house our music library, office equipment,
and other smaller items of equipment. All of the rest of our equipment
would have to be placed in storage elsewhere. This of course, would be a
measure of last resort on our part. We fully appreciate the fact that the
County of Albemarle is willing to provide the band with an alternate re-
hearsal area.
We recognize that the County government is growing and must provide space to
meet its needs. However, we hope that the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administration can find some way to avoid or at least postpone having
to move the band out of its present full-use facility until such time as a
more satisfactory arrangement or solution can be achieved. We are working
closely with the City Council and City Manager to effect a solution to our
problem, which might take as many as three or more years to solve. Our
Board of Direc=ors and our Musical Director are very concerned that the
possibility of having to vacate our present premises in favor of the alter-
native will have a serious and adverse effect on the band's morale and its
future operation.
During these last several years, the band's musicality, showmanship, and
professionalism, along with its membership has increased overwhelmingly, due
in part to the direction taken by the Boards of Directors and the vitality
and interest instilled in the organization membership by James Simmons, our
Music Director. This growth is also due to the fact that the band has had a
place in which it could rehearse and carry on its regular band functions.
We hope that you will give every consideration to leaving the present
facility as it was originally intended, a rehearsal facility for musical
organizations. By providing the continued use of the present facilities,
you place the County of Albemarle in the forefront by contributing to the
ongoing cultural growth of performing arts in the Albemarle/Charlottesville
community.
Mr. Goldsmith said the band's success over the past six years has been primarily due to
the fact that the County has been willing to provide it with rehearsal space and areas in
which to perform its functions as a band. He then turned the discussion over to Mr. James
Simmons, the Music Director.
Mr. Simmons gave a brief history of the Charlottesville Municipal Band. The band was
formed in 1922 under Mr. Harry Lowe. They practiced first in the old C&O train station. The
second location was the old armory on Market Street. In the mid 40's the band moved into the
new armory and remained there until the building was vacated. The band leased space in the
Lane High School building from the School Board of Charlottesville to use the band wing. The
band remained in that facility until the building was sold to the County; the band then
entered into a lease arrangement with the County. When this building was renovated the band
spent about 18 months in the Burley building. They returned to this building in 1981 and
continued to rent the space in this facility. He stated that the band is only asking if
there is any way at all that the renovation of that area can be postponed or curtailed. He
hopes that some solution can be found that will allow the band to stay in its present
location.
Mr. Fisher asked if the principal virtue for using the present location is that the area
has permanent risers and the chairs can be left set up, and the instruments stored near by on
a permanent basis. If rehearsals are held on the stage, as Mr. Agnor proposes, risers must
be brought in and set up for each rehearsal. Mr. Simmons replied that the band would have to
have a property staff to come in and set the stage for each rehearsal. The auditorium would
be required from 5:00 P.M. until 11:00 each Tuesday evening. Mr. Simmons discussed other
arrangements that were planned, including some storage space on stage for equipment; the
library would be left in tact. One of the. practice rooms and a storage room would be con-
verted into an office area to hold office equipment. There are currently some storage spaces
built in where some smaller equipment can be kept. Large items which are not used often,
would have to be stored somewhere else in the community. He also spoke of the excellent
acoustics of the band area. Mr. Fisher asked how long it might be until the band has other
quarters. Mr. Simmons said he could not give a certain date. The best information he has is
three years.
Mr. Goldsmith added that he really did not think they can say three years. Hopefully,
something can be worked out over the next three years to provide the band a facility else-
where. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor about the necessity for the use of this space by the
county. Mr. Agnor said the renovation of this building was planned in phases. The fourth
phase of the program was to look at changing needs, and the point has been reached where some
offices need to be rearranged. The only space in the building which was not renovated was
the band room. Five departments will make minor moves once the Band Room area is completed
with part of the Social Services Department moving into that area. Mr. Lindstrom asked if
the need to make the changes is imminent. Mr. Agnor said Social Services and the Police
Department need additional space now. The space is needed for staff to function properly and
to deal with traffic between offices. The situation will get worse if there is a delay. Mr.
Fisher suggested that the Board take a tour of the three locations. If this decision is
delayed for a time, there must be an agreement now as to when this lease will terminate. Mr.
Goldsmith said that if construction is carried forth, something will be destroyed that can't
be replaced. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to look at the space and see what's involved.
Mr. Fisher suggested that this subject be taken under advisement.
Agenda Item No. 17. Executive Session. Property Acquisition and Personnel Matters.
-.080
November 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Linstrom offered motion to adjourn into executive session for discussion of property
acquisition and personnel matters during lunch. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the. following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
The Board adjourned for lunch at 12:00 P.M. and reconvened into open session at 2:30
Agenda Item No. 18. Annual Report, CAC3.
Mr. Chick ThompSon, President of the Charlottesville Albemarle Clean Community Commis-
sion, came forward. He explained that this group has been doing a lot of cleanups for the
last several years. The group felt they needed to get into education in the schools and in
the community to realize its cleanup goal. They have formed a Clean Business Club and are
giving decals and information packets to the various businesses in the community. This has
been endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce. The group has produced a video which is the annual
report for the Board. The video was donated by ESI Productions. Mr. Thompson then showed
the video for the Board.
Mr. Fisher thanked the group for the video. Mr. Thompson donated the video to the
Board. Mr. Fisher asked him if the video is in the Library. Mr. Thompson said he would make
arrangements to have one available in the Library. Mr. Lindstrom asked who should be con-
tacted if someone wants a presentation from CAC3. Mr. Thompson informed him that Ms. Judy
Townsend is the director and can be contacted at the Parks and Recreation Department.
Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion: Open Burning and Leaf Burning Regulations.
Mr. Tucker mentioned the open burning fire several weeks ago that created problems in
the urban area next to Four Seasons and Berkeley. Mrs. Cooke received a lot of calls and she
requested the Inspections Department to give a synopsis on the current burning laws. The
following is a memorandum from Robert W. Jenkins, Fire Prevention Officer, dated November 4,
1986:
"Due to the recent burning in the Berkeley/Four seasons area and receiving
several complaints by residents of these subdivisions, Mrs. Patricia Cooke,
Supervisor of Charlottesville District, asked that we prepare a report
concerning laws associated with open burning.
Presently, open burning is regulated by the Albemarle County Code and the
State Air Pollution Control Board's 'Regulations for the Control and Abate-
ment of Air Pollution.'
The State code allows open burning of brush at a distance of 500 feet to any
occupied building or buildings (unless the occupants have given prior
permission) other than a building located on the property on which the
burning is conducted. If the Regional Director determines that it is
necessary to.protect public health and welfare, he may direct the above
cited distances be increased. Other conditions are also stipulated con-
cerning prevailing winds, smoldering of material, etc., as outlined in the
attachments.
Leaf burning is also controlled by these regulations in the following
manner:
State Code
Permits leaf burning only in areas where collection
service is not available and the burning takes place on
the premises of the private residence. A distance of
300 feet is required to any structure unless prior
permission is granted by the owner of the property.
County Code
Between October 1 and March 1, leaf burning is permitted
within 25 feet of a structure, within five feet of an
adjoining property line, but is not permitted to burn on
any highway right-of-way. Other regulations are re-
quired within the text of the section including time of
day to burn, water and tools for control of the fire,
etc.
Apparently, the County Code takes precedence of the State Code in allowing
leaf burning at a distance of only 25 feet to any structure. This distance
cannot be safe in all cases. Also, no provisions are given concerning
health related conditions when smoke, soot or ashes filter into or onto
occupied dwellings.
My recommendations to you are the following:
1. Prohibit controlled burning in urbanized areas of the county.
2. Follow the State's regulations on burning leaves.
Provide leaf pick-up by the county in those areas where burning is
not permitted.
Require extinguishment of controlled burning when smoke, soot or
ash is affecting area residents' health or property.
November 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
081
These and other areas need to be addressed as soon as possible for the
protection of our people.
Mr. Tucker said that the executive staff concurs with Mr. Jenkins' initial recommenda-
tion of prohibiting the burning of'brush or open burning in urban areas. On the leaf burning
issue, the staff felt it needed to be studied further. Staff checked with the fire depart-
ment and found no problems with the existing law. The staff also feels additional study is
needed as far as leaf pick-up in areas where burning is not permitted. There is a very high
cost factor with that. Staff has not investigated the cost at all. As far as the suggestion
by Mr. Jenkins that as Fire Prevention Officer, he be allowed to prohibit burning where it is
a health hazard, staff feels that needs further study as well. It will be hard to quantify
health problems and difficult to enforce as well. Staff suggests that the Board adopt a
resolution of intent to amend the County Code to prohibit the burning of brush and open
burning in urban areas.
Mr. Fisher asked in what areas of the County the burning of brush would be limited. Mr.
Tucker said just in the urban areas. Mrs. Cooke stated she has a problem with not supporting
No. 4. She said she doesn't think health problems resulting from burning need to be proved.
She feels the County should have some control. Mr. Tucker explained that staff feels there
should be more study in this area. Mr. Jenkins is simply recommending what needs to be
looked at before he could enforce such an ordinance. Mrs. Cooke said she didn't feel control
such as a doctor's certificate is necessary. Burning is offensive whether one has a health
problem or not. She emphasized that people need to be more responsible about what they do
that is offensive to others. Leaf burning is certainly a very offensive thing. If people
won't take the responsibility, perhaps a tougher ordinance is needed. Mr. Agnor expressed
the apprehension that such an ordinance would put the County in a referee position between
neighbors. Mr. Bowie said there aren't enough trucks to handle leaf removal. He believes
that if there is an ordinance that says people can't burn leaves, they will stop raking them.
There already are all kinds of prohibitions about burning in various areas. He also said
that one way to extend the life of the landfill is to discourage the taking of inert
materials, which include brush and leaves. He said he does not believe a ban is necessary on
leaf burning. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that people in the urban areas should be free of
brush burning problems. The leaf problem is a dilemma. Maintaining control over burning
leaves is difficult.
Mrs. Cooke stated that as the County becomes more urbanized, there is a need for the
Board to recognize urban responsibilities. Perhaps different rules must be set forth for
urban areas and for rural areas. Mr. Fisher said the present ordinance grew out of the same
problem a few years ago. A committee of citizens was appointed to find a solution. He
feels that in areas where people are willing to pay for additional services, the Board should
find some way to provide the services. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any commercial haulers were
equipped for leaf collection. If the County doesn't have the resources, he thinks neighbor-
hoods could agree to bring in a contractor on a certain day. Mr. St. John informed the Board
that legislation is not needed for a local government to do that on a selective basis. He
feels that before any action is taken on burning, someone from the Air Pollution Control
Board should be contacted. Mr. St. John questions whether the Board has the power to regu-
late the kind of burning that triggered this complaint. He wonders if that burning did not
violate existing State regulations. All open burning is regulated by State regulations. The
exception to that is leaf burning. The County has its own ordinance on leaf burning, so the
State regulations do not apply. The State code applies in all other cases.
Mrs. Cooke said the people who caused the recent fire were in compliance with the State
code. The County didn't have any power to prevent the fire. Mr. St. John said the County's
power on burning relates only to the enactment of a leaf burning ordinance. Mr. Tucker said
the staff had contacted the Air Pollution Control Board and was told that if the County
ordinance was more stringent than the State Code, a County ordinance can be enacted. Mr.
Lindstrom asked if a permit is required by the State Air Pollution Control Board before
burning brush. Mr. Tucker replied yes, in cities and urban areas. Mr. Lindstrom said he
would support an ordinance to prohibit brush burning. Mr. Bowie said he would like to see
what the alternatives are.
Mr. Fisher said he has one alternative. He knows of at least one county in Virginia
that works with a private contractor and its citizens to facilitate the private collection.
This is not taxed. The county could try to get a contractor here to collect leaves. Mrs.
Cooke said she appreciates the report and hopes that before next year the County can have
something in place as an alternative to leaf burning. Mr. Lindstrom suggested checking with
commercial haulers to see if they would be interested in providing this service.
Agenda Item No. 15. Status Report: Lickinghole Creek Drainage Basin.
Mr. Agnor stated that this item requires no action.
randum to the Board, dated November 7, 1986:
He summarized the following memo-
"Staff reported to you in September that the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) was reviewing a preliminary redesign of the Lickinghole Creek regional
basin, and the extent of EPA's financial participation. The redesign,
incorporating an emergency, overflow spillway has been agreed upon; the
estimated costs of the project have been increased from $600,000 to $1.5
million; and EPA has determined their earlier commitment of funding 50
percent of the project will not occur, but their commitment for $300,000
participation will be available.
EPA requested an examination of the concept of smaller subregional basins in
lieu of a single basin, as to their effectiveness and cost/benefit. Dr.
Frank Browne, consultant to EPA and the Rivanna Authority (RWSA) on storm-
water, nonpoint source pollution, has completed this task and reported to
EPA and RWSA that the smaller basins will remove a higher percentage of
082
November 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
pollutants than the larger one. The cost/benefit ratio may therefore
improve.
The RWSA Board discussed the statistics used in Dr. Browne's analysis at
their October meeting, and returned the report for more information on the
drainage areas that would be served, and the volume of pollutants and their
removal that would be involved. That data will be discussed at the RWSA
November meeting, and if conclusive, the future of the basin project will be
presented to you for your consideration."
Mr. Fisher expressed his concern that the shift from one basin covering an entire water-
shed to the smaller ones seems to be ignoring the agricultural runoff that would be mixed by
those small basins. He said he is not convinced this idea will work better. Mr. Lindstrom
wondered what effect this would have on the cohesiveness of the Crozet community.
If it is determined that EPA's request is more cost effective, but does not accomplish the
goals of the Comprehensive Plan in that area, what will happen? Mr. Agnor stated he does
not believe the EPA has any concern for the Comprehensive Plan.
Agenda Item No. 19. Distribution of State Fire Insurance Premiums.
Mr. Agnor discussed the following memorandum from the County Executive to the Board of
Supervisors, dated November 7, 1986:
"Last spring in the discussion of the County General Government Fund budget
the allocation to the seven volunteer fire companies was pointed out to you
by the staff that state funds would be received sometime during FY 86-87,
which would derive from a state tax on insurance premiums. Seventy-five
percent of the proceeds from this tax is distributed back to localities with
active fire service limits, based on population. The remaining twenty-five
percent is retained by the state to construct regional fire training facili-
ties.
Staff requested the input of the Jefferson Country Firefighter's Association
(JCFA) as to the distribution and use of these funds. They requested that
the County: (1) act as the fiscal agent of the fund; (2) allocate the funds
equally to each of the seven volunteer companies; (3) use the County Pur-
chasing Office to obtain better prices on equipment, tools, clothing, etc.;
and ('4) make all the necessary annual reports and certifications to the
State for compliance with state requirements.
Staff recommends that you appropriate the first state payment recently
received in the amount of $22,577.05 to the special fund, as set forth in
the attached memo from the Director of Finance."
Mr. Agnor recommended that the Board adopt the same process used for State funds for
rescue squads and also adopt the request from the Firefighter's Association that the County
manage the funds for them, and appropriate the $22,577.05 to a Fire Service Program Fund so
the funds can be separated for reporting purposes.
Mr. Fisher asked two questions about use of the County Purchasing Office: (1) Are the
things the fire companies buy the most available through State contracts? Mr. Agnor res-
ponded that they are available that way. (2) Is there any way to combine their collective
purchasing needs into one order? Mr. Agnor said he thinks that could be done.
Mr. Way offered motion that these monies be distributed equally among the seven fire
companies and that the following resolution be adopted:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $22,577.05 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from the
General Fund for the funding of the 1986-87 Fire Programs;
AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
following recorded vote.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 20. Discussion: Citizen Survey on Comprehensive Plan Review.
Mr. Horne summarized the following memo from himself to the County Executive, dated
November 6, 1986, entitled: "General Population Survey for Comprehensive Plan Review/Board
of Supervisors Review:"
"In July of this year, the Planning Commission began discussing options for
public participation in the Comprehensive Plan review process. Staff
presented a number of options to the Commission which are listed in the
attached July 29, 1986 report to the Commission. Among tPi~ recommendations
considered by the Commission was the use of a random sample survey to get
general population input. Originally, it was suggested that a telephone
survey or personal interview would be preferable due to high response rate
potential. Subsequent discussions with Daphne Spain, a University of
Virginia professor with extensive social surveying experience, indicated
that a mail survey might be an acceptable alternative to the manpower
intensive telephone or personal interview approach.
November 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
083
On August 26, 1986, staff recommended to the Commission a mail survey, if a
survey was to be done, and reviewed potential types of survey questions.
After some dicussion, the Commission directed staff to draft a survey and
present it along with other locality survey samples to the Commission for
consideration. On October 14, 1986, the Planning Commission held a work
session regarding the survey. Several recommendations for changes in
questions were made. There was also discussion about value of the proposed
survey approach, number of survey responses necessary to make the survey
valid and the cost of such a survey. It was the decision of the Commission
to present a redrafted survey to the Board of Supervisors for review and
comment.
The Board should be aware of some of the considerations that have gone into
survey recommendations made to this point:
Number of survey responses - It has been recommended by Daphne Spain
that 1,000 successful surveys would be desirable considering Albemarle
County's size.
Type of survey - While a telephone survey would be most desirable due
to the potential response rate, it would involve much time and commit-
ment and a large number of surveyors. It is not likely any one tele-
phone surveyor could successfully complete more than six (6) surveys
per hour, which would translate to nearly 170 total hours of survey
time necessary to get 1,000 responses. The mail survey, while not
yielding as high response rate, can be randomly distributed and
requires less time to conduct. The mail survey may tend to produce
somewhat biased responses because it relies on voluntary returns.
Number of surveys - A response rate as great as 50 percent has been
suggested as being possible, but 25 percent is much more likely for a
mail survey (50 percent or better is very possible for a telephone
survey). Therefore, a mailout of 4,000 surveys would be necessary to
yield 1,000 responses.
Survey methodology - To both assure acceptable randomness and cover as
many County residents as possible, the sample needs to be drawn from
the most complete list of County residents available. Staff suggests
a random household sample could be generated from personal property
records. This list would need to be purged of multiple taxpayers at
one address. The County's Data Processing Department will tabulate
results for staff analysis.
Cost of survey - To print and mail 4,000 surveys, assuming the survey
can be copied on one page front and back is estimated to cost as
follows:
Mailing (Mail-out and return)
Copying
%10 Envelopes
$9 Envelopes
4,000 x .22 = $1,760
8,000 x .04 = 320
4,000 x .0095 = 38
4,000 x .008 = 32
TOTAL $2,150
Obviously, this cost does not include staff costs involved in developing,
testing, coding and tabulating the survey as well as analyzing and
reporting the results. With the Planning Department, it is estimated this
would involve some 80 - 85 additional person-hours. Funding for this
survey is not included in the budget of this department.
Time of survey - Upon Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
approval, the survey could be ready for mailing within 2-3 weeks.
Once mailed, the following time should be allowed:
Return and Code
Tabulate
Analyze and Report
- 3 weeks
- 2 - 3 weeks
- 2 weeks
This time table would, most likely, delay Commission deliberations approxi-
mately one month.
The primary objectives of this survey would be: 1) To gauge public atti-
tudes about growth trends, growth policies, the Albemarle County living
environment and public services; and 2) To represent a true cross-section
of County residents, many of whom do not typically get involved in the
planning process. Any decision on this survey should be evaluated within
that framework. Should this public general population survey be conducted,
public awareness will be critical to its success. All opportunities for
media exposure will be utilized."
Mr. Horne said the Commission is getting a fairly~good response at its work sessions
from public interest groups of the county. The Commission has felt that it is not getting
the total picture. They would like some response from the "man on the street" who is not a
member of a particular interest group. The Commission is also planning to conduct a series
of "town meetings" to elicit that response whether or not they conduct this survey. Mr.
Lindstrom said he feels that concerned people are generally somewhat informed about issues.
When the random person is asked questions, it's hard to predict whether his res-
O84
November 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
ponses are meaningful because that person may have no background information from which to
operate. He personally feels more comfortable relying on the lobbyist. Mr. Horne said the
Commission is simply stating that if the Board wants opinions from random citizens, this is
the best way to get that opinion. Mr. Fisher said he doesn't feel the set of questions is
particularly valid. Mr. Way said he feels that the public hearing process is adequate.
People will come out and speak if they have real concerns. Mr. Lindstrom added that from his
perspective, there are many people who don't yet live here but will live here in the future
for whom the Board has a responsibility. Mr. Fisher recommended that the survey be dropped.
He feels the work sessions and hearings around the community are quite adequate. There were
no objections to this suggestion from the other Board members.
Agenda Item No. 22. Appointment: Committee on the Bicentennial of the Constitution.
Mr. Fisher said a volunteer is needed to work on this committee which was approved at
the October 8 Board meeting. He asked Mr. Agnor if anything else is needed before the
Committee starts work. Mr. Agnor said the chairman of the committee will need to make
application for designation of the community. Since no member of the Board volunteered, Mr.
Fisher said he would do it. Mr. Way then offered motion to-approve the following list of
people as the Committee with Mr. Fisher being designated as the representative of this Board.
Dumas Malone - Honorary Chairman
Elizabeth Gleason - Charlottesville City Council
Gerald E. Fisher - Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Edward Deets - Charlottesville-Albemarle BAR Association
Mack Tate - Albemarle County Schools
Gary McGee - Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of Commerce
Neil Black - Charlottesville City Schools
Melinda Frierson - Albemarle County Historical Society
Matt Gaffney - Monticello
Carolyn Holmes - Ash Lawn
David O'Brien - University of Virginia
Barbara Cochran - Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau
Mr. Henley seconded the motion.
ing recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried with the follow-
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 23.
Members.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public and Board
Mr. Agnor said that bids were taken by the Albemarle County Service Authority on the
first phase of the Crozet sewer collection system today and the bids came in 14 percent less
than the engineer's estimate. The estimate was $2.1 million and the bid came in at $1.8
million.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had received a call from the Sierra Club asking if the Board would
be interested in a joint effort with the City on the collection of household toxic wastes.
Mr. Tucker said he had been contacted by the Institute of Environmental Negotiations. They
are applying for a grant to conduct a seminar on these toxic wastes and on some sort of
mechanism for collection of them. Mr. Tucker stated he has set up a meeting to obtain more
information on this. Mr. Lindstrom said his impression is that the group is interested in
exploring private disposal and collection that would be funded through the local government.
Mr. Fisher suggested that Mr. Tucker hold his planned meeting first and then give the Board
some response.
Mr. Fisher said he would report briefly on the legislative requests discussed at the
Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) Annual Meeting. He listed five legislative matters:
1) Allow local governments to have the authority to require that developers pay a pro
rata share of the cost of off-site improvements necessitated by their developments.
2) Increase the period of roll back for land use tax to ten years.
3) Oppose any effort by the State to limit the authority of localities to regulate the
placement of mobile homes.
4) Retain the authority of the local health departments for approving environmental
health matters such as septic tanks and drainfields.
5) Allow localities to vacate subdivision plats if no on-site developments have been
made within five years.
Mr. Fisher said No. 1 is listed as one of the top priority items. This request ended up
in VACo's highest priority category. As to No. 5, Counsel for VACo expressed opinion that
this request would very likely pass. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any other matters taken
up in the committee. Mr. Bowie stated he sat through the discussion of many different items.
The basic gist of the whole discussion seemed to be that if the State would stop mandating
without funding and give equal taxing authority, the other problems would disappear. Mr.
Fisher asked if this Board has taken action to request an increase in the transient occupancy
rate for Albemarle County. Mr. Agnor said he passed the request to the local legislators.
Mr. Fisher said it has been suggested that the local legislators be put on the mailing list
for the Board's agendas to help familiarize them with the topics being discussed.
November 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
085
Mr. Agnor asked what response should be given to the Municipal Band request. Mr.
Lindstrom said it appears, after the tour, that the problem with the ceiling needs immediate
repair and he feels the room should be renovated at the same time. Mr. Agnor said if reason-
able bids are received, and the Board approves one in December, the contractor could begin
work in January. Mr. Way said he feels the work should be done rapidly. Mrs. Cooke said she
feels there is no need to prolong the inevitable.
Agenda Item No. 24. Adjournment.
the meeting was adjourned at 4:05 P.M.
With no further business to come before the Board,