1985-05-08May 8, 1985 :(Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
May 8, 1985, beginning at 9:00 A.M. in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia:lH:2(
9:05 a.m.), C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9
9:07 a.m.).
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT:
St. John.
County Executive, Guy B.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
:ooke, Messrs. J. T. Henley, Jr. (arrived at
a.m.) and Peter T. Way '(.arrived at
~gnor, Jr., and County Attorney, George R.
The meeting was called to order at 9:08 a.m. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs.
Cooke, to approve item 4.1 and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item No. 4.1. Change Order No. 17 - Court Square Project. The following memorandum
from Ray B. Jones dated May 2, 1985, was received, and the change order approved as
requested. Mr. Bowie said he noticed that this change mentions a computer outlet. He asked
what computer is involved. Mr. Agnor said it is a state computer which will be accessed by
the court system. It is not ready for use at this time; the outlet is being installed while
the other work is taking place. Mr. Lindstrom asked the change requested in the new con-
necting link between the Old County Office Building and the Courthouse. Mr. Agnor said the
design work is being completed on the change so that it can be priced.
"The current balance of the Court Square Alterations contingency account is
$29,105.77. The balance is up considerably from my previous report due to
some credits that had been pending for some time. An additional credit is
forthcoming due to the deletion of a recQrding devise resulting from the
Judge'.s decision to use the existing equipment which he says is adequate.
Attached is Change Order 917 submitted for your approval. This change order
in the amount of $12,303.00 reduces the contingency account to $16,802.77.
The two major items on this change order are Item 1 which provides eight
computer outlets in the General District Court, eight computer outlets in
the Clerk's Office, two in the Commonwealth Attorney's Office, one in the
Sheriff's Office and one in the Circuit Court Office.
Item 6 provides a concrete walkway from High Street along the east side of
the Old County Building through an archway to the first level of the connec-
tor structure that ties the Court House to the Old County Building. Addi-
tional change orders are anticipated at this time for a witness box in the
new court room of the Old County Building plus the window changes requested
by you. These two changes have been designed and are being priced out at
this time. They should be complete in several weeks.
According to the contractor in a recent communication to me, the top two
floors of the Old County Building will be complete by mid-May and the bottom
two floors by the end of May. His estimate of completion on the Court House
is late June. Arrangements are being made to move the occupants (Sheriff,
Clerk, Commonwealth's Attorney, judges and offices) at this time."
Item 4.2. Letter from Highway department dated April 22, 1985, re: CPA-84-7
(Routes 20/742/631 Connector). The following letter from Richard C. Lockwood, Transportation
Planning Engineer, has been forwarded by Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, in answer to a
question posed by the Board during discussion of the above noted Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
"In response to your memorandum of February 19, 1985, all of the material on
the subject has been reviewed and the matter was discussed with Mr. D. S.
Roosevelt on two occasions prior to his meeting with the Board of Supervi-
sors on March 13, 1985.
We are of the opinion that the terrain between Routes 631 and 742 is not
conducive for the construction of a major roadway link. We agree with one
of the comments made by the County Engineer that this road segment is
probably not buildable due to the severe grades.
In regard to a connecting link between Route 742 and Route 20 south of Route
64, such a link by itself was not tested in the CAT study. However, we
believe that if such a roadway were constructed, the anticipated traffic
would fall in the 400 - 3,000 VPD range. Assuming the terrain is classified
as rolling, the subdivision street requirements call for a maximum grade of
8%, a minimum design speed of 35 mph, a minimum stopping sight distance of
240 feet and a minimum of 22 feet of pavement on a 50 feet minimum right of
May 8, 1985 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
way. We are advised by the Secondary Roads Division that the subdivision
standards take into consideration mixed traffic which would include a
certain percentage of trucks.
Route 742 connects with Route 20 approximately two miles south of Route 64.
We do not consider this additional travel distance for commercial type
traffic to be significant in terms of gaining access to the interstate
system. The travel distance from the industrial area to the interstate
through the city is even less.
While we do not support the construction of any major links between Route
631 and Route 20 immediately south of Route 64, there does appear to be a
need to construct a roadway between Route 631 and Route 20 approximately 2.4
miles south of Route 64. Looking at the land use plan, it appears that the
County Comprehensive Plan includes such a roadway link. The terrain in the
area appears to be more conducive to roadway construction. The alignment
would generally follow two tributaries to Biscuit Run.
While the foregoing comments do not solve all of the problems, we hope they
are beneficial."
Item No. 4.3. The County Executive's Financial Report for the months of February and
March, 1985, was received as information. It was noted that "General Fund activities are
within budget projections, however, recent quarterly reviews with individual departments
indicate that some adjustments will be necessary prior to June 30, 1985. School Fund activi-
ties, with the exception of the Vehicle Maintenance Facility, are within budget and revenues
are on target with prior years. The over-expenditure shown for the Vehicle Maintenance
Facility has been corrected by recent appropriations in the School Fund."
Mr. Way said he noticed that the estimate of sales and utility taxes to be collected has
been too optimistic. Mr. Agnor said they off a slight amount, but it ~has easily been offset
by other revenues.
Item No. 4.4. Proposed Parking Facility - Airport. The following memorandum from
Guy B. Agnor, Jr. dated May 3, 1985, was received as information:
"The Airport Board has completed an extensive study Of the need and finan-.
cial feasibility of a parking facility to relieve the congestion at the
airport. The study involved aviation statistical consultants examining the
parking demand and projecting future needs from enplanement statistics; an
engineering firm estimating costs of the project shown in the master plan in
the vicinity of the terminal building; and financial consultants determining
the debt service and operating costs over the life of a bond issue.
The study indicates an existing and current need for 350 parking spaces.
There are currently 195 spaces. The project that was studied proposes a
two-level structure to park vehicles in front (north of) the terminal
building. The lower level would be entered from a new circular access road
under construction in the ravine north of the building, and the upper level
would be accessed from the ground level of the terminal building. It can be
expandable to 411 spaces estimated to be needed in seven to ten years.
The project is estimated to cost $1.5 million. The revenue generation
capability of the facility will support several financing alternatives. The
Airport Board held a public hearing on the feasibility report and voted to
.proceed with an engineering contract for design of the facility, and prepa-
ration of request for proposals from local banks and lending institutions
for a short-term loan with conversion of the debt instrument in three to
five years into long-term financing, to include the terminal building
expansion, the next project in the master plan, and the possible parking
expansion.
Sketches of the project will be displayed at your next meeting.
is for information. No action is required."
This report
Item No. 4.5. Receipt of the following audits as information:
a)
b)
Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court for the year ended June 30, 1984.
Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, for the year
ended June 30, 1984.
Item No. 4.'6. Notice was received from the State Corporation Commission that Gibson &
Hawkins, Inc. t/a G&H AirpOrt Services have applied for a certificate of public convenience
and necessity as a common carrier of passengers by motor vehicle. Public hearing on the
request is scheduled for May 28, 1985, at 2:00 p.m. in Richmond, Virginia.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: December 12 and December 19, 1984.
Mr. Way had read his portion of December 12, and reported no errors.
Mr. Bowie noted that on Page 12 of December 19, the last sentence in the first paragraph
on that page is garbled. The sentence should be reworded to read: "He (Mr. Tucker) said the
County has many se~ve~a~ service areas outside the growth a~ea areas where public water is
May 8, 1985 (Regular Meeting)
available, but ehe~e those areas were existing, developed areas when the Comprehensive Plan
was adopted."
Mr. Bowie then offered motion to approve the minutes of December 12 and December 19,
1984, with the correction noted. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None. '
Agenda Item No. 6a.
Rapids).
Highway Matters:
Report - Guardrails on Rou~e 631 (Hardware
Mr. Agnor noted the following opinion from the County Attorney dated April 16, 1985:
On April 10, 1985, the Board of Supervisors asked Chief Johnstone and myself
to look further into the problem at Pancake Falls on the South Hardware.
My concern at that meeting was whether or not it is really a legal expendi-
ture, to allocate public funds to a problem which then appeared to me to
involve a purely private trespass situation.
For example, if people are pulling into my private driveway .and dumping
trash, I question whether it is a legal expenditure for highway funds to be
allocated to build a gate for me which would in effect serve to protect only
my private property. However, if there is an additional problem of parking
so as to endanger or obstruct the public highway itself then that would be
different. '
Chief Johnstone and I have agreed that while this is primarily a trespass
situation, there is a legitimate public parking problem here, although that
is probably secondary to the trespass problem.
He is going to have his men patrol the area more often than in the past, and
the police will be ready to respond to any call received from the owner so
they can hopefully catch the violators in the act and arrest them. Posted
signs have been placed high on trees where they cannot be ripped off easily,
and hopefully this will tend to relieve the trespass problem.
My recommendation to the Board is that they can address the parking problem
with expenditure of public funds, but perhaps a $6,500.00 guard rail will
not be necessary in view of the fact that the police are going to patrol
this area more effectively in the future, and perhaps satisfactory results
could be obtained by placing heavy metal stakes in the ground similar to
those the Highway Department places at areas where "no dumping" signs have
been erected. These would probably be much less expensive than a guard
rail. Of course, Dan Roosevelt would have the last word on this.
Mr. Fisher asked if it is then staff's recommendation to leave this situation with "No
?arking" signs, "No Trespassing" signs, and more police enforcement. Mr. Agnor said it is
felt that this method of correcting the problem should be tested before spending any public
funds. He said a monthly report would be made to the Board for several months to see the
effect of this effort. There were no objections expressed to this recommendation.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Petition to Abandon a Portion of State Route 727.
Mr. David J. Wood was present. He said this matter came before the Board several months
ago, but the Highway Department did not recommend that the Board take action until the change
in the roadway had actually been accomplished. The work on the new roadway has been
and a sketch of same sent to this Board. He now asks that the Board take the
necessary to take in the new portion of the road, and abandon the old section.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present. He noted that he had pre-
iared a resolution for the Board's approval. The old road bed has been scarified, so at this
· ime action is appropriate.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following
resolution:
WHEREAS, Secondary Route 727, from Route 627 to 0.2 miles south of
Route 627, a distance of 0.2 miles, has been altered, and a new road has
been constructed and approved by the State Highway Commissioner, which new
road serves the same citizens as the road so altered; and
WHEREAS, certain sections of this new road follow new locations, these
being shown on the attached sketch titled "Changes in Secondary System due
to Relocation and Construction of Route 727, Albemarle County, dated at
Charlottesville, Virginia May 8, 1985".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the portions of Secondary Route
727, i.e. Section 1, shown in red on the sketch titled "Changes in Secon-
dary System due to Relocation and Construction on Route 727, Albemarle
County, dated at Charlottesville, Virginia May 8, 1985," a total distance
of 0.06 miles be and hereby is, added to the Secondary System of State
Highways purusant to Section 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended;
2,77
May 8, 1985 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
And further, that the sections of old location, i.e., Section 2, shown
in blue on the aforementioned sketch, a total distance of 0.12 miles, be,
and the same hereby is, abandoned as a public road pursuant to Section
33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
BE IT RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, and
indexed in the names of John W. Kluge, and Willie B. Townsend and Nancy C.
Townsend.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion, and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: Appeal - Taylor's Auto Body Site Plan.
Mr. Fisher noted that this appeal had been brought to the Board by letter from David J.
Wood, Attorney for Mr. Taylor, dated April 29, 1985.
Mr. Donnelly then presented the staff's report:
Proposal: To locate an 8,000 square foot automobile body shop with seven
service stalls, to be served by twenty-one parking spaces.
Acreage: 0.75 acres (~32,774 square feet).
Zoning: C-1 Commercial.
Location: On the east side of Brookway Drive, off the west side of Rio Road
and ajdacent to Meadowcreek. Tax Map 61, parcels 168D and 168E. Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: There are three existing businesses on Brookway
Drive, and one directly across from Brookway Drive on Rio Road. North and
east of the site is in residential land use in medium density.
Staff Comment: As the Planning Commission may recall, this site plan was
indefinitely deferred at the meeting of February 12, 1985, to allow the
Board of Zoning Appeals to determine whether an auto body shop is a permit-
ted use in the C-1 zoning district.
At their regular meeting on March 12, 1985, the Board of Zoning Appeals
voted to sustain the decision of the Zoning Administrator, that a body shop
is a use by right in the C-1 district. This decision has been appealed to
the Circuit Court by an adjacent owner.
On April 9, 1985, the Planning Commission approved ZTA-85-4: Zoning Provi-
sions for Automobile Body Shops, which repeals Section 22.2.1(b)22, Automo-
bile, truck repair shops, from the C-1 Commercial District. This and other
zoning text amendments will be heard by the Board of Supervisors on June 5,
1985.
If the Circuit Court sustains the decision of the Zoning Administrator that
an auto body shop is a by right use in the C-1 district, and ZTA-85-4 is
approved by the Board of Supervisors deleting that use from this district,
this site plan remains valid for eighteen months of Planning Commission
approval with the non-conforming use status. The site plan may not be
substantially amended, and the structure may not be enlarged, extended,
reconstructed or structurally altered (.Section 6.4.1 of the Zoning Ordi-
nance).
Summary and Recommendations: It appears that Brookway Drive with a 62 foot
right-of-way, was dedicated to the public with the plat of tracts A, B and C
dated September 28, 1967. Public road plans were approved by Virginia
Department of Highways & Transportation in 1975. The road was not completed
according to all specifications: asphalt overlay, and a cul-de-sac terminal
were not done. There is no record that Brookway Drive was ever bonded.
Previous site plans did not address the road situation.
Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney has stated that the
Planning Commission may with this site plan determine the-standard for
Brookway Drive: public or private. If the Planning Commission determines
that Brookway Drive better serves the public interest as a state road, staff
recommends that the road be completed to acceptable Virginia Department of
Highways & Transportation standards from Rio Road to this site. The proper-
ty owner must grant the Highway Department a temporary turn-a-round into
this site.
This site plan will meet the requirements of Section 32 of the Zoning
Ordinance, and staff recommends approval subject to the following:
. 278
May 8, 1985 (RegUlar Meeting)
(Page 5)
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
A building permit will
have been met:
a.
do
not be issued until the following conditions
County Engineer approval of improvements to Brookway Drive from
Rio Road to parcel 168E in accordance with the approved state road
plans.
Issuance of an erosion control permit.
County Engineer approval of pavement specifications and first
floor elevation above the floodplain.
Vacation of drainage easement by the Board of Supervisors.
Fire Officer approval of firewall adjacent to parcel 168F and
provisions for spray painting and body repair.
A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the
conditions have been met:
a. Fire Officer final approval of fireflow.
b. Planning staff approval of landscape plan.
c. Recordation of plat combining parcels 168D and 168E.
d. Planning staff approval of method of delineating
one-way travel.
following
parking and
Only seven service stalls are permitted without provisions for addi-
tional parking.
Mr. Donnelly said that the Planning Commission at its meeting of April 23, 1985, unani-
mously approved the above-noted site plan, subject to the following conditions:
A building permit will not be issued untll the following conditions
have been met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road
plans and specifications, and bonding or construction of Brookway
Drive to be accepted into the State system;
b. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
c. County Engineer approval of pavement specifications and first
floor elevation above the floodplain;
d. Vacation of drainage easement by the Board of Supervisors;
e. Fire Officer approval of firewali adjacent to parcel 168F, and
provisions for spray painting and body repair;
f. No entrances or exits to rear of building;
g. Landscape plan subject to review and approval of Planning Commis-
sion.
A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Fire Officer final approval of fire flow;
b. Recordation of plat combining parcels 168D and 168E;
c. Planning staff approval of method of delineating parking and
one-way travel.
Only seven service stalls are pemitted without provisions for addi-
tional parking.
4. Compliance With letter dated April 22, 1985 from applicant to Ms.
Patterson.
Mr. David Wood was present for the applicant. He said Condition 1-A requiring Highway
Department approval of road plans is the condition with which the applicant disagrees.
Brookway Drive has been in existence since the early 1970's. It was black-topped before any
development took place, and there are a few pot-holes at this time. It is 40 to 50 feet
wide, gutter to gutter. There are four users on this road -- an upholstery shop, a health
center, the Bottled Gas Company and two lots which are owned by the applicant, Mr. Taylor.
Changes have occurred in uses over the years, and in none of those cases has there ever been
a mention of bringing Brookway Drive into the State Highway System or even up to State
standards. It seems unfair at this time to tell Mr. Taylor he must bring Brookway Drive up
to State standards before he can develop his property. This work is estimated to cost
between $17,000 and $20,000. Mr. Wood proposed that as an alternative, Brookway Drive be
abandoned as a public road. Let Brookway remain as a private road with three of the users,
one user not being financially able to participate at this time, to be a party to a mainte-
nance agreement for upkeep of the road. Mr. Wood said he has talked to the other owners on
the road, and they seem to concur in this recommendation.
Mr. Lindstrom asked who owns Lot 8 at the end of the road where a cul-de-sac would have
to be developed. Mr.Wood said the land around the dui-de-sac was obtained by Central Fideli-
ty Bank through a bankruptcy about ten years ago. Mrs. Cooke asked what would happen to the
road if that lot were sold. Mr. Wood said he has not been able to find anyone at Central
Fidelity Bank with whom to talk about this situation. Mr. Way asked about a statement that
there were people coming in on Brookway Drive to turn around to use another road. Mr. Wood
said that about fifty feet past this entrance, right on the curb of Rio Road, is a graveled
driveway that goes up the hill to serve two or three houses on the bluff. The driveway comes
into Rio at such an angle that if you're traveling from Charlottesville, you go straight in
the driveway and up the hill. But, if you're traveling down Rio towards town, they must come
past the driveway, into Brookway, turn around and then go back up the hill. Mr. Wood said
that seems to be a problem for the people who live on the hill. They can reconstruct their
driveway. He knows that they have objected to this particular use.
May 8, 1985 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
nglneer, was presen~commen~~-~
remain private and not come into the State System for a number of reasons. At the time the
plans for this road were approved, the State Highway Department had no firm recommendations
on sight distance, and this entrance does not meet existing requirements. Second, the
property owned by the bank runs all the way to the railroad track, and to his knowledge,
Brookway Drive is their only access. He does not believe the bank will hold that property
forever and not develop it. Unless they can find some other ingress/egress for that
property, Brookway Drive will be .their only exit. The traffic on this road could increase
substantially. The land is currently zoned for townhouse development. He is familiar with
the problem because as part of the work on the McIntire-Meadowcreek extension, they had to
consider what would happen if this parcel were landlocked between the roadway and the rail-
road tracks. Third, in his opinion, there is no public entrance to be protected in this
case.
Mr. Fisher asked if the future owners of that parcel of land would not be in the same
position as other homeowners. Mr. Roosevelt says he thinks they would. At the time the
property were brought in for development, access, could be considered at that time. It will
be very hard to develop that property since Meadow Creek runs along one side, and he believes
that the owner of the property will wait until the Meadow Creek Parkway is constructed, and
then try to negotiate some sort of an access.
Mr. Fisher said this is an unusual situation since normally all of the land would be
under one ownership when the Board reviews the petition. And normally, some type of mainte-
nance agreement would be required. There is apparently no maintenance agreement at this time
that could cover all of the property owners. Having no source of funds to do the maintenance
of the road could be a problem particularly if the undeveloped piece of property were
developed. Also, it would appear to him that with the undeveloped property, this right-of-
way would have to remain publicly dedicated even if it were privately maintained.
Mr. St. John noted for the Board that the Planning Commission has not just recommended
that Mr. Taylor build the road to State specifications as far as his lot, but they are
requiring that he build the entire strip including the turn-around past his property and have
it taken into the State System. Mr. St. John said he questions whether or not this condition
can be imposed, and he did find a case that says it can be, although the case is not exactly
on point. He questions whether or not the County can take an opportunity to get this road
built at somebody else's expense. Also, there is the question of the undeveloped land at the
end of the road and the uncertainty as to whether it will have access to the Meadow Creek
Parkway. Also, because no one is present-to represent the'bank, he questions whether or not
the dedication should be abandoned. The County Attorney's office has always felt that it is
the worst of both worlds when there is a public road, privately maintained. There is also
the question of the driveway further up Rio Road. it would satisfy some of the concerns of
those people if the dedication of this right-of-way were not abandoned.
Mr. Fisher said he feels the question should be addressed as to what is best for the
public concerning this road. It appears that the Planning Commission was trying to address
that question, but perhaps in the wrong way. He asked if there is any mechanism that could
be used for assessing all the property owners a proportional share of the cost of bringing
this road up to standard. Mr. St. John said he would research that question. Mr. Fisher
said the best solution may be to have that road in the State System. He said the Board has
been trying to establish the fact that there will be no more private roads in the urban area.
He feels it may be a mistake to put this road into a private situation.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels it is unfair to put all of the cost of upgrading this road
on one owner. Also, he does not want to landlock the residentially zoned land at the end of
that road. And also does not want that property owner to have access onto a road the County
has been trying to keep as a limited access road. He would like to keep the options open.
He is willing to consider for commercial development only, private roads in the urban area
only. He feels the best solution may be to leave the status quo at this time, not require
the upgrading of Brookway Drive and not abandon the public dedication of the right-of-way.
Mr. Bowie did not feel it is fair for one owner to have to upgrade the entire road and
build the cul-de-sac. He would support a mutual maintenance agreement of the property owners
and would agree to a deferment of this question in order to give the owner a chance to bring
back such an agreement for review by the Board.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Wood if the property owners along that road are willing to assume
any responsibility for the road at this time. Mr. Wood said he would need a couple of weeks
to see if he can come back with some sort of maintenance agreement from the three owners who
have initially agreed to participate in a maintenance agreement from Park Street to Lot 7,
leaving Lot 8 until same is sold and then requiring those parties to participate in the
agreement.
At this time, Mr. Bowie offered motion to defer any action on this appeal until June 5,
1985. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, said there are many roads scattered around the
County built eight to ten years ago which were never taken into the State Highway System and
which are now in bad shape. He has been dealing with property owners in three areas who had
indicated they would participate in the cost of having these roads brought into the System,
but who have not been able to raise enough money. He asked whether the Board wanted to
consider these requests one at a time or as a group so that the Board might see the total
picture and be able to budget for repairs.
May 8, 1985 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Henley said he thought the roads could be considered individually as they begin to
get bad and where the Board might be able to help by contributing just a little bit of money.
the Board has done this at least once before. Mrs. Cooke wondered whether the Board should
set a policy where the residents would come up with matching funds. Mr. Henley said he would
hesitate to set a policy. The Board might be biting off more than it can chew. Mr. Fisher
suggested that the County Engineer furnish the Board a list of those he has been dealing with
plus a rough estimate of the cost.
Mr. Bowie mentioned that he had received a copy of the Piedmont Environmental Council
News Reporter in which they trace some type of suit in Fauquier County which is requiring
improvements to existing public roads. He asked if the staff could review this question.
Mr. St. John said his office has talked to the attorneys of Fauquier County, and they are
using a statute not available in Albemarle County because of the way the County's ordinances
are set up. It would take a radical change since there can be no private roads in the County
at all in order to use the statute mentioned. Mr. Fisher said that the time the Board was
struggling with the question of allowing private roads, it was mentioned that they might
create future problems. What Mr. St. John has mentioned is an issue that some counties have
gone to, and that is not to allow any private roads but require that all roads be built to
State standards from the beginning. Mrs. Cooke said that with the rapid growth in Albemarle
County, this might be something the Board will have to look at in the future.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about work on the Georgetown .Road Walkway. Mr. Etrod said the
asphalt plant is back in production and there will be a contract on this project soon.
Lindstrom said he feels this has been going on long enough and asked about a portion of
right-of-way across the front of the tract just recently"developed. Mr. Elrod said the
County has that now so the entire walkway will be developed all at one time.
Mr.
Agenda Item No. 7.
Community.
Request to Vacate a Plat of Portion of Buck Mountain Planned
This matter was brought to the Board by letter from Fred S. Landess, Attorney for the
applicants, dated April 25, 1985:
"I am enclosing herewith a copy of the subdivision plat of Lots 1 through
4, Section A of Buck Mountain Planned Community, which is an approved
subdivision plat currently of record in the Albemarle County Circuit Court
Clerk's Office in Deed Book 693, page 121. Also enclosed is a copy of a
document entitled "Vacation of Subdivision Plat", which has been signed by
the owner-developer. Please consider this letter a formal application by
Southern Capital Fund, Inc. to vacate such plat and Elkhorn Road, all in
accordance with Section 15.1-481 of the Code.
I would appreciate it if you would give me a calI and advise me of any
other steps which need to be taken by the applicant and of any application
fee. Thank you very much."
Mr. Donnelly gave the staff's report, as follows:
"Fred S. Landess, representing Southern Capital Fund, Inc., is requesting
that the Board authorize vacation of a Plat for a portion of the Buck
Mountain Planned Community. Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Parcels A, B, C, D and E,
were combined with Tract One (189.50 acres) aggregating 211.32 acres. This
was accomplished administratively on April 29, 1985. Elkhorn Road, a 50
foot dedicated right-of-way was provided for access to lots 3 and 4 and for
future access to Tract One. In the event Tract One is developed, access
could be provided along State Route 671, Staff concurs with the applicant's
request to vacate Elkhorn Road."
Mr. Donald Clark, Agent for Southern Capital, was present. He said that the Buck
Mountain PUD has been unsuccessful. The small lots have not sold. Since only four platted
lots consumed most of the state road frontage of this property, they vacated those lots, and
plan to turn the acreage back into timberland and by-right farming property. Later, it is
planned to have this whole area removed from the PUD plan.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the request a~d to authorize the
Chairman to sign the following instrument for vacation of a subdivision plat:
By approved subdivision plat prepared by R. 0. Snow & Associates dated
September 12, 1979, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, which
plat is of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 693, page 121, Southern Capital Fund, Inc. dedicated a
road, shown thereon as "Elkhorn Road" to public use and placed to record
approved subdivision lots. None of such lots have been sold, nor has
Elkhorn Road been constructed. Southern Capital Fund, Inc. still owns all
the property shown on such approved plat and now wishes to vacate the same
in accordance with Section 15.1-481 of the Code of Virginia (1950 as
amended).
NOW THEREFORE, Southern Capital Fund, Inc. does hereby declare the
subdivision plat dated September 12, 1979, of record in the Clerk's Office
of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 693, page 121 is
hereby vacated and all common areas, easements and the dedication of Elkhorn
Road shall no longer be of any effect. It is agreed dedication of property
281
May 8, 1985 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
on the margin of State Route 671,
as shown on Exhibit A attache~,
to the
Commonwealth of Virginia for improvement of such State Route 671, shall
remain in full force and effect.
The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has caused thiS vacation
to be signed by its duly designated agent, to indicate its consent to such
vacation, in accordance with Section 15.1-481.
AYES:
NAYS:
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Way and carried by the follDwing recorded vote:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Wa
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to Increase Comper
Supervisors. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 23 and April 30,
Mr. Agnor said the ordinance as proposed would increase the annual s
members by four percent on July 1, 1985, which is the same change granted
government employees.
The public hearing'was opened. With no one present to speak for or
ordinance, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to ac
ordinance:
An Ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2-2.1 of the
sation of Board of
1985.)
alary of the Board
to all general
against the proposed
opt the following
Albemarle
County Code entitled "Compensation of board of supervisors" to increase
such compensation by an inflation factor of four percent as aZlowed by
Virginia Code Section 14.1-46.01:1(2).
Sec. 2-2.1. Compensation of board of supervisors.
The salary of the board of supervisors is hereby set as follows:
Seven thouSand one hundred seventy-six dollars for each board member;
provided, that in addition to his/her regular salary, the vice-chairman
shall receive a stipend of one thousand two hundred dollars; provided,
further, that in addition to his/her regular salary, the chairman shall
receive a stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars. This shall be
effective on and after July 1, 1985.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Occupant Restraint Use in County Vehicles.
The following memorandum from Patricia Cooke, Chairperson of the Transportation Safety
Commission, dated May 2, 1985, was presented:
"During the Transportation Safety Commission meeting on April 30, 1985, Mr.
Stephen F. Camp, Department of Motor Vehicles Community Services Coordina-
tor, brought to the Commission's attention the strong emphasis that the
Department of Motor Vehicles has on occupant restraints. Mr. Camp suggested
that the Commission approach the Board with the idea of requiring all County
employees to wear seat belts while driving County vehicles. Mr. Camp also
suggested checking into the County insurance policy to see if there might be
an insurance break if County employees were required to wear seat belts.
On behalf of the Transportation Safety Commission, I respectfully request
that the Board consider the following:
1)
Requiring all County employees to wear seat belts while driving County
vehicles; and
2)
Checking the County insurance policy for possible insurance benefits if
seat belt usage is made a requirement."
Mr. Fisher asked if the intent of this request is not only to save money, but also to
protect county employees. Mrs. Cooke said it is felt to be a worthwhile effort. Mr. Agnor
said the staff has discussed this proposition, but has questions as to how this could be
enforced, and what kind of sanctions could be imposed against an employee who did not abide
by such a policy.
Mr. Bowie said he is not for the government to tell people how to live, but these would
be county employees in county-owned vehicles. He would like to know specifically how this
could'effect the County Police Department. Mrs. Cooke said it was noted at her meeting that
in some situations it is not advisable for officers to wear seat belts. However, she would
like to request a full report from the staff on this proposal.
,282
May 8, 1985 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
Agenda Item No. 10.
Elderly and Handicapped.
Set Public Hearing Date to Amend Ordinance - Tax Relief for the
The following memorandum from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, dated May 3,
1985, was received:
"Due to the last three reassessments of Real Property in Albemarle County,
the increase of land values is beginning to have an effect on those people
who are currently qualifying for this program. The maximum net worth
excluding the value of the house and one acre of land is set by County
ordinance at $35,000 and has not changed since 1980, prior to the last two
reassessments. In order that the increased land values not disqualify
people from this program, some adjustment of the net worth limit will be
required.
In 1984, a total of 278 parcels of land qualified for this program and the
total assessment of these parcels was $9,451,600 of which $8,276,152 was
exempted from taxation. The total assessment of these same parcels for 1985
will increase to $10,694,000, an increase of $1,182,400 or 12.44 percent.
The average increase of parcels under this program is very similar to that
of all parcels in the county. A sampling of individual properties under
this program, however, reveals that the increases ranges from a low of
6.7 percent to a high of 26.6 percent.
A review of actual 1985 reassessment values for last year's applicants
revealed that the value of 24 properties had increased in value to result in
the owner being disqualified from this program unless some other factor in
determining net worth had decreased by an off-setting amount. These 24
properties represent nine percent of all properties under the program.
In addition to reviewing net worth, the staff has also considered what
effect cost of living increases from Social Security or retirement incomes
would have on the income limitation. The staff is of the of the opinion
that the income limit of $12,000 is reasonable for this area, and that the
increases of income for the people who would qualify under this program will
not substantially affect their exemption. This is quite apparent from a
review of actual applications that show the majority of applicants are below
the $8,000 limit which qualifies for 100 percent exemption. State Code
currently provides that the income limits could be increased to a maximum of
$18,000.
State Code currently provides that the maximum net worth of the owners
cannot exceed $65,000 excluding the value of the house and one acre of land.
A survey of the net worth limits in other Virginia localities reveals that
the limits range from $20,000 to $55,000.
Since the net worth maximum has been $35,000 since 1980, and three reassess-
ments have occurred to date (1981, 1983, 1985), the staff recommends the
maximum be increased by the total average increase in the three reassess-
ments, which are:
1981 = 22.2%
1983 = 13.3%
1985 = 12.8%
Total = 48.3%
The cumulative total of these increases is 56.2% which when applied to the
$35,00 changes it to $54,670. It is recommended that $55,000 be used
beginning with the tax year of 1985. This action will require an amendment
of the County Code."
Mr. Fisher said he thinks this is a change which should be made, and thanked Mr.
Breeden for bringing this to the attention of the Board. Motion was then offered by Mr. Way,
seconded by Mr. Bowie, to set June 12, 1985, as the hearing date for this proposed change.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Transfer of Funds. The following memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones,
Deputy County ExecUtive, dated May 1, 1985, on this subject was presented:
"In order to purchase recording equipment, word processors., and to provide
funds for the Italian Student Exchange program it is necessary to make the
following line-item transfers in your 1984-85 budgeted appropriations within
Cost Center 11010 Board of Supervisors
From: Board of Supervisors-Contingency Funds
$43,180
To: Other Miscellaneous Expense (Italian Students) $ 2,500
Machinery and Equipment-New 40,680
The allocation for Machinery and Equipment provides a recording machine in
the Board of Supervisors room for use by Board of Supervisor's Clerk, Board
of Education, Zoning Board, and Planning Commission. The cost on competi-
tive basis is $8,200. This includes separate headsets and transcribers for
May 8, 1985 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
each of the above functions. The central recording machine will be perma-
nently located to avoid all the moving required in the past. An additional
recording machine and microphones will be purchased to be used in the
auditorium and the conference rooms at a cost of $3,900. This is a mobile
unit of the same design. It will be purchased from an existing capital
allocation for the auditorium. All of the recording equipment is
compatible.
The remaining $32,480 will be used to purchase word processing (or personal
computer equipment) for each of the clerks to the Board of Supervisors.
This equipment will be compatible to that planned for the County Executive's
Office in fiscal year 85-86. The users in the Clerk's Office and County
Executive's Office have attended several demonstrations by vendors. To date
no final decision has been made on the brand. However, we intend that all
equipment to be compatible for back-up in usage from office to office as
well as tied into the data processing mainframe where necessary."
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the following
transfer of funds:
From:
Code 1-1000-11010-999999
Contingency Fund - Board of Supervisors
$43,180
To:
Code 1-1000-11010-580900
Miscellaneous Expense - Italian Students
$ 2,500
Code 1-1000-11010-700100
Machinery and Equipment - New
40,680
$43,180
Roll was called on the motion which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Third Quarter Report and Transfer of Funds from Salary Reserve for
Merit. The following memorandum dated May 3, 1985, from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County
Executive, was presented:
"During the week of April 22, Bob Tucker and I conducted the Third Quarter
Budget reviews with all department heads in general government. With the
exception of one department - Social Services, it appears only three depart-
ments - Watershed Management, Police, and Engineering will require transfers
from the Merit Pay Pool to prevent overruns in their bottom-lines expenses
for FY 84/85. This may not hold true in the Police Department because of
the amounts of over-time necessary to provide adequate coverage on all
shifts plus the demand for coverage at special events. For instance, on
April 27, Foxfields requested eleven police officers all day plus four from
the Sheriff's Department which was about twice the amount of the prior year.
The county does receive reimbursement of this cost from Foxfields; however,
it does add to the salary expense within the Department Budget which results
in an increased bottom line for that department.
When the appropriation request for over-time was made in March, it was
anticipated that 25 percent of the over-time would be used as comp time.
However, the recent Supreme Court decision will not allow an employee to
take comp time unless it is payable in the same pay period which same month
in the County's case. It was also projected in March that the number of
special events such as Foxfields; dances, athletic events, parades, etc.,
would decrease in the spring which has not proved to be true. These two
situations will probably cost the County over $20,000 above what was pro-
jected in March and total in excess of $50,000 of over-time within the
Police Department for the current fiscal year. A more complete analysis
will be made on over-time in the Police Department in June for you which may
require a special appropriation at that time.
As reported to you at the recent 85./86 budget work sessions, five temporary
positions were omitted from the salary and fringe codes in the Social
Services 84/85 Budget. It may be possible to absorb most of these omitted
salaries and fringes by line item transfers within the department if not, a
request will be made in June.
Review of the local revenues at the end of the third quarter indicates the
total revenue estimates will be met; however, local sales tax and local
utility tax may end up as a shortfall which should be offset by over-
collections of the estimate for property taxes and interest on investments.
In addition to review of revenues and expenditures, considerable attention
was given to the purchase of equipment, machinery, vehicles, etc. from 84/85
funds as addressed in the County Executive's budget presented several months
ago for FY 85./86.
This is a request for transfer of $33,310 from the merit pool line item in
the Personnel Budget to the Police, Watershed Management, and Engineering
Departments. This transfer leaves a balance of $13,940 in the merit line
item which may be needed by Social Services at a later date."
284
May 8, 1985 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Bowie said he had read the memorandum, and in relation to the overtime required by
Foxfield, he would like to request that in the future, a footnote stating how much will be
reimbursed from such activities be added so that it does not appear that the Police Depart-
ment is going over budget.
vote:
Motion was then offered by Mr. Way to approve the following transfer of funds-
From:
Cost Center 12030 - Personnel Department
Code 201500 -Salary Reserve - Merit
To:
Cost Center 31010 - Police Department
Code 100100 - Compensation - Regular
Code 200100 - FICA
Code 200200 - VSRS
Code 200600 - Life Insurance
Cost Center 41000 - Engineering Department
Code 100100 - Compensation - Regular
Code 200100 - FICA
Code 200200 - VSRS
Code 200600 - Life Insurance
Cost Center 82040 - Watershed Management
Code 100100 - Compensation - Regular
Code 200100 - FICA
Code 200200 - VSRS
Code 200600 - Life Insurance
$22,896
1,615
2,626
386
2,000
141
230
34
$3tr310
$27,523
2,405
$ 1,150
81
131
20 $ 1,382
TOTAL $31,310
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie, and carried by the following recorded
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Revisions - Pay/Classification Plan.
Mr. Agnor noted that all the information was given out at the March day meeting and that
Mr. Fisher was going to make a review of some of the information.
Mr. Fisher said he had met with Dr. Hastings, Personnel Director, and spent a consider-
able amount of time reviewing the information. He took the market survey information that
she had developed from other localities around the State and reviewed that for every position
in the general government pay plan. From that information, there were pay ranges from as
many as six different localities. In some cases, the pay ranges were very close. In other
cases, information was from only two or three localities and there was .a considerable spread.
ina few cases there was only one other locality where information was obtained and that
caused him some concern.
Mr. Fisher said that in looking at the information and examining it carefully, it led
him to think there were some assumptions made in setting up the pay classification plan that
he would not have chosen. There was an assumption made that no pay range be reduced no
matter what the market rate showed. After looking at the pay and market information, he
believes that was the wrong assumption and that in some cases the pay range actually should
be reduced. He wants to meet again with Dr. Hastings on this and see if she can justify some
of the positions taken before he makes a specific recommendation to this Board. He has so
many concerns about it that he doesn't think it should be adopted today. He told this to Mr.
Agnor earlier, and Mr. Agnor agrees there is time to do this.
Mr. Bowie said he assumes that any reduction in the pay range would not affect the
salary of individual employee. Mr. Fisher said that is correct. It would only affect new
hirees.
Mr. Bowie said he had posed one other question and the only answer he had received was
that it is difficult. He cannot conceive of a pay study, that does not include fringes. He
understands that question is not addressed in this study, and he thinks it should be.
Mr. Agnor said, on a three year basis, the pay plan has been studied by an outside firm
and they do look at fringe costs, in between the three years, the staff has done the study.
This study started out to be a staff study and has become more expansive than normal because
there is now a Personnel Department to do ~the study. He still believes there should be an
outside agency to come in periodically and make a check. Mr. Fisher said the work was very
detailed and it took a lot of time to go through it and analyze. But he feels the problem is
the primary assumption that no pay grades would ever be reduced. He does not believe that
should be a primary assumption. If a pay range is too high, it should be reduced. Mr. Bowie
said he also has difficulty comparing Albemarle County with Roanoke and Newport News. They
are not competitive in this employment market. Mr. Fisher said this item will be put back on
the agenda at a later date.
Agenda Item No. 13a. Discussion: Merit Pay Plan.
Mr. Bowie said he has done a one person study of the Merit Pay Plan for general govern-
ment employees as it presently exists. He feels the pay system is adequate, and that the
County is in fact paying competitive salaries. Also, in this County annually there is an
May 8, 1985 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
increase given against inflation to some extent. During recent budget hearings, four percent
was included for this cost of living increase. But every department's budget showed a total
pay increase of nine percent or more. The reason given was that this was the effect of the
prior years' merit pay raise. That led him to analyze the current merit pay system and the
vested increases that are granted. Mr. Bowie presented for the Board's review two charts
which he had made the net effect showing that if there were a level $5,000,000 payroll and
$50,000 given in merit pay, in ten years there would be $50,000,000 in payroll costs and one
half million dollars in merit awards by vesting continually. At the end of ten years,
payroll costs would have been inflated by thirteen percent. It also showed that the person
receiving a merit award in year one, although he may never receive another merit award, would
far exceed other employees in pay during this ten year period of time through vesting.
Mr. Bowie said, based on his analysis, he recommends that the Board look at eliminating
the vesting of merit increases. He feels there should be a one year merit for one years'
service instead of a lifetime award for that one year. Also, the Board should consider
establishing a limit on the number of employees who would receive a merit pay raise. He
would also recommend that there not only be a limit on the number of employees who could
receive a merit pay raise but that the budget line item should be the absolute dollar limit.
He thinks the merit increases should be centrally controlled county-wide. He does not feel
that granting these increases on anniversary dates gives any control at all. If it is
shifted to a one time bonus award, it would seem appropriate to do it only one time during
the year. Mr. Bowie said although he knows there is a need to recognize good employees
somehow, he would like this idea sent to whoever is studying this question so that the Board
can receive a report on the items that he has addressed.
Mr. Fisher said this raises several fundamental questions. The pay plan has a number of
steps. Different employees are paid at different steps and only move up the ladder by a
merit increase. If vesting is done away with, how will those people then move up the ladder.
Otherwise, everybody in one category would be paid at the entry level salary, except for the
bonuses. Mr. Bowie said he realizes that. Perhaps another word could be used such as auto-
matic vesting or universal vesting. He thinks there should be some way to recognize
longevity.
Mr. Fisher asked what other alternatives there are to a merit pay system. Mr. Agnor
said that in the State of Virginia they are nearly all alike. They are all vested. He does
not have an answer to that question, although the staff will look at it.
Mr. Lindstrom said he appreciates the work that has been done on this question. It has
caused him to focus on some consequences of the system the County presently has that he had
not focused on before. Mr. Fisher suggested that when some alternatives were ready for
discussion that a separate work session be scheduled for the Board.
The Board being ahead of schedule skipped to discuss some of the items on the afternoon
portion of the agenda.
Agenda Item No. 17. Report: Enforcement of Decal Program. The following memorandum
dated May 3, 1985, from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, was presented.
"As you are well aware, this office has been very busy for the last several
weeks primarily due to the renewal of County vehicles licenses. The volume
of people who waited until the last few days before the deadline and those
who waited till several days after the deadline exceeded anything I have
seen in the last fifteen years of working for the County. Much of this, I
believe, can be attributed to the increased advertising of the deadline and
especially the advertising of increased enforcement efforts by the Police
Department.
Chief (Frank) Johnstone and his staff deserve a lot of credit for their
efforts and based on information provided by him their efforts resulted in
181 tickets being issued for no County license and the issuance of 450
warning notices at various apartment complexes, high schools, and other
residential areas. In addition, their efforts resulted in 41 tickets being
issued for other violations including expired inspection stickers, driving
on revoked licenses, expired state licenses, and improper equipment. Chief
Johnstone stated that he plans to continue with his efforts to enforce this
requirement.
These efforts r'esulted in the following tax collections and sale of decals
with the last 60 days:
Tax Collections:
March, 1985
April, 1985
Total
$161,369.60
357~755.27
$519,124.87
Decal Sales:
March, 1985
April, 1985
Total
$174,872.17
383~270.00
$558,142.17
In addition to the above sale of decals, the County has received revenue of
$35,901 from sales prior to March, 1985 making the total for the year
$594,043 which equates to 38,055 decals being sold. Also, included in the
above tax collections are supplemental assessments of $353,685 on persons
who failed to file personal property tax returns for prior years and who in
many cases had also never purchased County licenses; the tax on these
assessments was $15,471."
May 8, 1985 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Breeden said there have been some complaints received from people who say the County
is embarrassing them by leaving a summons on their car windshield. Mr. Agnor said he had
never seen anything like the line of people waiting, the line literally out of the front door
of the building. Mr. Fisher asked if the Finance Department will encourage people to pur-
chase their decals next year through the mail. Mr. Breeden said yes. Mr. Agnor said a
couple of County employees were observed standing in line, so the word was passed that he did
not expect to see them in line again next year.
Agenda Item No. 20. Pulaski County's Request Re. African Relief.
memorandum dated May 2, 1985, on this subject:
Mr. Agnor noted his
"Mr. Clower, Pulaski County Administrator, was contacted and provided the
following additional information.
A number of local churches and civic clubs were involved in projects to
raise, funds for African relief, and were not meeting with very much success,
in the opinion of a number of citizens. A member of the Board' of Supervi-
sors recommended that the County government get involved, and set a goal of
$1 per citizen for a coordinated fund drive to be organized by the Junior
Chamber of Commerce. The County's role, in addition to promoting the
project, will be the receiver and depositor of funds, with the proceeds of
the fund drive to be passed to the Red Cross.
You did not ask 'the staff for a recommendation on .this matter, but having
made the inquiry, this does not appear to be an appropriate function of a
local government. It is recommended that no action be taken on the re-
quest."
Mr. Way noted that he had requested this additional information, but had no problem with
the recommendation.
Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Personnel and Property Acquisition. At
11:59 a.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adjourn into
executive session for the stated purposes. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 2:05 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing: Conservation Plan for an area of the University of
Virginia bounded by Rugby Road, Culbreth Road and University Avenue; and authorization of the
Charlottesville Housing and Redevelopment Authority to finance the rehabilitation of frater-
nity houses located within the Conservation Plan boundaries. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 30, 1985.)
Mr. Agnor said this public hearing was authorized by the Board on April 17. He then
the following memorandum from himself to the Board dated April 30, 1985:
"In 1984 the University of Virginia began a renovation program of fraternity
houses. The program is a multi-year program and covers several houses each
summer. A corporation entitled Historic Renovation Corporation, wholly
owned by the University, was formed to facilitate the financing and con-
tracts for improvements to the renovated houses. The program also includes
a maintenance plan for the renovated houses to assure continued and timely
care of the renovated houses. In 1984 all of the fraternities that were
renovated were located within the City. Tax exempt financing was arranged
through the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority. In 1985,
seven houses are scheduled for renovation including one that is located in
the County, the Delta Kappa Epsilon on Carr's Hill Road.
The Historic Renovation Corporation, through Mr. Ray C. Hunt, Jr. has
requested the Board to authorize the Charlottesville Redevelopment and
Housing Authority to issue bonds for tax exempt financing of the Delta Kappa
Epsilon fraternity house renovation. The State of Virginia is making a
special allocation of tax exempt bonds so that the renovation program will
not affect allocations to localities. The advantage of having the
Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority handle the financing
is to keep all seven houses with one agency in one financing package without
having to separate one house from the package program.
Prior to granting the authorization requested, hcwever, the Board must
adopt, after public hearing, a Conservation Plan. A draft of the proposed
Conservation Plan is attached for your review (on file). You will note that
the Conservation Plan area encompasses several fraternity houses located on
Carr's Hill, although only one is being renovated this year.
Staff recommends the adoption of the Conservation Plan and the authorization
of the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority to issue bonds
for tax exempt financing on behalf of the Delta Kappa Epsilon Renovation
Associates.
287
May 8, 1985 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Fisher asked if it is implied that there are other fraternity houses located in the
County which could be handled in this manner in the future. Mr. Agnor said only those
located within this conservation district. The bulk of the fraternity houses are located in
the City.
The Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Ray C. Hunt, Historic Renovation Corporation, said
they consider this as a partnership. There are six fraternity houses in the County within
the district proposed, but only one is proposed for renovation this year, and that is the
Delta Kappa Epsilon ~ouse at 1820 Carr's Hill Road. They have been trying to establish this
as a historic district before initiating any renovations. That is important because they
want to use the limited partnership to allow the alumni of the fraternities to have ownership
in the properties. The University of Virginia is partner in that Historic Renovation Corpo-
ration is a wholly-owned subsidiary and the University of Virginia is guaranteeing both to
the lender and to the limited partners financial aid to a limited degree in the event there
are problems. Because of tax incentives built in it makes it feasible that these projects be
done with private ownership. The important component is finances and it requires that the -
Charlottesville Housing and Redevelopment Authority issue bonds. Historic Renovation Corpo-
ration has applied for a special allocation from the State. However, that request is still
pending. Historic Renovation Corporation has a fulltime staff and will manage these houses,
rent rooms to the individual students with deposits just like any other landlord and then
rent the common area to the fraternities who are responsible for paying the rent on those
spaces. They have a contract with Virginia Collegiate Services to provide cleaning,
custodial services for all common areas in the houses. And so there will be a physical
presence in the house to make damage reports so that appropriate action can be taken. They
have received wide support from a number of people for this venture and hope the County will
support them, also. If the tax provisions hold up, they expect to do all six projects
eventually.
With no one else coming forward to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom
immediately offered motion to adopt the Conservation Plan as advertised and to authorize the
Charlottesville Housing and Redevelopment Authority to issue bonds as outlined in Mr. Agnor's
memo of April 30, 1985. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. St. John asked about language authorizing the City to issue bonds. Mr. Agnor said
there is no language in the draft report. The staff is only requesting that they be author-
ized to participate in the'drafting of the resolution. Mr. St. John suggested the resolution
not be authorized at this time, but when it comes back to the Board he can see a possible
problem in that there are specific findings the Board must make before the City, according to
State statute, can operate or issue bonds for any project located in the County. These
findings are that there are unsanitary, unsafe inhabited dwellings existing in the County or
that there is a shortage of safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations available in the County
to people of such income levels as can afford them and that these conditions can best be
remedied by the Charlottesville Housing Authority's powers being exercised within the bounda-
ries of the County. Mr. St. John said if such. language can be drafted and these bonds still
be tax free that is fine. But he believes the Board should think twice before they adopt
findings according to the statute. He does not believe the Board should do anything today
except to establish a conservation district and leave the funding of the project for a
completely separate action by the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom sa2Ld he would then amend his motion since he was only following staff
directions and did not realize there was going to be a problem. He would offer motion to
adopt a Conservation Plan for a portion of the University of Virginia located in the County
of Albemarle, Virginia as set out below. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Henley said he didn't have any problems with the motion. He would like for the
County Attorney or somebody to give some thought as to what type of precedent the Board might
be setting in this case. Mr. St. John said he has thought about this, and it does not set a
precedent. The problem arises only if the Board adopts the findings and enacts a resolution
with the language it appears to him must be adopted in order for the City to issue tax free
bonds for this project. That is the problem.
Mr. Hunt said he was not sure what was being said. If the question is whether there is
the type of housing mentioned in the conservation district, he believes they can prove that
very easily. There is no question that these six houses meet those qualifications. He does
not know what they need to do to give the Board that assurance. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there
were any way to limit the findings just to the area in the conservation district. Mr. Agnor
said that is what the staff had planned to do. Mr. St. John said there is nothing contained
in the Board's information today to prove that. Mr. Hunt said they will do whatever the
Board wants, but timing of this project is important. Mr. Lindstrom said he would prefer to
leave the motion as it is, and let the County Attorney bring back language with which he is
comfortable.
At this time, roll was called on Mr. Lindstrom's motion to adopt the Conservation Plan
as presented. The roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
CONSERVATION PLAN
for a portion of the
University of Virginia
located in the
County of Albemarle, Virginia
A. Project Area Description.
The description of the project area for the University of Virginia
Rugby-Culbreth-University Avenue District, is as follows:
288
May 8, 1985 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
The District includes those fraternity houses located within an
area bounded by Rugby Road on the east, Culbreth Road on the north and
west, and University Avenue on the south.
B. Objectives of the Conservation Plan.
The primary objective of this Conservation Plan is the elimination
of blight and the prevention of further deterioration by the provision
of incentives for new construction and rehabilitation in the Conserva-
tion Area. The Conservation Plan also reflects the appropriate goals
and objectives of the County's Comprehensive Plan as they relate to
land use, transportation, public utilities, recreational and community
facilities.
c. Conditions and Limitations on Acquisition of Property.
No property acquisition is anticipated within this Conservation
Plan area; however, any acquisition of property must be affliliated
with the University of Virginia.
Standards of Criteria for Evaluation of Design, Construction,
Maintenance and Use of Property.
The evaluation of proposals for new construction and rehabi-
litation shall be based on the following:
1. The project's compatibility with its environment and with
other land uses and buildings existing in the surrounding area.
2. The quantity, quality, utility, site and type of the project's
required open space, impact upon existing natural environment and
proposed landscaping improvements.
3. The ability of the project's traffic circulation system to
provide for the convenient and safe internal and external movement of
vehicles and pedestrians.
4. The degree to which the proposed development meets program
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The quality of the specific site and building design, and
overall harmony of design throughout the Conservation Area.
6. The quantity, quality, utility and type of the project's
required community facilities.
7. The location and adequacy of the project's provision for
drainage and utilities.
8. Financial capability and responsibility of the developer.
9. Time schedule for completion of development.
E. Relocation of Displaced Persons.
In those cases where there are existing tenants, either residen-
tial or commercial, proposals submitted to the County which provide for
those tenants remaining in place after rehabilitation, or which provide
for financial and technical relocation assistance for the displaced
tenants will be viewed more favorably than those proposals which
displace tenants with no consideration for their needs.
F. Time Limitation.
There shall be no time limitation for length of time with which
Conservation Project activities can be undertaken, but the time for
commencement and completion of a particular project will be taken into
consideration in connection with the authorization for financing a
project under this Plan.
G. Amendments.
There shall be no amendments to this plan unless such notice of
the intent to amend together with the substance of such amendments have
been properly advertised to the general public and after a duly held
public hearing on such proposed amendment.
Mr. Agnor asked what timetable is needed in order to get the resolution prepared. Mr.
Hunt said there is a closing on the property on the 13th. They will close and enter into
binding contracts immediately so that the renovations can begin. The actual financing of the
project, because of the equity commitment of the partners which has already been provided,
can take place a little later. They are hoping to hear from the State about the allocation
by the 15th, and would like to be in a position to issue the bonds when that statement is
received.
Mr. St. John said there must be a Public Hearing after ten days written notice to
authorize the City to operate within the County. Mr. Agnor said that was part of the ad that
went in the paper for this hearing today. Mr. St. John said that if that is correct then
May 8, 1985 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
they only need to draft the findings and the resolution, itself. Mr. Agnor asked if judicial
notice could be taken that findings have to be made and then it be presumed that those will
be a part of the resolution so the resolution can be considered without having been seen
today. Mr. St. John suggested that he dictate a resolution right now to take care of this
- - .~ ~ ~,~~=,- -~ ~--~ ~ - - -sai~ ~e-a~ Mr. St. John
~matter. ~.
dictated the fo±±owzng:j~~l~o
The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, having
duly adopted a Conservation 21an for a portion of the University of
Virginia located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia (a copy of that
plan being attached herewith), hereby finds insanitary and unsafe
inhabited dwelling acco~odations exist within the area of the Conser-
vation Plan just established, and finds that these conditions can be
best remedied through the exercise of the Charlottesville Redevelop-
ment Housing Authority's powers within the territorial boundaries of
Albemarle County included in that Conservation District.
Mr. St. John said if the Board moves to adopt these findings, they are home free.
Mr. Lindstrom said this property lies in his district and he is fairly familiar with the
area. He has no problem making a motion that the Board adopt the resolution incorporating
the findings just stated by Mr. St. John. Mr. Lindstrom's motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Agnor noted that there are fire inspection reports that say these buildings are
unsafe from the aspect of having sleeping accommodations contained therein. Mr. Henley said
he has not really decided that using tax free money to fix up these fraternity houses is the
way it should be done, but he is.willing to listen.
Mr. Hunt said the University of Virginia's Board of Directors instructed him three years
ago to find a way to get this job done. There are thirty-three properties within the histor-
ic area that are judged to be substandard. They examined a lot of alternatives including
University of Virginia ownership for these properties. There are a lot of reasons, some real
estate tax-reasons, as to why they did not want the University of Virginia, an agency of the
Commonwealth, to purchase those properties and further intrude into the community. In the
long run, the University acquiring the property and renovating those, was put as a low
priority. This could have been done with tax exempt funds because the University, as an
agency of the Commonwealth, can issue bonds. Mr. Hunt said they did explore a lot of alter-
natives, and this one proves successful on the first go-around where only three houses are
being renovatedd, there is the prospect of the entire area being rehabilitated. The combina-
tion of private investor money with tax exempt financing is what is needed to get the job
done. They are committed to improving these houses within the boundaries of the University
but are also committed to try not to own those properties in the sense of taking them off of
the tax rolls. If they had the ability in 1986, there will be seven more renovations.
Mr. Henley asked who will own the buildings. Mr. Hunt said the limited partnership.
The alumni members of the fraternities are the investors of these properties except for
Barringer House where there is a major project underway to renovate the property as a French
language house. He understands the concerns but said they have explored all alternatives.
They feel this is the most expeditious and financially feasible of all alternatives.
Mr. Bowie asked if the six houses will be done no matter what this Board does. Mr.
Fisher said that is one this year. As he heard the motion, it would authorize all of the
houses that fall within this district being renovated will not be limited to just the one
house. This action is for all of them in that sense. Mr. Bowie asked if that is through the
Charlottesville Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Mr. Fisher said yes. Mr. St. John said
there was a question raised about setting a precedent, but his answer was predicated on the
legal aspects of the question. That is a political precedent, and he is only saying that it
is not a legally binding precedent. At this time, roll was called on the motion to adopt the
resolution dictated by Mr. St. John. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. St. John asked that the minutes show that these findings were'made pursuant to
Virginia Code Section 36-23. He said there is one final resolution which needs to be adopted
if the project is to go through. Under this same section, the Board must declare that there
is a need for the Charlottesville Housing and Redevelopment Authority to exercise its powers
within Albemarle County within and only within the area of the conservation district just
approved. Motion to adopt the following resolution to this effect was o.ffered by Mr.
Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lin~strom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Pursuant to'Section 36-23 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended,
the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, declares that there
is a need for the Charlottesville Redevelopment Housing Authority to exer-
cise its powers in Albemarle County within and only within the area of the
Conservation District approved at the May 8, 1985, meeting of said Board.
Agenda Item No. 16. Third Quarter Report of Police Department. Chief Frank Johnstone
was present to summarize his memorandum of May 2, 1985, on the quarter ended March 30, 1985:
"The following are the significant activities of the Albemarle County Police
Department in the first quarter of 1985.
2@O
May 8, 1985 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
1. SERVICE' DIVISION REORGANIZATION: Work will continue through 1985
to reorganize the records for the years 1981-1983 to bring those into
conformity for Uniform Crime Reporting guidelines.
In late January, the department was officially notified by the Division
of Motor Vehicles/Transportation Safety Adminstration that it had been
awarded a grant of $9,500 to initiate a traffic management information
system. The system specifications have been drawn up and should be approved
in the following quarter with the system going on line in July.
The Service Division was busily involved in the transition for the 911
Center during this quarter. Dispatcher positions were re-classified to
clerk/typist with a recommendation to classify them as police records clerks
due to the peculiar nature of their work and shift work. That section has
experienced some turnover, so much time as been devoted to training new
personnel.
2. PERSONNEL POLICIES: We sent an officer to the Forensic Academy
being conducted by the Bureau of Consolidated Laboratories. This is a
twelve week program and gives intensive training in photography, crime scene
search techniques, evidence collection and handling, etc. This was one of
the departments' highest training priorities so we are pleased that it is
being m~t. ~When the officer returns he will be of immediate assistance to
the department and will also be able to train other officers on different
shifts to improve our crime scene and evidence collection procedures.
3. COMMUNICATION: The bid for the new radio system was awarded to
G.E. It is anticipated that the new system will..be operational by mid-July.
4. SPECIAL ACTIVITIES: The Crime Prevention Program continues to
expand its services to the community. More than 20 seminars were held for
retail clerks and managers to explain the shoplifting laws and to encourage
them to take steps to combat this crime. We have noticed an increased
reporting of shoplifting, followed by an even larger percentage of shop-
lifters who have been apprehended by security personnel, clerks, etc. which
has helped us to clear a higher percentage of shoplifting cases than in the
past.
There are now 15 Neighborhood Watch Programs initiated in the County
and 45 Neighborhood Watch signs ordered for these areas through a program
coordinated by the Crime Prevention Officer. We are continuing to do home
and business security analysis for citizens of the community in an effort to
help them make their areas less vulnerable to burglaries.
More than 1300 children were fingerprinted through the child identifi-
cation program during this quarter. The program continues to have wide
spread community and parental support.
Finally, an innovative crime prevention program was designed for
handicapped persons in the community which has received a great deal of
support and attention. It is an area that is often overlooked in
communities.
5. STATISTICS: The first quarter statistics for 1985 are appended.
They are compared with the first quarter of 1984. The serious crime rate
appears to be relatively stable during this period. There was a marked
decrease in burglaries (down 120%) but we attribute much of this to the fact
that a number of the persons who were committing a lot of our burglaries in
the first quarter of 1984 have been incarcerated.
The percentage increase in aggravated assault cases perhaps looks a
little worse than it is, given the relatively small number of cases with
which we have dealt during the first quarter. We attribute some of this
increase to intensifying our efforts to have the police officers become more
directly involved in domestic violence cases. We are trying to help victims
and Potential victims interrupt the cycle of violence and hope to prevent
future recurrences of violent assaults (including homicides).
COUNTY CRIME STATISTICS
JANUARY THROUGH MARCH
CRIME 1984 1985
PERCENT CHANGE
Homicide 0 1 100%
Rape 2 3 50%
Robbery 1 2 100%
Aggravated Assault 4 18 350%
Burglary 108 49 -120%
Larceny 193 232 20%
Auto Theft 7 21 200%
TOTAL 315 326 3%
Chief Johnstone said that Larry Claytor went to the Forensic Lab to study and received
an award for the highest academic achievement in his class. They only take ten people from
the Commonwealth, and work them extremely hard for ten weeks. He will return to the field in
the uniform division for two months, and will then be assigned to the Investigative Division
on July 1, 1985. He will be setting up training for officers on other shifts to do crime
scene searches by gathering and preserving evidence.
May 8, 1985 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Way said he would like to thank Chief Johnstone for his efforts in the decal en-
forcement program. Chief Johnstone said some complaints were received from citizens who felt
the Police Officers h-a~r~better things to do, but he had also received a significant number of
compliments.
Mr. Fisher said the amount of money collected on the enforcement program alone, seems to
have generated more revenue than all of the manpower requests for the current year. He
thinks this program worked well, and he hopes it leads to better compliance next year.
Agenda Item No. 18. Request - Earlysville Water Company.
The following memorandum from Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive, dated
April 30, 1985, was presented:
"You will recall that Earlysville Forest Water Company sought your approval
of an application being made to the State Corporation Commission, to estab-
lish the company as a public utility.
At your March 13th meeting you deferred action on this matter in order for
the staff to evaluate five options with the owners of the Earlysville Forest
Water Company. Those five options included:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Take no action;
Approve as requested;
Approval subject to an agreement between the Service Authority and
the water company which would allow the dedication or sale of the
water system to the authority once the system has been amortized
sufficently in order 'to make the dedication or sale feasible to
both parties;
Request the Service Authority to consider acquisition of the
central system as .it is, and operate it as a public utility;
Reconsider the feasibility of extending the waterline from the
Airport to Earlysville to provide water.
Staff has met with Mr. Daley Craig, Mr. Bill Brent and Mr. Jim Bowling. Mr.
Craig, representing the owners of the company, indicated that they are not
interested in encouraging any action by the County since they are simply
complying with the State Code. Therefore, it appears that the best option
for the County at this stage is to take no action in this matter. The
option of "taking no action" leaves the matter as it presently exists, but
allows the County to pursue any of the other options, if deemed necessary in
the future. It is the staff's understanding that the State Corporation
Commission will not issue a certificate to the water company if the County
takes no action.
Mr. Bowie said he supports the recommendation for no action. Mr. Bill Brent, of the
Albemarle County Service Authority, agreed. Mr. Fisher said he found it very unsatisfying,
but the staff's recommendation seems acceptable to the Board.
Agenda Item No. 19. Policy on Use of Private Water Systems. Mr. Agnor noted the
following memorandum from Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning, to James R. Donnelly, Director of
Planning and Community development dated April 23, 1985, on the subject of central water
systems and central sewerage systems:
"The Board has requested staff to develop policy related to physical con-
struction of central water systems so as to be compatible to Albemarle
County Service Authority (ACSA) specifications. The purpose of this memo is
to suggest that the Board may wish to consider in-depth planning issues and
implications related to central water and sewer systems.
Central systems are permitted as a matter of right under zoning regula-
tions. Central systems must be approved by the Board under Chapter 10
of the County Code, but this review is primarily technical. Currently,
there does not appear to be a discretionary mechanism under which the
Board could deny a central system which may promote development con-
trary to the Comprehensive Plan. In recent years, the Board has
emphasized its intent to guide development through a "package" approach
including limited provision of public utilities. Since central systems
also have the ability to support/promote growth, similar controls on
these systems would appear appropriate;
Though proposed for private operation initially, local experience has
shown a likelihood for central systems to be acquired and operated by
the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) and ACSA due to factors
such as system failure or inadequacy. Such conversion may be expensive
to the Authorities even if the private system were designed to be
compatible, particularly in an "emergency" situation which does not
permit adequate time to obtain competitive bids (connection to West
Woods though not remote from existing ACSA lines costs about $39,000.
Therefore, the "private" operation of central systems should be viewed
as temporary, and the likelihood of public acquisition/operation should
be considered as probable;
Assuming most private systems would ultimately become public systems,
random location and proliferation of such systems should not only be
viewed as contrary to efforts to guide development to designated growth
May 8, 1985 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
areas, but also inconsistent with more than a decade of public utili-
ties planning. The 'Regional Water Quality Management Plan', adopted
in the early 1970's, called for discontinuance of several small ineffi-
cient and costly sewage treatment plans and consolidation of treatment
capability at one regional wastewater treatment facility. This plan
has been and is currently being aggressively pursued by the RWSA at a
cost in excess'of $40 million. To permit establishment of new small
sewage plants, which are costly to operate and maintain, and may also
operate ineffectively would appear totally contrary to this effort to
provide cost-effective service while maintaining water quality in the
various rivers and streams.
®
0
.In the Attorney General's opinion, a locality has no authority to
require a developer to dedicate a central system in subdivision review.
This would further weaken local control of utilities.
Public utility status is avilable for central well systems with 50
connections or more. The County would likely have less control over
such a public utility than over the ACSA. Proliferation of public
water/sewer utilities is viewed as contrary to planning efforts.
Recent development proposals have involved or have been predicated upon
establishment of central systems. Current regulations do not provide
for extensive Planning Commission review of such systems and as stated
earlier, Board discretion is limited. This memo suggests that equal
discretion should be afforded the Commission and Board in review of
utilities as review of the development proposal itself.
Mr. St. John has provided opinion regarding protection of groundwater
through zoning regulation. If similar controls are legally applicable to
central systems, staff recommends that central water systems and central
sewer systems (other than ACSA and RWSA) be allowed only by special use
permit in all zoning districts."
Mr. Agnor said Mr. Keeler's memorandum concludes with the fact that current regulations
do not permit extensive Planning Commission review of these requests, and the Board's discre-
tion in approving these requests is limited. The staff recommends that these two items be
put back under special use provisions in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, was
present. He said he had not had time to discuss this memorandum with his staff. It is an
important issue and he would suggest the Board give staff additional time to study and make
recommendations on same. After a short discussion, Mr. Fisher suggested that Mr. Brent be
allowed time to study the memorandum and this be placed on the June 12, 1985 agenda for
further discussion.
Agenda Item No. 21. Other Matters Not on the Agenda' from the Board and the Public.
Mr. Agnor said he had been asked by a Board member to advise about an advertisement in
the Daily Progress for the Virginia Small Business Financing Authority to issue development
revenue bonds for Astre Consulting Corporation in the Rivanna district. He said the Virginia
Small Business Financing Act was created to assist small, growing businesses in obtaining
financing for new business development and expansion. The industrial development bond
guidelines adopted by the County require that projects which are less than $500,000 be
submitted for financing to this authority. Astre Corporation is presently located on Market
Street in the County. Since there has been no request to the County for financing, it is
felt that Astre is trying for this financing before going through other procedures.
Mr. Agnor said that due to the unseasonably warm weather this spring, there have been
large crowds at the swimming areas in the County parks, in the past, the policy has been
that swimming during the off season, while not encouraged, is at the person's own risk. The
Director of Parks and Recreation has talked to the County Attorney and to Mr. Tucker and is
suggesting that "No Swimming" signs be posted whenever life guards are no~ on duty. Mr.
Agnor said he was just informing the Board that such signs are to be posted on Wednesday.
Mr. Agnor said the County has recently submitted an application for 240 units under the
Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 - Moderate Rehabilitation Program.
It has been suggested that the County contact the congressional delegation and ask them to
write letters endorsing the County's application. This is a matter that the Board of Super-
visors needs to decide. Mr. Way said he felt it should be done and offered motion that the
Congressmen be contacted to support the County in this effort. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Bowie, and carried by the following recorded vo~e:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Agnor said it has just been brought to his attention that the Clean Community
Commission needs to have a resolution adopted in order for them to receive litter control
funds for the next fiscal year. This is basically the same resolution as has been adopted in
past years. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
recognizes the existence of a litter problem within the boundaries of
Albemarle County; and
May 8, 1985 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
WHEREAS, the Virginia Litter Control Act of 1976 provides, through the
Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Litter
Control, for the allocation of public funds in the form of Grants for the
purpose of enhancing local litter control programs; and
WHEREAS, having reviewed and considered the Regulations and the Appli-
cation covering administration and use of said funds;
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia:
Hereby expresses the intent to combine with the City of Charlottesville
in a mutually greed upon and Cooperative Program, contingent upon approval
of the Application by the Department of Conservation and Economic Develop-
ment, Division of Litter COntrol, and contingent upon receipt of funds; and
Hereby authorizes the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commis-
sion (CAC3) to plan and budget for a cooperative litter control program,
which shall represent said Program for all localities named in this
resolution; and
Further authorizes the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community
Commission to apply on behalf of all of the above named localities for a
Grant, and to be responsible for the administration, implementation, and
completion of the Program as it is described in the attached Application
Form LC-G-l; and
Further accepts responsibility jointly with the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Clean Community Commission and the City of Charlottesville for all
phases of the Program; and
Further acceptS liability for its pro rata share of any funds not
properly used or accounted for pursuant to the Regulations and the Applica-
tion; and
That said funds, when received, will be transferred immediately to the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission or if coordinated by
the Planning District Commission, Said funds will be sent directly to the
Planning District Commission, by the Department. All funds will be used in
the Cooperative Program to which we give our endorsement and support.
Hereby requests the Department of Conservation and Economic Develop-
ment, Division of Litter Control, to consider and approve the Application
and Program, said Program being in accordance with Regulations governing use
and expenditure of said funds.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher noted that he had had two articles photocopied and mailed to the Board
concerning accreditation of police departments. He then received in the mail a letter from
the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. offering their help in
getting Albemarle County's Police Department accredited.
Mr. Agnor said he had seen Dr. Hastings during lunch, and she will be ready to discuss
the pay plan and the merit system later this month. A decision is needed in June in order to
get all of this information on the payroll system before the first of July. Mr. Fisher then
suggested that the Board meet on May 22, 1985 at 3:00 p.m. All members agreed.
Mr. Fisher brought to the Board's attention again that the Board had cancelled the
regularly scheduled meeting of July 3, 1985.
Mr. Agnor said Mr. Dan Roosevelt has informed him that the Board needs to have a hearing
on the 1985-86 Secondary Highway Budget before July 1. Mr. Way suggested this be set for
June 19, 1985. All members agreed.
Agenda Item No. 22. Executive Session. At 3:32 p.m. motion was offered by Mr. Bowie,
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adjourn into Executive Session for discussion of personnel
matters and land acquisition. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
May 8, 1985 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
At 4:36 p.m. the Board reconvened into Open Session.
absent at this time.
Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Henley were
Agenda Item No. 23. Appointments. There were no names offered for appointment.
Agenda Item No. 24. At 4:37 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board
the meeting was ad3ourned. ·