1985-10-09October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia was held on
October 9, 1985, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room ~7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher (arrived at 10:08 A.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. 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. Call to Order.
Vice-Chairman, Mrs. Cooke.
The meeting was called to order at 9:03 A.M., by th
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr.
Bowie, to adopt a resolution under Item 4.1 on the consent agenda and to accept the remainin
items 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. 4.1. Request was received from Claude W. Cotten, Phoenix Investment, Ltd., to
take Bixham Lane, Redington Lane, Old Brook Road'and Westmoreland Road in Fieldbrook
Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. The following resolution was
adopted:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of. Highways and Transportation
be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of
Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the ResideRt
Highway Department, the following roads in Fieldbrook ~Subdivision:
Bixham Lane
Beginning at station 0+17, a point common with the centerline of
Bixham Lane and the edge of pavement of Old Brook Road, thence in
a southeasterly direction 504..38 feet to station 5+21.38, the end
of the cul-de-sac of Bixham Lane.
Redington Lane
Beginning at station 0+17, a point common with the centerline of
Redington Lane and the edge of pavement of Old Brook Road, thence
in a southeasterly direction"599.27 feet to station 6+16.27, the
end of the cul-de-sac of Redington Lane.
Old Brook Road
Beginning at station 2+00, a point common with the centerline of
Old Brook Road and the centerline of Westmoreland Road, thence in
a southwesterly direction 500 feet to station 7+00, the end of
this dedication.
Westmoreland Road
Beginning at station 0+25, a point common with the centerline of
Westmoreland Road and the edge of pavement of Berwick Court,
thence in a southwesterly direction 175 feet to station 2+00, the
end of this dedication.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed fifty (50) feet right-of-way
widths for Old Brook Road and Westmoreland Road and forty (40) feet
right-of-way widths for Bixham Lane and Redington Lane along these
requested additions as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of
the CircUit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 732, page 335, Deed
Book 794, page 637 and Deed Book 419, page 265.
Item No. 4.2. A status report on Greenwood Chemical, dated October 3, 1985, was
received from Guy B. Agnor, Jr. The report stated that the Environmental Protection Agency'
(EPA) Regional Office received a report from the State Health Department which will be used
by the EPA to develop a comprehensive plan for monitoring the site.
Mr. Lindstrom said it is his understanding the EPA is planning to set up and administer
a monitoring program. Mr. Tucker said the EPA indicated it is reviewing a report submitted
by the state and that the monitoring program may be held off until the review is complete.
If property owners still have concerns, then the state would be requested to do another chec]
of existing wells in the area to make sure that there is no contamination. Mr. Tucker said
it is his understanding the EPA is planning to continue some monitoring themselves. Mr.
Lindstrom said he would like the staff to keep the Board informed on how this progresses.
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
IPage 2)
Item No. 4.3. Letter dated October 1, 1985 was received from Congressman D. French
Slaughter, Jr., confirming receipt of resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors
regarding the potential impact of the Fair Labor Standards Act on local governments under the
Supreme Court decision in the Garcia case. Mr. Slaughter indicated that he has an active
interest in these problems and is awaiting presentation of related legislation in the floor
of the House.
Item No. 4.4. Copy of letter dated September 10, 1985, addressed to Peter William and
M. Joe A. Sushka, from the State Department of Conservation and Historic Resources indicating
an interest in the addition of "High Meadows" to the Virginia Historic Landmarks Register and
its nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
Copy of letter dated September 10, 1985, addressed to Mr. M. Joseph Conte, from the
State Department of Conservation and Historic Resources indicating an interest in the
addition of the "Michie Tavern" to the Virginia Historic Landmarks Register and its nomina-
tion to the National Register of Historic Places. Mrs. Cooke said in reference to the Michie
Tavern, the present site is not the original site of the Tavern. A lot of work has been done
around the building that has nothing to do with any historical site on Monticello Mountain.
She questions the true authenticity of the historical value of the site. Mrs. Cooke said
Michie Tavern is an intricate part of the County and the Board should take a look at this to
see if it needs to be addressed. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the people at the Division of
Historic Landmarks is more qualified than he is and he does not question its judgement. He
knows Mrs. Cooke has expressed concerns on frequent occasions about Michie Tavern. He does
not share those views and he does not want, as a Board member, to participate in a review
directed specifically to Michie Tavern. He said if Mrs. Cooke has a concern, he would feel
much more comfortable if she would handle it personally. Mrs. Cooke said her concern is that
this is a privately owned business that is being subsidized with public funds and she has
strong feelings about that happening. Mr. Lindstrom said that happens in a lot of places
which have not been singled out by anybody on the Board. He further said he thinks it is
time that the Board let Michie Tavern do its business, and if Mrs. Cooke has a personal
problem she should handle it outside of the context of this Board. There was no further
discussion of this letter.
Item No. 4.5. Letter dated September 18, 1985 from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident
Highway Engineer, in accordance with Section 33.1-70 of the Code of Virginia, transmitting a
fiscal summary of expenditures for improvements on the secondary system in Albemarle County
during the 1984-85 fiscal year. Also attached to the summary is the report on the expendi-
ture of funds for the improvement of nonhard surfaced roads.
Mr. Way asked if Rt. 622 is being scheduled for work this spring. Mr. Roosevelt replie(
yes, it is targeted for advertisement for Spring 1986. Mr. Way said he did not notice
anything in the report regarding Rt. 727. Mr. Roosevelt said the report is expenditures
already made and does not give information on what is going to be advertised next year for
future projects, only funds that were spent in 1984-85.
Item No. 4.6. Notice from Columbia Gas of Virginia dated September 20, 1985, regarding
its application for increased rates totally $1,006,397 annually, filed with the Virginia
State Corporation Commission.
Item No. 4.7. Letter dated September 30, 1985 from Senator John W. Warner confirming
receipt of resolution by the Board of Supervisors regarding the proposed sale of Conrail to
Norfolk Southern, and his support that Conrail ownership should be returned to the private
sector.
Item No. 4.8. A copy of Planning Commission minutes for its meeting of September 24, -
1985, was received as information.
Item No. 4.9. Copy of~etter from Mr. Timothy M. Michel dated September 30, 1985
confirming that McIntire Village Associates desires to exercise the option on the former
McIntire School property.
Mr. Way commented that the letter referred to preliminary site plan review on October 2
1985. He asked what happened during the review. Mr. Agnor said the preliminary site plan
was passed by the City Planning Commission as presented, but there is still a final hearing
to go through. He said he understands that all of the adjacent property owners are satisfie
with the plan.
Item No. 4.10. Copy of "Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expendi-
tures for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1984" was pursuant to Section 15.1-166, Code of
Virginia, from the State Auditor of Public Accounts. The report is a summary of the
operations of general government.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: August 21, 1985. Mr. Henley was assigned to
read the August 21, 1985 minutes. He was not present, therefore, the minutes were forwarded
to October 16, 1985.
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Agenda Item No. 6(a). Highway Matters. Sidewalk Policy.
The following letter dated September 23, 1985 was received from Mr. George St. John,
County Attorney:
"You asked that we give you a memorandum addressing the County's legal
position as to the new policy of the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation on sidewalks.
Simplified, that policy is:
1. The department will accept for maintenance only those sidewalks
it deems necessary for the safety of the general travelling public as
opposed to those for the benefit or convenience of a local neighborhood;
and
2. It will not permit the latter category of sidewalks in its
right-of-way even if the County agrees to maintain them, unless the
County furnishes a perpetual bond to assure maintenance, with the
Department judgment as to when the bond is in default being final. A
resolution relieving the Department of responsibility and making the
County responsible is not enough.
Paragraph 1 above is a substantive change clearly within the Department's
prerogative.
Paragraph 2, however, includes procedural requirements in bonding which
put the County in an impossible position. My information is that this
bonding requirement was triggered'by a recent Attorney General opinion
that a clause heretofore used by some counties in their resolutions
saying they.would hold the Department harmless from liability as to
sidewalks, is void. That has always been our position; you know we
have always struck out any such clause from any of our agreements.
Anyhow, the Department was advised to protect itself now by insisting
on a bond.
The trouble is that the bond is just as illegal (without a referendum)
as the hold-harmless clause.
The County has several unsatisfactory options:
1. Don't build any sidewalks except those the Department will
accept and maintain.
2. Bond the sidewalks even though illegal, dealing with the issue
when it reaches the courts. That is what many counties did when they
agreed to the hold-harmless clause simply to get the job done, but we
don't recommend this.
3. Build the sidewalks out of the right-of-way on homeowner
property and require homeowners to bond and maintain. Constitutional
problems of requiring private maintenance of a public facility, plus
impossibility of complying with the statute requiring handicapped ramps
to public sidewalks where curbs are placed along streets (Section
15.1-381). Where the ramp would enter the right-of-way, you will have
the bonding problem.
4. Require developers to do the bonding. Questionable under
Dillons' Rule and premiums must be paid each year in the future meaning
that a homeowners association must pay it - you have the same constitu-
tional problem of private burden for public benefit.
5. Assessments. Only abutting owners, not the whole deVelopment,
may be assessed and then only to the extent of the benefits each owner
receives.
6. Service Districts. You asked us to explore this; there is no
mechanism for this.
So there is no satisfactory solution under those alternatives.
The one remaining idea is to have the developer dedicate a strip along
the street which would vest in the County but not be taken into the
Department's right-of-way; the County to undertake future maintenance,
no bond because not in right-of-way, and no curbs so as to avoid the
ramp requirement.
What we really need is to get the Department to see the difficulties
imposed by the bonding requirement. That is the only illegal require-
ment; the rest is policy. We are talking to the Department's counsel
and the Attorney General about this. Since it is a new requirement
other counties have no better ideas than we have."
Mr. St. John said he thought that the Board was going to take a closer look at the
method of assessments. He reviewed the assessment statute and the sections that follow to
inform the Board on how they are imposed and enforced. It is not possible to use assessmen
for this purpose, because only the abutting owners can be assessed, and most of these
sidewalks have been designed to serve neighborhoods. In other words, there is an existing
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
arterial road or street which has a subdivision built adjacent to it, and from the arterial
street one or-two main roads are built for ingress and egress into the subdivision with
branches similar to a fish skeleton of streets, leading from the main streets into the
subdivision. Sidewalks will only be put on main pedestrian travelled streets in the
subdivision. In addition only the properties that abut those streets can be assessed. That
assessment applies to maintenance, not construction costs. The assessment cannot be any more
than the peculiar benefit to the lot created by the presence of the sidewalk. The statute
also states that if the assessment does not cover the cost of maintenance, then the County
can use certain categories of its funds to make up the difference.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what would be the consequence if an assessment was attempted and
successfully challenged by someone. Would the County then have the responsibility of main-
tenance? Mr. St. John replied that it would fall back onto the County. Mr. Lindstrom said
if the County was not successful in maintaining that assessment, the County would not be any
worse off than what it is now except that it might not have decided to have sidewalks in the
first place. Mr. St. John said in the procedure for challenging an assessment, the owner
goes to the Circuit Court. Mr. Lindstrom said sidewalks are thought of mainly as an attempt
to get people off of the streets so they can walk on a safe pathway. Sidewalks are a benefit
to all of the people who might use them, not just to the abutting landowner. The landowner
gets some peculiar benefits, such as people not walking on his yard and a curb to keep cars
off of his yard. From a standpoint of good planning, he has seen how some of the sections in
Willoughby where sidewalks were not required, have front yards where for a distance of five
to ten feet then are barren of grass and there is a general mess which significantly
depreciates the value of the lots. In addition to the pedestrian aspects there is some
benefit to the owner by virtue of having the sidewalk in front of his house. Mr. St. John
said that does not solve the technical, legal problems. Assuming the Board opts for an
assessment, he understands the present Highway Department policy does not relieve the County
from having to post a bond to maintain the sidewalks. The technical fact that bonds are not
allowed for counties is still there. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board is waiting to hear if
there is some way of resolving that problem. If it cannot be resolved, it looks like the
Board is in a "Catch 22" situation. Mr. St. John said the Board is ~. ~a~ ~t. of situation
A bond could be posted and the assessment used as the surety on the bond. This idea is being
worked on with the Attorney General. Mr. Lindstrom said it seems to him the Board needs to
wait and hear more from the Attorney General. He would like to see the Board look more
closely at using assessments. An assessment might be something that could be justified. The
worst that could happen is if the assessment was successfully challenged, then the Board
would be in the same situation anyway. Mr. St. John said it would help if the Board members
would tell him it is the aim to have sidewalks in areas where sidewalks should be located.
This would mean that the Board wants to find some way to fund sidewalks other than through
the General Fund, but even if it came to that, the Board would use whatever funds were
necessary to have these sidewalks.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks Mr. St. John has gone a step too far. He does not think the
Board has adopted a position on this issue. He feels that where there is a need for sidewalk
they should be constructed. He is not quite sure where the line is when sidewalks are not
needed. Mr. Bowie said when the use of General Funds is mentioned, he has a problem. He is
interested in seeing what can be done about the bonding, assessment in certain areas, or
whatever. He has trouble supporting every citizen in the County paying for sidewalks.
Mrs. Cooke suggested there should be a qualifying statement as to why the Board sees a
need for sidewalks. Sidewalks have to be necessary for some .reason. Mr. Lindstrom said the
need for sidewalks is triggered by a certain density of population in present regulations.
He thinks that if a policy is going to be established, all Board members should be present,
and Mr. Henley and Mr. Fisher are absent at this time. He is also concerned about spreading
this cost to everybody although there is some rationale for spreading the cost. The reason
for having areas of high density development is to concentrate population growth away from
sprawling two or five-acre developments. He personally believes that idea is a benefit to
all of the citizens of the County. If people are going to live in high density areas, they
must have some incentive and amenities that are not needed if the person lives in a
low-density area. Mr. St. John said that is a generally accepted proposition in land use
terminology because it is felt it is to everybody's benefit to have a well-planned growth
management program in the County. People who live in the rural areas benefit by having the
rural areas protected from urban sprawl. If there is not going to be urban sprawl then there
must be urbanization in a planned area. Mr. Way said it seems to him that everybody would
benefit if sidewalks were to be installed. Mr. St. John said the Board can require sidewalks
in the developments that are still pending completion. He does not recommend giving the
Highway Department a bond when the Board does not believe it can legally do so.
Mr. Agnor said the Planning Commission is presently reviewing the County's sidewalk
policy, urban benefits of same and the use of money from the General Fund. The Planning
Commission will continue to require sidewalks under current policy although it may be
amended. He suggests that since this is a problem all over Virginia, not just in Albemarle
County, that the Board direct a request to the General Assembly requesting some kind of urban
tax district capability so that services that area enjoys are paid through a tax assessment
process. It is arguable as to whether just the property abutting the sidewalk benefits.
Mr. Bowie said he would certainly support Mr. Agnor's concept of requesting legislation
from the General Assembly, although he does not believe it is in the legislative package at
this time. The concept might solve a lot of concerns and problems and get the job done.
Mr. Lindstrom said he also agrees with Mr. Agnor. It sounds like the Planning
Commission is working on a recommendation regarding the sidewalk policy. If there is more
staff work that could be done with respect to assessments, he thinks it should be done.
Mr. Horne said there are two issues. One issue is the general urban necessity for
sidewalks along the County's major collector roads for the general urban good. The second
issue concerns internal circulation-type sidewalks in a large planned development. Si.
along Greenbrier Drive may be something the Board can look at as a general urban amenity.
The internal circulation-type roads would be an amenity designed for those persons who live
in that development. There are separate ways to look at each one.
3¸0
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, said he read the Pedestrian Obstacle Study,
presented to the Board on September 11, 1985, which recommends that sidewalks only be
required where the road is proposed to serve 3,000 vehicle trips per day. It is not going to
be a tremendous cost to maintain or even rebuild the sidewalks. He thinks that if a small
amount of money were accumulated each year for the eventual replacement of the sidewalks, the
yearly cost would not be more than $5,000 or $10,000. He cannot be very exact because he
does not know how many sidewalks are going to be required, but the cost to the County will
not be a million dollars a year. Mr. St. John said the cost is not enough to require the
County to establish a public works department either. The work can be contracted out. Mr.
Horne said 3,000 vehicles per day is a lot of vehicles. There are not going to be many roads
with that many vehicles daily. The internal roads are to be looked at differently.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there was anything that specifically needed to be addressed
today. The Board's statement several weeks ago seemed to him to take care of the immediate
problem. Mrs. Cooke said she thinks the Board should wait for the report from the Planning
Commission and take no action on this discussion. Mr. Lindstrom said when a response is
received from the Attorney General, the staff should present the Board alternatives that can
be formally adopted with respect to the funding, whether or not maintenance will have to come
from the General Fund if the County still wants sidewalks.
Agenda Item 6b. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Department of Highways & Transportation, addressed
the Board. As a matter of information, there is a public information meeting being held by
the Highway Department concerning the Meadow Creek Parkway (McIntire Road Extended) at
Charlottesville High School. The purpose of the meeting will be to provide interested
citizens an opportunity to informally review and discuss the status of the corridor and the
environmental studies currently under way. He handed to the Board members a copy of an
advertisement that will be placed in the local newspapers of the meeting. Mrs. Cooke asked
Mr. Agnor if he had any comments. Mr. Agnor said he had no comments. The earlier meeting
was attended by County staff who will also attend this meeting. Mr. Roosevelt said this is
not a public hearing. The proceedings will not be 'recorded. A number of charts and drawings
will be on the wall for people to look at to see the various alignments being studied. This
meeting will lead toward the publishing of a preliminary environmental document and a public
hearing which he expects to be held sometime in mid-Winter.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: An ordinance to vacate a public right-of-way in
Berkeley Community Subdivision between Lot 19, Block 5, Section 4, and Lot 1, Block 6,
Section 4; and a second public right-of-way between Lot 1, Block 6, Section 4 and Lot 9,
Block 9, Section 4. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 25 and October 2, 1985.)
Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning, was present and said this is a request by
several property owners to vacate two right-of-ways on Commonwealth Drive in Berkeley
Subdivision. There are currently three separate right-of-ways at the end of Commonwealth
Drive. Mr. Horne then presented the following staff report:
"Location:
The two rights-of-way are located at the north end
of Commonwealth Drive as follows:
a) A right-of-way located between 2633 and 2701
Commonwealth Drive.
b) A right-of-way located between 2701 and 2800
Commonwealth Drive.
History:
October 18, 1971
Board of Supervisors denied request from Berkeley
Community Association to vacate several streets in
Berkeley, including the two subject rights-of-way.
Staff had recommended deleting the subject rights-
of-way.
September 21, 1977
Comprehensive Plan amended to delete Commonwealth
Drive as a proposed major thoroughfare connection
to Rio Road. (Right-of-way 'b').
June 13, 1984
Board of Supervisors denied a request from VEPCO to
quit claim an easement 50 feet by 100 feet at the
end of right-of-way 'b' and serving lot 2, block 6,
Berkeley. The Board approved a deed of correction
to grant a 50 foot easement to the current owners
of lot 2, 'until development of street is accomplished.'
Lot 2 was originally created as a well lot and was
later sold as a residential lot at public auction.
March 20, 1985
Board of Supervisors approved SP-85-4, HCMF Development
Corporation, for a nursing home. One condition
stated: 'no access to be allowed through Berkeley
or Four Seasons subdivision.' (Property adjacent
to right-of-way 'a').
August 14, 1985
Board of Supervisors denied a request to vacate a
third right-of-way located between 2800 and 2704
Commonwealth Drive (right-of-way 'c'). The Comprehen-
sive Plan shows a proposed connector road in this
location between Commonwealth Drive and Berkmar
Drive.
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meleti'I~)~'~i!'??~,i,' ~ ~ I ~ ~%5~ '~ % %~ ~ ~ i ~T T %
LP~age 6 )
The extension of Commonwealth Drive to Rio Road was deleted from the
Comprehensive Plan in 1977 because such a through road in an established
residential neighborhood was not in the best interests of that neighbor-
hood. The proposed connection through Berkmar Drive will permit
emergency access without providing a direct route for through traffic.
It will also provide an important connection for Berkeley residents to
Rt. 29 northbound, when the existing Rt. 29 crossover at Dominion Drive
is closed in the future.
All but one parcel has an a%ternate means of access in addition to the
subject right-of-way. Lot ~, Block 6 is currently served by a 50 foot
access easement which exten~s from the end of right-of-way 'b' across
the frontage of Lot'2. In Order to maintain access to Lot 2, should
the vacation request be approved, a new easement would have to be
created between the temporary cul-de-sac of Commonwealth Drive and the
existing 50 foot easement.
Staff recommends approval of both requests, since they are consistent
with the Urban Area Neighborhood 1 Land Use Plan. An easement should
be provided in lieu of righ~-of-way 'b' to serve Lot 2 from Commonwealth
Drive."
Mr. Horne said that right-of-way "c" down to Berkmar Drive will not be deleted should
there be a need for future emergency access or as an exit from Commonwealth Drive down to
Berkmar Drive. The public hearing opened at this time.
Mrs. Pat Moore, a resident of ? Commonwealth Drive, addressed the Board. Mrs. Moore
said she is involved with easement Mrs. Moore said there is language in the ordinance,
concerning the vacation of the 50 foDt right-of-way between she and the Wicklines. It is
agreed that a 30 foot strip will go to the Wickline's and a 20 foot strip to the Moore's.
Mrs. Kathleen Wickline, a resid
Mrs. Wickline said she talked with h
to draw up a document of legal easem
foot as a right-of-way to the Moore'
Mr. George Stovall, a resident
Community Association, addressed the
received signatures and support for
basically 74 percent of the homeowne
Clerk's office).
With no one else present to spe
closed.
Mr. Lindstrom said in referenc(
easement and the second sentence st~
Lot 2, Block 6, Section 4, Berkeley,
questioned the language "It is undeI
be changed to read "It is conditionE
Mr. St. John suggested the words "It
"There shall be reserved for Lot 2,.
corrections that should be made to ~
the language be amended to read "..
Virginia, is requested to write in ~
reference.~." The reason for these
since the Clerk started the microfi]
stated. Secondly, the Clerk will m~
Board should mandate how to do it.
that states "...make reference to tl
the language be amended to read "..
volume..."
ent of 2701 Commonwealth Drive, next addressed the Board.
er attorney and if this evidence is approved, they intend
ent giving the 20 feet of the most inner part of the 30
s property.
of Commonwealth Drive and a member of the Berkeley
Board. The Association has circulated a petition and
vacating these two right-of-ways. Mr. Stovall said
rs in the area signed the petition (on file in the
ak for or against this ordinance, the public hearing was
to the proposed ordinance, paragraph three refers to the
tes "It is understood that there shall be reserved for
is an easement...", the word "is" should be deleted. He
stood that there shall be reserved..." and suggested it
d upon the granting of the easement" or something similar
is understood" be stricken and the sentence begin with
..", leaving out the word "is". There are also some
~aragraph four. Strike the word "shall" in two places and
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
~lain legible letters...·and is requested to make
changes are that the Code of Virginia has been changed
.m process. He does not know if it can be done the way
.ke the necessary notations and he does not think the
Mr. Bowie questioned the language in the same paragraph
~e same on the same to the volume...", and suggested that
and make reference to the same on said plat to the
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion t, adopt the ordinance as advertised with revisions to the
second paragraph as discussed. The amended language in paragraph two will now read "There
shall be reserved for Lot 2, Block 6, Section 4, Berkeley, an easement for ingress and
egress..." The amended language in paragraph three will read "... is requested to write in
plain legible letters across the vacated ... and is requested to make reference to the same
on said plat to the volume and page in which the instrument of vacation is recorded." Mr.
Bowie seconded the foregoing motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the followin¢
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-482b, as follows:
Section 1. That part of a certain plat of 0. R. Randolph, Engineer,
dated September 29, 1961, captioned "Berkeley Community Subdivision Plat -
Section 4" of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 373, page 79, showing a
cul-de-sac at the easternmost end of Commonwealth Drive with a fifty-foot
strip heading in a northerly direction from said cul-de-sac and designated
as "50.0' street" and a fifty-foot strip on the eastern side of said
cul-de-sac not bearing any designation, the first strip being between
Lots 19, Block 5, Section 4, Berkeley, and Lot 1, Block 6, Section 4,
Berkeley, and the second strip being between said Lot 1, Block 6,
Section 4, Berkeley, and Lot 9, Block 9, Section 4, Berkeley, are
hereby vacated and the dedication of said strips of land fifty feet in
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
width to public use is rescinded. Accordingly, be it hereby further
ORDAINED that fee simple to the northernmost strip shall revert to the
owners of Lot 19, Block 5, Section 4, Berkeley, and Lot 1, Block 6,
Section 4, Berkeley, respectively, then from the centerline of said
strip subject to any easements and utilities or other matters of
record. Each of the two, twenty-five-foot strips shall become a part
of the respective lots.
Furthermore, be it hereby further ORDAINED that fee simple to the
westernmost thirty-foot strip shall revert to the owners of Lot 1,
Block 6, Section 4, Berkeley, and the remaining twenty-foot strip shall
revert to the owners of Lot 9, Block 9, Section 4, Berkeley, both
subject to any easements for utilities or Other matters of record.
There shall be reserved for Lot 2, Block 6, Section 4, Berkeley, an
easement for ingress and egress over the thirty-foot strip just added
to Lot 1, Block 6, Section 4, Berkeley.
Section 2. The vacation set forth in Section 1 of this ordinance
shall in no way vacate any other portion of the street, road, right-of-way
or lot duly plated and recorded on the aforementioned plat.
Section 3. Pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia
(1950) as amended, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia, is requested to write in plain legible letters across the
vacated portion of the aforesaid plat the word "VACATED", and is
requested to make reference to the same on said plat to the volume and
page in which the instrument of vacation is recorded.
Section 4. Such vacation of a portion of the aforesaid plat shall
be effective on and after October 9, 1985.
Mr. Agnor suggested the Board take up Agenda Item No. 14 at this time since the meeting
was running ahead of schedule.
Agenda Item No. 14. Soil Erosion Control Ordinance Amendments.
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, addressed the Board. Mr. Elrod said these
amendments were actually prepared last year, but he decided to hold them when the Land Use
Regulations Committee (LURC) was appointed to see if the Committee's recommendations would
affect this report. It does not appear that there was any affect. Mr. Elrod asked the Board
to schedule a public hearing on the proposed changes or direct the staff to submit the
changes to various interest groups for comments prior to the public hearing. Most of the
changes in the ordinance are for clarification purposes. The changes are to explain items
that come up time and time again and not really covered by the State Code. The following
memorandum dated October 4, 1985 from Maynard L. Elrod, County Engineer, to Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., Deputy County Executive, on the proposed revisions to the Soil Erosion Control Ordinance
was received by the Board:
"The attached sheets have been marked to show certain revisions to
update and clarify the Soil Erosion Control Ordinance. The major
proposed revisions are as follows:
e
Transfer the administrative authority from the Zoning Administrator
to the Director of Engineering;
Add definitions for "Agent", "Applicant", "Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan", and "Permit Holder";
Add to Section 7-3(c) to clarify the agricultural exemption;
Delete Section 7-3(g). There are no active projects that were
commenced prior to 1975;
Add to Section 7-4(b) to clarify the differences between erosion
control plans for site developments, subdivisions as a whole, and
individual subdivision lots. Often a particular subdivision lot is
not built upon until long after the original permit for the road
and utility construction has been completed. Those lots are not
exempt, however, the State handbook does allow for waiver of formal
erosion control plans if the owner agrees to abide by the handbook
requirements;
Revise Section 7-5 to delete the Advisory Committee. This action
has been agreed to by the Soil Conservation District since the
County entered into the Chesapeake Bay Clean-Up Program by establish-
ing a conservation engineer position. This engineer attends the
District meetings and reports our activities to them and solicits
their advice on procedures and problems;
Add to Section 7-6(b) to explain the process by which we inform a
permit holder that his project will soon be in violation unless he
takes specific actions within a set time.
We suggest that the Board schedule a public hearing on these proposed
revisions.
In addition to the Ordinance revisions, we are considering a policy
that we feel may help us to obtain better results in the erosion
control efforts. The policy would offer contractors and developers an
incentive to properly control erosion. That incentive would be to
allow qualified contractors to proceed with their projects without
having submitted a formal plan if they meet certain conditions. These
conditions would be:
October 9, 198b (Regular Day l~eetlngj
P~e 8)
Be accepted by the Planning Commission as "qualified'~·
a. Have trained people to administer plan;
b. President or firm commits in writing to not violate ordinance;
c. Have had no violations for one year.
Firms so qualified would be allowed to start work forty-eight hours
after notifying the County Engineer that they have an approved site
plan, have prepared an erosion control plan, and have posted a bond.
We would like to have the Board's guidance on this matter. If they
agree we will prepare a suggested policy, obtain comments from various
citizen and developer groups, and report back to the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom said he likes the idea as an incentive allowing qualified contractors to
proceed with projects without a formal plan, if the conditions have been met. He feels it
would encourage contractors to meet the criteria and still give the County plenty of
perfection. As he was looking through the ordinance, he did not see where the suggestion
would be implemented. The only reference was with respect to certain subdivision laws.
Mr. Elrod said the idea is more as an administrative policy, rather than a change in the
ordinance. Mr. Elrod said he had tried to draft a document that would explain everything and
set up the rules, but the document has gotten to be as long as the ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if it is necessary to have an ordinance that waives the requirement for a formal plan
if conditions are met or can the waiver be done completely as a matter of procedure. Mr.
Elrod said the contractor would be required to submit a plan eventually. This process would
allow the contractor to call the Engineering Department and inform the department that the
site plan for the project has been approved, a bond posted, a schedule set up, and he is
ready to start work and has a prepared soil erosion plan. The contractor would then ask the
County Engineer if there is a problem with starting to work within 24 hours. If there are no
problems, within five days the contractor gets together with an inspector and goes over the
proposed plan. The County Engineer would keep this plan on file and the contractor would be
obligated to carry the plan forward. This is an attempt by the Engineering Department to get
the contractor's workers out to actually do the Work. The present process allows the soil
erosion plan to be prepared by a consulting engineer who usually does not know who the
contractor will be. A contractor bids on the project and will invariably include in the bids
to the developer that his workers will install certain items one time, including straw bales
and silt traps, and if they fill up with silt or wash out, then the developer is required to
pay for the work to be redone. Often a contractor will look at a project and find ways not
to redo the work. This policy is an effort to get the contractor more involved. It ~seems to
him that every year since he has been here, there has worked for Albemarle County there has
been at least one major disaster where the ordinance was adhered to, but the disaster still
occurred. After looking back at the incident, he can see that if the contractor really had
an interest from the beginning the accident may not have occurred.
Mr. Lindstrom noted that in Section 7-4(b)(2) of the proposed ordinance there is a
reference to erosion control plans for subdivisions and a provision that the Director of
Engineering may waive the requirement for these plans on any one or more subdivision lots if
certain conditions are met. He asked if that is intended to implement the policy as outlined
in Mr. Elrod's memorandum above. Mr. Elrod said this is being done now. In certain subdivi-
sions the developer builds the roads along with water and sewer lines, all of the components;
grades the lots and finishes it. When Engineering knows that there is going to be such a
subdivision, it makes sure the erosion control plan covers the entire perimeter of the
subdivision, not just the road construction. On the other hand, with a large-lot subd
it is recognized that usually the lots will not sell and develop as fast and the whole site
will not be under construction at one time, so usually the erosion control plan only covers
road construction and some drainage work. Those homes are not exempt from the erosion
control ordinance, but the actual construction of the road and driveway up to the homes are
never shown on a plan. There is never a separate permit. The contractor gets a building
permit and builds the home. If there is a complaint from adjacent property owners or if an
inspector sees something that is in violation then the contractor is stopped. When someone
comes in to get a building permit and the lot is not already covered by an erosion control
plan, then an agreement is signed indicating the person agrees to abide by the erosion
control ordinance which is all spelled out and covered in the State ordinance. Mr. Li
said this revision would exempt anything over half an acre. Is there any way when somebody
you know has violated this ordinance in the past or does not follow through the plans that
have submitted or failed to file plans, where you can refuse to let them proceed? He does
not see anything in the memorandum that would give the County Engineer the authority to
require a person to submit a plan if he had a bad history. Mr. Elrod said Section 7-4(b)(2)
states that the Director of Engineering may waive the requirement of erosion-control plans
for any one or more subdivision lots. The language does not say he has to. Mr. Lindstrom
said he would like to see that specifically stated in the ordinance. If there were
violations within a year, it would not be granted. It makes it clear to the applicant and
gives the County Engineer more protection. He also has some questions on the other language.
Also, he is still not sure he understands how this policy will be implemented with respect t(
the language in the memorandum.
Mr. St. John said he has a lot of trouble with this policy and with the proposed
ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not want to set a public hearing on the ordinance and
then have massive revisions after that. He would personally rather feel satisfied with the
ordinance before holding a hearing. Mr. St. John said he is not talking about the ordinance
as much as he is about the memorandum. He knows drafting this was a monumental effort by Mr
Elrod in the hope of alleviating red tape. If the County were a private enterprise, there
would be no question of equal protection under the law, or the hint of favoring big
developers over small individual developers, and so forth. Mr. St. John suggested that he
and the staff work on these revisions some more and then the Board hold a work session.
(Mr. Fisher arrived at the meeting at 10:08 A.M., but did not take the Chair.) Mr.
said he has a couple of points to make. Throughout the proposed ordinance, the term "Zoning
Administrator" is changed to "Director of Engineering." He asked if this creates a new
position. Mr. Agnor said the County Engineer and the Director of Engineering are the same
person. Mr. Bowie said he would like more work done on these revisions. He has a problem
with telling people how to clear their lots. Also, he does not want to amend this ordinance
and then have to change it.
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Lindstrom^he feels the worst things have occurred in the rural part of the County
through an exemption allowed by this ordinance, which he thinks this new proposal will cure.
Mr. Elrod said these revisions are taken right out of State Code. Mr. Lindstrom said he is
not opposed, just curious as to its origin. He also agrees with Mr. Bowie. There are limits
and yet one of the most serious erosion problems is created by agricultural uses. If there
is a more enforceable way to encourage erosion control than in the past by adopting some
better plan, then the Board should try it.
Mrs. Cooke said no action will be taken on this proposal today and later a public
hearing will be set. Mr. Lindstrom liked the idea concerning an incentive and thought some
such provision was going to be in the ordinance. He understands that this pOlicy may be
challenged as being arbitrary. He likes the idea and would like to see it without having a
25-page set of regulations on how it will be applied. Also, he feels it is a real way to
encourage people to do a good job.
There were no further comments.
At this point, Mr. Fisher took over the position as Chairman.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend and reenact Section 8-55 of
the Albemarle County Code to extend the effective date of the Real Estate Tax Exemption for
Certified Solar Energy Equipment, Facilities or Devices until December 31, 1990. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on September 24 and October 1, 1985.)
Mr. Breeden said should this ordinance expire, the County is only looking at $400 to
$500 difference in taxes being paid and collected by the County. The County is also going
through quite a bit of staff work to actually provide that small of an exemption for
individuals. Mr. Agnor said it has been recommended that in the interest of continuing the
emphasis on alternative energy resources, the ordinance be extended for another five years,
until December, 1990. Mr. Lindstrom asked if administration is a problem. Mr. Breeden said
there is not a major problem. The only time it must be dealt with is when the taxpayer makes
the application for the exemption. It is not a widely-used provision. It is just one more
item that must be kept up with each year, and in his opinion provides a very small benefit.
Should the Board decide to extend the ordinance, the State Code states that it must be in
minimums of five years.
The public hearing was opened. Dr. F. A. Iachetta addressed the Board. He said this is
an area of research in which he has worked during the last ten years. He does design work,
but does not sell any hardware. The point that needs to be raised is that when looking at
the method of taxation, if the cost of a solar collector is included in the cost of
construction, essentially the individuals who choose to use this alternate energy source are
being penalized. If a person wants to obtain as much as 35 to 50 percent of their annual
heating from the sun, passive or active, there would need to be a minimum $4000 to $15,000
investment, which has to be financed at the existing mortgage rate. The cost of the
exemption to the County is very modest. He is not sure the fair market value is enhanced by
the cost of system. The public does not accept some systems that well. He thinks that sun
spaces and passive systems are readily accepted by the public. Solar hot water heaters are
also acceptable. He thinks the Board should retain the ordinance.
With no one else from the public to speak for or against this ordinance, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion for adoption of an ordinance to amend and reenact Section
8-55 of Chapter VIII, of the Albemarle County Code entitled Real Estate Tax Exemption for
Certified Solar Energy Equipment, Facilities or Devices, to change the termination date. Mr.
Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out below.)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 8-55 OF
CHAPTER VIII, OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ENTITLED
REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTION-FOR CERTIFIED SOLAR ENERGY
EQUIPMENT, FACILITIES OR DEVICES, TO CHANGE THE TERMINATION DATE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 8-55 of the Code of Albemarle is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
Article X. Real Estate Tax Exemption for Certified
Solar Energy Equipment, Facilities or Devices.
Sec. 8-55. Effective date.
The exemption shall be effective for the tax year beginning January 1,
1979. For real estate assessed pursuant to Code of Virginia, section
58.1-3292, the exemption shall be effective after January 1, 1979, when
such real estate is first assessed, but not prior to the date of such
application for exemption. This exemption shall terminate on December 31,
1990, unless sooner extended or reenacted.
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)' '~' ~ ''~ ~
(Page 10)
Not Docketed. Mr. Agnor requested, on behalf of the Clerk, to interrupt the order of
the Board meeting. He said all of the advertisements for the October 16 Board meeting were
not legally published. Another advertisement must go to the newspaper within the next thirty
minutes in order to hear these items on October 23. This means that the October 16 meeting
would not be held and all petitions deferred for a week. He asked if the Board members would
agree to hold a meeting on October 23 in lieu of October 16. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Way both
said they would be unable to attend a meeting on October 23. Mr. Fisher then suggested
October 30. Mrs. Cooke said she Will be unable to attend October 30, but all other Board
members agreed to this date. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to change the October 16 meeting
to October 30. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend Section 8-40(b) of the
Albemarle County Code, Violations, Penalties and Assessments to bring the interest rate
charged on land use deferrals to ten per centum per year which is the other interest rate
charged for County licenses and taxes. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 24 and
October 1, 1984.)
Mr. Melvin Breeden addressed the Board and summarized the requested change.
The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Peggy VanYahres speaking for the Piedmont
Environmental Council, addressed the Board. She said the Council encourages the Board to
increase the interest rate. The poliCy of the land use taxation law is to basically
encourage the retention of open space and agricultural land by creating disincentives for
people to convert their land to more intensive uses, This higher interest rate does that.
Fauquier County raised its roll-back tax to ten percent in 1981, Loudoun, Rappahannock and
Madison also did this in 1980. It is time for Albemarle County to do the same.
With no one else present to speak for or against this amendment, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he was not aware that the Board was able to do this. Mr. Breeden
said State Code provides that the County can charge an interest rate up to a the same amount
as charged for other delinquent taxes. The intent all along was to charge the ten percent,
however, with this being in a separate section of the County Code, it was just overlooked.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this section can be worded so as to tie it to the interest rate being
charged on other delinquent taxes. Mr. St. John said he does not think there is any law one
way or the other. Mr. Lindstrom said if County policy is to charge the maximum rate
allowable by State Code, it would be good if any change would automatically trigger a change
in this section, also. Mr. St. John said he thinks the Board is safer spelling out this rate
in the Land Use Ordinance itself.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to on an ordinance to amend and reenact Section
8-40(b) of Chapter VIII, of the Albemarle County Code entitled Special Assessments for
Agricultural, Horticultural, Forest of Open Space Real Estate, to increase the amount of
interest charged on roll-back taxes. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out below.)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 8-40(b) OF
CHAPTER VIII, OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ENTITLED
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL, HORTICULTURAL,
FOREST OR OPEN SPACE REAL ESTATE, TO INCREASE THE
AMOUNT OF INTEREST CHARGED ON ROLL-BACK TAXES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 8-40(b) of the Code of Albemarle is hereby
amended and reenacted to read as follows:
Article VIII. Special Assessments for Agricultural,
Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real Estate.
Sec. 8-40. Violations~ penalties~ assessment.
(b) The director of finance shall, after receiving notice of the
change in use, either from the owner or from any other source, compute
and assess the current owner for the amount of roll-back taxes due,
plus simple interest of ten per centum per annum from the date of the
original deferment of the tax to the date of assessment.
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: A request to include Tax Map 61, Parcel 6, in the
service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for both water and sewer
service (Lambs Road Baptist Church located on Hydraulic Road at Route 656). (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on September 24 and October 1, 1985).
Mr. Tucker said this is a request by the Lambs Road Baptist Church to amend the service
area of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include property located at the northwest
quadrant of Lambs Road and Hydraulic Road to provide for both water and sewer service to the
church. Mr. Tucker said the staff feels that water and sewer may be a benefit to this area
environmentally. The problem for the Board is the possible precedent that could be set in
amending that service boundary in the South Fork Rivanna River watershed.
The public hearing was opened. Dr. F. A. Iachetta, representing Lambs Road Baptist
Church, addressed the Board. He said Mr. Milton Birch and Mr. Dave Flynn are present today
also. He said the church would like to amend its request. They would like to modify the
request for only water service, not sewer service. This amendment is offered in recognition
of the impact of changing the service boundary. The request for water is more justifiable
since there is already water service on their side of the road, water mains in the
right-of-way on the church side of Hydraulic Road. R. E. Lee Construction Company and
Albemarle High School have water service. The church does not think this is an unreasonable
request to make. Mr. Fisher said the letter from Mr. Birch dated September 3, 1985 can be
modified to delete "and the County sewer system". Dr. Iachetta said that is correct; the
request is just for water service. Dr. Iachetta said he appears here on behalf of the
deacons of First Baptist Church. His church is one of the two churches responsible for
sponsoring Lambs Road Baptist, not necessarily on this particular site, but in the area.
First Baptist takes pride in having helped Lambs Road Church come this far. Mr. Fisher asked
Mr. Birch if he concurs with the amendment to his letter. Mr. Birch replied yes.
Mr. Dave Flynn, a deacon and treasurer of Lambs Road Baptist Church, addressed the
Board. Mr. Flynn said that realizing the precedent this request might set, they withdrew the
request for sewer. He mentioned that United Parcel Service also has water service. Mr.
Flynn said he found out that R. E. Lee Construction Company has only water service, not sewer
service. He does not think this is a major request.
Mrs. Peggy VanYahres, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the
Board. She said she is not talking about this particular request, but the issue of extending
water and sewer into the watershed areas of the South Fork Rivanna River. She wishes to
remind the Board that one of the gOals of the Comprehensive Plan is to insure that public
utility improvements are consistent with land use policy. In 1980 the Board deleted 900
acres of developable land in the South Fork Rivanna River watershed to prevent development.
Phosphorous is the main problem in the watershed and developed land in the watershed area,
which comprises of only four percent, contributes sixteen percent of that phosphorous loading
now as compared to agricultural land in the watershed. In summary she urged the Board to
think very strongly before broadening water and sewer service in these areas that are
supposed to be protecting the watershed.
With no one else to speak for or against this request, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Way said memorandums from Maynard L. Elrod, County Engineer and William K. Norris,
Watershed Management Office recommended sewer connection as being advantageous to the
watershed. If there was a problem, it would be better served by having public sewer service,
and he is therefore surprised that the applicant withdrew the sewer request. Mr. Way asked
Mr. Tucker if he felt the rationale given in terms of setting a precedent would also be the
same for the water service. Mr. Tucker said it could. Anytime additional utility service is
established in an area, the Board opens itself to a potential precedent setting situation.
Mr. Lindstrom said in regard to the environmental advisability of public sewers, if this were
the only site using sewer it would be a benefit. The precedent of sewer in this area opens
the door to being forced to have a higher density. Mr. Tucker said overall if this area was
opened up to public sewer, it would not be a benefit to the reservoir or the watershed.
Mr. Bowie said a stream is mentioned in the staff report. Would the stream that
actively flows to the reservoir be affected by the option of public sewer or a septic tank?
Mr. Tucker said the concern was if the septic drainfield failed, there would a flowing stream
that would more readily move that flow into the reservoir. Mr. Bowie asked if the stream
also runs through the R. E. Lee property. Mr. Tucker said he does not think so.
Mr. Fisher said he made some statements when this application came before the Board last
month. He is sure the church officials took them to be antagonistic to what they were trying
to do, and he is sorry for that. The hours he has spent in court on similar issues trying to
protect the reservoir have led him to view the extension of utilities with grave concern. He
cannot look at just one site or one user without considering what approval of this request
would mean to opening up an area where there have been bitter lawsuits against members of
this Board in the past. He is appreciative of the consideration the church has given to
withdrawing the sewer request, but he is still struggling with the water request. He also
has problems with that request.
Mr. Bowie said for several reasons he is going to support the petition. There is a
stream running through property to the watershed, there are peculiar surrounding circum-
stances for the property and he has not been in court.
Mrs. Cooke said she will have to abstain from a vote on this petition. She did not
realize the church to which she is a member was going to take an active role in this
application and she thinks it might be construed as a conflict of interest if she were to
address the issue.
Dr. Iachetta said his comments were not intended to suggest that First Baptist Church
had officially taken a stand on this matter. He does not think it will be a problem for Mrs.
Cooke to vote. Mr. St. John also said he did not think it would create a problem.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County
Service Authority to include Tax Map 61, parcel 6 for water service only. Mrs. Cooke
seconded the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom said he appreciates the change in the application. He was particularly
concerned about the request for public sewer because of the significant increase in density
that could be allowed as a physical fact. He is aware that water only service does not have
the same implications, although it does permit a somewhat higher density than that allowed in
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
~ (Paqe. 12)
the absence of either water or sewer, In the past he has opposed the extension of waterlines
out of the growth areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan, because he does think that
water service carries the potential for an increased density of development. Water is also a
fairly precious commodity and he would hate to set the precedent of running lines all over
the County. The lower density areas that the Board has in the past extended this service to
does not have the options that higher densities have. The Board should reserve the County's
increasingly scarce water resources for higher densities. He does not see a compelling
reason to change a public policy on water service. His concern is with the evolution of this
project. Without questioning the intentions or motivations of the people who supported this
project, he felt in the beginning that the building was in the wrong place, on a site that
was too small and was not in a growth area where amenities could be provided. Now because it
is in the wrong place and it should not have been permitted in the first place, the Board has
to make special exceptions. He does not like being put in that position. He does appreciate
the fact that this is a request for water service only, but he still believes it is a utility
which is inconsistent with County planning and he cannot support the motion.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the staff would clarify the statement that all of the property
surrounding this particular parcel has public water. Mr. Tucker said that is correct.
Mrs. Cooke asked under what circumstances the surrounding properties were permitted to have
public water. Mr. Tucker said R. E. Lee Construction obtained water when the service areas
was changed a year ago. United Parcel Service had water problems and requested that its
property be included in the service area and Albemarle High School already had water service.
Mr. Lindstrom said there is a difference between an existing development which has a
water problem, and a new development which is simply desirous of having water when there is
no problem indicated or existing. He believes that is the legitimate distinction that has
been made in the past. He supported extending water to UPS because they had to have the
water or could not function. He does not think that is the case in this situation.
At this time, roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 11. Request to connect certain properties to the water service area of
the Albemarle County Service Authority - West Leigh and West Woods Subdivision.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 10:50 A.M.) This matter was brought before the Board
by a request from Mr. Louie L. Scribner, Jr., to include his property, Tax Map 59, Parcel 4E,
Tract Al, in the Albemarle County Service Authority for water service. Another request was
received from Messrs. Rudolph W. May, Stephen Pohl and Karry K. Brockman to reinstate lots
one, two and three of West Woods Subdivision in the water service areas of the Albemarle
County Service Authority.
The following staff report was received by the Board:
"REQUEST:
Messrs. May, Pohl, Brockman and Scribner are requesting amendment of
the service area boundaries of the Service Authority in order to
connect their properties to public water. The enclosed letters (on
file) from Messrs. May, Pohl and Brockman indicate water quality
problems with the existing joint well now located on the May property
which serves all properties. The staff has contacted Mrs. Scribner and
she has stated that the reason for their request is that they wish to
build an accessory apartment above their garage for her mother. Her
mother has stated her wish to connect to public water. The Scribners
have not indicated any defined water quality problems with their well.
The May property is currently within the service area for water only.
Connection of their property would, therefore, be allowed. The
relation of such a connection to the existing joint well would have to
be clarified, however.
LOCATION:
The May, Pohl and Brockman properties all of which are approximately 2
+ acres in size are located on Old Ballard Road and West Pines Drive.
The Scribner property, which is 5 ~ acres, is located on West Leigh
Drive.
UTILITY LOCATION
A water line is currently located on West Pines Drive at the southwest
corner of the May property which could serve the May, Pohl and Brockman
properties.
A water line is currently located on West Leigh Drive approximately 250
feet south of the Scribner property.
Mr. Louie Scribner, said his home was constructed when West Leigh was on a central well
system and before County public water was available. His property is not in West Leigh but
is bordered now by several subdivisions, including the back of Lewis Hill III, West Woods
immediately to the west, and West Leigh Subdivision, all of which are served by public water
service. The waterline does not extend to the edge of his property so he would be faced wit
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
the expense of burying approximately 1,000 feet of waterline, but he is willing to do that,
since there are two pieces of property currently being connected to the public water system
at the end of the line where he would attach. He would be able to have a meter set and the
waterline buried concurrently with construction of the houses on these other sites. He is
currently on his own well system. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Scribner if he is having problems
with his well system. Mr. Scribner said no, but he would like an opportunity to get on the
public water system. He is going to construct a garage, apartment complex for his
mother-in-law, so he will be adding an additional burden to his well. He does not think
there is any more subdividable property left in the area. There are a couple of unbuilt
lots, but they would probably be easier served by the existing waterline than his property
would.
Dr. Stephen Pohl next addressed the Board. Dr. Pohl said the request concerns lots one,
two and three of West Woods subdivision. He said these three lots were the first lots
developed in the subdivision and were all connected to one well located on the May property
by the original developer. The rest of the subdivision was subsequently developed by another
developer, who installed a central well system and ran into problems. Therefore the
waterlines were not run into the rest of West Wood. Dr. Pohl said they have had problems
with the well for several years. There are electrical malfunctions that the repair man has
not been able to diagnose and has not been able to repair. More recently it has become
contaminated with some substance which precipitates in the waterlines when the water gets
mixed with air causing problems in clogging up washing machines and water faucets and also
provides a very unsightly appearance. They feel they are a part of West Woods subdivision
which is already in the water service area. The land around these lots is as developed as it
will get and he does not think this request will impact development in the area.
Mr. Karry K. Brockman, property owner of lot three, addressed the Board. He said there
are two possible routes for bringing water into lots one, two and three. One place is close
to the entrance of West Woods subdivision right now, because the lines extend to that point.
Another possible route would be to come in behind lots two and three from a cul-de-sac where
the waterline presently serves houses. Mr. Rudolph May, property owner of lot one, is not
present today, but he is also in favor of this action being taken.
Mr. Fisher said the request before the Board is whether to set a public hearing on
either or both of these applications. (Mr. St. John returned at 10:56 A.M.) Mr. Fisher said
the WeSt Woods water system was the first well system tested under the new testing procedures
adopted by the Board, and the well went dry within one year. That subdivision was connected
by the Albemarle County Service Authority under an emergency situation by running pipes
across the surface of the ground, It could not have been done if the central well system had
not been there with the waterlines already in place. These three lots, all connected on one
well, show what has been happening there for the last twenty years. All wells in the area
are going bad or have already gone bad. Mr. Fisher recommended that a public hearing be held
on November 13 on an ordinance to include West Leigh subdivision (Tax Map 59, Parcel 4E) and
West Woods subdivision (Parcels 58C-01-3, 58C-01-2 and 58C-01-1) in the water service areas
of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to that effect which
was seconded by Mr. Way.
Mr. Lindstrom said he can support the request to add the three lots in West Woods, but
he cannot support the other application because of the question of necessity versus
convenience. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Not Docketed: The Board recessed at 11:00 A.M. and reconvened at 11:06 A.M.
Agenda Item No. 12. Request to Approve Connecting Water and Sewer Service to Horseshoe
Bluff Development in Fluvanna County.
Mr. Tucker presented the following letter dated September 23, 1985, from J. W. Brent,
Executive Director, Albemarle County Service AuthoritY, to the Board:
"You may be familiar with a 24-unit housing project known as Horseshoe
Bluff which is proposed for development within the town of Scottsville
in Fluvanna County. The developer proposes to connect to the public
water and sewer facilities in the town of Scottsville which are owned
and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. The Albemarle
County Service Authority is requesting the approval of boards of
supervisors of both Fluvanna County and Albemarle County to permit the
Service Authority to serve this project. Your approval is respectfully
requested."
The following letter dated October 3, 1985, from George R. St. John, County Attorney,
addressed to Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, Board of Supervisors, was received by the Board:
"This is in response to your memorandum dated September 26, 1985 to me,
in reference to extension of utilities by ACSA into Fluvanna County.
At the time the Service Authority took over the utilities in Scottsville,
the Scottsville system already included sixteen customers who were
within the borders of Fluvanna County. However, the designated project
area for the Scottsville system was shown on the map as stopping at the
County line.
However, under Code Section 15.1-1250(f) a service authority has the
power to operate 'within, without, or partly within and partly without'
one or more of the political subdivision or subdivisions by whom the
authority was created.
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
____~e 14)
Therefore, I do not believe it is necessary that the project area be
enlarged in order for ACSA to provide this service to new customers in
Fluvanna, but it is necessary as a matter of policy as well as a matter
of law, that the governing bodies both Fluvanna and Albemarle approve
this extension by resolution of each. governing body. In order for this
to be done, a map showing the location of the new customers, and the
type and location of the mains and so forth, be presented to the
governing bodies along with the resolutions. Further, under Code
Section 15.1-456, the Fluvanna Planning Commission would have to review
this service and find that it is in accord with the Fluvanna Comprehensive
Plan."
Mr. St. John said the recommended resolution would be: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County Virginia, hereby concurs in the extension of water and sewer
by the Albemarle County Service Authority to the area shown on the map attached to the
resolution. Mr. St. John then presented a map given to him by Mr. Brent that can be used for
this purpose. He said the Board does not need engineering plans or the.actual lines where
the extension will be made. Mr. Fisher said the Board had not seen the map and asked if the
map includes the entire part of Scottsville that is in Fluvanna County, or just this one
project area. Mr. St. John said the map includes the whole part of the town that is in
Fluvanna, but it also shows the lots to be served by this service. The map does not show the
individual dwelling units, but he does not think that is necessary.
Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, addressed
the Board. Mr. Brent said the Service Authority presently serves sixteen customers in
Fluvanna County who were customers at the time the Service Authority acquired the system.
The Service Authority has no intention of taking anything in Fluvanna County as a service
area. There is one proposed development for a low income-type apartment project just over
the line in Fluvanna County. He found out yesterday from Mr. St. John that a map would be
needed. The only map available is the one Mr. St. John has. The developer does not know at
this time whether he can build the project, so he has not spent any funds to develop a plan.
The request before this Board and the Fluvanna county Board of Supervisors is to permit that
one development be served. The Alblemarle County Service Authority is not extending any
mains, at its expense, into Fluvanna County. This will all be done totally at the expense of
the developer.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is any question about the adequacy of the the water supply
being able to supply all of the town of Scottsville if eventually developed to the density
shown in the Comprehensive Plan as well as these other areas. Mr. Brent said in his opinion
it would be. There are several areas of industrial zoning in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Fisher said if there is enough water taking on residential customers is one thing,
but having potential industrial users in that area could place a considerable demand on
Totier Creek in the future. He haS no problem with this project alone if the Fluvanna County
Board of Supervisors approve it, and the Albemarle County Service Authority Board thinks it
is a good idea. How to do it is another question. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board should get
some specific information or is this something the Board cannot get unless this request is
approved. Mr. Way said this project has been approved by the Scottsville Town Council.
There are some serious questions by the residents in the area concerning this project, but
those questions have nothing to do with what is before the Board. They are questions
concerning the total project, however do not concern connecting to the water and sewer
service.
Mr. Fisher asked if there is additional sewage capacity in the Scottsville system or is
there a limitation. Mr. Brent said the sewage lagoon in Scottsville is operating on a
consent order from the State Water Control Board. The normal flow into the lagoon is not
problem. Due to the deteriorating state of the old sewage system in Scottsville, during
periods of rainfall it floodS. The Service Authority, between now and July 1, 1988, will be
required to virtually replace the entire sewerage system in Scottsville. Mr. Fisher said he
did not know that was being planned. Mr. Brent said the Service Authority did not have any
choice. Mr. Way said that will increase the number of customers that can be served. Mr.
Brent said that is correct. The Health Department is not concerned about serving additional
customers or the quantity the Service Authority is likely to receive in Scottsville; it is
the rainfall. Mr. Way asked if the Service Authority can handle this requested project in
Fluvanna County. Mr. Brent said yes, additional customers will not contribute to the over-
loading of the lagoon.
Mr. St. John said he does not think this request requires another map, other than the
one he has, because the service area is not being extended. He does not believe this county
can extend the service (jurisdictional) areas into another county for the Service Authority,
so no other map is needed. Mr. St. John said a statement is needed that this Board has no
objection to the Albemarle County Service Authority contracting with these customers. The
rest is an internal matter for the Town and the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Fisher said he can support a motion that the Board has no objection to the Albemarl~
County Service Authority serving a twenty-four unit housing project known as Horseshoe Bluff
in this area, provided there is concurrence by the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors. Mr
Way offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, concurs in the extension of water and sewer service by the
Albemarle County Service Authority to the area referred to as Horseshoe
Bluff lying in the Fluvanna County portion of the Town of Scottsville
being shown on the map attached hereto and marked Exhibit A.
Mr. Lindstrom said if an application were received for an industrial user in the
Fluvanna section of Scottsville that this Board felt might impair the Service Authority's
ability to provide sewer and water service to customers, either existing or future customers
(Page 15 )
in the Albemarle County part of Scottsville, would that be a legitimate distinction on which
to deny that application. Mr. St. John said yes. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board is not then
setting a precedent by approving this request. Mr. St. John said absolutely not.
Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. FiSher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 13. Request from Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors
concerning membership on the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors.
The following letter dated September 26, 1985 from Mr. Robert R. Humphris, Chairman,
Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors, was received by the Board of
Supervisors:
"Attached is a resolution (on file) adopted by the Albemarle County
Service Authority Board of Directors on September 19, 1985 requesting
Service Authority representation on the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
(RWSA) Board of Directors. At the time the RWSA was formed the naming
of the county executive and county engineer as the County's representa-
tives was the logical decision since both of these officials administered
the day-to-day operations of the Service Authority. At that time
(1973), the Service Authority served 2026 customers and collected
annual revenues of $427,645. In the 12 years since then the number of
customers has increased to 6624, the annual revenues exceed $3,500,000,
and the Authority has hired its own administrative staff.
It is the opinion of the Board of Directors that the interests and
requirements of the Service Authority can most effectively be communi-
cated to the regional authority by direct representation on its Board
of Directors and that the Service Authority should have the power of
the vote in matters directly affecting it.
In asking that the Service Authority's executive director replace the
county engineer on the RWSA Board, the Service Authority acknowledges
the important contributions of the previous and present county engineer
in the development of this community's water and wastewater systems."
Mr. Robert Humphris addressed the Board. Mr. Humphris said it has become increasingly
obvious to the Albemarle County Service Authority Board and staff that there is a need for
representation by the Service Authority on the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority because a
lot of decisions are made that affect the Albemarle County Service Authority. When the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was set up in the early 1970'S, the Articles of Incorpor-
ation allowed for five members, one member chosen jOintly by the City and the County, two
City staff representatives, and two County staff representatives. At that time, those were
very logical choices because Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, the County Engineer, was intimately
associated with all of the workings of the Service Authority, and so was the County Executive
Since that time, the County has grown, the Service Authority has grown, and today the County
Engineer is not intimately associated with the concerns and interests of the Service Authorit
There are many decisions made that affect the Service Authority's operations, rate structures
etc. As a result, the Service Authority is requesting that the County Engineer be replaced
by the Executive Director of the Service Authority on the Rivanna Board. Presently, either
the Service Authority's Executive Director or its engineer attend these meetings as an
observer and frequently make comments. If this was not done, the lack of communication would
be bad and affect the Service Authority in many ways. This change would improve communica-
tions and the effect of the power of the Service Authority's vote on matters which affects
them. The Director of Public Works in the City is a member of the Rivanna Board. Also, none
of the county members have that close of an attachment to the Service Authority's operations
and daily workings. This would be a step in the right direction.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Humphris to give the Board an example of where communication
difficulties have lead to a problem for the Service Authority. Mr. HumphriS said before the
Service Authority started sending an observer to every meeting the Service Authority received
minutes from a meeting held several months earlier and found that there had been a change in
the rate structure. The increase affected the cost of the water and the Service Authority
was not aware of the decision until several months later. Mr. Fisher said the Director of
Public Works for the City has responsibilities for water and sewer and also has other
responsibilities which are internalized in that position, which would not be the case with
either the County Engineer or the Director of the Service Authority.
The following letter dated October 3, 1985 from Mr. George R. St. John to Ms. Lettie E.
Neher, Clerk, was received by the Board:
"This letter is in reply to your memorandum of September 26, 1985, in
which you asked me to forward a memorandum to your office explaining
what the Board of Supervisors would need to do to grant the request of
the Albemarle County Service Authority to place the Service Authority's
Executive Director on the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority.
In order to effectuate this change, it will be necessary for both the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County and the City Council of the
City of Charlottesville to adopt concurrent ordinances or resolutions
amending the two body's previous resolutions creating the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority. It also will be necessary to amend the Articles
of Incorporation of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. This can be
done in the amending ordinances or resolutions. Prior to adoption,
Virginia Code Section 15.1-1243 requires publication of the ordinance
or resolution and notice of public hearing on the change."
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
41
Mr. Bowie said he assumes from the County Attorney's memorandum dated October 3, 1985,
that action such as changing the number of members still requires a change in bylaws.
Mr. Lindstrom said this request does not change the number of members, it substitutes one
member for another. Mr. Humphris said this change-would make the Rivanna Board more equal
because the City Public Works level is very similar to the Service Authority.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to have comments on this from the County Executive. Mr.
Agnor said he and Mr. Brent have discussed this over a period of time. This change certainly
makes sense administratively as well as practically because of the evolution of the Service
Authority as a separate agency with its own executive director.
The following letter dated October 2, 1985, from Mr. Donald J. Wagner, was received by
the Board:
"Currently, the County Executive and the County Engineer are members of
the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. The
Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority has
recently requested that in this function you replace the County Engineer
with the Executive Director of the Service Authority. I was responsible
for bringing the idea to the attention of the Service Authority Board,
and would like to explain my reasons for making the suggestion.
Thanks to your appointments, I am on the Board of Directors of the
Service Authority and was a member of the Land Use Regulations Committee
(LURC). I believe the suggested Change would be helpful in the efficient
operation of both the Service Authority and the Engineering Department.
First, from my Service Authority viewpoint, the actions of the Rivanna
Board have far reaching effects on the County Service Authority, but
the Service Authority has no direct input to their deliberations. I
believe it would be helpful to both bodies to have the Director of the
Service Authority sit as a member of the Rivanna board. I have mentioned
this to Mrs. Cromwell, and she was receptive to the suggestion.
At the same time, from the LURC study, I know there is broad agreement
that the County Engineer individually and his department in general has
more than enough to do in land use matters and other concerns in which
there is day to day involvement.
I believe that at the time the Rivanna board came into being, Harvey
Bailey was County Engineer, and had a history of long involvement in
county water systems. That is certainly a valid historic reason for
the present arrangement, but it seems to me it is time for a change. I
have discussed this with both Bill Brent and Maynard Elrod, and they
have both indicated general agreement with the idea. If I can provide
any further information to help you in your consideration, please let
me know."
Mr. Agnor said he received a letter from Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer. In the
letter Mr. Elrod said he is completely agreeable with the idea of the Executive Director of
the Albemarle County Service Authority becoming his replacement on the Rivanna Authority
Board. He does not want anyone to be under the impression that his service on the Rivanna
Authority Board is a burden and affects his other duties. Mr. Elrod felt that having the
knowledge and awareness of water and sewer issues is a benefit to him and his operation in
terms of overall County planning and in terms of dealing with developers, etc. Mr. Agnor
said he thinks the representation would be more equitable as a parallel to the Director of
Public Works because that person is assigned to be specifically in charge of water and sewer,
and Mr. Brent being on the Rivanna Board would be the counter part to that position.
Mr. Fisher recommended that the Board take this under advisement and discuss the request
as a personnel matter in executive session, and try to figure out what would give the County
the best representation for the interests that have to be considered, and make a determinatic
next month if possible. One month or two will not make a difference as this request is not
that urgent.
Mr. Bowie said if the expertise and communications require that the membership and the
by-laws be changed, there are two ways to change them, one being to increase the size and the
other changing one of the jobs. He would like to think about this a little bit. He also has
not seen Mr. Elrod's memorandum and would like to hear what he has to say.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that he has heard rumors that the City would like to justify a
change in the Four-Party Agreement in order to revise it from stem to stern. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if this request would require any changes in the Four-Party Agreement. Mr. Agnor said
it would require an amendment. -Mr. Agnor said the County would have to take the action
suggested by Mr. St. John in his letter.
Mr. Agnor said the Four-Party Agreement sets out the responsibilities of all of the
parties to the Rivanna Authority. The concern is that there could be some effort by the
to minimize those areas of participation and responsibility. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there
any problem anticipated from the City because of this request. Mr. Agnor said he does not
believe there would be. He has had a brief discussion of the request with the City Manager.
Mr. Lindstrom said this is a simple change but he feels City Council may be looking for an
opportunity to fuss about the rest of the agreement. Mr. Agnor said the City Manager said
has not discussed this with the City Council, so he did not know what their reaction would
be. Mr. Brent said he has. had no conversations with the City. Mr. Fisher suggested this
item be deferred until November 13, 1985.
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Agenda Item No. 15. Request for an Ordinance to Regulate Parking in Fire Lanes.
The following letter dated September 16, 1985 from Mr. Robert W. Bruton, Manager,
Commercial Division, Great Eastern Management Company, Inc., to Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, was-
received by the Board:
"As you may recall, in early September I wrote a letter to the Chief of
Police regarding some problems that we were having in the PantoPs
Shopping Center. You should have received a copy of that letter. In
my letter, I mentioned the difficulty we were having with people
parking in the fire lanes in front of the stores. On Friday, September
6th I spent from 8 p.m. to midnight in the shopping center parking lot
observing what occurred. Early in the evening, I noted eight cars
parked in the fire lane and the drivers were not in them. I went in
and called the police department and was amazed to learn that there is
no county ordinance against parking in a fire lane. The officer who
answered the phone checked with another officer who told her that there
was no ordinance against parking in fire lanes on private property.
The only way we could get the people to move would be to ask them to
move or we could have them towed.
Frankly, I was rather shocked. When a shopping center, office building,
or any other public access structure is built,~ provisions are normally
made for fire protection. In my experience (not in Albemarle County)
part of the plan of development review process includes a review by the
fire department. Also, it has been my experience that we are required
to stripe in fire lanes in front of the stores. This is an added
expense in that the striping and periodic restriping costs money, and
the additional width required for travel lanes costs more money. All
of this is for the purposes of fire safety. When the developer is
required to go to this effort and expense and the county does not have
an ordinance and does not assist the developer in enforcing an ordinance
of this type, it seems to me that the county is ignoring a vital
element of the health and safety of its citizens. As I pointed out to
the officer when I spoke to her on the phone, if we had a ~fire in the
shopping center the fire trucks would not have been able to get as
close to the fire as they should. I felt that this was a potentially
dangerous situation which should be a violation of some ordinance. To
learn that I can get a parking ticket for allowing a parking meter to
expire but I would get no ticket of any type parking in a fire lane
seems very strange indeed.
My purpose in writing is to make you aware of this situation and to
request that this be made a matter of business for the Board of
Supervisors to consider. In view of the potential for a serious
disaster that parking in fire lanes creates, I believe that it is in
the best interest of all the citizens of Albemarle County that such an
ordinance be placed on the books."
The following letter dated October 3, 1985 from Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney,
to Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, was received by the Board:
"In response to your inquiry on the subject of a request by Great
Eastern Management Company that the County Police Force undertake
responsibility for policing parking at the Pantops Shopping Center, I
submit the following:
Enclosed (on file) you will find copies of the Code sections dealing
with the powers of counties to regulate parking. These are Code
Sections 46.1-551, 181.1, 252.1, 252.3, and 181.4:1.
However, if you do this at one shopping center you will be obliged to
do it at all of them; and further, the proprietors of these shopping
centers should be aware that if this is done, then the shopping center
takes on attributes of public property which will diminish private
control over that property. That is to say, the shopping center will
as a matter of law become a public forum from which street vendors,
solicitors, and demonstrators of all kinds, could not be excluded.
I have made inquiry as to how other shopping centers are handling this,
both in the county and the city. Fashion Square, for example, polices
its parking lot with a private security force. Barracks Road, which is
in the city, has persuaded the city to assign a patrolman full time to
its property, but he does not issue summons or tickets to persons
parking illegally. The center relies on its power as a private owner,
for this purpose.
You will see again from these statutes, that a private owner has the
legal power to have illegally parked vehicles towed at the owner's
expense. This is the remedy used by other shopping centers at this
time, including Barracks Road. If we pass an ordinance giving force of
law to the private parking regulations of the respective shopping
centers, and thus enabling the county police to ticket the cars, this
will increase the workload not only of the police department but of the
County Magistrates and the General District Court.
A copy of your inquiry was sent to Mr. (Robert) Vaughn and Mr. (Michael)
Tompkins so I assume you question whether this is in their area; I do
nou believe this kind of enforcement is within the zoning administrator's
function but is a matter which must be handled either by the police
force, which I do not recommend, or by the owner of the shopping
center."
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
{Page 18)
Mr. St. John said he has received from Police Chief Frank Johnstone a sampling of
ordinances on parking from other localities. It is clear, from the statutes that the Board
can do this. Some of the counties have gone to the full extent of the powers granted in the
statute and added all of their shopping center parking provisions incorporated into law. If
a parking lot has more than fifty parking spaces, parking can be regulated in these parking
lots by ordinance. That would mean the actual parking with spaces, time limits, etc. There
is an ordinance from one of the localities which prohibits parking in certain areas for a
given number of feet from a fire hydrant or driveway, plus a provision against parking in any
fire lane as designated by the county fire official. Those prohibitions are enforced by the
police county-wide. Ticketing, as opposed to issuing a summons, is a separate issue, but
they overlap. In order for the police force to give a summons, it must be served on the
owner at home or by waiting at the car until the owner arrives. Ticketing has no official
standing. The owner of the car can be told that a summons is going to be issued to him
unless he voluntarily pays a fine of a certain amount. If the person does not voluntarily
sign the summons, then he is arrested. Mr. St. John said he thinks this is purely a decision
by the Board as to whether it wants to assign this function to the Police Department. The
police already have the power to do this.
Mr. Fisher said he likes the idea of this being self-enforced and would prefer that it
continue this way. It certainly saves other taxpayers from paying for the enforcement of
same. From his observations, people often abuse fire lanes by parking for indefinite periods
of time. If there was a fire he does not think the fire trucks could get to the buildings.
Some of the lanes are so narrow between the areas designated for parking of cars that there
literally would not be room if one car was parked at the curb and a truck needed to get past.
Mr. Bowie said in this particular shopping center, there is plenty of room for a fire
truck whether or not it uses a fire lane. He really does not think the fire lane itself is
wide enough to accommodate a fire truck if nobody was parked in it and the rest of the road
was blocked for some reason. He has talked to various shop owners and he had personally
inspected the area on eight different nights, and there was no problem. It seems to him that
if there is a particular problem at a shopping center, the Board could address that
particular problem, but he cannot see putting in a general law to cover all shOpping center
parking lots because there is one case where all that is needed is to tow a vehicle. Mr.
Bowie said he appreciates the County Attorney's letter, and he would also like to hear
something from the County Fire Official and the Chief of Police on this subject.
Mr. Agnor said he and Mr. Tucker have had some discussions with the Fire Official and
have learned that there is no problem existing other than individual cars parked in front of
an individual business and the businessman does not want to get his customer mad and yet he
wants enforcement. Mr. Agnor said he has learned that the County has been requiring fire
lanes where it has no such authority and that will have to be stoPPed. The only area where
fire lanes can be required is when there is obviously no other access to the building such as
an alley way. In the front of the businesses where there is a parking lot and a flow of
traffic, it should not even be marked as fire lanes. When the fire truck responds to a fire,
the truck is not allowed to park within the vertical height of the building, the idea being
that if the building collapsed it would not fall on the fire truck. Therefore the fire lanes
that exist are not of any value in that regard because most of them are right up against the
front of the building. After talking with Police Chief Johnstone, it was decided that this
idea would be a burden to his department and not serve a useful public purpose. Law enforce-
ment officers have enough of a task without also being parking attendants. He would not
recommend that this be a responsibility the Board should add to the Police Department.
Mr. Bowie suggested that the Board reject the request for an ordinance to regulate
parking in fire lanes. There were no further comments.
Agenda Item No. 16a. Appropriation:
(Housing) to purchase office equipment.
Department of Planning & Community Development
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of
Finance, dated September 30, 1985, to the Board:
"In the mid 1970's funds from the Virginia Housing Development Authority
were used by the County to purchase a 1974 Chevrolet pickup. This
vehicle was sold in May of 1985 by auction and the monies received from
the sale, $1,400.00, must be returned to VHDA or expended for new
equipment subject to VHDA approval.
A request by the Planning Department to use these funds to purchase the
following items has been approved by VHDA:
1. Two-way portable radio 2.
table"
Printer sound cover 3.
Computer
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 11:49 A.M.) Mr. Agnor said the the two-way portable
radio would provide the housing inspector communications capability through the Inspections
Department to other inspectors in the field so he might get advice by radio. The other two
items are related to data processing equipment in the department. No public hearing is
required on this request.
Mr. Bowie offered motion, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $1,400.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the General Fund and coded to the Housing office as follows:
1-1000-81030-700100
1-1000-81030-700200
Machinery and Equipment
Furniture and Fixtures
$ 860.00
540.00
$1,400.00
AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mrs. Rellen Perry arose to address the Board. Mrs. Perry said the Albemarle County
Housing Coalition has asked that there be a housing coordinator on County staff. Previously
they were told that when funding became available for the Section 8 - Moderate Rehabilitation
Program that there could then be money that would be applied to hiring a housing coordinator.
Mr. Fisher told Mrs. Perry that the Board will get to the request concerning the Moderate
Rehabilitation Program later.
Roll was then called and the motion approved by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 16b. Appropriation: Bids on Auditorium.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated October 2, 1985 from Mr. Ray B.
Jones, Deputy County Executive to the Board:
"A preliminary evaluation of the sound, acoustics, and lighting in the
auditorium was done by the architects in the fall of 1984. A report
was made in December, 1984, which was evaluated by the staff and
reviewed with the Board of Supervisors. During the interim period
between the initial report and the final bids taken on September 17,
1985, a recording system was purchased from the Lanier Company at a
cost of $3740.
Some additional work, not included in the original report on the stage,
podium, painting, and acoustical wall treatment was included in the
specifications and bids. The bids were taken in two parts as described
in the attached Bid Tabulation by the architect. Therefore, the
summary of the total project costs is as follows:
AUDITORIUM RENOVATIONS
Preliminary Evaluation Report
Recording System
Architectural and Engineering Fees
Bids:
Part A $30,875
Part B $69,000
Advertising, Printing, etc.
Contingency (8% on $99,875)
Additional Chiller to Air Conditioner
Air Handling System Motor
Total
Less: Previous Appropriation
Net to be Appropriated
$ 1,860
3,740
13,425
99,975
293
7,990
11,500
1,787
$140,470
102~140
$ 38,330
Other pertinent data for your information is as follows:
There were three bidders on Part A (miscellaneous) to make renova-
tions to-the stage, install drapes on windows, change podium,
painting and acoustical work ranging from $30,875 to $38,000. Low
bidder was Shelter Associates.
There was only one bidder on Part B (Electrical and Sound Systems)
which was Design Electric, Inc. This firm did the lighting system
on the front lawn of the County Building.
Addendum 91 on the Bid Tabulation attached had to do with a change
on the stage curtain track.
Since January 1985 (nine months) the auditorium has been scheduled
by the Staff Services Department for 233 events. Over 50 of these
were non-County organizations and groups.
5. The estimated time of completion is 90 days.
The additional cooling coils on the air conditioning, and replace-
ment motor on the air handling system will add to the comfort of
the auditorium. There were considerable complaints during the
hotter part of the summer when large groups occupied the
auditorium for several hours. The items were not included in the
contract because staff and the architect felt it would be cheaper
to purchase them directly. Firm competitive prices have been
obtained by the County and are included above.
The eight percent contingency in the amount of $7990 was discussed
by the staff with the architect. Since little work was done on
the electrical, sound, and lighting on the Phase I contract of
this building in the auditorium area, it was decided to include it
in the project cost - especially in view of recent experience at
Court Square. Normally a higher contingency (ten to fifteen
percent) is included for renovations. Also, the contingency was
discussed from a delay standpoint on a relatively short term
contract.
Both of the successful bidders have submitted work to the architect
for his review. In Mr. Sample's opinion, both contractors are
very capable of doing the work required under the contracts.
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
RECOMMENDATI ON
Respectfully, you are requested to take the following actions:
1. The Board of Supervisors by motion authorize the County Executive
to execute the contracts with Shelter Associates (Part A) and,
Design Electric, Inc. on behalf of the County and execute change
orders up to $7990 as needed by determination of the architect and
staff.
Approve an additional appropriation from the Capital Improvement
Fund.
Mr. Agnor said the primary reason for the adjustment is because the architect was
off on his estimate of the cost. Mr. Bowie noted that the estimated time of completion is 90
days, but he does not see any completion clause or penalty clause. After a couple of other
projects that have run on forever, he thinks a clause might be appropriate. Mr. Agnor said
generally a penalty clause is paid for as part of the contract, and then if the contractor
meets the completion date, he keeps the money. If the contractor does not meet the completio]
date, then you would have to prove liquidated damages, meaning that the delay in the use of
the auditorium would be an expense to the County. The Courthouse project is an example of
where there have been liquidated damages, because court had to be moved several times. In
this case, the auditorium is just a facility that is being scheduled for use. If it were
scheduled for use and not available, another part of the building could be used. It would be
hard to prove an expense related to delays. Mr. Fisher said, in other words, to get a
penalty clause, the project would have to be rebid. Mr. Agnor said that is correct.
Mr. Way then moved offered motion to authorize the County Executive to execute the
contracts with Shelter Associates, Ltd. and Design Electric, Inc. on behalf of the County,
and execute change orders up to $7,990 as needed by determination of the architect and staff,
and to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $38,330.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the Capital Improvements Fund and coded to 1-9000-43000-701003 entitled
Auditorium Renovations - McIntire Road Building; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the necessary funds are to be derived from
Code 1-9000-99999-999998 entitled Undesignated Fund Balance of the
Capital Improvements Fund; and
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 16c. Appropriation: Moderate Rehabilitation Program.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated October 1, 1985, from Ms. Katherine
L. Imhoff, Chief of Planning, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive:
"As you will recall, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on
August 18, 1985 approved an appropriation of $19,580 to fund the salary
of a new administrative assistant position to begin the implementation
of the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program. Since that time an
administrative assistant, Mr. Pete Bradshaw, has been hired. One'of
his first tasks has been to complete all the Housing and Urban Develop-
ment annual budget, partial payment and program schedule forms.
Mr. Bradshaw has developed an annual budget for the program based on
placing 120 units of the total allotment of 240 units under rehabili-
tation agreement in this next year. This budget is attached (on file)
and shows a total for preliminary or administrative expenses of $112,015.
As per Albemarle County's executed contract with Housing and Urban
Development, Albemarle County has a maximum contract authority of
$1,434,240 for two years for a total of 240 units. For this process,
Albemarle County may be reimbursed $500 per unit for the administrative
or preliminary cost of bringing the unit into the program. Albemarle
County will be reimbursed 100 percent for all preliminary expenses
incurred by the program and as represented by the attached budget.
We respectfully request that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
appropriate $92,435, in addition to the $19,580 previously appropriated,
for a total appropriation of $112,015 for revenue code 2-2227-33000-33001.
(Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 11:56 A.M.) Mr. Agnor said this budget
includes the salary of two administrative assistants, a clerk typist, an inspector, and a
part-time intern. One administrative assistant will be working entirely in the field for th~
duration of this project, which is calculated to be two years. The field work will include
examining, contacting and working out details with property owners for administration of the
project. The administrative assistant in the office will handle the paper work and the
people involved. Mr. Agnor said a contingency is requested because this is a new type of
grant project for the County and the staff anticipates that it might have overlooked some-
thing in the first budget. In the second year of the program, a contingency will probably
not be needed.
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Fisher asked what the inspector will do. Mr. Tucker said the inspector will review
the work as it proceeds. After the administrative assistant gets the property owner to agree
to rehabilitate the unit, as work proceeds, the inspector will inspect the unit as the
contractor works. Mr. Fisher commented this inspection is not going to be in lieu of
standard building inspections, and asked if this is going to be only a progress inspection?
Mr. Tucker said it will be for progress; this inspector will not be working for the County
Building Inspections Department. These projects will not be new construction, just rehabili-
tation. It is hoped that this inspector can keep this program from encumbering the
Inspections Department since the program is only for a 24 month period. Mr. Fisher asked if
it is expected that there will be units being renovated for the full 24 months. Mr. Tucker
said yes and hopefully it can be started real soon. Mr. Fisher asked who these employees
will report to. Mr. Tucker said direct supervisory responsibility belongs to Ms. Imhoff,
since housing is under the Community Development division. Mr. Fisher noted that the current
Section 8 Rental Program is also under Community Development. He asked to whom that staff
reports. Mr. Tucker said staffing is separate, but is also under the direction of Ms.
Imhoff. Mr. Tucker said in 24 months, after these units are rehabilitated, they will be
merged with the 180 rental units that are under the current existing Section 8 Program.
Mrs. Rellen Perry addressed the Board. Mrs. Perry said in attempting to learn more
about the housing problems in Albemarle County, she contacted Loudoun County and York County
which both have housing coordinators. In each case, the housing coordinator grew out of the
Section 8 subsidy program. In each case those housing coordinators were able to put together
wonderful programs between the private and public sector. Enthusiastically she went to-the
Albemarle County Housing Coalition and informed them about this which they investigated. The
Coalition then put forward a request to the Board of Supervisors that there be a housing
coordinator in Albemarle County. They rushed to get this request to the Board before budget
time and the Coalition took the Board members on a tour of housing. The Coalition did what
they thought could be done to help the Board understand the need in the County. When the
Coalition came to the budget hearing and asked if a housing coordinator could be included in
the budget, Mr. Lindstrom spoke up for the Board. She said she had previously spoken with
each Board member individually; also Mr. Agnor and Mr. Tucker. At the time, Mr. Lindstrom
responded that Mr. Agnor's recommendation was that the Board wait for the start up funding
of this HUD Program, and if the County were fortunate enough to be granted these funds, then
they could be used to have a housing coordinator. So here the Coalition is again.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mrs. Perry if she has studied the proposal that was just presented
to the Board. Mrs. Perry responded yes. Mr. Lindstrom asked if she had any specific
comments to make toward the proposal. Mrs. Perry asked which of these persons might be the
housing coordinator. Mr. Fisher said there are four new proposed employees and an intern.
It sounds to him like a substantial investment in housing. He then asked Mrs. Perry what she
wants to accomplish that she does not think will be accomplished by this program? Is it only
a matter of titles? Mrs. Perry said she does not know, and asked which of these persons
would be the overall housing coordinator. Mr. Fisher said he understands that Ms. Imhoff is
in charge of both of these programs. Mrs. Perry said Ms. Imhoff is overextended with what
she is doing and she is sure Ms. Imhoff would be terrified to hear that being said. Mr.
Fisher said she will just have to be.
Mr. Agnor said there is to be no housing coordinator by title. The two administrative
assistants proposed in the new staffing are to be coordinators of this housing project. The
housing coordinator's function, which the County had at one time, was restructured and
assigned to the Division Chief of Community Development, Ms. Imhoff. As Division Chief, she
carries more responsibilities than the single title of housing coordinator. Mr. Agnor said he
understands Mrs. Perry as saying that other localities have a housing coordinator position
which grew out of a Section 8 grant program. Mr. Agnor that at the end of this two-year
program, there may be a need for someone entitled "housing coordinator". To him that is just
a title.
Mr. Fisher said he suspects that there is a role that Mrs. Perry has in mind when she
uses the term housing coordinator that has not yet been defined under any of these job titles
or by current employees. He thinks she may be correct in that assumption. Mr. Agnor said
those duties are assigned to Ms. Imhoff, but do not carry the title. Mrs. Perry said Ms.
Imhoff cannot function in that position. They have talked to her many times and there is no
possibility that she can also undertake the responsibilities of a housing coordinator. The
Coalition presented a job description to the Board of what it had in mind for a housing
coordinator. She does not think there are any misunderstandings about the functions. She
would be glad to furnish further information on how the position might be brought about, how
the job is described, and how it functions. The Coalition is available to do whatever is
useful.
Mr. Agnor said Ms. Imhoff is functioning within the parameters of the job which this
Board was expecting of the Housing Division of the Department of Community Development.
Mr. Horne has been requested to study his departmental needs in terms of staffing.
Mr. Fisher said it seems Mrs. Perry felt there was a promise from this Board that there
would be a housing coordinator at the time the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation funding
became available, and she feels that promise has not been kept. Mr. Agnor said he is not
aware of any promise. There are two administrative assistants responsible for this project,
but they are not functioning to the degree Mrs. Perry thinks a housing coordinator should be
functioning. Mr. Fisher asked Mrs. Perry if she is suggesting that efforts be diverted to
something else. Mrs. Perry said this staffing is required by the Program, she thinks that
the creative use of this staff in the two other counties is why they developed a housing
coordinator position. Perhaps it is the application.
Mr. Lindstrom said there has not been a consensus by this Board on the need for a
housing coordinator. He feels very much put on the spot by Mrs. Perry. He does not recall
exactly what he said at the meeting Mrs. Perry mentioned, nor does he recall a promise being
made. He does recall that there was some sentiment expressed by the staff and the Board that
if the Section 8 funds became available, it might free up other moneys to create such a
position. He does not know anything other than what he has been given in the staff report
today. He would be willing to support, on the basis of a staff statement that it is needed,
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
~ 22)
a housing coordinator titled that way who would be partially funded from this Section 8
money, but whose duties would be perhaps broader than simply administering Section 8.
Obviously he cannot make that decision by himself. Mr. Agnor said the County is not allowed
to broaden the duties beyond the terms of the grant until the program has been completed.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the staff feels .there is a need for personnel to address issues of
housing beyond the Section 8?
Mr. Bowie said Mr. Lindstrom's recollection of the consensus is exactly his recollec-
tion. He does not know what will be needed in two years, but he thinks the Board has done
what it said it would do. He is prepared to support this particular request and a step
beyond this should be considered at another time.
Mr. Way said he tends to support Mr. Lindstrom. If Mr. Horne finds there is a need for
work in the housing field beyond Section 8 and the money can be used more wisely in
supporting that work, he would certainly look favorably upon being able to do that.
Mrs. Cooke agreed with Mr. Way. She would rather wait until such time as Mr. Horne has
had an opportunity to do an evaluation of his departmental staffing.
Mr. Horne said he is somewhat uncertain as to general policy aims. When he understands
those he intends to take a look at, not only that division, but all of the operations of the
department. He does have some problems with the duties assigned to the Chief of Community
Development. He will look into the issue and see if there is a need for an overall coordi-
nator of the housing section in the Community Development Division or some other structure
that may be appropriate in the department.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following resolution and request the
staff to investigate what other areas are not being met or could be addressed by the joint
use of people hired pursuant to this program with some funds from the General Fund:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $92,435.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the Grant Fund for the Moderate Rehabilitation Project to be coded as
follows:
1-1227-81900-100100
1-1227-81900-200100
1-1227-81900-200200
1-1227-81900-200500
1-1227-81900-200600
1-1227-81900-300205
1-1227-81900-300400
1-1227-81900-300500
1-1227-81900-300601
1-1227-81900-300700
1-1227-81900-520100
1-1227-81900-520300
1-1227-81900-530500
1-1227-81900-540100
1-1227-81900-540104
1-1227-81900-541700
1-1227-81900-550101
1-1227-81900-700100
1-1227-81900-700200
1-1227-81900-700500
1-1227-81900-999999
Compensation
FICA
VSRS
Life Insurance
Health Insurance
Audit Fees
$51,320.00
5,035.00
8,120.00
1,024.00
710.00
400.00
Repair/Maintenance-Office Equipment
Maintenance Contract-Office Equipment
Printing and Copy Service
Advertising
Postage
Telephone
Insurance - Vehicles
Office Supplies
Copy Supplies and Expense
Fuel and Lubricants
Travel - Pool Car
Machinery & Equipment - New
Furniture & Fixtures - New
Motor Vehicles - New
Contingency
200.00
800.00
500.00
1,000.00
1,500~00
1,500.00
300.00
700.00
500.00
170.00
50.00
8,201.00
1,900.00
7,105.00
1~400.00
$92,435.00
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1985-86 County
budget is hereby amended by the addition of $92,435.00 to Code
2-1227-33000-330001 entitled Moderate Rehabilitation Grant; and
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Mr. Way seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher said commended the staff, people ~in the
and Mrs. Perry, for obtaining the funding for these 240 units for Moderate Rehabilitation.
This is the large grouping of units available anywhere in the state and perhaps in a larger
area. With this and the existing 180 rental units, the County will have 420 subsidized
housing units, and an unknown number of Farmer's Home Administration programs, which he
is a substantial commitment to housing needs. There are still unmet needs which Mrs. Perry
continually reminds the Board of and he thinks that serves a real purpose.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded~vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 17. Discussion of Toll-Free Telephone Service to Greenwood.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated October 4, 1985, from his office
to the Board:
"At their August 8 meeting, members of the Greenwood Citizen's Council
requested that the County consider establishing a toll-free telephone
line which could be used by residents of the Greenwood area, as well as
by residents of other areas in the County, who now must call long
distance to speak with County general government and school staff.
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
County staff has explored the cost of establishing such a telephone
line with Centel. A one-time cost of installation was quoted to be
$200. The costs quoted for operating a toll-free line on a per month
basis are:
Service Charge (per service line)
Usage Charge (1 hour estimated usage)
$67.80
19.01
$86.81
Thus, the' annual cost for operating one toll-free line would be approxi-
mately $1,000.
According to data collected from telephone companies that serve the
area, approximately 600 County households in the Greenwood, Schuyler,
and the Gordonsville areas live outside of the Charlottesville exchange
and therefore, must currently call long distance to reach the County
Office Building and the County's school facilities. Installing one
toll-free line into the County Office Building would benefit these
residents by allowing them to call County general government and school
administrative staff at no charge. However, these residents would
still be unable to call individual schools directly unless toll-free
lines were established at each of the schools.
It is the staff's recommendation, that if the Board chooses to establish
a toll-free calling system for County residents living outside the
Charlottesville exchange, that only one line be established to the
County Office Building on a one year trial basis to test its degree of
usage. Residents living outside the Charlottesville exchange who need
to contact a student or teacher at a local school could then call the
County Office Building on the toll-free line, leave a message with
school administrative personnel who could then insure that their call
was returned by the appropriate personnel in the individual school.
Although, slightly convoluted, this system wouldPwork relatively
efficiently, and would eliminate the additional costs of installing a
toll-free line at individual schools. Records of the usage could be
analyzed to determine the need, if any, for additional lines at a later
time.
If the Board approves the establishment of a toll-free line, an appropri-
ation for the costs involved will be prepared and submitted for approval
at your next meeting."
Mr. Agnor said the Greenwood Citizen's Council is proceeding through the C & P Telephone
Company to have a vote in the Greenwood area of the people who want the system, and they then
take a random sample vote of the customers in Centel's Charlottesville system, and then
analyze the costs to see if those two votes are favorable. An analysis of costs and hearings
are held then to determine the actual changing of the telephone territories that would allow
the area to become a part of the Centel system. This is a long drawn out process and will
take many months. If the Board agrees with staff's recommendation, a budget and an appropri-
ation for the County Executive's office will be requested later. The line would be answered
by his office staff who would be the relay agent of the calls.
Mr. William Washington said that in Greenwood, approximately half of the customers are
in Albemarle County (Centel) and the other half in the Rockfish Valley (C & P). The total
number of subscribers is about 1,000. He gets a little frustrated when he can't call Crozet
without going through long distance. The Greenwood Ruritan Club tried about five years ago
to get this .approved. The first step is talking to the telephone company and then giving the
subscribers an opportunity to vote on whether or not they want to be taken in by another
system at a charge. At that time, the charge was an additional $1.25 a month for the Greenwo¢
residents to be taken in by Centel. It is is understanding that a very minor amount would
also be charged, to Charlottesville subscribers, something like 18 cents a month. Nevertheless
the Greenwood area voted about 87 percent to make the change. In Charlottesville only 20
percent voted favorably. A lot of people in Charlottesville felt they had no connection with
the people in Greenwood and would have nothing to gain by changing the system. The citizens
are again faced with the same question. Sometime at the end of this month, the telephone
company will be sending out a letter to subscribers in Greenwood asking them if they want to
make this change. Depending on the outcome of that, they will go through the process of
asking the Charlottesville residents if they want to make a change. Until such time as this
request is made, he thinks it might lend some weight to the request if a resolution of
support were adopted by the Board of Supervisors and the City Council. It is possible they
will ask for support through the State Corporation Commission to the federal agency to get
the Greenwood territory taken out of the 703 area code and put into the 804 area code. It is
his understanding from a meeting that was held here six weeks ago at which State Corporation
Commission representatives were.present, that they do not foresee any real difficulties with
that, but this process will have to go through.
Mr. Fisher asked Col. Washington if he is in favor of this proposal. Col. Washingt¢
said he does not know what this will do for Greenwood except to make it convenient to call
this building. Mr. Fisher said that is the only thing it will do. Col. Washington said it
does not solve the school problem at all.
Mr. Gordon Walker next addressed the Board. He said he worked with County staff on this
and he commends staff on how fast they moved on this request. This is a good temporary,
short-term response to the problem. He tends to think that the process they must work
through is a rather laborious one. As a parent he is willing to try this and wants to see
what happens as a result of demand. It may be that this is inadequate as far as getting in
touch with the schools, but it certainly beats what they presently have.
~c~oDer ~, ±~D %Kegu±ar uay ~vlee~lngj
Mr. Fisher noted that there is toll free access to the emergency 911 number from GreE
and other areas of the County that normally would be long distance. Mr. Fisher said that was
the first step and this is an attempt to get a second step which is for general government
purposes and potentially for the schools.
Mrs. Cooke asked what the cost would be to put an 800 number in for the schools. Mr.
Agnor said it would be the same cost as listed, but for each school. Mr. Bowie said he can
certainly support this request. He thinks they should try this and see where the calls come
from. Mr. Agnor said he spoke with Mr. Andy Overstreet about this and he has asked the
school principals how much usage this number would receive, and no one knows. Mr. Agnor said
this will be publicized in the new telephone directory, and notices will go from the school
offices to all student's homes that the line will be available.
Mr. Bowie then offered motion to approve an 800 toll free number to the County Office
building and the number listed under education and general county government in all relative
telephone books. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 18. The Board recessed for lunch at 12:40 P.M.
back to order at 1:49 P.M.
The meeting was called
Agenda Item No. 19.
1985).
ZMA-85-21.
Perry H. Faulconer Estate (Deferred from September 18,
Mr. Tucker said this item was deferred to allow time for the Virginia Department of
Highways & Transportation tt~ to forward written comments on the concept of the proffer
presented. The following letter dated October 4, 1985 was received from Dan S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, Department of Highways & Transportation:
"Reference is made to your letter dated September 18, 1985, concerning
the proffer on the above captioned rezoning request.
In responding to your letter, I have read both the developer's proffer
included in a letter dated July 26, 1985, and the planning staff report
dated September 3, 1985. In my opinion, the proffer, as submitted,
permits the owner to develop his property only to a density which he
now has by right. It does, however, allow him to cluster this d~velopment
and, thus, increase his development options.
The Department has previously recommended that no rezoning be allowed
which would increase the amount of traffic which is using Route 601
until that roadway can be improved to a tolerable state. While this
rezoning with proffer does not increase the amount of traffic the
developer can produce by right, it does make it easier for him to reach
this traffic generation. Since Route 601 is already classed as non-
tolerable, I do not believe the Department should support any action
which will make it easier for traffic to be increased on that route.
The planning staff report discusses certain options that the-developer
might take to improve Route 601 to a tolerable standard. None of these
options has been looked at in detail by the Department to determine
their feasibility. Since the proffer does not tie the developer to any
improvement scheme, I do not believe it is feasible for the Department
to undertake such review at this time or to comment on any of the
options.
I agree with the staff's opinion that the proffer obligates the developer
to bring about improvement to Route 601 before density beyond that
allowed by right can be achieved. It is my engineer's opinion that
this proffer does not obligate the County or the Department to improve
this road on any set schedule. It, therefore, appears that the only
question to be answered is whether the County wishes to make it easier
to develop this property to the density which is allowed by right. In
making this decision, the Board of Supervisors must consider many other
items than the transportation network. I feel that no future recommen-
dation from the Department on that aspect is necessary."
Mr. Tucker said he spoke with Mr. Roosevelt about the options and Mr. Roosevelt
responded that he had no problems with the standards that staff had mentioned in its report
and that the applicant was relying on, he just has not seen any detailed engineering plans to
determine if those standards are feasible to obtain. Mr. Roosevelt was unable to attend
today's meeting because he had a prior commitment.
Mr. Fisher ~d~. then noted the following letter dated September 23, 1985 as being
received from Mr. George St. John, County Attorney:
"You asked bur opinion on the concept of rezoning where a rezoning is
requested to R-15 with development limited by proffer to the number of
units permitted under R-1 until the public roads serving the development
are improved to County satisfaction.
We believe this is lawful under the conditional zoning statute. Your
specific question, however, was whether in the future, after the units
permitted under R-1 are built, the parcel is subject to the general
rules governing either piecemeal or comprehensive zoning or is instead
clothed with a vested right to proceed to R-15 at fulfillment of
conditions of the proffer.
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
There are no cases on this but in my judgment the County could not
sustain any future down-zoning or 'down-planning' of that parcel.
Without doubt, you are locking the County into ultimate R-15
development by accepting the proffer, subject of course to fulfillment
of the condition. The legal analysis underlying this conclusion is too
long to put in this letter, but is based more on principles of equity
and familiarity with how the Virginia courts deal with this kind of
question than with hard and fast rules out of land-use textbooks.
There is nothing wrong, from either a legal or a land-use policy
standpoint, in using this innovative approach to solve a particular
problem such as Old Ivy Road's environs, so long as you know the
consequences. I question whether it ought to be a general or common
device, though, because it does tie the hands of future Boards tighter
than they would be otherwise."
Mr. St. John said in summary he believes that if this proffer is accepted and the
rezoning granted with the proffer, then the County is foreclosing its usual and normal
power of review, replanning and rezoning of ~s land in the future. The County would be
committed to honoring the commitment which ~c ~e~s~a .... ~~ ~
................... g at this time should
the developer want to exercise his option to go ahead and make the road tolerable.
Mr. Bill Roudabush, representing the Faulconer Estate, addressed the Board. He
requested a copy of the correspondence from the Highway Department and the County Attorney.
Mr. Roudabush said the applicant does look at this as a commitment to this rezoning. The
whole purpose is to have some assurance that if they do proceed to make improvements and
commit themselves to those improvements, once they are approved by the appropriate agencies,
they would be able to proceed under the density allowed. The applicant has no further
information to present to the Board. (Mr. St. John gave copies of the correspondence to
Mr. Roudabush.)
Mr. Lindstrom commented that he does not know if the Board has ever set a policy
concerning correspondence. He has heard complaints occasionally that reports are generated
that do not always get to the applicant on time. The Board has made such a fuss that the
applicant get everything to them on time, he thinks that the County should reciprocate. Mr.
St. John said his letters to the Board are in a little different category. They are some-
times legal advice in a different setting and they should be on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees.
Mr. Fisher asked if the proffer dated July 26, 1985 is the latest proffer.
replied yes.
Mr. Tucker
Mr. Tim Michel, representing Faulconer Estate, addressed the Board. He said it was
the applicant's understanding that Mr. Fisher wanted the trustees of the estate to sign the
proffer and change the wording slightly from "Albemarle County" to the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County". Mr. Fisher read the following proffer dated September 19, 1985,
received this date:
"Mr. Ron Keeler
Deputy Director
Department of Planning
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re:
Percy H. Faulconer Estate #100307
28.29 acres on the east side of the
29 By-pass, said parcel being a portion
of Parcel 24, tax map 60
Dear Mr. Keeler:
The trustees of the Percy H. Faulconer Estate hereby resubmit their
previous application for rezoning to R-15 with proffer.
The proffer is that the property's development under proposed R-15
zoning be limited to the number of units currently allowable under the
present R-1 zoning until Old Ivy Road is improved to the satisfaction
of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County.
Very truly yours,
P. Hunter Faulconer
Jefferson National Bank,
by: (SIGNED)
John Fishbeck, Trust Officer"
Mr. Fisher commented that there must be an original of this signed proffer somewhere.
Mr. Tucker replied that it is not in the staff's file. Mr. Michel said he would be glad to
initial this proffer and send another original. Mr. Fisher said that would be a good idea.
At this point, Mr. Fisher asked for comments from the Board members. Mr. Lindstrom said
this property is in his district and he has struggled with the application more because of
where it is located. He is not entirely.~c~omfo~rtable with any solution to the problem,
· _- .- , .-_.~ ~ .. - - ~.. ~s-t: - - ..i?~--~,°~°~ anderstand~' what Mr. St. John sa~d about
foreclosing future opt~ons~i~ ~s the very nature of the zncent~ve ~ create~ the
developer ~~ care of a problem that the County is not in a position to take care of that
makes ~ obligatory. If the applicants could not anticipate the use of the property at the
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
density shown in the Comprehensive Plan, they would not have any desire to expend funds to
improve that road. With State Highway funds being completely inadequate to deal with highway
problems, and with the County growing as rapidly as it is, and the local share of those funds
shrinking, somewhere there has got to be some innovation in dealing with highway problems.
Obviously one avenue open is for the County to start paying for road improvements. Somewhere
there has got to be a solution. The plus side of this application is that this may be the
only way the County can eventually alleviate what is an unsafe circumstance on that road.
He is willing to consider trying this. His is a luke warm endorsement at best. He cannot
get much warmer because he is concerned about foreclosing future planning options and he is
concerned about encouraging more traffic on that road without improvements. He does not see
the request as a substantial increase in traffic. In order to get the increase that justi-
fies the value of the property, he thinks there has to be some substantial improvements to
those roads. The commitment is that the developer will do the work to the satisfaction of
this Board before he can take advantage of that high density. He is swayed to favor this
application for that reason.
Mr. Bowie said he tends to agree. He thought this was a good idea in the first place.
He does not see any other way to get the road work done. The applicants are not building
anymore than they can build by right. It is just a lot more logical way to develop the
property and he tends to support the application.
Mrs. Cooke said she has'no problem with this application.
remarks made concerning this and she see no need to repeat them.
application.
She concurs with many of the
She tends to support this
Mr. Lindstrom said with some reservations he would offer motion that ZMA-85-21 be
approved with the proffer presented today and signed by Mr. Fishbeck. Mr. Bowie seconded the
motion.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks the arguments that have been made on behalf of the application
are good, but he is concerned about not having any sort of timetable for development of any
part of this. The County may end up with the 27 to 41 apartment units being built now by
right with no road improvements. The road improvements may be so expensive that they don't
occur and the County is going to have to "wash its hands" of a responsibility for this road
thinking that at some point it will become economically feasible for this landowner or
successors to this landowner to do something. There is a huge amount of uncertainty as to
when or if anything is going to be done and, there has really been no commitment at all. Had
there been some sort of time limitation of maybe even five years on this proffer, that says
that the zoning would be allowed to lapse at that point if the road has not been constructed
and approved, he thinks he would have been willing to see what would happen. He is concerned
that if the Board sets this as a policy, the Board is going to have other people coming in
and proffering a rezoning for future road development and enormous problems will be created.
He is not compelled that there is enough certainty in this for the public's rights to be well
represented, and he is not going to support the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to point out that he views this particular area of the
County as an area where there is a somewhat unique situation. The property is very close to
the City and the University. It is served by public sewer and water facilities, the possibil-
ity of resisting higher density in this area on a permanent or prolonged basis is unlikely.
He does not think that he would support this kind of a proposal in an area where the ultimate
development of the land was less'~assured. He is concerned about foreclosing the County's
flexibility. He simply does not-see from a planning standpoint that the County's plans in
this area are likely to change. It does not lie in a fringe area and, it is an area with a
very unique problem at both ends of the road. He may be wrong, but he does not think there
are too many other places in the County which are so clearly committed to high density
development and where all of the elements are there except for one. Under circumstances
which he considers to be relatively unique to this application he is willing to try it and
see if it works. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like that statement in the record so that the
Board can go back and see what circumstances did in fact exist when this decision was made.
With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way.
Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 20.
1985).
SP-85-67.
Margaret and Goodwin Walker (Deferred from October 2,
Mr. Tucker said SP-85-67 was deferred to allow staff to visit the site and determine the
proper location of the home in order to provide a buffer from adjoining property. He then
presented the following statement of the staff's site review of the property:
"Due primarily to clearing that has already been done by the applicant,
the existing vegetation will no longer completely screen the mobile
home from adjacent owners. If the intent of the Board is to completely
visually screen the mobile home from adjacent owners, additional
screening would need to be planted. It would appear that this additional
screening could be provided within the area recommended by the Commission
or in an area closer to the center of the site, if the Board were to
allow a more central location for the mobile home."
Mr. Tucker said regardless of the location of the mobile home even in the area where the
adjoining property owners would like to see it located, and even with additional screening it
would not be screened. The area recommended by the Planning Commission will still require
some additional screening. Mr. Fisher asked if the mobile home could be located in the area
that the Planning Commission recommended. Mr. Tucker replied yes. Mr. Fisher said since it
appears that the mobile home would still not be completely screened a question arises as to
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
whether to relax the setbacks and increase the planting requirement. Mr. Bowie said the
staff was also requested to determine the best location for the mobile home. Mr. Tucker said
the mobile home could be located in any of~the areas according to the staff's report. The
area outlined in the staff's report would be more difficult because it drops off, but the
mobile home can be located there as well. Mr. Bowie commented that evidently when the
Planning CommissionJset the footages it did not know that it would be a difficult area. Mr.
Tucker said that is correct.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker what would be a normal set of conditions now that the
petition has been reviewed again. Mr. Tucker said the staff has no set conditions. The
staff feels that the'standard conditions required by the Zoning Ordinance are reasonable.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Tucker to clarify the need for additional screening. Mr. Tucker
said the applicant has cleared some of the vegetation and trimmed parts of the trees,
therefore the mobile home will be visible if placed within the prescribed setback. The
applicant interrupted and said the mobile home will not be visible from Route 618.
Mr. Bob Bradshaw, representing the applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Bradshaw said
when this application originally went before the Planning Commission the setback lines were
arbitrarily set without realizing what it would do to the lot. The current setback
requirement will place the mobile home on a slope. The applicant requests that the setback
lines be relaxed to 150 feet from the road and 100 feet or 75 feet from the right-of-way. He
will advise his client of whatever additional screening may be required by this Board. Mr.
Bradshaw asked if the staff noted where the State Highway Department recommended the driveway
for the mobile home? Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Bradshaw said the applicant would like to
bring the driveway up to the mobile home Without having an additional driveway and to keep
the mobile home close to the septic field area which is approximately the center of the lot.
Mr. Jack Camblos, speaking for Mr. Milton Birckhead an adjoining property owner,
addressed the Board. He and Mr. Birckhead would like very much to see the recommendations
that were presented originally, and if not those exact conditions, followed as close as
possible. They would like to keep the mobile home as far from Mr. Birckhead's property as
possible. There has-been a great deal of timber cut along the entrance way of Mr.
Birckhead's property. He does not know why it was cut. There does not appear to be any
reason. They would like the mobile home well behind where the timber was cut.
Mr. Goodwin Walker, the applicant, addressed the Board. He said he is the proud owner
of the property. He wants to make beds for his children. He is not looking out for Mr.
Birckhead. Mr. Birckhead has always been his friend, but he is putting a burden on him which
is heavy. All he wants is a home for his children.
Mr. Fisher said it appears to him that part of the concern about the setbacks has been
the recent cutting of the woods on the property. The neighbors are concerned that the woods
will be all cleared and this mobile home will be standing there on the hill by itself. He
feels that the conditions placed by the Planning Commission basically took an awful lot of
that property out of a usable category as far as this owner is concerned. If a reasonable
set of conditions for this mobile home cannot be found, then maybe this should not be approved
but hopefully something can be found. Mr. Fisher said he thinks these conditions are too
restrictive.
Mrs. Cooke said the guidelines are approximately 200 feet south of the Birckhead property
and 175 feet east of Route 618. Mr. Tucker said 75 feet is required in both instances. Mr.
Lindstrom said the Board can require additional screening. If the staff requires adequate
screening, the answer is screening, not the setback. He does not see why anything further
should be added.
Mr. Bowie suggested that condition ~2 be amended to read "Maintenance of buffer to
reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator along Route 618, to screen the mobile
home from the public road and screen from adjacent property owners", to allow some leeway of
where the home will be allowed to be placed. Mr. Fisher suggested that condition 92 be
further amended to read "Planting and maintenance of a buffer..." Mr. Bowie said the appli-
cant should be allowed to place the mobile home where ever he wants, as long as he maintains
the mobile home and complies with the County's other setback regulations. Mr. Fisher
suggested that the Board strike the wording "along Route 618". Mr. Tucker asked if the
screening requirement is from all of the property lin~s? The Board members have only heard
from the Birckhead's. There are four property lines that have to be screened. Mr. Fisher
said the intent was from all property lines. Mr. Fisher then suggested that condition 93 be
amended to "100 feet south" and "150 feet east".
Mrs. Cooke suggested again a fourth condition that this mobile home cannot be rented.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve SP-85-67 subject to the
the following conditions:
Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Planting and maintenance of a buffer to reasonable satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator to screen mobile home from public road
and adjacent property owners;
Site of mobile home to be located approximately 100 feet south of
the Birckhead line and 150 feet east of State Route 618.
This mobile home cannot be rented.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2~8_)
53
Agenda Item No. 21. Tax Exempt Financing for Delta Kappa Epsilon Renovation Associates.
Mr. Agnor said in the Spring of 1985 the Board received a request that one fraternity
house of seven being renovated by the University of Virginia (this house being located in the
County), be placed in a conservation district in order to be eligible for tax exempt
financing. This was done by the Board. The other six renovations were to be financed by
bonds issued through the Charlottesville Housing and Redevelopment Authority. It was there-
fore requested that this seventh house be included in the same method of financing so all
would be in one group. At the time, the University understood that the allocation of Indus-
trial Development Revenue bonds would be received directly from the State and would have no
bearing on the allocation of funds to either Charlottesville or Albemarle County. That did
not happen. The Charlottesville Housing and Redevelopment Authority had to request
additional allocations from the State for the six fraternity houses because the City had
already obligated all of its allocation. Albemarle County's allocation for the calendar year
1985 totals $4,309,650 and there are no applicants for that allocation.
Mr. Agnor said the request today is that the Board authorize that $235,000 of the
County's allocation from the State be transferred to the Charlottesville Housing and
Redevelopment Authority so financing of this project may proceed. On October 16, 1985, any
part of the allocation not used by the County's Industrial Development Authority will revert
back to the State. Mr. Agnor said he understands the Authority has no use for the alloca-
tion. This is simply a transfer of the State allocation from the County to the Chaz
Housing and Redevelopment Authority so financing of these renovations may proceed.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the certificate required on penalty for perjury, under Section
103(n) of the Internal Revenue Code is a new law. Mr. Agnor said he does not know anything
about this requirement.
Mr. Fisher acknowledged Mr. Ray Haas and asked if he had anything to say. Mr. Haas had
nothing to say. He congratulated Mr. Haas for winning a national award for planning.
Ms. Alice Gerow, Secretary-Treasurer of the Historic Renovation Corporation and Assistanl
Vice-President and Investment Officer at the University of Virginia, addressed the Board.
She was present representing the Corporation. Mr. Ray Hunt is out of town and expressed his
apologies for not being present. Mr. Ray Haas is present to show the University's commitment
to this project. The Corporation appreciates the County's consideration of the request. The
project has been completed and it is a beautiful house. The Board is invited to come look at
the house next Tuesday. Ms. Gerow said the City did apply to the State for an additional
allocation which has been received. Closing on the bonds is set for October 15.
Mr. Fisher asked why all the members of this Board are being asked to sign this
"Certificate of Members of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia as
to Absence of Consideration for Allocation of Local Allocation of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia". It irritates him more than anything else about this whole proposal. Ms. Gerow
said she does not know about the certificate, since it came from the bond counsel. She
assumes that it is a new law. Mr. Fisher said he is willing to do everything else, but this
irritates him to the point that he does not think he will do it. Mr. Lindstrom said the
surest way to be certain the Board did not receive any bribes is not to approve the
financing. Ms. Gerow suggested she take this back to bond counsel. The Board does not have
to sign the certificate today. She will come back to the Board for a resolution. Mr. Fisher
said that is good, because he can guarantee there won't be one signature.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the~County of Albemarle,
Virginia (the "Board"), after a public hearing following reasonable
public notice, has considered the application of Delta Kappa Epsilon
Renovation Associates, a Virginia limited partnership, Madison Hall,
University Avenue, Charlottesville, Virginia 22906-9012 (the
"Applicant") for the issuance of a housing revenue bond by the
Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (the "Authority")
in the amount of $235,000 (the "Bond") to assist in the financing of
the Applicant's renovation of a fraternity house and residential
facility constituting a historic property and conservation project (the
"Project"). The Project will be leased in part to D.K.E. Corporation
and in part to individuals. The Project will be located at 182.0
Carrs Hill Road in a Conservation District established in Albemarle
County, Virginia (the "County");
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested the Board to approve the
issuance of the Bond to comply with Section 103(k) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, (the "Code") and Paragraph 2 of
Chapter 514 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia of 1983;
WHEREAS, a copy of the fiscal impact statement required by Para-
graph 2 of Chapter 514 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia
of 1983, has been filed with the Board; and
WHEREAS, Section 103(n) of the Code and Executive Order 54(85) of
the Governor of Virginia (the "Order") have imposed upon the County a
Local Allocation, as defined in the Order of $4,309,650 of bonds that
may be issued to finance facilities located in the County, none of
which has yet been allocated to facilities located in the County;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the proposed issuance of the Bond by the
Authority for the benefit of the Applicant, to the extent required by
the federal and state laws referred to above, to permit the Authority
to assist in the financing of the Project.
October 9, 1985( Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 29)
2. The foregoing approval of the proposed issuance of the Bond
does not constitute an endorsement of the Bond, the financial viability
of the Project or the creditworthiness of the Applicant. As required
by Section 36-29 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the Bond
shall provide that neither the Commonwealth of Virginia, the County,
the City of Charlottesville nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay
the Bond or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except
from revenues and moneys pledged therefor and neither the faith and
credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County, the City
of Charlottesville or the Authority shall be pledged thereto.
3. The Board hereby allocates $235,000 of its Local Allocation to
the issuance of the Bond for the Project.
4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
The allocation made in Paragraph 3 above shall be void if the Bond is
not issued on or before October 16, 1985.
Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 22. Personnel Policies.
Dr. Carole A. Hastings, Personnel Director, addressed the Board. Dr. Hastings said l~a~t
that on September 4, 1985, the Board held a work session on the proposed personnel.policies.
All of the amendments and revisions requested by the Board members that date have been made.
The policies on "Career Leave" and "Safety" have been deleted. The Voluntary Early Retire-
ment Incentive Plan still needs work. During the last joint meeting of the Board of
Supervisors and the School Board, the plan was discussed. There are several options the
Board can consider as to how to pay health insurance coverage under this plan. 1) Leave the
participants as part of the active employee Blue Cross/Blue Shield group. This was not
advised by people from Blue Cross/Blue Shield because of the possible adverse affect on the
active employee's insurance policy. 2) Pay the single rate coverage on a nongroup policy of
early retirees. This is a Blue Cross/Blue Shield comprehensive policy which pays about 80
percent of any charges, with the retiree paying the other 20 percent. It is a good policy
and it costs approximately $1,450 per year for single coverage. Liability on the active
employee group for one adverse claim could have a more detrimental affect on the active group
than paying for this coverage for the early retirement plan. 3) Pay to the retiree up to the
equivalent of what is being paid for active employees. The retiree could use that money to
purchase whatever plan they felt they would like to take; Blue Cross/Blue Shield or another
medical plan. The School Board expressed a concern about this option. They thought it would
be a disincentive and perhaps would cause people not to apply for the early retirement plan
because they might pay out most of their retirement benefit from the County for medical
insurance. Dr. Hastings said that is the issue which needs to be resolved.
Mr. Fisher said it is going to be hard to explain to taxpayers why the County is paying
early retirement in the first place. If the Board then goes ahead and pays more in the way
of benefits to those who have taken early retirement than it is paying to others, that will
be harder to justify. His inclination is to provide the early retiree with the same amount
of funds as that being paid for other employees, on an equity basis, and see what happens.
Dr. Hastings said the School Board was concerned that the cost of medical insurance
would use up a lot of that supplement. Mr. Fisher said he understands that concern.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were any dollar projections as to the cost of medical
insurance. Mr. Agnor said yes. The cost is related to the age of the employee. To stay on
the active employee plan, if a person were aged 55 to 59, it would cost $1,387 per year.
Right now, the health insurance plan costs $688 per year for each active employee. If the
person were 60 years of age or older, the plan would cost $1,592 per year. Dr. Hastings said
the cost would be just about double the contribution for an active employee.
Mr. Fisher said he can foresee that active employees may complain that the County is
paying a larger health benefit for the people who have "jumped the ship". Mr. Agnor said he
doubts there would be many complaints because it is actually for the current employee's
protection. The County's Blue Cross/~lue Shield plan is experience-rated. If the early
retiree stayed in the County's plan, it would cost only $688, but the insurance carrier does
not recommend that because of the potential exposure to health problems. In_~i~ion, o£ ~
regular retirees are asked to leave thegn and get ~' ~
their insurance through~4~e p±an tq~sf~--~s
~ ......... ~- - =. Dr. Hastings said the Blue Cross
representative pointed out that it would be nearly impossible to offer early retirees the
option of staying in the active group and telling people who have taken full retirement they
cannot stay in the active group.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what the average supplement will be. Dr. Hastings said the average
will be between $100 and $150 per month. Depending on the status of the employee, a lower
salaried employee could use as much as 75 to 80 percent of that supplement for health
insurance. Mr. Fisher said that also means that if the County pays the full insurance
benefits, the amount of the incentive is doubled.
Mr. Bowie said the County has no early retirement program at this time, and in his
opinion it is not that big_of an issue. For people who want "out" five years early, he does
not think $60 difference will keep them working. He thinks that in any early retirement
program you will find that. If a person wants out he "bags" it.
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom asked how many people are expected to take this early retirement. Dr.
Hastings said the first year, the County will have a total of 20 people from both local
government and the school division. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the City's plan is based on
supplements to the same extent the County is talking about. Dr. Hastings said the City has
just recently increased its benefits. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the City is paying the extra
benefit for insurance. Dr. Hastings said the City is allowing the retirees to stay in the
active group. The Blue Cross/Blue Shield representative has said he believes it has had an
adverse impact on that group. Mr. Lindstrom said this is not very clear cut. If the
insurance premium for the employee would take 80 or 90 percent of the retiree's supplement,
then there would be no point in doing this. If it is closer to 50 percent he is willing to
experiment with it for a little while and see what happens. If it does not work as well as
it is felt it should work, then the Board might reconsider. He does not feel strong one way
or the other. He is not sure that early retirement is going to make.much sense to a lot
people, no matter how it is funded. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 2:45 P.M.)
Mr. Fisher said if 20 people take advantage of this program the first year, and it is a
five-year commitment, the County is committing to 100 people years. He is having trouble
being persuaded by the arguments. Dr. Hastings said the School Board was concerned that the
program would be destroyed by not having this insurance benefit as part of the plan. That
concern has also been expressed by the teachers. The School Board would prefer to go with
the option of paying the full, single subscriber rate off the group for a year and see what
happens. Mr. Bowie said if a person wants to "go" the amount that person gets is not
important because he usually wants to get a running start at something else. Age 55 is not
too late to start a new career. People who are "burned out" are not going to be affected.
While he can support some way to allow a quicker turnover to get younger blood, he cannot see
making it so attractive that everybody wants to do it.
Mr. Way said Mrs. Haden spoke most eloquently on the need for this early retirement plan
for the schools. He tends to agree basically with Mr. Lindstrom. He suggests that the
County try it for a year and see what happens. Mr. Agnor said if the Board wants to try the
plan for a year, he would suggest the County provide the retiree the equivalent in dollars as
if that person were remaining an active employee. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there are that many
people who are "bad folks" as for their contribution to the County~ who would be willing to
bail out for an extra $100 a month. Dr. Hastings said she would not want to say they are
"bad" employees. Mr. Lindstrom asked then why the Board is doing this? If they are good
employees, then the Board does not want to do it. Dr. Hastings said she would not say there
are bad employees, but in many cases there are employees who do not have a real interest in
continuing employment. Mr. LindStrom said these employees are not doing anything for the
County so the County wants to get rid of them, and that is why they will be paid. If they
were good, and the County doesn't want them to leave, this plan would not be instituted and
they would be given no incentives to go. Mr. Bowie said he believes the ability to leave
early with the employee's retirement safeguarded, even though there is a five-year reduction
from VSRS, is sufficient. Right now the employee can't retire before age 60, whether he
wants to or not. He cannot believe that $60 a month will be a deterrent to those who want to
retire. Mr.. Lindstrom said he is not saying that you can tell who was not doing a good job
by those who are leaving, but from his perspective, that is what is being paid for. Dr.
Hastings said continuation of this plan is subject to the Board's approval each year, and
after a full year the Board will receive a full report on the entire plan. It is not possibl~
to give an accurate projection of the costs until there is a year's experience.
Mr. Fisher said using the principal of equal payment for the benefits to current employee
those taking the early retirement is what he feels the Board should try for the Blue Cross/Bl~
Shield. If the cost per employee for single coverage goes to $725 next year, then that would
be the amount that would go to the early retiree. Mr. Fisher said some employees probably
have other medical insurance available. The understanding is that this will be paid to the
early retiree whether or not he/she actually carries the Blue Cross/Blue Shield coverage.
Dr. Hastings said the retiree will be able to use this amount to help offset medical insuranc~
costs. Mr. Fisher said he thinks that is fair. Mr. Agnor said if the employee opts to take
the five years in payment over a three-year period, then the hospitalization coverage will
only be paid for three years.
At this point, Mr. Way offered motion to adopt the "Personnel Policy Manual" as
submitted this date, and set out as follows. He asked if anything more specific is needed to
be stated about the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Plan. Dr. Hastings said the wording
presented is what was requested by the Board. It is her intention from this point to hold
training sessions for managers and supervisors so they are fully aware of all of these
personnel policies and their responsibilities under same, and also to reprint the "Employee
Handbook". Mrs. Cooke seconded the foregoing motion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Policy i - Employee Relations Principles - (wording on pages 9 and 10 of September 4,
1985, Afternoon Meeting) - All references to "County" were changed to "Board". In the first
sentence of the second paragraph the word "our" was changed to "its". The fourth paragraph
reading: "Should a vacancy occur, every effort will be made to fill ... and'experience.''
was deleted. The last paragraph was changed to read: "Through these and other practices the
Board will encourage employees to increase their growth and productivity with the organizatior
Policy 2 - Definition of Employee Status - (.wording on page 8 of September 4, 1985,
Afternoon Meeting) - The word "County" in the first paragraph was changed to "Board".
Paragraph B.1. was reworded to read: "Full-time - Employment in an established position for
not less than 40 hours per normal work week (Saturday at 12:01 A.M. to Friday at midnight)
and 52 weeks per fiscal year (July 1 - June 30). Second paragraph under Section C.4. reading
"Classified persons employed for a job assignment ... to demonstrate ability, interest and
skill." was deleted.
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Policy 3 - Grievance Policy and Procedure - (see wording on pages 10 through 13 of
September 4, 1985, Afternoon Meeting) - Under No. 4 - Step IV (Upper Management Level) the
second sentence of that paragraph was changed to read: "Submission to the fourth step must
occur within ten (10) working days of the third step." Fifth sentence of same paragraph is
changed to read: "The employee may have legal counsel or an employee of his/her choice
present at the fourth step meeting." Under Step V (Panel Hearing) - The first sentence is
changed to read: "If the reply from the fourth step meeting is not acceptable to the grie-
vant, he/she may submit the grievance to a fifth step panel hearing." The second sentence of
the same paragraph is changed to read: "The request for a fifth step panel hearing shall be
indicated ..." The third sentence of the same paragraph is changed to read: "A request for
panel hearing ... of the fourth step reply." In the paragraph following Step V, the second
sentence is changed to read: "To ensure an objective panel, neither the grievant nor ..."
Policy 4 - Personnel Records - (see wording on Page 17 of September 4, 1985, Afternoon
Meeting).
Policy 5 - Criminal Convictions/Motor Vehicle Violations Policy - (see pages 22 and 23
of September 4, 1985, Afternoon meeting, for wording of policy). Also, the "Violation Record
Request" had been changed by deleting the words "Alias and/or Nickname" and replacing those
words with "All Other Names (including Maiden Names by Former Marriages)".
Policy 20 - Conditions of Employment: Personnel Funded Through Other Than County Budget
(see page 16 of September 4, 1985, Afternoon Meeting) - References to "County" were all
changed to "Board". The second paragraph was changed to read: "The Board shall, in all
cases, retain control over ... employees regardless of the source of funding."
Policy 21 - Equal Employment Opportunity Policy - To read as follows: "It shall be the
policy of the Board that all persons are entitled to Equal Employment Opportunities and that
it does not discriminate against its employees or applicants for employment, because of race,
creed, color, national origin, age, sex, handicap, or other nonmerit factors provided they
are qualified and meet the physical requirements established for the position." (This
replaces similar language adopted by the Board in 1979 under the title "Affirmative Action
Plan")
Policy 22 - Employee Discipline - (see language on page 9 of September 4, 1985, Afternooi
Meeting) - The references to "County" were all changed to "Board". In the paragraph beginning
"Disciplinary action will be taken in private by ... The normal course will be:" Under No. 3
the words "(for investigative purposes)'~ were added after "Suspension with pay".
Policy 23 - Performance Review - (see wording on pages 15 and 16 of September 4, 1985
Afternoon Meeting) - The references to "County" were changed to "Board". Paragraph A.,
Probationary Terms - was changed to read: "The probationary term is a period of time from
six to 12 months in length in which every new employee shall demonstrate his/her ability to
perform the job. If this performance is not satisfactory, the employee may be released
without further obligation. During the probationary period months, the supervisor will meet
with the new employee at the end of the third and sixth month in order to provide input about
the employee's progress. The probationary performance review must be of an overall satisfac-
tory rating for an employee to become a permanent staff member.
Policy 24 - Recruitment and Selection of Personnel - (see wording on page 18 of
September 4, 1985, Afternoon Meeting) - The reference to "County" in the first paragraph was
changed to "Board". Under the fourth paragraph of the section entitled "Recruitment", in the
paragraph beginning "Whenever an application is rejected," the words "for one of the above
reasons" were added at that point in the sentence. The last paragraph in this policy was
also reworded to read: "To avoid excessive risk exposure, the insurance carrier has reques-
ted that the County secure driving records from the Division of Motor Vehicles on all persons
where the employee's position requires use of a County vehicle."
Policy 25 - Standards of Conduct - (see wording on pages 21 and 22 of September 4, 1985,
Afternoon Meeting) - The references to "County" were changed to "Board". Under examples of
unacceptable conduct, No. 17 was changed to read: "Unauthorized possession or use of alcohol
controlled substances, firearms, dangerous weapons or explosives on the job."
Policy 26 - Termination of Employment - (see wording on page 22 of September 4, 1985,
Afternoon Meeting) - The reference to "County" was changed to "Board". In paragraph B,
Layoff, the second sentence was changed to read: "In the case of a layoff, immediate super-
visors will notify affected employees as far in advance as possible with minimum of 14 days
required."
Policy 27 - Nepotism - (see wording for this policy~adopted by the Board on June 14,
1978, Minute Book 16, Page 307).
Policy 27 - Acceptance of Gifts - (see wording of this policy adopted by the Board on
June 14, 1978, Minute Book 16, page 307).
Policy 27 - Political Activity - (see wording of this policy adopted by the Board on
June 14, 1978, Minute Book 16, page 307).
Policy 28 - Indebtedness to the County - (see wording for this policy adopted by the
Board on June 14, 1978, Minute Book 16, page 308).
Policy 29 - County Vehicle Usage Policy - (see wording of this policy adopted by the
Board on August 12, 1981, pages 352 through 353, Minute Book 20).
Policy 30 - Classified Employe~ Reduction in Force Procedure - (see wording of this
policy adopted by the Board on October 10, 1984, page 33).
Policy 40 - Course Reimbursement - Classified Employees - (see wording of this policy on
page 7 of the minutes of September 4, 1985, Afternoon Meeting).
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
~ 32)
Policy 60 - Salary Administration and Position Classification - (see wording of this
policy on pages 20 and 21 of the minutes of September 4, 1985, Afternoon Meeting). Under
Paragraph C, in the second sentence, the word "should" was changed to "shall". The first
sentence under J.1. was changed to read: "Transfer - When an employee is transferred from
one class to another within a common pay range, the employee shall continue ..." The first
sentence under J.2. was changed to read: "Promotion - When an employee is promoted from one
class to another having a higher pay range, the employee shall ..." The next sentence was
changed to read: "If the employee's current rate of pay ... for the higher class, his/her
pay shall be ..." The last paragraph under J.2. was changed to read: "A promotion changes
the anniversary ..." The first sentence under J.3. was changed to read: "Demotion - When an
employee is demoted from one class to another having a lower pay range, the employee shall
" The second sentence of this paragraph was also changed to read: "When an employee is
demoted for administrative purposes through no fault of the employee, his/her pay shall ..."
Policy 61 - Overtime Policy - (see wording on page 24 of minutes of September 4, 1985,
Afternoon Meeting).
Policy 62 - Compensatory Time Policy - (see wording on pages 24 and 25 of minutes of
September 4, 1985, Afternoon Meeting). The first paragraph of the section under Child
Protective Service was changed to read: "Child protective service workers serving on-call
are entitled to compensation as approved by the County Board of Social Services; described as
follows:"
Policy 63 - Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Plan (VERIP) - (wording as set out on
pages 1 and 2 of September 4, 1985, Afternoon Meeting, was amended in Sections B.3., B.4.,
B.6, and E.2, therefore, the policy as actually adopted is set out in full below:
Eligibility
Participants in the Albemarle County VERIP must meet the following
requirements:
1. Be ~eligible for early or full retirement under the provisions
of the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System (VSRS).
2. Have been employed by Albemarle County for 10 of the last 13
years prior to retirement, be at least 55 years of age and
currently employed·
3. Employees retiring under the disability provisions of VSRS
and/or Social Security shall not be eligible for the VERIP.
Benefits
1. VERIP benefits shall be paid monthly for a period of five
years after retirement or until age 65, whichever comes
first.
2. Benefits under VERIP will be calculated as follows:
so
Compute the annual VSRS benefit under plan A or B as
indicated by VSRS. This computation shall include any
reductions for early VSRS retirement if .appropriate.
b. Recompute the annual VSRS benefit with the addition of
five more years service or the number of additional
years needed to reach age 65, whichever is lesser.
c. The difference between these two calculations shall be
the annual VERIP benefit to be paid on a monthly basis.
The annual benefit shall be adjusted by the general adjustment
approved for other employees on July 1 of each year the
employee is covered by the plan.
The Board will pay the employee the equivalent of single
membership in its hospitalization plan as long as the employee
is covered by VERIP benefits.
Employees retiring under VERIP shall receive a lump sum
payment of $25 per day for each day of unused sick leave
credited to them. This payment shall be limited to payment
for no more than 100 days.
The employee has the option of taking the total amount of the
five years' payment over a three-year period. The hospitali-
zation coverage paid by the County will be for the three-year
period only.
Ce
Application
Applications for VERIP must be made to the County Executive prior
to December 1st of the year preceding the fiscal year the VERIP
takes effect.
Do
Approval
The Board, on the recommendation of the County Executive, must
approve all those who will participate in the VERIP.
58
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Duration
Once an employee has been approved for VERIP, the benefits
will continue without interruption as outlined in this
policy. Subsequent alterations or deletion of this policy
shall not affect the benefits of those who have retired under
these provisions.
This policy automatically continues on May 1 unless the
Boards acts to discontinue the policy for another year.
Policy 80 - Absences - (see wording on pages 4 and 5 of minutes of September 4, 1985,
Afternoon Meeting). Section A.3. was amended to read: "Deny leave payment for absences in
violation of any Board policy." Section C., Employees Returning to Work After Illness, was
amended to read as follows: "When an employee returns to work after five days or more
absence due to illness, the employee may be requested to submit a physician's release certify-
ing that he/she is well enough to return to work." Also, in sections D., E., and F.,
references to "County" were changed to "Board".
Policy 81 - Holidays - (see wording on page 24 of the minutes of September 4, 1985,
Afternoon Meeting). The last sentence of the paragraph beginning "Other holidays are
granted ..." was changed to read: "If a holiday falls within the employee's vacation, it is
not charged to that employee's annual leave."
Policy 82 - Leave of Absence - (wording set out on pages 13 and 14 of minutes of
September 4, 1985, had been changed in so many places that the policy as adopted is set out
below:
The Board recognizes the fact that members of its staff may need to
request leaves of absences from their regular employment. Such leaves
of absence will be unpaid. The County Executive will give consideration
to all requests for leave in a fair and consistent manner. The County
Executive will, however, make decisions on granting or denying leave of
absence requests based on the best interests of the County.
Criteria for Leave of Absence
A. Leave shall be granted by the County Executive for no more than
one year;
B. Employee requesting leave shall return to a comparable position
from which leave has been granted;
C. No fringe benefits shall be provided during the time for which
leave is granted; however, the rate of annual leave, received at
the time of the leave of absence shall be maintained once employ-
ment with the County has been resumed.
D. All annual leave shall be utilized prior to the leave of absence
taking effect.
Procedure for Compliance
The following procedure is intended to be utilized for leave requests
not covered by other Board policies.
A. Leave of absence requests must be in writing and state the appropri-
ate reasons for the leave, length of time requested, and inclusive
dates. The request will be directed to the employee's immediate
supervisor.
B. After discussing the leave request with his/her immediate supervisor,
that supervisor will develop recommendations regarding the leave
addressing such matters as the implication of the leave on the
department, filling the position on a substitute basis, etc. The
immediate supervisor will then forward these materials, along with
the employee's written request form, to the department head.
C. The department head will forward the request to the Director of
Personnel and County Executive or designee along with his/her
recommendation concerning the request.
D. The Personnel Director will meet with the employee to discuss
fringe benefits and other matters which may be affected by the
leave of absence. The Personnel Director will review the request
with the department head and develop a recommendation for the
County Executive or designee.
E. The County Executive's decision will be made and considered final
after having reviewed all recommendations concerning the leave
request.
Policy 83 - Military Leave - (wording as set out on page 15 of the minutes of September
4, 1985, had been amended, so the policy as adopted is set out in full below:
All employees of the Board who are members of the organized reserve
force of any of the armed services of the United States or of the
National Guard shall be entitled to leaves of absence for their respec-
tive duties without loss of seniority, accrued leave or efficiency
rating on all days when they are engaged in annual active duty or
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
training or when called forth by the Governor of Virginia pursuant to
the provisions of Section 44-75 of the Code of Virginia or by the
President of the United States. There shall be no loss of pay during
these leaves of absence, not to exceed fifteen days per fiscal year.
When relieved of this duty, these employees shall be restored to
comparable positions they held when ordered to duty. All fringe
benefits to which these employees were entitled prior to military leave
shall be restored to include the rate of annual leave accumulation and
seniority.
Policy 84 - Vacation Leave - (see wording of this policy as adopted by the Board on
October 10, 1984 - Page 29). Near the bottom of this policy, the paragraph beginning: "Paid
on the 1984-85 daily rate." was changed to read: "Paid on the employees' 1984-85 daily
rate."
Policy 85 - Sick Leave - (wording amended from that shown on page 35 of the minutes of
October 10, 1984.) Policy as adopted reads: "All personnel shall earn sick leave days at
the rate of one day per month (permanent full-time) of employment or major fraction thereof
(permanent part-time) with no maximum on accumulation. Upon termination of employment, $25
per day shall be paid for unused sick leave up to a maximum of 100 days."
Policy 85 - Sick Leave Bank - (wording for this policy set out on page 30 of the minutes
of October 10, 1984.)
Policy 85 - Extraordinary Sick Leave - (wording for this policy set out on page 306,
Minute Book 16, for July 1, 1978.)
Policy 86 - Snow Days - (wording of this policy set out on page 306, Minute Book 16, for
June 14, 1978).
Policy 87 - Illness or Death in the Family - (wording for this policy set out on page
449, Minute Book 12, January 16, 1975.)
Policies presented to the Board on September 4, 1985, concerning "Career Leave" (page 6)
and "Safety Practices" (page 19) were deleted at the instance of the Board.
Agenda Item No. 23. Review of Revenues for 1986-87 Budget and discussion of budget
procedures.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum to the Board dated October 3, 1985 from
his office entitled "Preliminary Projections of Local Revenues for FY '86-87":
"Attached is a summary of the local revenue projections for the fiscal
year 1986-87. These projections were made by Melvin Breeden, Director
of Finance, and Ray Jones, Deputy County Executive. The summary is by
major category of local revenues and based on the following circumstances.
No change in any rates of~taxation;
Collection percentages for:
Real Estate 97
Personal Property 96
Public Service Corporations 100
Machinery and Tools 100
Mobile Homes 88
An economic growth factor of four percent was used on those
revenues related to the economy such as sales tax, business
licenses, permit fees, etc.;
For real estate tax revenues, the basis was the actual assessment
for 1985 plus $45 million in new construction;
Investment earnings were based on a 7.5 percent net average rate
of investment on idle funds - down from eight percent for FY
85-86;
No allowance or adjustment was made for any change in the
City/County Revenue Sharing Agreement; and
State shared expenses (Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, etc.)
were not included since the State reimbursements move relative to
changes in the level of expenditures.
Staff will be presenting recommendations to you on the division of the
projected $1.9 million at your work session on October 9, 1985.
For your information, 1985 property tax tickets will be mailed out on
October 11, 1985 and one citizen appeared at the window on October 3
before 10 a.m. to pay their taxes by credit card - less than 12 hours
after the ordinance was passed authorizing payment by credit card. It
will take a week or ten days to finalize this method of payment.
6O
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Pa~L~ 35)
PRELIMINARY PROJECTIONS OF FY '86-87 LOCAL REVENUES
DESCRIPTION
84/85 84~85 85/86 85~86 86/87
BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET REVISED PROJECTED INC/DECR % VAR
Local Property Tax
Other Local Tax
Fees & Permits
Fines
Use of Money & Property
Charges For Services
Non-Categorical State Aid
29,929,200 21,332,883 23,379,400 24,391,841 24,949,381 1,569,981 6.72%
7,789,000 8,633,948 8,827,680 8,827,680 9,180,787 353,107 4.00%
474,927 431,343 540,400 525,800 544,152 3,752 0.69%
55,000 71,581 60,000 60,000 62,400 2,400 4.00%
990,485 1,596,005 1,153,490 1,170,048 1,143,952 (9,538) -0.83%
466,622 596,530 559,555 584,383 584,383 24,828 4.44%
336,000 350,072 351,400 351,400 351,400 0 0.00%
TOTAL 31,041,234 33,012,363 34,871,925 35,911,152 36,816,456 1,944,531 5,58%
Mr. Agnor said a detailed sheet of the calculations is available if the Board would like
an opportunity to review those. Mr. Agnor said he has also provided a memorandum on how
these moneys could be divided for next year and several alternatives. Mr. Fisher said he
thinks the Board should use this time to discuss the allocation issue. Mr. Agnor summarized
the following memorandum dated October 9, 1985 from his office to the Board entitled:
"Budget Guidelines - Distribution of Projected FY '86-87 Local Fund Revenues":
"The following statistics and alternatives with recommendations for the
distribution of the projected FY 86-87 revenues are provided for your
consideration:
Statistical Information
Millions of Dollars
FY 85-86 Appropriations:
General Government Operations
School Operations
Sub Total Operations
Debt Service
City Revenue Sharing
Capital Improvement Program
Total
Total
$14.90
31.27
$46.17
2.06
1.88
1.00
$51.11
Funded From
Local Revenues
$12.30
17.63
$29.93
2.06
1.88
1.00
$34.87
FY 86-87 Local Revenue Projection =
Increase over FY 85-86 Budgeted Local Revenues =
Allocations of new local revenues needed in FY 86-87 for:
1. Debt Service
(a decrease in debt service is projected)
2. City Revenue Sharing Agreement
3. Capital Improvement Program
Total
$36.82
$ 1.95
($88,000)
+ 79,000
--0--
($ 9,000)
For budget planning purposes, it is assumed the total is -0-.
Balance available for operations, tax reductions and/or
contingencies $1.95 million
Other Statistics:
The $1.95 million in new local revenues is an increase of: 1. 5.58% of FY 85-86 budgeted local revenues
2. 3.82% of all FY 85-86 budgeted revenues (which includes local
+ state + federal + fund balance appropriation)
3. 6.52% of local funds appropriated for operations in FY 85-86
Distribution of Revenues
Alternative 91:
Allocate a certain percentage increase to fund inflationary costs of
existing programs, and reserve a balance for the Board of Supervisors
to make decisions on new programs, tax reduction considerations, or
contingencies.
Alternative #2:
Same as alternative number 91 except to allocate also a fixed amount
for new programs, with decisions on which new programs these funds
would be used for to be determined by the School Board for the school
system, and by the Board of Supervisors for general government. An
amount would be reserved for tax reduction considerations or
contingencies.
Alternative 93:
Same as alternative ~2 except all the funds would be allocated for
operations with no reserve for tax reductions or contingencies.
It is recommended Alternative ~2 be adopted.
October 9, i985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Inflationary Increase for Operations:
The Consumer Price Index for 1985 has been stable at 3.6% to 3.7%, and
is not expected to change dramatically in 1986. The revenue estimates
used a 4% economic growth factor which is for inflation plus business
expansions. It is recommended that a budgetary guide of 3.75% be used
for an inflation factor for local funds for operating expenses. This
would use $1.12 million (.0375 x 29.93 = 1.12), and leave $830,000 for
new programs, tax adjustments, or contingencies.
New or Expanded Programs:
There is no guide for allocating funds for new or expanded programs.
It would be accomplished by providing an additional percentage of total
operating costs (over and above the inflationary percentage) or by a
division of the funds remaining after allocating inflationary operating
funds, such as 1/4 - 3/4, or 1/2 - 1/2, or 1/3 - 2/3 . It is recommended
that a budgetary guide of 2% of the current operating budgets derived
from local funds be allocated for new or exDanded programs. This would
use $600,000 (.02 x 29.93 = 0.60), leaving $230,000 for tax adjustments
or contingencies.
Tax Reductions or Contingencies:
With recent reports on insurance rates climbing approximately $250,000
ow. er appropriations in the current budget year, far in excess of normal
inflationary costs, it seems prudent to anticipate reserving the
remaining $230,000 for funding those insurance costs next year. If
that is a proper assumption, funds for tax reductions would not be
available. In a budget year in which real estate reassessments will
not occur, tax reductions are seldom available. It is recommended that
the $230,000 be reserved as a contingency, its use to be examined after
budget requests have been received, which will provide information to
the Board on the ability of the operating budgets to absorb the known
increase in insurance costs, will provide information on any reductions
of existing program costs, and will include estimates of the levels of
Federal and State funding for operational needs.
Summary of Recommendations
(Millions of Dollars)
School
System
General Total
Government Allocation
Allocated for inflation = 3.75%
of current operational budgets
funded by local revenues
$0.66 $ 0.46 $ 1.12
Allocated for new programs = 2.0%
of current operational budgets
funded by local revenues
0.35 0.25 0.60
3. Reserved for contingencies
0.23
Totals $ 1.01 $ 0.71 $ 1.95
Of the $1.95 million in new local revenues, 52% ($1.01 million) would
be allocated for school operations, 36% ($0.71 million) would be
allocated for general government operations, and 12% ($0.23 million)
would be reserved for contingencies."
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor why two percent was used for new or expanded programs. Mr.
Agnor said the percentage has no rationale, it was pulled out of the air. It is slightly
more than half of the reserve that is left. Mr. Fisher asked if the figure is based on
history. Mr. Agnor said no. Some years there has been no money for new programs at all.
Mr. Bowie said it appears that the difference between the original 85/86 budget and the
revised 85/86 budget will generate close to $1 million in revenues which are not even
addressed in the $1.9 million. Mr. Agnor said the difference is not addressed, but it goes
into the General Fund balance from which the capital budget is funded. Mr. Lindstrom said if
the Board adheres to the time-honored tradition of using the inflation factor for increases
(this one being 3.75 percent increase) that will leave about $830,000. That would give a
basic cost of living adjustment on the salary scale. If the $1.12 million is allocated for
this general 3.75 percent increase, would that provide funds for an instructional salary
increase in the schools other than just the cost of living increase. Mr. Agnor said it
depend on how the School Board reviews it. Mr. Lindstrom said if the School Board decided
increase salaries by more than the general cost of living of 3.75 percent then that would
have to come from state funds or the Board would have to fund that somehow out of the balance
of $800,000. Mr. Agnor said that is correct. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 3:10
P.M.)
Mr. Fisher said the two percent for new programs is also built into the School alloca-
tion. Mr. Bowie said Mr. Agnor said that two percent comes right out of the air, and
generally that means exactly where new programs are going to come from. If everybody gets
two percent, they will find a new program. Mr. Lindstrom said he meant if the Board did
the basic inflationary shuffle, there would be $830,000 left. He finds it hard to believe
the budget will be frozen at the same dollar amount as last year. Assuming the Board does
not do that, and it is adjusted for inflation, that leaves $830,000 more or less for the
Board to decide upon in a somewhat discretionary fashion.
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Mr. Bowie said he feels the reason the Board wanted to start the budget process now
instead of next January is that there is no reason not to try to come up with a budget that
does not go up 3.75 percent. It has never been tried, but that does not mean it cannot be
done. He .would like to see the Board try to come up with a budget policy that does not
automatically say there is going to be inflation. It gives the Board time to look at priori-
ties. He objects to giving money to new programs, which in turn only creates new programs.
He would like to say there won't be any new programs unless they are approved before the
budget goes into effect. If somebody wants a new program, they should know now what it is
and the Board should have the opportunity to look and see if the Board wants to fund it
before the regular little five-minute per million dollar budget work session that is held.
The Board really does not even have a chance to consider any new programs. He thinks that
the Board should say right now that if someone wants a new program, they should get it
approved, and then the Board will talk about how much it is going to cost, instead of every-
body grabbing their two percent and seeing what they can come up with. He would like to see
a budget that does not exceed last year's total budget, and he does not want to see any new
programs that have not been approved in advance. He would also like to see the maximum
amount held in reserve so that the Board has control of running it, and he does not want to
be faced with eleventh hour decisions on programs on which the Board has not been briefed,
Mr. Agnor said he understands^Mr. Bowie said about the two percent. He was just trying
to think of a maximum allowable increase, rather than letting departments and agencies think
there is no limit on the amount of increase. Mr. Bowie said it seems to him to be more
logical to look at a program to see if it is needed for the good of the County. Then, look
at how much it costs and how it will be paid for is a separate issue. There may be something
else that could be given up if a new program is desired. The minute the statement is made
that there is money for new programs, there will be requests for new programs presented.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the ideal thing would be not to assume any inflation rate.
He does not feel the Board is in a position to go back and examine every department. He is
trusting that the County is on enough of a zero-based operation that some of that happens
anyway. One of the consequences of this kind of a review is that the Board takes more direct
responsibility for this kind of decision. One of the biggest chunks of this additional
revenue would be allocated for salaries. Does the Board think that is legitimate? The Board
also could say tax rates are too high and could adjust these tax rates. Mr. Lindstrom said
since he has been on the Board, the Board members have not been in a position to have this
kind of a conversation. Since this is new, and the Board is not accustomed to doing it, he
does not know exactly what to do. The Board has talked about constructing a new recreational
park, so if it is not built into this budget, it could be considered a new program or then,
maybe not. But, it will take some money if the Board decides to proceed with the project.
Mr. Fisher told Mr. Agnor that he appreciates this attempt to come up with a way of
allocating revenues for the coming year. He would like to discuss assumption 91 - the
inflation rate. Although there have been indications that the rate has been 3.6 percent to
3.7 percent, he thinks it would be good not to exceed the actual inflation factor. In some
cases an argument could be made that the amount should be somewhat less than the inflation
rate in order to encourage people to look for ways to economize, but certainly not to exceed
the actual rate would be his advice. If the amount comes out to be 3.6 percent or 3.65
percent that amount can be used, but do not add anything to it. He would like to keep the
amount at, or just under, the inflation rate.
Mr. Agnor said he studied information from agencies that make predictions. Even though
it is claimed the inflation rate is stabilizing, the predictions he has seen indicate the
rate has bottomed out and is going to climb, but not very much. It is all geared to how much
money the Federal government borrows. He read an article in which it said the government is
trying to keep checks from bouncing because they have gone over the $2 trillion debt mark.
He anticipates that inflation is going to climb a little next year or from July 1986 to June
1987, which is almost two years away.
Mr. Bowie said he feels at this point, if it is felt that the inflation rate will be 3.6
percent, a budget should be brought in at 3.4 percent. He would hate to get to the point of
saying there will be no salary increases, although that is within the Board's right. Try for
no-growth in local government, and if there is a request for a new program, get it approved
before the budget cycle begins. He has no problem with stating that he would like to see
some tax relief coming from these additional moneys. Mr. Agnor said the Tayloe Murphy
Institute does a CPI fOr this area of the state only, but is not available yet. He under-
stands what Mr. Bowie is saying about getting below the rate so that the Board can be a bit
more efficient. He would not be surprised that when the Tayloe Murphy Institute report comes
out, it varies above four percent.
Mr. Lindstrom said that with regard to salaries, the CPI is a particularly valuable tool
to anticipate maintaining the County employee's parity. He does not know how relevant the
CPI is for nonsalary items. Mr. Agnor said it is not very relevant, it is just a guide. Mr.
Lindstrom asked how much of the total budget is allocated to salaries in terms of a percentage
Mr. Agnor said salaries are 62.8 percent 'of total operations. Mr. Lindstrom said in addition
there are other costs such as utilities, including fuel that are going to be affected that
the County cannot really control. He does not think there is that much that can be done
about fuel or insurance costs. There is a choice in terms of salaries, but he personally is
not in favor of not providing an increase for employees. Mr. Fisher said he thinks it is
unrealistic to assume that prices are not going to go up. Mr. Lindstrom said when all the
things over which the Board has no control are cut, then the Board is left with salaries over
which it does have some control, and a small percentage of other things. Mr. Bowie said it
is absolutely unrealistic to assume that prices are not going up, but it is good management
to look for ways to offset some of those costs and not just fund them. The Board should be
setting the goal it wants to achieve with the next budget. Mr. Fisher said that is the
direction he would recommend; trim the budget just a little.
Mr. Agnor said he would explain this a little differently. The 3.75 percent of local
monies recommended to be used for operating expenses of the schools and the general govern-
ment amounts to $1.12 million. However, the $1.12 million related to the total of the '84-85
operating budget would provide a 2.4 percent increase in operations. That assumes that both
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
State and Federal moneys stay the same. In the general government side of the operations,
the State money is an exact tract of whatever the State Compensation Board approves for the
constitutional officers, so the General Government does not benefit from those funds. The
Governor is planning to recommend a huge increase for the schools, although that must also be
approved by the.General Assembly. His point is that 3,75 percent being allocated as local
revenues to the total budget will not raise the total budget by 3.75 percent. In fact, in
General Government, with the State money going directly for reimbursement of expenses, it is
between 2.7 to 2.9 percent.
Mr. Agnor said he is appreciative that the Board is participating in the budget process
at this point, because he would really like to see some guidelines set for both the schools
and general government. He said he was not sure the Board wanted to decide which new
programs the school system would get. 12~ assumed that the Board would rather let the School
Board make those decisions, but then the School Board must know how much money is available
for new programs. Mr. Fisher said it is his opinion that the recommendation in terms of
dollars ism~e meaningful for the School Board than either of the percentages. That would
make $1.01~llars available to the School Board and they would decide whether it would go
into' salary increases, benefits, programs or whatever. It may be better to say there is a
dollar amount available. It is clear that getting some kind of an agreement as to the base
pay raise for the two systems is extremely important. He would hate for the School system to
come back with a 10 percent base increase, plus a step, and then not have enough money to
fund anything else. Mr. Bowie said if the Board is going to pick a figure, as long as it is
less than the anticipated inflation rate he does not care if that is given as the target for
next year. He does not want to start on day one of the budget process by funding the whole
inflation rate. He personally does not want to try to get into school programs, but there
should be some target. He would also like to see some return of the money to the people who
pay it, not just shoot for spending it all.
Mr. Fisher asked if some amount should be retained for a tax decrease. Mr. Bowie said
he did not say that, only that the Board should try to come in with the '86-87 budget being
less than the anticipated inflation rate Mr. Agnor said if a 3.4 percent inflation factor as
suggested by Mr. Bowie were used, that would be right at $1 million for inflationary costs.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested the staff allocate $1 million to a basic budget inflationary factor
with the knowledge that everything the Board can cut out of that will be more or less discre-
tionary. He agrees the School Board has to plan and should be given a set dollar figure. He
feels it is difficult to decide in the abstract how the extra amount will be allocated. If
some deadline were given for those requesting ~new programs, the Board could look at all of
them independently of the regular budget process and either prioritize them at that point, or
eliminate some of them from consideration. Then when the Board got to the regular budgetary
process, funds could be allocated to those programs that the Board may have decided on
earlier, independent of the dollar figures. Mr. Bowie said he can certainly support Mr.
Lindstrom's suggestion.
Mr. Agnor said if that suggestion is followed, the balance of $950,000 could be held in
reserve by the Board for purposes it determined at a later day, but that all requests for new
programs could be submitted separately from the operating budget so that they could be looked
at and prioritized at that time. Mr. Lindstrom said he meant he has no problem allocating,
if the Board decides to allocate a certain amount of the amount to the School Board without
specifying to the School Board what it is to do with the money. He does not think he should
sit in judgement of what the School Board is doing and they should have some of the expected
extra revenues. The balance could then be held in a reserve that the Board would apply
later. If a deadline of January 1 could be set for presentation of new programs to be
presented, and let the Board review them separately. Mr. Fisher said he would rather let the
Program Review Committee do the actual reviews. Mr. Agnor said the Committee does not look
at departmental programs, just at non-County agencies. Mr. Lindstrom said he has no problem
with the Committee making the first review of the programs and presenting that review to the
Board, ideally separate from the budget process. Mr. Fisher said it sounds as if the Board
is going to end up putting together a budget. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not mean to supplan'
this review group because they have done a good job, but he is suggesting that it might be
good to have them review and prioritize these requests for the Board. The Board could then
go through and see if wanted to fund the program. Mr. Bowie said he thinks it is a step in
the right direction. If there could be some kind of separate review of major new programs,
then the Board would have plenty of time over the next few months to figure out how to do it
before the budget cycle begins. The programs are either in or out and he feels it is a step
toward getting control on the growth of spending. Mr. Lindstrom said just the concept is
helpful to him. If the Board could take all of these new programs, put them together, and
look at them aside from the regular budgetary process, for a week or so and then get back to
discuss them, it would be helpful to him. The package that is created would then have to be
funded somehow. It would essentially give the Board an overall review of all of these thine
separate from the budget process so that they can be evaluated and then plugged into the
budget. It may be impossible for the staff to handle that. Mr. Agnor said he does not
it would be impossible to handle. The staff would package the requests (both internal and
outside agencies), prioritize the requests and give the package to the Board for review.
Board would then accept or reject the proposals. The staff would then take the package and
insert it into the operational budget before it is returned with the grand total.
Mr. Fisher said the emphasis is still on programs, and review of the programs before
Board actually has a budget that is fully put together. That means all of the activities of
that Committee will have to be moved forward to allow time enough to give the Board a chance
to go through this review. Mr. Agnor said the Committee finishes its work in December.
could isolate just the new programs and finish that part early. Mr. Fisher said it may be
hard tO do that if a new program replaces an old program. Mr. Lindstrom said if there is a
significant change in an existing program, that change may need to be focused on. Mr. Agnor
said he thinks this information could be brought to the Board in January, with the budget
still being put together in mid-February or the first of March. Mr. Fisher asked if that is
satisfactory. Mr. Bowie said he feels the Board will end up with a "million dollar shopping
list". Mr. Fisher asked if the procedure for program review in January is acceptable. Mr.
Agnor said this will be for general government operations only. Mr. Fisher said he does not
feel the School Board will be anywhere near finished at that time. Mr. Lindstrom said the
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Board still needs to decide how much of the additional funds will be allocated to the Schools
for new programs. Mr. Fisher said he does not believe that idea will work. Everytime the
Board has tried such an approach, the requests have far exceeded the target amount. Maybe
the suggestion a few moments ago was the best move. Half of the new funds go to the current
operational budget (both schools and general government), and the other half be reserved for
a decision later. Mr. Fisher said he is concerned and he does not feel enough money is being
set aside for capital projects. The assumption of zero new dollars for capital may not be
right. Mr. Fisher said thinking about what will be done to many school buildings over the
next few years, and a new County park and possibly other recreational facilities, and with
Federal Revenue Sharing funds ceasing, he does not believe the Board can assume that is going
to be enough to meet the needs for capital. Mr. Fisher asked if it was arguable to the Board
members that half of the money go to operations, with the other half being reserved? Mr.
Lindstrom said his only reservation is that he feels the School Board will look at the entire
balance being reserved as being available to them. Mr. Fisher said they always have and he
does not think that can be changed. Also, everytime the Board tries to do that, it changes
its ~ind as to what is to be done. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels it is the job of the School
-~fd~'.~e~lthis Board what they need to do the best they can for the educational program.
Then, when this Board screams and shouts at them, they can come back with something realistic
That is their job. That is why he wants his School Board member to tell him what he thinks
they need. The Board can set them a guideline to begin with to give them some idea of what
they have to work with. Mr. Agnor suggested that the School Board bring in their new pro-
grams on an earlier schedule. Mr. Lindstrom said this could force the School Board to focus
earlier on big items and then this Board would be less likely to walk into a budget hearing
and have a bunch of people pounce all over them. Mr. Bowie said he thinks the suggested
figure right now which is the target for next year's budget should be sufficient to start
with. He hopes everybody does not just ignor it. Mr. Fisher said he would like to see
$500,000 go to the Capital budget.
Mr. Lindstrom thanked Mr. Agnor and said he appreciates the information.
Agenda Item No. 24. Appointments. There were no names presented.
Agenda Item No. 25. Other Matters Not on the Agenda from the Board and Public.
Mr. Fisher said in reference to a discussion earlier in the day, it has been determined
by the Clerk that the advertisement that was not run correctly in the Daily Progress has been
run correctly in another newspaper in the area which meets the legal requirements for that
meeting. The Board has the option of reinstituting the October 16 meeting as originally
scheduled and cancelling the meeting on October 30. Mr. Way offered motion, seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom, to reinstitute the October 16 meeting and cancel the October 30 meeting which was
scheduled earlier in the day. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Fisher said a notice has been received from the Virginia Association of Counties
regarding County requests for sponsorship of legislation. These requests concerned:
1)
2)
3)
Amendments to Section 46.1-252, 254 and 254.1 (ticketing an automobile
without the driver being present).
Legislative change to allow proceeds of drug seizures to be used for local
drug enforcement activities.
Mandatory minimum term of imprisonment (malicious wounding of a police
officer).
Ail of these requests are scheduled to be heard by VACo's Committee on General
Government on October 11, 1985, at 1:00 P.M. in House Room 1 of the State Capitol. Someone
needs to be there to defend, the request, otherwise the items are not likely to get passed by
the Committee. Mr. St. John said he believes the State Sheriff's Association and the Chief
of Police Association are both promoting all of those. Mr. Bowie said he would attend.
Mr. Fisher said the Committee on Planning, 'Public Utilities, and Natural Resources,
meets this Sunday, October 13, at 1:00 P.M. at the University Hilton in Charlottesville.
This is for legislation that would authorize local governing bodies to assess impact fees on
development of land. As Chairman of that Committee, it would be hard for him to be an
advocate. Mrs. Cooke volunteered to attend.
Mr. Fisher said a public hearing must be held before appointments of School Board
members of the legislation and asked for a volunteer to attend. If the local elections go as
appears likely (Cooke, Fisher, Lindstrom all running for reelection), the hearing could be in
December and the appointments then made at the first meeting in January. Unless there is
some objection expressed, he will schedule this hearing for December.
Mr. Agnor said a work session needs to be scheduled on the proposal amendments to the
Soil Erosion Ordinance. Mr. Agnor said he and Mr. Andy Overstreet (Superintendent of
Schools) have also been talking about holding a joint meeting with the School Board on the
Blue Cross/Blue Shield KeyCare plan. Mr. Overstreet suggested that this might be done on
Wednesday, November 6. It should take only about 30 minutes. The Soil Erosion work session
could also be done that same afternoon and will require a couple of hours. Mr. Lindstrom
offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to set a meeting for November 6, 1985 at 3:00 P.M. for
the two subjects mentioned. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
At 4:03 P.M., Mr. Agnor requested an Executive Session for discussion of acquisition or
sale of property. Mr. Way so moved and the motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
The Board reconvened into open session at 4:38 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 26. Adjourn.
meeting was immediately adjourned.
With no further business to come before the Board, the
CHA~AN