1985-06-12June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
June 12, 1985, beginning at 9:00 A.M., Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, and Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie.
OFFICERS PRESENT:
St. John.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr., and County Attorney, George R.
The meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m. by the Chairman,
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
Lindstrom, 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: Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie
Item 4.1. Statements of Expenses of the Director of Finance, Commonwealth's Attorney,
Sheriff and Regional Jail for the Month of May, 1985, were approved as presented.
Item 4.2 Administration of Merit Plan FY 85-86. The following memorandum from Mr.
Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated June 7, 1985, was received:
"For your information, the administrative staff has developed the following
procedur9 for administering the Merit Plan with the 25 percent cap:
Training of evaluators on the use of the revised performance evaluation plan
will be completed by June 19. Beginning July 1, the revised evaluation plan
will be followed. Employees will be evaluated on their anniversary date,
and the completed evaluations will be forwarded to the Personnel office.
Merit awards for outstanding performance will be granted in June 1986 when
all evaluations are on hand in the Personnel office (the award will be
retroactive to the employee's anniversary date). Employees who have
received a score of 2.5 or higher on their evaluations will be considered
for a merit raise. If the threshold score of 2.5 or higher results in the
number of awards exceeding the 25 percent cap, then the 2.5 will be raised
to a level that will not cause the total merit awards to exceed the 25
percent cap. If the threshold score of 2.5 or higher results in the number
of awards being less than the 25 percent cap, then the awards will not
change, the proposed 2.5 or higher threshold score will be considered as the
appropriate level for outstanding performances and the program will have
operated its first year within the 25 percent cap. A perfect score is 3.0.
To distribute the awards throughout the organization, employees have
requested that they be grouped by job ranges. This will avoid the absorp-
tion of a possible disproportionate share of the 25 percent cap by depart-
ment heads, their deputies, and top level supervisors such as division
heads. The grouping will be accomplished in five groups of job ranges in
accordance with responsibilities and position requirements, as follows:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Ranges 4 through 9
Ranges 10 through 15
Ranges 16 through 21
Ranges 22 through 27
Ranges 28 and above
Clerical employees, for example, will therefore not be competing for a share
of the 25 percent cap with supervisory employees. Department heads, for
example, in Range 28 and above will compete with other department heads and
deputy executives, with 25 percent of that group being the maximum number
awarded merit. It may be that one group will earn merit by the proposed
threshold score of 2.5 and be within the 25 percent cap, while some other
group will have their threshold score raised to perhaps 2.7 or 2.8 in order
not to exceed the 25 percent cap.
The procedure for evaluating an anniversary date, awarding merit at the end
of the fiscal year, and grouping employees by ranges has been developed
through staff meetings and discussions with all employees. It has dis-
advantages, but is considered to be the most equitable way of handling the
25 percent cap. Quarterly reports of scores by groups and by total
employees will be analyzed and reported to you during the fiscal year.
No action on this procedure is requested or required."
346
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 4.3. Letters from the Highway Department, signed by Mr. Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy
Commissioner, dated June 5, 1985, and June 11, 1985, respectively, were received as follows:
"As requested in your resolutions dated June 13, 1984 and January 9, 1985,
the following additions to and abandonment from the Secondary System of
Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective June 5, 1985.
ABANDONMENT
LENGTH
From 0.07 mile West of the SBL of Route 29
to 0.93 mile West of the SBL of Route 29
0.23 Mi.
ADDITIONS
From 0.07 mile West of the SBL of Route 29
to 1.0 mile West of the SBL of Route 29
0.30 Mi.
RUNNING DEER SUBDIVISION
Albino Lane - From Route 808 to East cul-de-sac
0.24 Mi."
"In my letter of June 5, 1985 advising you of approval of an addition to and
abandonment from the Secondary System of Albemarle County; the route number
was inadvertently left out. Please attach this to the original letter.
I apologize for any inconvenience that may have been caused.
ADDITION
Route 697 - From 0.70 mile West of the SBL of
Route 29 to 0.93 mile West of SBL of Route 29.
LENGTH
0.23 Mi.
ABANDONMENT
Route 697 - From 0.70 mile West of the SBL of
Route 29 to 1.00 mile West of SBL of Route 29.
0.30 Mi."
Item 4.4. Letter from Mr. Richard C. Lockwood, Transportation Planning Engineer,
Virginia Department of Highways, dated May 9, 1985, re. Statewide Highway Plan, was received
as follows:
"We have completed development of a Statewide Highway Plan identifying
present and future needs on all highway systems in the state. The plan is
composed of detailed reports for each of the twenty-two planning districts
and a statewide summary report (copy of April 1984 Summary Report and Plan
for Thomas Jefferson Planning District 10 is on file in the Clerk's Office).
At several points in the development of this plan we provided you with
information on the status of the study and requested your~ input to the
process. We thank you for your interest, cooperation and patience.
In the last session, the legislature enacted a bill requiring the VDH&T to
review the highway construction needs in the state and produce an inventory
of all construction needs for all systems at least once every five years.
To fulfill this requirement we will begin work this summer on updating the
plan and will be contacting you for additional input. The bill also
required the plan update to be completed by October, 1989."
Item 4.5. Letter from Mr. Harold C. King, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation, dated May 16, 1985, along with copy of the Tentative 1985-86 Construction
Allocations and Six-Year Improvement Program, was received as information, and is on file.
Mr. Fisher said he was struck by the declining amount of funds projected for highway use
over the next five years. He knows that the Virginia Association of Counties is considering
taking a position this year on some legislation to generate new money for roads which may
create the need for a bond issue for the Secondary System. The projections shows the
Culpeper District going from $6.3 million this year to only $2.5 million within five years.
That is a very pessimistic projection.
Item 4.6. Letter from Mr. Harold C. King, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation, dated May 10, 1985, along with a copy of the 1985-86 Construction Alloca-
tions, Secondary System, was received as information.
Item 4.7. Quarterly Report - Business License and Property Tax Refunds for the period
of February 1 to April 30, 1985, was received as information.
Item 4.8. Audit of the General District Court for the year ending June 30, 1984, was
received as information, and is on file in the Clerk's Office.
Item 4.9. Notice dated May 31, 1985, from the Potomac Edison Company showing that it
has filed a request with the State Corporation Commission requesting that a public hearing be
set on its request for a revision in its electric rates, was received.
34 7
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Item 4110. Letter dated May 16, 1985, signed by Mr. Gordon Walker, Executive Director,
Jefferson Area Board for Aging, was received as follows:
"May 16, 1985
Mr. Guy Agnor, County Executive
Albemarle County Office Building
Ridge & McIntire Streets
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Agnor:
JABA's Board of Directors decided, on May 15, to file an application for
incorporation with the State Corporate Commission and an application for
501(c)(3) tax status with the Internal Revenue Service under the name of
JABA, Inc.
This action is not intended to alter in any manner the Joint Exercise of
Powers agreement between the six jurisdictions in P.D. 10. This action is
planned, however, to provide JABA with a greater opportunity for raising
private funding. JABA's present tax status, as interpreted by several
foundations, does not enable JABA to secure foundation funding for several
of our specialized programs.
As presently designed, JABA's Board of Directors appointed by local govern-
ment would also serve as the Board for JABA, Inc. If you believe JABA
should not proceed with the aforementioned application or you think the
Articles should be modified, please contact me accordingly. We plan to file
these applications by June 10th.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Cordially,
(Signed) Gordon Walker
Executive DirectorTM
Mr. Fisher asked if this will change anything about the Joint agreement for JABA. Mr.
St. John said he had thought about it, but does not believe it will. If any problem were to
arise, the Board would only have to enact a short resolution saying the contract for JABA as
it applied to the unincorporated entity would henceforth apply to the incorporated entity.
Mr. Fisher asked that Mr. John check to be sure there would be no problems.
Item 4.11. Memorandum dated June 11, 1985, from Guy B. Agnor, Jr., entitled "Comparison
of Water/Sewer Rates-Albemarle County Service Authority," comparing old rates against newly
enacted rates, was received as information.
Item 4.12. Monthly Building Reports from the Department of Planning and Community
Development for April and May, 1985, were received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: December 19, 1985, January 2, January 9,
January 16, February 20 and March 20, 1985.
Mr. Fisher had read pages 13 through 19 of December 19, 1985, and reported no errors.
Mr. Henley had read pages 20 through 27 of December 19, 1985. He noted that in the
second paragraph of page 22, the sentence "Instead, it would be holding hearings every time
filed an application." should actually read "Instead, it would be holding hearings every time
an application was filed."
Mrs. Cooke had read pages 5 through 14 of January 2, 1985, and reported no errors.
Mrs. Cooke had read pages 1 through 8 of January 16, 1985, and reported no errors.
Mr. Fisher had read pages 1 through 12 of January 9, 1985, and reported no errors.
Mr. Lindstrom has read pages 13 through 21 of January 9, 1985, and reported a couple of
typographical errors.
The remaining minutes had not been read, so were deferred to another meeting. Motion
was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve the minutes which had been
read, with the one correction noted above. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Work Session-1985-86 Secondary Roads Budget.
The following letter from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, dated May 15,
1985, was received as information:
348
June 12, 1985 (Regular All Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
"The purpose of this letter is threefold:
To advise the Board of the anticipated funds available for secon-
dary road improvements in Albemarle County during the 1985-86
fiscal year;
To recommend a budget for spending those funds;
To request the Board schedule a public hearing on the budget as
soon as feasible.
Prior to scheduling a hearing I am sure the Board will want a full expla-
nation of the proposed budget. This letter will attempt to do this as a
part of the recommendation.
Attached you will find the proposed budget for 1985-86. It is anticipated
that $1,669,468 will be available for improvements in 1985-86. Of this
amount $406,857 are generated by the unpaved road fund and $577,014 are
anticipated to come from federal aid secondary funds. The $406,857 must be
used for hard surfacing unpaved roads and the $577,014, plus matching state
funds, must be used for eligible federal aid projects. The proposed budget
meets these requirements while following as closely as feasible the prior-
ities set by the County in the adopted six year plan. I recommend the
proposed budget attached.
In his letter of March 1, 1985, to all boards of supervisors, Commissioner
King indicated that it was the Department's desire to follow the priorities
for improvements which each county has established in its adopted six year
plan but this desire must be tempered by two factors. These are:
Funds should be allocated to individual projects each year based
upon the anticipated costs to be accrued by that project during
the fiscal year. To do otherwise will only build up large bal-
ances in improvement funds. The buying power of these balances
will be reduced over time by inflation.
Projects which are eligible for the special funds (federal aid and
unpaved road fund) which make UP the annual allocation must be
adequately programmed or the Department and, in turn, the county
will lose these funds. These funds are anticipated as a part of
your annual allocation. Loss of these funds will result in a
reduction of your anticipated allocation.
The past and current six year plans and the budgets drawn from them have
failed to fully consider these two factors.
Past budget allocations have resulted in an existing large balance of
secondary funds. This balance exceeds two million dollars as of March 1,
1985. I am attempting to move up the advertisement of existing projects in
the six year plan, with minor preliminary engineering requirements, in order
to spend this balance. In allocating for 1985-86, however, we must consider
the costs anticipated for funded projects during that period, and allocate
accordingly. Otherwise we will only be adding to this balance. The budget
I am suggesting for 1985-86 makes this consideration.
The problems of allocating for anticipated costs and our large fund balance
are minor, however, when compared to the problem of programming special
funds. The current six year plan adequately programs projects eligible for
unpaved road funds but is inadequate in programming eligible federal aid
projects. This situation exists state-wide and, as a result, there is a
real danger of losing federal aid funds designated for use in Virginia. The
net result could be a deallocation or reduction of our 1985-86 county
secondary allocation sometime after October 1, 1985.
To keep this deallocation from occurring, the Department's Secondary Roads
Division has given firm instructions that each construction district will
allocate and obligate a specific minimum amount of federal aid funds in
1985-86. Because it is recognized that the secondary construction program
cannot be quickly turned around on a county by county basis, this means some
counties must carry the brunt of this obligation until projects, eligible
for federal aid, can be funded in each county. Those asked to carry the
brunt of the load are those with eligible projects which can obligate
(spend) the money this fiscal year.
Albemarle County happens to be one of the counties in the Culpeper Con-
struction District which has eligible projects which can obligate the money
during this fiscal year. ~We are, therefore, being asked to carry the brunt
of the load. Unfortunately the eligible projects are not now part of the
six year plan. A few words of background on this are needed.
In 1983, when the problem of unobligated federal aid secondary funds first
became apparent, the Department suggested code changes that would have
allowed allocation of federal aid bridge funds on a statewide basis rather
than through county allocations as in the past. These changes were thought
to be favorably viewed by the General Assembly and the Department programmed
a number of projects anticipating legislation in 1984. Surveys and plans
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
349'
have been developed on many projects to a point where they could be adver-
tised very shortly. The anticipated legislation, however, did not pass in
1984 or 1985. Therefore the only method of funding construction of these
bridges is through the regular allocation to each county.
Albemarle County has two bridge projects developed under this program. One
is on Route 729 at Buck Island Creek. The other is on Route 678 at Mechum
River. It is feasible to advertise both of these projects in October 1985
and thus obligate over one million dollars in federal aid and matching funds
before the deadline. I am recommending this action to the Board for the
following reasons:
It will more than meet Albemarle County's "share" of the federal
aid obligation and possibly protect the County's allocation should
federal funds not be fully obligated and deallocation occur.
It will replace two bridges with high priority for replacement on
the state-wide replacement and rehabilitation list.
It is not feasible to spend this amount of money on other projects
during 1985-86. Currently proposed allocations to other projects
basically match the anticipated costs to be incurred on the
projects listed and limitations on our engineering and right of
way staff make it unfeasible to add many more projects at this
time. I am unaware of any other projects which could be brought
to advertisement in 1985-86 other than those listed. Without
large construction outlays, spending funds equal to the 1985-86
allocation will be impossible.
The fact that neither 729 nor 678 is a part of the current six year plan
will require special action by the Board. By law, projects in the budget
must come from the six year plan priority list. Therefore, revision of or
additions to the six year plan priority list to include these projects will
be required. This can be accomplished after adoption of the budget.
Regardless of the budget recommendation made by the Board, a revision of the
six year plan priority list must be made shortly to correct the deficiency
in federal aid eligible projects. Therefore, to expedite this budget I am
requesting the Board adopt a budget by resolution acknowledging that they
will shortly revise the six year plan to set priorities which correspond
with the budget.
This budget also allocates $90,000 to certain county-wide items, including
$10,000 for operation of the Hatton Ferry. You will nOte that no funds are
recommended for rural additions. Since only roads serving properties not
subdivided since 1949 are now eligible for use of rural addition funds, I
believe few, if any, roads will qualify. Setting aside funds for this
purpose appears to be a waste of scarce funds.
I request the Board schedule a work session as soon as possible leading
toward a public hearing on the budget. I will make myself available to
their schedule."
Mr. Lindstrom asked what triggered this change with the federal aid funds. Mr.
Roosevelt said that in the more populated counties of the State, they have been absorbing the
federal aid for their counties because they had expensive projects that fell on federal aid
routes. The percentage of federal aid funds coming to the secondary system has grown to such
a size that smaller counties cannot absorb those federal aid funds. Mr. Lindstrom asked if
the Meadow Creek Parkway qualifies for federal aid. Mr. Roosevelt said yes. The section of
Rio Road that the Meadow Creek Parkway will replace was dropped out of the federal system and
the route of the Meadow Creek Parkway then designated .as a federal aid route. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if there were any reason why there was no allocation for that project. Mr. Roosevelt
said he has tried to transfer the money to projects that can be built this year or next year.
A tremendous allocation will be needed in 1988 or 1989 to finance that project. Mr.
Lindstrom said he thought the County was saving funds each year for the project. Mr.
Roosevelt said the rules have now changed. The new secondary highway engineer has convinced
the Highway Commissioner and his staff that the prior procedure of squirrelling away money
for four or five years in order to accumulate enough money for a project is really a waste of
money. The proof of his argument is that State-wide there is between $20,000,000 and
$30,000,000 in road fundS accumulated for projects that will not be built for four or five
years. The new secondary highway engineer is convinced it is cheaper to go ahead and build
today.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were any way to hire outside people and advance the Meadow
Creek Parkway project. Mr. Roosevelt said this project is as much of a problem of politics
as one of engineering. The Highway Department is having an environmental impact statement
made in anticipation of another location hearing to be held in January or February of 1986.
Although there is engineering involved in this process, politics is the driving force on how
fast the project will proceed. Mr. Fisher said the County has indicated its desire many
times to have the section in the County built as soon as possible. Mr. Lindstrom asked what
would happen if the City section could not be built. Mr. Roosevelt said a decision would
then have to be made as to whether or not to proceed. Legally he thinks that the road could
tie into Melbourne Road in the City, since the section of Melbourne the road is anticipated
to cross actually lies in the County. When the City built the high school, they rebuilt
Melbourne Road and the section they rebuilt actually lies in the County.
350
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Fisher said the City should not be allowed to veto the portion of the project which
lies in Albemarle County as it is desperately needed. Mr. Roosevelt said in order for the
road to operate at peak efficiency, it needs to be combined with the section in the City all
the way out to Route 250, East. As long as there is a good chance that the City section will
be built, those sections should be coordinated and not done separately. Mr. Fisher asked if
there were any other projects to discuss.
Mr. Roosevelt said he has tried to anticipate how much money can be spent in the coming
fiscal year on each project currently shown in the Six Year Highway Plan, and he has allotted
money accordingly. Some of the projects in the six year plan are not shown at all in this
year's budget, and that means there is already enough money to build that project completely
or there is sufficient money accumulated that it cannot be spent in the next fiscal year. He
said there has been a drastic change in procedure and philosophy in the last six months, and
it is very difficult to make the necessary changes suddenly. He is trying to move ahead
projects that had not been anticipated to be built in the next three years.
Mr. Fisher said it appears that the Board needs to set a Public Hearing in order to go
forward with this matter. Mr. Roosevelt said the Board had already agreed to have this
Public Hearing on June 19, and he believes it has been advertised. Motion was then offered
by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to officially set the Public Hearing on the 1985-86
secondary roads budget for June 19, 1985. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
RYES: Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: County VDH&T Road Inspection Agreement.
The following memorandum dated June 6, 1985, was received from the County Executive:
"In 1977, the County and the State Department of Highway and Transportation
entered into an agreement which authorized the inspection of and reimbursed
the state for subdivision inspections made on proposed state roads in
Albemarle County.
Earlier this year, VDH&T notified us of their need to terminate this agree-
ment because of the requirements of their own regular construction program
along with a cap that has been placed on the number of inspectors available
to implement that program.
Since this request came near the completion of our FY 85-86 budget prepara-
tion we were unable to make adjustments in our budget to accommodate addi-
tional personnel to continue the inspection program as a total county
responsibility. HoWever, we have offered to begin a transition period,
effective July 1, 1985, with county engineering personnel making subdivision
road inspections, provided we can continue to call on VDH&T inspectors for
their expertise in road construction inspection during FY 85-86.
The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has recently con-
curred with this arrangement and the agreement will therefore be terminated
effective June 30, 1985. Should you have any questions, please feel free to
call."
(Note: Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting at 9:45 a.m.)
Mr. Agnor said he believes the Board should agree to termination of this contract in
terms of the transitional year. Mr. Fisher asked if these roads will be taken into the
secondary system, and the County staff will be doing all of the inspections. Mr. Agnor said
yes, after the transitional year. The required performance bond and maintenance fee will
still have to be paid by the developer. The inspection program was intended to take care of
changes that occurred during construction, so changes could be approved in the field and thus
avoid incorrect things happening. Mr. Fisher asked what liability the County will have for
assuming inspections. Mr. Agnor said he is. not aware that the County will have any liabil-
ity. Mr. Fisher asked if someone had an accident, and they felt that something was not
properly built, how the County would be affected. Mr. St. John said the County has absolute
immunity from that type of responsibility. There is a recent court case that reaffirms
immunity in this particular situation. Mr. Maynard Elrod, the County Engineer, said the
County inspectors will not be certifying anything. The Highway Department will make the
final inspection and then accept or not accept the road into the system. At the present time
the Highway Department tests the base before it is paved, and that is helpful to developers.
They will stop doing that, and the inspectors will look at the base, but they will have no
responsibility.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Way, to accept the transition
agreement understanding. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Bowie and Mr. Lindstrom.
352
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: Request from Branchlands Corp. re: Greenbrier
Drive. The following letter dated May 30, 1985, was received from Mr. Ronald H. J. Langman,
Project Coordinator of the Branchlands Corporation:
"I am writing to request several changes to the Greenbrier Drive and Route
29 interchange. This intersection is becoming hazardous, especially for our
residents. My first request concerns an additional stop on the CTS bus for
Route 29 North to Albemarle Square Shopping Center. My other requests
concern the intersection of Greenbrier Drive and Route 29 in particular.
The requested CTS stop would be located at the end of the cul-de-sac on
Greenbrier Drive. As a retirement village, we have a demand for CTS service
by our older residents, women in particular. At present~ one resident does
not drive and is totally dependent on public transportation. We have
inquiries for CTS service by both residents and prospective buyers and we
are concerned about those who will not be able to drive in the future.
While at present the density at Branchlands is low, it will triple in the
next year.
A stop at the Greenbrier Drive cul-de-sac is necessary because of the
hazardous walk to and from Route 29. The walk from Branchlands Village to
the Route 29 bus stop is uphill for a considerable distance. More impor-
tantly, the walk from the bus stop crosses Route 29 at a congested inter-
section without any pedestrian crosswalks. The timing of the traffic lights
does not give elderly people enough time to cross the intersection safely. -
Maneuvering across with groceries is almost impossible. We feel that for ~
these reasons, a stop at the Greenbrier cul-de-sac is warranted.
In further regards to Greenbrier Drive, I have listed below my concerns
about the traffic and parking problems and my suggestions for correcting
them.
1. Trucks and cars are often parked on the shoulders of the road near Citgo
and Daly's Rent-al making visibility problematic and driving hazardous. The
placement of no parking signs and the completion of curbing and turn lanes
at Greenbrier Drive would correct this situation.
2. The stoplight system does not adequately handle through traffic from the
east to west sides of Greenbrier Drive and the turning traffic from Green-
brier onto Route 29 simultaneously.
3. Drivers frequently turn off Route 29 and make a U-turn in the middle of
Greenbrier Drive so that they can return to the stop light and head up Route
29 North. The traffic on Greenbrier generated by Pepsi Plant and Branch-
lands Village makes the U-turn occurrences particularly hazardous.
4. To this date Greenbrier Drive is not marked with a street sign. The
lack of proper signage makes directing prospective buyers and friends of
residents to Branchlands a difficult problem.
5. The pedestrian access needs attention. I would suggest a crosswalk-,
better timed stop lights and signage to facilitate crossing.
I feel that this intersection needs to be improved now before we have an
unfortunate accident. This intersection is located in the middle of a busy
urban area yet it has not been treated as such. We project that upwards of
450 elderly people will be using this entrance in the long run. In the
interest of safety, I hope that you will seriously consider these requests
and study the problems existing at this intersection. I would be more than
happy to appear before the Board to present this case and illustrate my
points. Thank you for your attention to this issue."
Mr. Agnor said he had forwarded this letter to the Planning Department for review, and
it is basically on the agenda for information only. There was no discussion of the letter by
Board members.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Highway Matters: Request to vacate a portion of Lakeside Drive.
Since no one was present to represent the applicant, this was skipped temporarily. (Note:
Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 9:55 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 6e. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Fisher said that Mr. Bowie had asked him to convey his thanks to the Highway Depart-
ment for working on Free Bridge (Route 250 East) at night rather than during peak hour
traffic during the day. Mr. Bowie has received several comments from his constituents
concerning this project.
Mr. Fisher asked how long it is going to take to finish the bridge at Mechum River. Mr.
Roosevelt said it is scheduled to be completed by the first of November. He does not believe
it will be finished earlier. They are still checking to see if the traffic signal can be set
to respond to the traffic flow. Mr. Fisher said last Friday night was graduation at Western
Albemarle High School, and the traffic was backed up for a great distance because of the
light.
352
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a copy of a letter from Mr. Donn Bent, Secretary, Hollymead
Citizens Association, concerning the speed limit on Hollymead Drive. They would like to have
the speed limit reduced from 35 to 25 miles per hour. Mr. Roosevelt said that same request
was made to him three or four months ago. The request was investigated, and it was found
that 85 percentile of the traffic on Hollymead Drive is going 35 miles per hour. It has been
the experience of the Highway Department that the majority of traffic will set the speed
limit it feels is safe.
Mr. Henley said he had been approached by a citizen concerning parking in downtown
Crozet. He asked the Highway Department to look at the situation and see if there could be a
couple of parking spaces marked off. He now finds that they have eliminated everything all
the way to the corner of that block and he asked if that was necessary. Mr. Roosevelt said
for sight distance it is necessary to go all the way to the alley. He 'knows there is a
problem concerning the lady who runs the flower shop, and they are investigating something
for her. But as far as general parking is concerned, it must be eliminated from that area.
Mr. Lindstrom said a deceleration lane was put on the south side of Garth Road at the
entrance at Inglecress. A lot of people come around the corner in the deceleration lane. He
asked if it would be possible to have that deceleration lane marked. Mr. Roosevelt said the
road is going to be resurfaced in that area in the near future, and he has discussed with his
traffic marking people this request, but it has not yet been decided.
Agenda Item No. 7. Appeal of County Engineer ruling on soil erosion violation - Arbor
Crest Apartments. No one was present for this item at this time, so same was skipped tempo-
rarily.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend and reenact Section 8-26(e)
of the Albemarle County Code, Article VII, Real Estate Tax Exemptions for Certain Elderly and
Handicapped Persons (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 28 and June 4, 1985).
The purposes of this amendment are set out in the minutes of May 8, 1985. The Public
Hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against this amendment the public
hearing was immediately closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Henley, to adopt the following ordi-
nance as advertised:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
SECTION 8-26(e) OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE,
ARTICLE VII, REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN
ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED PERSONS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia that Section 8-26(e) of Article VII, Real Estate Tax Exemptions for
Certain Elderly and Handicapped Persons, is hereby amended and reenacted to
read as follows:
Section 8~26(e). Same--Eligibility; restrictions.
(e) The net combined financial worth shall not exceed fifty-five
thousand dollars as of December 31 of the calendar year immediately pre-
ceding the taxable year.
Roll was .called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Highway Matters: Request to vacate a portion of Lakeside Drive.
It was noted that by letter of May 24, 1985, from Dale Abrahamse, Vice President, Willow
Lake Developers. This request was placed on the agenda. The conditions of approval for the
Willow Lake subdivision by the Albemarle County Planning Commission required the vacation of
Lakeside Drive as shown on the plat of Lakeside Subdivision recorded in Deed Book 345, Page
234. Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief Planner, said this matter had been set on the agenda in order
to set a Public Hearing. During review of the request for Willow Lake development and
subsequent site plans and subdivision plats, one of the concerns expressed by the property
owners in the existing Lakeside Subdivision was that there is an unopened portion of Lakeside
Drive that could potentially be a connection between the two developments. The adjoining
landowner was particularly concerned. The Planning Commission imposed as a condition on the
Phase I final plat of Willow Lake, Item l(i), which is to be accomplished before Planning can
sign the subdivision plat for Willow Lake, and that is the vacation of the unopened portion
of Lakeside Drive. This right-of-way is currently impassable and has grown up in trees.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to advertise for a Public
Hearing on July 10, 1985 the vacation of a portion of Lakeside Drive. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
353
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henleyr Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
The Board recessed at 10:09 a.m. and reconvened at 10:15 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 7. Appeal of County Engineer ruling on soil erosion violation, Arbor
Crest Apartments.
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, said this request has now~ become a non issue. They
were in violation of the Rivanna Reservoir Ordinance. He was waiting for the grass to come
up, but it has now been about six weeks, and he went out and looked at it yesterday, and the
grass is coming up nicely. They will review the site plan again now for the parking lot.
Mr. Fisher said it appears that the applicant is not present, and he would ask that someone
notify that person that Mr. Elrod has said it seems to be a non issue, and this appeal has
been removed from the Board's agenda unless another appeal is made.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: An Ordinance Amending Section 6-2 of the Albemarle
County Code Establishing Two Voting Precincts in the Charlottesville Magisterial District
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 28 and June 4, 1985).
The purposes of this amendment are set out in minutes of previous meetings.
The Public Hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the amend-
ment, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Cooke said she has no problem with this recommendation, and thinks that Mr. Jones
and Mrs. Matthews have done an excellent job in locating a site for a second precinct. Mrs.
Cooke then offered motion to adopt the following ordinance as advertised thereby approving
the location of the new polling place in the Charlottesville Magisterial District:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 6-2 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ESTABLISHING
TWO VOTING PRECINCTS IN THE CHARLOTTESVILLE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that
Section 6-2 of the Albemarle County Code is hereby amended as follows:
Section 6-2.
Voting Precincts and Pollin~ Places -- Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
The Charlottesville Magisterial District shall include two voting
precincts, bounded as hereafter set out and named as follows.
(a)
Drive.
BERKELEY PRECINCT - With a polling place at 2360 Commonwealth
Beginning at the intersection of the U. S. Route 250 Bypass and State
Route 654 (Barracks Road); then starting in a northwesterly direction
with State Route 654 to its intersection with State Route 656 (George-
town Road), then northeast on State Route 656 to its intersection with
State Route 743 (Hydraulic Road); then north on State Route 743 to its
intersection with State Route 631 (Rio Road); then following State
Route 631 northeast and southeast to its intersection with U. S. Route
29 (Seminole Trail); then southwest on U. S. Route 29 to its inter-
section with State Route 743 (Hydraulic Road), then northwest on
State Route 743 to the northern corner of the Charlottesville Corporate
Limits; then southwest and southeast along the Corporate Limits to its
intersection with the U. S. Route 250 Bypass, then west to the inter-
section of State Route 654 and the U. S. Route 250 Bypass, the point of
beginning.
(b) WOODBROOK PRECINCT - With a polling place at Woodbrook Elementary
School.
Beginning at the Charlottesville Corporate Limits intersection with
State Route 631 (Rio Road) and the Southern Railroad right-of-way; then
starting in a northwesterly direction, follow the Corporate Limits line
across the north boundary of the City to its intersection with U. S.
Route 29 (Seminole Trail); then northeast along U. S. Route 29 to its
intersection with State Route 631 (Rio Road); then northwest and
southwest on State Route 631 to its intersection with State Route 743
(Hydraulic Road), then north on State Route 743 to the South Fork
Rivanna River Reservoir, then meandering in a northerly direction with
the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with State Route 660
(Ray's Ford Road); then northeast on State Route 660 to its inter-
section with State Route 743 (Earlysville Road); then southeast on
State Route 743 to its intersection'with State Route 643; then south on
State Route 643 to its intersection with Schroeder Branch; then south
with Schroeder Branch to its confluence with the South Fork Rivanna
River; then meandering in a southeasterly direction with the South Fork
Rivanna River to its intersection with the Southern Railroad right-of-
way; then in a southwest direction with the Southern Railroad right-
of-way to its intersection with the Charlottesville Corporate Limits
and State Route 631, the point of beginning.
354
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom.
carried by the following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Bowie.
Mr. Fisher said he has received a couple of letters from people in Free Union about
their voting precinct. Mrs. Mary Lou Matthews, Registrar, said she had received one
additional letter, and Mrs. Arline Kyger, the lady who instigated this, is trying to get
signatures on a petition. She would like to go back to the polling place she used in 1972.
She really wants a voting precinct for the Earlysville community, and that area lies in the
Rivanna Magisterial District and not the White Hall Magisterial District. She would not be
able to return ~o vote at Broadus Wood School. Mr. Henley said the complaint came from his
district, and he has not heard from anyone else. Mr. Fisher asked if there were a committee
needed to work on this question. Mrs. Matthews said she had told Mrs. Kyger that her pro-
perty was not in the White Hall district, and Mrs. Kyger wanted to change the boundary line
all the way to Nortonsville. Mr. Fisher asked if someone would have a meeting with the
people out in that area and explain the situation. Mr. Henley said he would be willing to
see what he can do. (Note: Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting at 10:27 a.m.)
Mrs. Cooke said that now that the second polling place has been authorized for the
Charlottesville District, how are the voters notified of this change? Mrs. Matthews said
that the registered voters who are being moved to the new precinct will be notified by mail
four weeks before the election. The change also will be advertised in the daily newspapers.
Agenda Item No. 10. Policy: Use of Private Water Systems.
Mr. Fisher noted that the Board had received a letter from Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive
Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, dated June 6, 1985. In it, Mr. Brent
notes that the Service Authority's Board of Directors met on June 4 to respond to the Board's
request for comments concerning central well systems in the County. The Albemarle County
Service Authority Board voted to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that any central well
system be built in accordance with Service Authority standards with plans to be approved by
the Service Authority prior to construction and construction to be inspected by the Service
Authority. It was the consensus of the Albemarle County Service Authority Board that any
decision on whether a central well system should be operated by the Authority or privately
operated should be made on a case by case basis.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Brent why the Service Authority wanted the system constructed to
Albemarle County Service Authority standards. Mr. Brent said that was suggested should the
occasion arise when the Service Authority might have to move in and take over the system.
They feel the system should be compatible with the Albemarle County system. Mr. Fisher asked
what that would do to the cost of the system. Mr. Brent said the initial cos~ would probably
be greater but over the life of the system, the cost would be less.
Mr. Fisher said that Mr. Bowie has asked that the Board not take any major action on
this question while he is away. Mr. St. John said there is nothing before the Board to vote
on at this time. Mr. Agnor said the staff had recommended several months ago that the Board
go back and use the Special Use Permit procedure in the prior zoning ordinance.
Mr. St. John said he thinks that idea should be carefully studied. He has just finished
studies on the whole issue of groundwater as part of a land use program. He thinks there is
a fundamental inconsistency here. What the Board is dealing with is a means to control. But
in his mind it is a fundamental inconsistency to have large private water systems in exist-
ence i~ the first place. If the Board approves a density that calls for a large private
water system such as the kind of system that becomes a public service corporation under State
law, then the County ought to extend the Service Authority's jurisdictional boundaries to
serve those areas. If the County is not going to extend the boundaries to serve those areas
then from a fundamental planning viewpoint densities calling for that kind of service should
not be created in the first place. When you depart from that fundamental principle, the
whole structure is inconsistent and weakened. Aside from the practical problems that will be
created in the future, his main problem with the whole idea is a fundamental one.
Mr. Fisher said what the County had was very consistent up to the point where places
that are zoned for higher densities or planned for higher densities are allowed outside of
the Service Authority's boundaries in the rural areas. Mr. St. John said that is correct.
He thinks that if a PUD is approved for the rural areas or some other density that calls for
a central water system of a size that he mentioned before, the County should be willing to
extend the Albemarle County Service Authority's jurisdiction or the development should not be
approved in the first place. The rub in this is that in the Comprehensive Plan there is the
concept of village areas. Those village areas lying outside of the Service Authority's
boundaries provide an inconsistency that should be dealt with.
Mr. Fisher said two Board members have not heard this speech. Mr. St. John said he has
been thinking about this problem for a long time. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to defer
any further discussion of this policy until July 10. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way.
Mr. Henley said he has some concerns. He has three houses on one system, and if he
wants to put another, one on, will he have to do it under County regulations? Mr. St. John
said his concern does not cover that question. His thinking is based on the underlying
practicality of this policy. The Albemarle County Service Authority draws its water from
impoundments that are reliable, predictable and controllable, a known entity, When you talk
about private water systems, aside from the fact that they are not subject to public control
except indirectly through the State Water Control Board, they get their supply of water from
groundwater which is an unknown resource.
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
355
Mrs. Cooke asked how reliable geological surveys are. She said they often sound impres-
sive, but how reliable are they over the long haul? Mr. Brent said he does not have experi-
ence or expertise in groundwater conditions. He knows from experience with this County that
there have been perfectly good test runs on wells that five years in the future had no water.
It is comforting to walk to the reservoir and see the water coming over the dam. Even in dry
periods, the amount of water there can be calculated so there is some time to make plans. In
small scattered systems which are one to three miles from any source of relief it would be a
very difficult situation to handle. Mrs. Cooke asked what advantage it would be to the
Service Authority to have access to a large groundwater supply. Mr. Brent said this commu-
nity has always provided for adequate reservoir storage of water. Unless something happens
to the Buck Mountain project, there should be no need to seek any groundwater in the fore-
seeable future. The only well system the Service Authority is now operating is in the Stoney
Point Subdivision in Scottsville. It has been troublesome, hard to operate, costly to
operate and maintain a decent quality of water. A very bad experience. However, there are
some large central systems in the County that are doing a good job. Key West has a tremen-
dous underground supply of water.
There was no further discussion.
by the following recorded vote:
Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. -Bowie and Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 11. Proposed Annual Report.
1985, from the County Executive, was received:
The following memorandum dated June 7,
"The staff of the Personnel Department has been assigned the task of
publishing an annual report by the school division. The Director of
Personnel recommended it be a report of the County government, and not just
the school system, and I agreed with that idea. For many years, individual
Board members have expressed an interest in publishing an annual report,
but the idea was never pursued, primarily due to the lack of staff avail-
able to complete the task. Dr. Clayton Lewis, Director of Staff Develop-
ment and Public Relations, in the Personnel office, has been assigned the
project.
The intent of the report is for it to be informational to citizens, and of
modest layout. It is planned to be in black and white print and pictures,
with a four-color cover picture of the office building. It is targeted to
be approximately thirty pages in length, and is estimated to cost about
$5000 for 3000 copies. Distribution is planned in our libraries, to
neighboring local governments, to realty firms for new residents, and_
possibly to medical office waiting rooms. It is scheduled for completion
by mid-September to early October. In draft form, it will be distributed
to you for your review and revision.
Kindly advise if the general plan outlined above should be modified now.
Your comments on its distribution and/or use would be particularly appreci-
ated.''
Mr. Fisher said that five years ago he would not have thought this to be a good expendi-
ture of funds but now sees there is a need to communicate and it would be good information
for new citizens. Mrs. Cooke said she thinks that with the growth of the County it's almost
a necessity. Mr. Fisher said he supports the concept. Mr. Henley said there might be some
thought given to making a charge for the booklet if real estate people in the area intend to
use it. Mr. Fisher said he thinks it is good to try the idea for one year. He asked if
there were any objections by other Board members, and there were none expressed.
Agenda Item No. 12. Proposed Revisions of Fire Services Contract.
memorandum dated June 5, 1985, was received from the County Executive:
The following
"Several years ago, concerns were expressed to this office by some members
of volunteer fire companies that costs for the fire services contracted for
with the City Fire Department were not reflective of the actual costs
involved. Additionally, there were concerns regarding utilization of the
County fire engine to fight city fires, and the dispatch system used by the
central fire dispatcher to determine which companies could respond to a fire
call.
The utilization of the County fire engine was reasonably resolved among the
officers of the fire companies through the Jefferson Country Firefighter's
Association, although there are occasional comments about its use, and
probably always will be. The dispatch system was revised by Chief
Taliaferro with the involvement of all the chiefs of the County companies.
It is my understanding the system works satisfactory to the department
chiefs, although not to the satisfaction of every volunteer fireman. The
contract has been examined by the County and City executive staffs for
proposed areas of revision, with completion of the work being deferred to
provide the development of data on which to base allocations of costs.
The staffs are ready to analyze the data and consider proposed contract
revisions. Before doing so, guidance from the Board is requested. In
general terms, the staff will study the allocation of firemen and equipment
over a period of more than one year including the responses of County
356;
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
companies to man City fire_stations while County and .City equipment are on
fire calls. Cost centers will be designated, and an attempt will be made to
develop a formula(s) to allocate costs associated with the contract. More
involvement of County staff in preparation of the City fire budget will be
sought in the contract revisions. Participation in the costs by the Univer-
sity of Virginia will be explored.
In my opinion, the results of these efforts to develop a more equitable
system for allocating costs will probably increase the Countys' costs,
because I believe the current allocation is in the County's favor. I wanted
you to understand that may be the end result, before the staff work pro-
ceeds, although participation by the University if legal could change the
results." ' '
Mr. Agnor said this memo was included on today's agenda as information only~
Agenda Item No. 13. Report of Building Committee.
Mr. Way said the Building Committee, at its meeting on May 21, 1985, decided to request
that the Board of Supervisors discuss and provide the committee some direction in their role
pertaining to the disposition of the White Hall School, Priddy Creek land, and Scottsville
School. The Building Committee members did not know if they had the authority to proceed and
investigate disposal of these properties. Mr. Fisher said he had no objection to the com-
mittee investigating to see if there is any valid public purpose for which these buildings
could be used. If there is none, then it becomes a question of disposition. Mr. Way said
most of these properties have been held for a long time already. He thinks someone should
think about what will happen to them. Mr. Henley said he feels the White Hall school pro-
perty should be disposed of. The neighbors have had problems with people using the building.
The property, itself, is so small it could never be used as another school site.
Mr. Agnor said the staff understood that when the Court Square project was completed and
all parties had been moved to their new quarters, staff would look at parking and other needs
in that area. That also could be done by this committee. There was no further discussion of
the memorandum at this time.
Agenda Item No. 14. Status Report - Greenwood Chemical Company.
Mr. Agnor presented the following status report dated June 5, 1985:
"At your May 15, 1985 meeting you requested a status report on the
Greenwood Chemical Company fire. Since our earlier report, dated May 1,
1985, County staff involvement has been supplanted with State and Federal
inspections and monitoring. The following is a chronology of events since
May 1, 1985.
May 2, 1985 - Greenwood Chemical Company President, Albert C. Cereghino
stated he plans to recommend to stockholders that the plant not be
reopened.
In a letter to Cereghino dated Tuesday, April 30, 1985, County officials
informed the company that they would not be allowed to reopen for pro-
duction unless a site plan was submitted for review.
May 4, 1985 - Two State Health Department officials indicated plans to
interview company officials, nearby residents and former workers of
Greenwood Chemical Company to determine if toxic chemicals had been buried
on the site. Officials stated they will also ask to see the site, but have
no legal right to enter the property at this time.
The Director of Occupational Safety for the Department of Labor and Indus-
try, E. A. Scruggs said after the State investigation was completed "very
likely" this could lead to citations against the company.
May 9, 1985 - The Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management indi-
cated plans to continue their investigation even though they failed to
yield enough information to enter the site.
May 10, 1985 - In 1981, it was stated that Greenwood Chemical Company was
issued a "serious" citation by State officials for a hazardous situation
that may have resulted in the most recent deaths at the plant. There is no
record that the problem was ever corrected.
The Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management will conduct a pre-
liminary inspection at the site Wednesday, May 15, 1985, to find visual
clues of possible hazardous waste burials.
May 14, 1985 - A former worker, Peter Schwartz stated that material on the
west side of the property threatens the health of nearby residents.
May 16, 1985 - Three State Health Department officials toured Greenwood
Wednesday, May 15, 1985, and stated a report would be forthcoming early in
the next week. Pauline Ewald, Biochemist, said if material is in fact
buried at the plant, it does not pose an immediate threat.
357
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
May 18, 1985 - State officials issued Greenwood Chemical Company a citation
for a "willful" violation of federal worker safety standards.
The Department of Labor and Industry recommended the company pay an $8,000
fine for failure to install explosion-proof electrical devices near flam-
mable material.
May 23, 1985 - On May 22, 1985, it was voted by stockholders of Greenwood
Chemical Company to discontinue all manufacturing work. They will however,
maintain office, laboratory and warehouse (for finished products) facili-
ties.
County Inspection officials informed the chemical company that they will
not issue a permit for restoring power to the plant unless the firm sepa-
rates the office from the manufacturing electrical system. An electrical
wiring plan will be required to show the separated wiring system.
State Officials met at the County Office Building to brief EPA Officials on
inspections the State had made to date.
May 24, 1985 - EPA inspector stated that he found fewer potential health
concerns than he expected, after touring the Greenwood Plant. Federal and
State officials will be taking soil and water samples in the near future.
May 25, 1985 - EPA collected eight soil and water samples (four soil and
four water samples), results will be forthcoming in the next month.
Nothing was found to indicate any immediate health threat.
May 30, 1985 - Zoning Administrator Michael Tompkins, received a letter
from the chemical company's attorney, Forbes Reback, requesting extension
of time to remove seven storage trailers located on the site.
June 3, 1985 - Reply letter from Mr. Tompkins to Mr. Reback granted time
extension for removal of trailers to June 30, 1985.
June 5, 1985 - EPA indicated it may return to Greenwood site to gather more
information about long term hazards at the site.
The State Health Department officials will release a report this afternoon
about their findings. If a long term threat is indicated by the test
results, Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund Program (provides
money to clean up hazardous waste sites) may address groundwater
contamination.
The Environmental Protection Agency indicated they may be taking some
additional air and water samples at the Greenwood site.
We will continue to keep you informed as further inspections and monitoring
occur."
Mr. Agnor next presented a memorandum dated June 11, 1985, entitled "Addendum to Status
Report of Greenwood Chemical Company - Summary of letter from Robert G. Wickline, Director of
the Bureau of Solid Waste Management for the Virginia Department of Health to Darius C.
Ostrauskas, EPA Regional Project Officer - Dated June 4, 1985":
"A review of the above referenced letter (which is attached) reveals the
following information:
Greenwood Chemical has been a manufacturer of specialty chemicals for
the industrial, pesticide and pharmaceutical trades for 40 years.
Drums of phosphorus, sodium, tolvene, caustic lye, sodium hydroxide and
various waste chemical constituents were routinely buried on the site.
Liquid wastes such as acids were routinely poured into floor drains and
run into the on-site lagoons.
Overflows from the site caused a cattle kill in the mid-1970's and a
fish kill in 1971.
Greenwood Chemical used between one and ten metric tons of cyanide on
the site per year.
Along the western border of the property is an area of disturbed
vegetation and denuded red clay soil which coincides with the location
of the drum burials and trench burials.
There are five active lagoons on the site.
a pH reading of 2.0 to 2.5.
Ail lagoons currently have
A vent pipe was discovered slightly west of lagoon number one that made
the organic vapor recorder give off scale high readings with the
equipment set to measure up to 2,000 ppm (this vent is identified as
having a possible explosive fire potential).
358
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Directly east of the laboratory building that burned in the recent
fire, a clay berm is being used as a storage area for drums. (These
unmarked, repainted blue barrels were leaking a light brown syrupy
substance that was pooling.) Vegetation in the direct runoff pathway
of this area was either completely eradicated or severely stressed.
This site is currently unsecured.
The recommendation of the Commonwealth of Virginia's Department of Health to
the Environmental Protection Agency according to the June 4, 1985 correspon-
dence is to have Greenwood Chemical, Virginia Site 109, classified for an
immediate high priority site investigation; to further define the extent of
the potential for harm to the public health and the environment.
Of major concern is ~that this site is approximately 2000 feet north of a
tributary to Stockton Creek which flows into the Mechum River and from there
into the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, the major drinking water supply
impoundment for the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle."
Mr. Agnor said that in addition to the two memorandums that have been distributed to the
Board, neither the Planning Department nor the Zoning Department, has heard anything from the
owners about having electricity restored in the building. The owners were advised that they
will need to prepare a site plan for the County and nothing has occurred. Mr. Fisher noted
that he had read a copy of a report from the State Department of Health in which it was
recommended that the Greenwood Chemical site be classified immediately as a high priority
site for investigation to further define the extent of the potential harm to the public
health and environment. He asked if the Board should take any action to support the Health
Department in that request. He said the Environmental Protection Agency may be the only long
term solution to getting the materials that are supposedly on the site out of the ground.
Mr. Agnor said that he could write to Mr. Ostrauskas, the E.P.A. regional project officer
indicating that the State Health Department's concerns are also the Board's concerns. Mr.
Fisher asked if the Board should do anything to get the E.P.A. to respond about making an
investigation of the site.
Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Robert Wickline and Mr. William Gilley, of the State BUreau of
Solid Waste Management, had both said they would keep the County posted on events. Mr. Agnor
said the County can always get involved with agencies on the political side through its
congressional delegation, but he does not think that is appropriate at this time. They have
to review the files and then respond. If the County goes over their heads now it gives the
impression that they have not responded as they should have, and Mr. Agnor does not believe
that is the case. Beyond that, he does not know if the County can be involved at all in this
process. This is a State and Federal regulatory matter. The County cannot assert legal
powers into this because it has none.
Mr. FiSher asked if the Board would consider a motion directing the County Executive to
write a strong letter of support as recommended by the State Health Department to the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency regarding their investigation of the Greenwood Chemical Company
site with copies to appropriate congressional representatives. Motion to this effect was
offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie and Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Fisher suggested that the State legislators be copied on that letter, just to let
them know that the request has been made. Mrs. Cooke said Mr. Agnor has said the County has
no jurisdiction in this matter, yet it affects this County and its citizens. It concerns her
greatly that the Board has no input. She asks why this is so. Mr. Agnor said the laws that
allow agencies to conduct investigations on property are Federal and State laws administered
by Federal and State agencies. The local government cannot go on premises without some
reason to be there and do its own site investigation. Also, the County does not have the
resources to analyze chemicals. It must rely on agencies that have the authority to conduct
the investigation.
Mrs. Cooke said it is assumed that State and Federal agencies have been or should have
been, up until this time, making periodic inspections of this site. She asked how the
situation at Greenwood has gotten to its present level if the problem has been investigated.
Mr. Agnor noted that one of the agencies involved is OSHA. There has been evidence found
that they have not followed up on inspections made in past years. They notified Greenwood
Chemical of the deficiencies of the investigation, but there was no follow-up. The State
Water Control Board, in dealing with the lagoons and protection of the streams and water, has
a continuous record of correspondence and inspections of waste discharges on the site. The
State Health Department was involved with disposal of solid waste, and they have records of
authorizations for burials of waste on the site several years ago and also records of previ-
ously unauthorized burials. The corrective action taken was permit action to authorize some
burials on the site. It appears that OSHA did not follow through. There are investigations
going on now to determine if there have been illegal burials on the site other than those
authorized several years ago. There is a time limit in the law which allows the agency doing
the investigation to cite violations of the law, if the violation was found to have happened
since the law was adopted. The State Health Department and the EPA are trying to determine
what is in the lagoons, what is in the ground, and how dangerous the materials are.
Mrs. Cooke asked if those organizations are obligated to apprise the local government of
what is going on when violations occur in the County and about follow-up on violations. Mr.
Agnor said they have no legal obligations to do that and the local government, as an agency,
is not involved in those violations. Mrs. Cooke said she finds that hard to swallow.
359
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Fisher said that Superfund authorization expires in less than four months. He got a
call last week from a gentleman who said this could have a direct bearing on the Greenwood
problem, and he had agreed to let Mr. Dan Mandell make a brief presentation to the Board
concerning something that had been mailed directly to the Board members.
Mr. David Levy said he was present to speak for Mr. Mandell, who is the conservation
chairman for the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club. He said the Superfund is not just an
obscure Federal law, but it has a direct bearing on almost every community in Virginia.
There are 300 sites on the EPA list that need to be investigated. Of those sites, they have
determined that ten will be cleaned up using Superfund money, but it will take years. Mr.
Levy said he has been tracking environmental issues for over ten years, and he feels that the
Board needs to make a strong statement to the EPA that something needs to be done on the
Greenwood site. The EPA has restricted funding and lots of demands. They do not do the work
themselves but administer contracts. It has now been 60 days since the disaster. It seems
the Health Department took a couple of weeks before they even agreed to come to Albemarle
County.
Mr. Levy said he is getting to the reason why they asked the Board to make comments to
the congressional delegation about the Superfund. He named many organizations which have
been working to get the Superfund to be effective. He said the administration recommends no
funds and the United States Senate has passed the bill with only $7.5 billion dollars. There
are technicalities involved as to how citizens can take action. Nothing is provided for that
in the Senate bill. He encouraged the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution to its
congressional delegation about the Superfund. He said Mr. Robinson consistently voted
against hazardous waste laws and the Superfund laws, but now there is a new person in
Washington.
Mr. Fisher then went over the suggested resolution point by point. At the end of that
discussion, he said aside from any legalities concerning the wording of the resolution, he
would like to support reauthorization of the Superfund to the County's congressmen. Mrs.
Cooke says she can support that idea and in addition, she would like for the Board of Super-
visors to request that when things happen in the County, the County be notified-and have some
opportunity to follow through on them before they become big problems. It appears that some
of the violations and problems at Greenwood have been going on for a long time. She was not
aware of them. She doesn't believe that other Board members were. Mr. St. John said this
resolution is directed toward pending legislation. That legislation does not contain any-
thing about informing governmental bodies about the problems found. Mr. St. John said that
the EPA itself, was not informed of this situation until about two weeks ago. The history on
this site goes back to 1977, and it includes violations that were never followed up on by
State agencies, so he would not think it appropriate to add anything to the resolution Mr.
Levy had presented injecting something new into the legislative question that is already
being debated.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Board wanted to consider adopting the resolution, and Mr. Henley
agreed that he did.
Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS hazardous waste disposal sites currently pose a terrible
threat to our health and our environment, and chemicals and elements which
cause injury, disease, birth defects, and death are buried in many sites in
every state, contaminating drinking water, soil, and food; and
WHEREAS a strong Superfund law is felt to be the best program for
controlling or eliminating hazardous waste sites and must be reauthorized
prior to its expiration in October, 1985; and
WHEREAS an effective Superfund program should contain the following
elements-
1. A fund of at least $10 billion for clean-up and other aspects of
Superfund;
2. Put the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on a strict,
realistic schedule to increase the pace of clean-ups;
3. Require permanent clean-up of dump sites wherever feasible;
4. Establish uniform national standards for EPA clean-ups to
guarantee that public health is protected;
5. Increase community participation in the Superfund process to
foster better clean-up and improve community relations;
6. Establish a federal cause of action enabling victims to use the
Superfund to sue those responsible for damages.
WHEREAS these elements are currently provided for only in House
Resolution 2022:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby urge Congressman D. French
Slaughter, Jr., and Senators John W. Warner and Paul S. Trible, Jr. to
ensure that the elements above be incorporated in the reauthorization of
Superfund.
'360
June 12, 1985 (~egular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None,
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie and Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Fisher said this is not the end of the problem. There is a lot more to do. He
asked Col. William Washington, of the Greenwood community, if there was any other action he
thought the Board should take at this time. Col. Washington said he does not know a lot
about this situation. He has not been in contact with any agency, other than the County,
although he has received calls from people asking what is buried on the site and when it was
buried. He has an overall concern which was expressed in a letter to the Board two months
ago. He does not see how this company can stay viable, and he does not know how the County
can make them clean up the site because he doesn't feel they would have the resources. He
has an underlying feeling that it should be cleaned up, and he has talked to some people who
know that materials are buried on the site but they say the materials are inert. Other
people in the community have more damaging comments to make. They feel the buried materials
are highly dangerous. The biggest problem in the community is the fear of the unknown.
There is a lot of anxiety among people there. Col. Washington says he has one suggestion.
The day after the fire and explosion, he had talked to the Chief of the Crozet Volunteer Fire
Department. He was concerned that the County fire official had put out word that it might be
necessary to evacuate people and had even talked about stopping traffic on 1-64 which runs
right beside this site. He asked the Chief if they had a fire plan for various sites in the
community that might be a threat to the community. He found that there is no such scheme for
local fire companies and often they enter these sites with considerable reluctance. If there
were an industrial plant storing volatile materials, he believes there should be a fire plan
on file. It should be the responsibility of the owner or operator to develop and keep that
plan up to date and furnish a copy to the local fire department. Mr. Fisher said he had a
citizen call him last week and suggest the same thing. He said it might be something to
discuss with the Jefferson Country Firefighters' Association.
Mr. Agnor said that some of the companies already have a fire plan. Seminole Trail
Volunteer Fire Company has a fire plan for Fashion Mall and other buildings on Route 29,
North. They practice the fire plan quite often.
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. William Norris, Watershed Management Official, for his com-
ments. Mr. Norris says he has an aerial photograph taken the day before the investigation.
One thing that is obvious is that there have been a lot of materials moved around on the site
and some have even disappeared. There have been remarks made by citizens in the area that a
lot of trucks have been going in and out, and they are concerned about where the barrels have
been moved and whether or not they are being moved over the public roads. This is supposed
to be done only by-permit, and Mr. Norris said he is not aware of any permit having been
written. Mr. Fisher asked if any of this has been verified, and Mr. Norris said not yet.
The aerial just came into the office this morning. He is concerned because there is a farm
pond located down slope from this site. Because of the acid rating on the existing drainage,
it might be wise for somebody to take water samples from the pond to see if anything has
migrated off site. Mr. Agnor said for consistency he feels that this should be done by those
who are doing the other testing, and he would so request. Mr. Fisher then asked that Mr.
Agnor make another report to the Board at next month's meeting.
(Note: At 12:10 P.M., Mr. Way left the meeting.)
Agenda Item No. 15. AHIP Quarterly Report. Mr. Gary Olivera was present to give the
semi-annual report of the AHIP Program for the period from October 1, 1984 through March 31,
1985. He said they are working under two different grants, one from the State Office of
Community Services started in October, and then in February they started work under a commu-
nity development block grant program. They have also managed to finish up some of the local
AH1P projects. Mr. Henley asked if they are on schedule with the CDBG grants. Mr. Olivera
said they are about a month behind. They have ironed out some leveraging and scheduling
problems and now both programs are in full swing. They have begun three large projects since
March 31. Mr. Fisher said County staff has been concerned about staying with a time schedule
on the CDBG program. Mr. Olivera said that AHIP has received monitor visits from both
agencies involved. They were taken to the job sites and are quite satisfied.
Mr. Fisher noted that the Board had funded for next fiscal year improvements for rental
occupied housing for a request which came from JABA. He said JABA says that AHIP has agreed
that they should get the funding, and he asked if that was correct. Mr. Olivera said that
the intent of the program is for home safety, and JABA is training an occupational therapist
to go out and do assessments. He thinks that is the crux of the program, and that person
will be the focal point in the whole program. AHIP does not have anybody who is qualified or
trained to do that sort of thing.
(Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 12:30 P.M.) Mr. Olivera said that the AHIP
Board of Directors also does not like making improvements to rental projects, but they will
work with JABA as much as possible. Mr. Fisher asked that they try to keep on schedule with
the grant programs. Mr. Olivera said it is a very ambitious schedule but not undUly
ambitious.
Agenda Item No. 16. Executive SessiOn: Personnel. At 12:32 P.M., motion was offered
by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn into executive session for the stated
purpose. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie and Mr. Way.
361
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:43 P.M., with all five members being present
at this time.
Agenda Item No. 18. Public Hearing: Authorize Charlottesville Redevelopment to finance
the rehabilitation of fraternity houses located within the boundaries of a "Conservation Plan
for a portion of the University of Virginia", which was adopted on May 8,1985 (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on June 1, 1985).
Mr. Agnor said the conservation district was established at the meeting on May 8, and
the financing method was approved. After the meeting, it was found that the advertising for
the financing had not been in accordance with State Code. The correct advertising has now
been accomplished.
The public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak for or against the matter,
the public hearing was closed.
Mr. St. John said he has some new language for one of the resolutions adopted last
month. It was requested by Mr. Arrington, Executive Director of the CHRA, and simply states
that the County requests the City to sell and issue its bonds to finance this project. Mr.
St. John said this is just a formality, and does not add anything to the project.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following two resolutions as
recommended by the County Attorney:
Pursuant to Section 36-23 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amend-
ed, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, declares that
there is a need for the Charlottesville Redevelopment Housing Authority
(the "Authority") to exercise 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, and requests that the Authority (i) issue and
sell its revenue bonds to finance the rehabilitation of properties located
within the Conservation District and (ii) perform all other acts and adopt
such further proceedings as may be required in connection therewith.
The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, having duly
adopted a Conservation Plan 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 or unsafe inhabited dwelling
accommodations exist within the area of the Conservation Plan just estab-
lished, and finds that these conditions can be best remedied through the
exercise of the Charlottesville Redevelopment Housing Authority's powers
within the territorial boundaries of Albemarle County included in that
Conservation District.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the foregoing motion.
the following recorded vote:
Roll was called, and the motion carried by
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 19. Presentation of Letter by Carolyn Pettit.
Mr. Fisher said Mrs. Pettit had called and requested that this item be placed on the
agenda today. Mrs. Pettit said she was present to represent some employees of Albemarle
County. She then presented a petition signed by certain employees and a letter voicing
concerns. She said she would read from the petition.
"We the undersigned request that you reconsider recent policy decisions concerning merit
pay and job classification. We understand that the system needs revisions, but we feel that
our concerns have not been adequately considered. Rather than feeling disgruntled, dis-
couraged and unappreciated we would welcome the opportunity to meet formally or informally
with members of the Board of .Supervisors and representatives of the Personnel Department to
discuss concerns and voice suggestions. We are eager to cooperate and hope increased commu-
nication in the future will help us arrive at a mutually acceptable solution."
Mrs. Pettit said the petition had been signed by approximately 175 employees. This is
approximately 72 percent of the employees affected by the recent plan enacted several weeks
ago. She continued: "We feel that the need for revision has occurred as a result of the two
and one-half percent increase added to the County's merit system several years ago. It has
been quoted that 84 percent of the employees received a merit increase last year. We feel
that this statistic is somewhat misleading due to the fact that 43 percent of this increase
was a result of the two and one-half percent increase. Prior to the implementation of the
two and one-half percent plan, the rate of merit increase was apparently acceptable. We are
concerned about the possible ramifications of recent policy decisions, and we woUld like for
you to consider the following:
"A stable, professional work force is essential to maintain the higher quality of
services provided to the residents of Albemarle County. The new system is likely to result
in increased turnover, increased time spent training new workers, and inexperience in the
work place. To set workers in competition with each other is not conducive in the
cooperative spirit to the effective management and functioning of County government offices.
Without an adequate system of rewarding outstanding work, it will be difficult to promote and
maintain the enthusiasm, loyalty and sense of common purpose among employees that result in
exceptional work.
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
"With regard to job classification, employees whose positions were downgraded have lost
the opportunity that they had been led to expect when they came to work for the County of
Albemarle. Positions that were upgraded and reclassified were often not accompanied by a
commensurate increase in pay. The new merit system compounds this problem by limiting the
employee's potential for advancement. In an effective merit system, goals must be consistent
and uniformly upheld. The cap eliminates a standard for outstanding performance in that the
definition of meritorious will vary from year to year and perhaps from employee to employee.
The possible administration of this plan creates numerous problems in its equitable implemen-
tation, examples being: retroactive payment of retirement benefits, life insurance benefits,
overtime and the question of what will happen if more than 25 percent of employees are rated
outstanding as they have been in past years. An organization that expects only 25 percent of
its employees to be outstanding may not be encouraging more than 25 percent to excel. We
feel that Albemarle County residents expect and deserve a work force that is not limited to
its efficiency and its excellence. We hope that reconsidering these recent decisions will
result in realizing the fiscal goals of the County in a more harmonious manner. We feel that
our work is important and we are proud of the services that we do offer. We appreciate the
fact that your task is a difficult one, yet we ask that you repeal your recent decision."
Mr. Fisher said that was a well written and articulate statement. The Board is not
prepared to spend time on this question today, but will take it under advisement.
Agenda Item No. 17. Certificate of Appreciation: Mr. Edgar Paige, Jr.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Paige could not be present today as he is at home recuperating from
a recent illness. He is stepping down as a member of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging, on
which he served for twelve years, several years as its Chairman. In recognition of this, the
Board had a certificate of appreciation prepared. Mr. Paige also served for ten years as a
member of the Albemarle County Board of Public Welfare; one year as its chairman. He was a
member of the original Land Use Taxation Steering Committee, and has been a member of the
Monticello Area Community Action Agency Board. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Way if he would deliver
the certificate. Mr. Way said he would be happy to, and noted that he had appointed Mr.
Paige to the Welfare Board back in 1969.
Agenda Item No. 20.
May 1, 1985).
Public Hearing:
ZMA-85-4.
P. H. Faulconer Estate (Deferred from
Mr. Donnelly noted that this public hearing had been deferred in order to get some
additional information, and the application has submitted another proffer (dated May 15,
1985). Item (f) addresses one of the Board's concerns. Mr. Donnelly then read the
additional staff report:
"The Board of Supervisors at their meeting on May 1, 1985 deferred action on
ZMA-85-4 until additional information could be provided on the following:
A copy of the correct proffer in writing which should also specify th~
following:
a)
Access to the proposed development to be limited to Route 855 and
Barracks Road;
b)
No connecting roads from the proposed development to pass through
Canterbury Hills.
The applicant has submitted a revised proffer which addresses the concerns
of access and connecting roads identified in question 91 above.
Request Highway Department to make a report on the entrances to the
proDosed development.
Entrances to the proposed development would occur on Route 654 through
the proposed access to ZMA-84-19, HEC, Inc. Based on the traffic
volumes expected by ZMA-84-19 and ZMA-85-4 (1,673 vehicle trips per
day), turn lanes would be required. The Highway Department has stated
that an entrance with adequate sight distance onto Route 654 can be
obtained. The second entrance to the development would enter the
property via Route 855. Presently, Route 855 terminates within the St.
Anne's-Belfield School property and not adjacent to the land involved
in this rezoning request. If a State road is to serve the thirty
dwelling units having access to Route 855, it would require continua-
tion. The applicant has submitted a plat (attachment 92) indicating
access to theproperty. The Highway Department has stated that should
Route 855 continue beyond its current terminus, the entrances to St.
Anne's-Belfield School would have to be upgraded so they tie in at
right angles to Route 855.
Request staff to prepare a report on the impact of traffic from this
development on all roads in the surrounding area.
State Routes 855, 601, 654 and 656 would provide service to the pro-
posed development. Route 855 is currently tolerable and with the
proposed thirty additional dwelling units which would access the
development via this route, it would remain tolerable. There are,
however, several sharp curves along a section of Route 855 and any
additional traffic would add to the problems associated with this poor
horizontal alignment.
363
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Route 601 (21 Curves Road), which Route 855 connects to is non-
tolerable and the additional (210 vehicle trips per day) would only add
to the congestion. Route 654 (Barracks-Road) is non-tolerable and the
additional sixty-three dwelling units from this proposed development,
combined with the one hundred seventy-six dwelling units approved under
ZMA-84-19, would add 1,673 vehicle trips per day to the problems
currently existing along this route. Route 656 (Georgetown Road) is
also non-tolerable and additional traffic from this development would
add to the congestion along this road.
"May 15, 1985
Mr. James R. Donnelly
Director of Planning
County of Albemarle
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA
22901-4596
Re:
ZMA-85-4, Revised 5/14/85 as per
Board of Supervisors comments
Dear Mr. Donnelly,
The owners of the Hunter Village PRD wish to make the following proffer in
regards to ZMA-85-4:
a) Provision of public roads within the development.
b) Minimum lot size of one-third acre with the 200 foot single family
bugger area adjacent to Canterbury Hills and St. Anne's-Belfield and a
75 foot building setback line from same.
c) Preservation of 50 feet of wooded landscape easement along the
southern boundary with St. Anne's-Belfield and the Canterbury Hills
line.
d) To limit density under R-4 zoning to 2.25 dwelling units per acre,
with the added exclusion of quadraplexes and triplexes except as they
apply to townhouses.
e) No through connection between Barracks Road and State Route 855
(also known as Faulconer Drive) with the maximum number of units to be
accessed off State Route 855 to be a maximum of 30 units as opposed to
the present 48 currently allowable.
f) Access limited to Route 855 and Barracks Road with no connection
through Canterbury Hills Subdivision.
As we have discussed with the County staff, it is appropriate that the
former Hunter Village RPN be developed in a compatible fashion with the
adjacent rezoned 58 acre parcel with which it shares the lake and various
utility easement.
Respectfully,
(Signed) Timothy M. Michel
HEC, Incorporated"
The Board discussed for a short time the new information received. Mr. Bill Roudabush,
appearing for the applicant, said the letter setting forth the proffer specifies where the
single family units will be located. They will be located adjacent to the boundaries of the
property that is owned by others. Clustering will have to be toward the center of the
property. When all of the proffers are put together, they almost form a prevailing pattern
of development. Mr. Roudabush said the development of the property is not eminent. This is
just the first step in the long planning stage that must take place before-any development
occurs. The applicant has not seen a copy of the Highway Department's comments but reminded
the Board that the previous zoning plan did require a connection to Route 855. Under either
zoning, the road would be extended and used for development traffic. However, this proposal
will take 126 vehicle trips per day off of Route 855. Mr. Roudabush said after they became
aware of the current traffic count on Barracks Road, they went back and looked at the defini-
tions of tolerable and nontolerable. They found that some nontolerable roads continue to be
bearable although much below the desirable level of service. What they found was that this
road, in order to be tolerable, must have a pavement of at least 24 feet in width. The road
is paved. They do meet that criteria, and the development proposed under this request will
not occur immediately. Mr. Roudabush said they have proceeded on this plan based on the
recommendations contained in the County's Comprehensive Plan, and the request is compatible
with that plan.
Mr. Fisher asked if the statement, "provision of public roads within the development"
listed as (a) in the proffer letter of May 15, 1985, means state-maintained road and not just
public access. Mr. Roudabush said that_is correct.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Paragraph (c) in the proffer letter of May 15, 1985, stating the
preservation of 50 feet of wooded landscape easement along the southern boundary.~t~-St.
Anne's-Belfield and the Canterbury Hills line means that the area will be left in its present
state. Mr. Roudabush said that is correct.
364
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
__ (Page 20)
At this time the Public Hearing was opened again. Mr. Bob Garland, a resident of
Canterbury Hills, whose property adjoins-r~-property in question was present to emphasize
his concerns about this rezoning request. His main point is that the developer currently has
an opportunity to develop the property using a previously approved rezoning. He has access
to the property from another direction other than Barracks Road. He feels it would make
sense that the property be accessed entirely from Route 855. He feels the proffers as
presented do adequately address the concerns of the residents in Canterbury Hills. He is
glad to see that the Planning Department has addressed some of his original concerns. He
still questions whether adequate study has been given to this rezoning request by County
staff. Mr. Garland said he really is speaking against this rezoning request as he would
prefer the zoning to remain as it presently exists. If the developer is not satisfied with
the previously approved plan, he would have no strong objections to changing that plan. The
County would then have an opportunity to slow down the rising traffic counts on Barracks
Road.
With no other person from the public to speak for or against this petition the Public
Hearing was closed again. '
Mr. Lindstrom said this land lies within the Jack Jouett district, and he has struggled
with what to do about this application. The property is in an area of the County zoned to
absorb future population growth, and it does not lie in the Rivanna River Watershed. With
respect to Barracks Road, he feels that it may be one of the better roads in the County.
Route 855 may~'~.~?listed as tolerable, but he does not feel it is safe. He did not vote to
approve the original rezoning request. His concern then was the compatibility of having
attached dwellings versus the detached dwellings which are characteristic of those in
Canterbury Hills. That was his sole reservation. The overall scheme of development will
protect Canterbury Hills, and there will be no additional connection for traffic through
Canterbury Hills. This represents an improved plan with reduction of traffic on Route 855,
and he is inClined to support the application.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve ZMA-85-4 conditioned on the proffer dated
May 15, 1985, HEC, Inc., signed by Timothy M. Michel, with the understanding that the word
"bugger" in line 2, part b, is actually "buffer", and with the understanding that "public
roads" in (a) means state-maintained roads as stated by Mr. Bill Roudabush at the meeting of
June 12. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT':
Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 22. Athletic Needs Report.
Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, noted that the following report had
been prepared by a joint City/County Committee and sent to the Board:
IMMEDIATE AND LONG-RANGE ATHLETIC NEEDS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY AND CHARLOTTESVILLE
INTRODUCTION
Athletic leagues and recreational programs in the Albemarle County/Charlottesville area have
expanded over the past 10 years at a much more rapid rate than the available facilities.
There is significant concern in the community regarding the shortages of tennis courts, youth
baseball fields, soccer fields and softball fields. In an effort to address these concerns,
the governing bodies of the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville commissioned
a study of the immediate and long-range athletic needs of the area. A summary of the find-
ings of that study follows.
Executive Summary
This report summarizes the County and City staff efforts in reviewing the athletic needs of
Albemarle County and Charlottesville. The report is diVided into three sections: a) immedi-
ate softball needs; b) long-range athletic needs; and c) appendix containing parks and
recreation facility maps.
The immediate softball needs issue has been addressed in the report, with joint scheduling
for softball underway this season. The two staffs have consolidated the Jack Jouett field
into the softball league play, which will allow a maximum of 192 league teams. A number of
other fields were explored as alternate sites, but were not deemed usable primarily due to
the travel time involved for County and City residents.
The study also addresses the long-range athletic needs of Albemarle County and Charlottes-
ville. During the next 15 years the population of the County and City is estimated to
increase by 59 percent, a large part of the population living in the urban areas of the
County and City. With this increasing population comes an increasing demand for athletic
facilities. The report addresses a number of athletic needs projections, and suffice it to
state that more facilities will be needed in the future. The report concludes that upgrading
the existing athletic facilities will do little to meet the long-range athletic needs for the
field sports. The report does recommend upgrading and expanding the existing tennis facil-
ities to meet future tennis demand. The County and City staffs are recommending that
approval be given to the development of a new centrally located sports complex to help meet
the growing demand for athletic fields in the community, particularly softball. The develop-
ment of a centrally located complex of fields in the urban area could meet a number of the
field sport needs including softball and youth sports. The sports complex could be phased
over a several year period commencing immediately with land acquisition, with grading and
site preparation the next phase, and the construction of a four field, lighted complex, the
last
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
last phase in a three year plan, for example, additional
park land (beyond that needed solely for the in the
future. If a centrally located urban area site is chosen, it can conveniently serve a large
part of the County and City residents.
The report does include a specific site recommendation. The staffs are recommending that if
the Board of Supervisors and City Council agree in concept with the report, that the staffs
be authorized to proceed to purchase the recommended site.
SECTION I - IMMEDIATE SOFTBALL NEEDS
The most immediate athletic need in the Albemarle/Charlottesville community is for softball
field space. The interest in softball in Albemarle County and Charlottesville has increased
to the point that it has become difficult to meet the demand with existing facilities. In
1973, for instance, the softball league consisted of approximately 40 teams. In 1984, the
program was composed of 176 teams in the City league and 21 teams in the County Baptist
Church League.
During 1984, a total of 3,876 games were played on four lighted and four non-lighted fields.
These games involved a total of 3,546 participants of which 39 percent (1,348 players) were
City residents and 62 percent (2,198 players) were residents of Albemarle and the other
surrounding counties.
Survey of Existing Facilities
At the present time, there are eight softball fields in the City ~f Charlottesville. These
fields are located at the following sites: two lighted fields at McIntire Park, two lighted
fields at Piedmont Community College, two non-lighted fields at Washington Park, one non-
lighted field at Rives Park and one non-lighted field at the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)
facility.
The overuse of the existing softball fields has placed heavy pressure on the physical facili-
ties. With games being held each day of the week, field preparation and turf development
have been difficult to adequately maintain.
The heavy use of existing facilities has also created negative impacts on neighborhoods in
the community. For instance, during softball season, McIntire Park, which has become the
focal point of softball in Charlottesville, no longer serves its intended use as a community,
family-oriented park. Efforts to light Washington Park during the past three or four years
have failed because of the concerns raised by neighborhood residents. The most severely
impacted park is Rives Park, a neighborhood park which is completely surrounded by narrow
streets and residential development. Each weekday afternoon, three softball games are played
at Rives Park, and on the weekends the number can be as high as 12 to 15 games per day.
Alternate Sites
In an effort to immediately alleviate the heavy burden on the existing softball fields, the
County and City Parks and Recreation staffs surveyed the existing fields in the community to
determine if other fields, not presently being used, could be utilized for softball league
games. The staff survey found that all appropriate fields in the City of Charlottesville are
already at or over their maximum scheduling capacity. There are seven available fields in
the County of Albemarle including one each at McIntire School, Jack Jouett School, Browns-
ville School, Walton School and Greenwood Center. Two fields suitable for women's league
play are located at Western Albemarle High School.
Of these seven fields, only two, the fields at McIntire School and Jack Jouett School, are
located within 12 to 20 miles of the City. The field at McIntire School is already allocated
for Little League baseball use and, therefore, cannot be used in the City's softball league
program. However, the field at Jack Jouett Middle School, with certain modifications and
improvements, could be used in the City's softball league program.
Although the University of Virginia is located in the Albemarle County/Charlottsville area,
the seven softball fields located on the University grounds were not included in this survey
of existing and/or proposed facilities. These fields, according to University officials, are
heavily scheduled with intramural games throughout the year and would, therefore, not be
available for community use.
Recommendations - Immediate Softball Needs
To meet the immediate softball needs of the community for the 1985 season, it is recommended
that modifications and improvements be made to the field at Jack Jouett Middle School so that
it can be used for softball league play. The addition of the Jack Jouett field to the City
league program will allow team registration to expand to a maximum of 192 City league teams.
If less than 192 teams register for the 1985 season, then the addition of the Jack Jouett
field will help to decrease the load slightly on existing softball facilities.
Proposed modifications and maintenance activities needed to bring the Jack Jouett field into
the City's softball league program, including responsibility for each, are outlined below:
County Responsibilities:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Complete infield preparation.
Add wing fences to both right and left field sidelines.
Repair and paint all bleachers.
Supervise mowing of field on regular basis.
Operate the concession stand.
368
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
City Responsibilities:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Hire and pay a field supervisor to attend all league games at the field.
To accomplish this, $7 will be added to each team sponsors fee.
Schedule all games and umpires, and conduct all other softball league
activities as done at other fields.
Drag and line the field for all games.
Operate the concession stand if the County chooses not to do so.
It is further recommended that the City continue to conduct all facets of league operation as
in the past. However, when obtaining information during this year's registration, the City
has requested data regarding residence and place of work for all non-City residents.
SECTION II ~- LONG-RANGE ATHLETIC NEEDS
The current population of Albemarle County and Charlottesville is approximately 100,000 with
almost 66 percent or 65,800 people living in the urban area. In the year 2002, the County-
City population is estimated to be 131,000 with 59 percent or 77 000 people living in the
urban area. '
With the population of the Albemarle County/Charlottesville area increasing over 30 percen~
in the next 18 years, it is expected that the demand for athletic facilities will increase
proportionately.
Athletic Needs Projections
There are currently approximately 16,500 total participants (figure based on registration for
league activities; tennis figures based on estimates provided by the Charlottesville Tennis
Patrons; participation by one individual in more than one sport is not reflected in number of
participants total) in organized athletic activities in Albemarle County and Charlottesville.
By 2002, due to the projected increase in population, participation in current programs
should increase to approximately 21,700 participants.
The largest increase in participation levels is expected in tennis, followed closely by-
softball, fall soccer and spring soccer.
There is currently a shortage of field space for many of the league sports in the urban and
Route 29 North areas. However, a surplus of field space is available in the rural areas.
Although the need for additional field space in the urban areas is most critical for the
softball leagues (see Section I), the shortage of practice fields is also a problem for
Little League Baseball, Junior League Baseball, T-Ball, Fall Youth Soccer, Youth Football and
Tennis. If Spring Soccer and Lacrosse leagues grow as is anticipated, field space for these
sports will become a problem as well.
As the population of Albemarle County and Charlottesville increases, the demand for field
space will intensify further. Since the majority of the population growth (73 percent) is
expected to occur in the designated growth areas of Albemarle County where shortages of field
space already exist, the demand for field space is anticipated to become a major problem for
the community.
Long-Range Policy Options
In an effort to address the current and long-range athletic needs of the Albemarle County/
Charlottesville area, the County'and City Parks and Recreation staffs have studied the
following options.
Maintain Existing Facilities
If no improvements are made to the existing fields or if no new fields are developed, the
City would probably be forced to limit participation in the softball league program. Without
the development of new fields, the community would also need to limit youth activities to
established sports and use of fields for new programs would have to be denied. In addition,
during peak hours when tennis courts are already filled to capacity, there will not be enough
court space to meet the demand for tennis courts in the urban area. This problem will be
compounded if the McIntire courts are lost due to the proposed extension of McIntire Road.
Upgrading Existing Facilities
The upgrading of existing facilities could serve as a feasible temporary solution to address
existing athletic needs, while a more permanent long-range solution is achieved. However,
due to the fact that the existing fields currently not being used for athletic sports are
located in the rural area of the County while the vast majority of population increase in the
community is expected in the urban area of the County and City, this would not appear to be a
feasible long-range solution.
Regional scheduling of adult athletic leagues is not a feasible solution as adult athletic
teams are composed of co-workers, friends, or determined by the level of skill of the partic-
ipants, and not by general area of residence. Depending on when a softball game is sched-
uled, (6:00, 6:45, 7:30, 8:15, 9:00 p.m.) a player may leave straight from work or go home
first. Thus, since the majority of the participants in softball are anticipated to live and
work in the urban area, upgrading the facilities in the rural area would do little to meet
the communities' overall athletic needs.
The lack of program space for youth athletics in the urban and Route 29 North area would not
be helped by upgrading existing facilities either. The fields in these areas are already
being used to capacity, regardless of the field's condition. Some of the Little League
367
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
practice space problems could be alleviated temporarily by moving the softball teams to the
available fields at Western Albemarle and using current softball fields for the Little League
program. However, by making this switch, you are solving one problem by creating another.
It should be noted that the lighting system at the Burley field needs to be upgraded just to
keep that field in operable conditions for youth sports.
Although upgrading existing facilities would do little to meet the long-range athletic needs
for the field sports, this is not so for tennis. Upgrading the existing facilities by
additional courts at Piedmont Virginia Community College, existing City parks and at County
school sites, would significantly help to meet the growing demand for tennis courts in the
community.
Development of New Facilities
The development of a new centrally located sports complex would help to meet the growing
demand for softball fields and save youth athletic fields in the community. Because of the
nature of the sport and its participants, a centrally located complex of fields in the urban
area would serve the need for softball field space where it exists. The development of such
a complex would also alleviate the negative impact on neighborhoods and community parks which
are now being "taken over" by softball during the spring and summer months.
Since membership on youth athletic teams is determined by neighborhoods or schools, a series
of smaller sports complexes could be dispersed throughout the community that best serves the
needs of the area's youth. Due to the age of the participants and limited practice times,
youth athletic fields do not have the adverse impacts on surrounding environs that the adult
sports do. Therefore, while the youth sports could take advantage of some of the field space
at a central complex for such events as league tournaments, the majority of their practice
and league games could take place on school or park fields.
While the development of a new central complex would be more appropriate for adult sports and
smaller dispersed fields would best serve the youth sports, tennis could benefit by the
development of both. It would be useful to locate a concentration of tennis courts at a site
convenient to a high percentage of the population as well as to disperse small numbers of
courts throughout the community.
Recommendations - Long Range Athletic Needs
To address the future needs of the Albemarle County/Charlottesville area, a combination of
the policy options discussed above should be implemented. No one option is sufficient to
meet the athletic needs of all sports in the community.
The recommendation of the County and City Parks and Recreation staffs is as follows:
Softball - The softball needs of the community can best be addressed by
the development of a central complex. The purchase of land and the
construction of a four field lighted complex, with additional park land
for expansion in the future, would be the first step in this process.
The development of such a complex would put the majority of the softball
load at the central complex and the remainder at the two fields at
Piedmont Virginia Community College.
Youth Sports - The space problems in the youth sports are in the urban
and Route 29 North areas. By converting the present softball fields to
youth athletic fields, the space problems for youth sports will be solved
as will the adverse impacts on neighborhoods and community parks. Future
facilities to serve the youth athletic needs in the urban area could be
developed as needed at the central complex. Additionally, the lighting
system at Burley field should be revamped and a small complex of youth
athletic fields developed in the Hotlymead area. If the County villages
of Ivy, Stony Point, North Garden and Scottsville grow as planned, there
may be a need to locate additional youth athletic fields at existing
schools or in the village area.
Tennis - The tennis needs of the community can be met by putting addi-
tional courts at Piedmont Virginia Community College and by continuing
the development of additional small clusters of courts at school sites
and existing parks as the need dictates. Courts also could be added at
the central complex in the future as urban area needs continue to
increase.
CONCLUSION
The County and City staffs have included in this report a recommended proposed location,
being the Mahanes Property (Site 6 in Appendix A). This is a well located site, separated
from residential neighborhoods and quite suitable for recreational development. If the Board
of Supervisors and City COuncil agree in concept with these joint staff recommendations,
property purchase negotiations and site plan development information can be prepared in
detail.
Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Albemarle County Parks and Recreation, was present. He
said the figure of $800,000 in the report for four athletic fields does not include site
acquisition. Nineteen different sites were reviewed. The number one site is located between
Route 20 North, and the Rivanna River directly across the River from Penn Park.
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Fisher said the concept of a centralized sports complex concerns him. The County
has no history of large groups of people congregating at one location for multiple night
activities. This type of thing has caused problems at Mclntire Park in the City. He feels
this type of site would attract a lot of problems, maintenance, security, and they might be
more of a problem than the actual cost. He does no~ see any evidence in the report that such
things as road access, parking and other problems have been thought through and evaluated.
Mr. Mullaney said the committee did think about security. Adult athletics draw a different
type of crowd.and for that reason, they have proposed that youth athletics be handled in
existing Charlottesville park locations. One thing that has helped at Mclntire Park is that
the police made it a priority to crack down on problems in the park. He thinks the County
would have cooperation with County police in that matter.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Board had felt a year ago that the existing facilities scattered
around the County should be evaluated. He asked if the basic problem with those facilities
is their location. Mr. Mullaney said that is true. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the facilities
were upgraded and made available, if the softball program would go out of existence, readjust
or grow. Mr. Mullaney said he thinks there would be a loss of the program. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if the $2,000,000 cost noted in the report is for convenience or for basic recreation.
Mr. Mullaney said aside from the softball question, there is not enough room in the urban
area for youth athletic programs to take place. Mr. Lindstrom asked if other facilities
could be used. Mr. Mullaney said they could on a temporary basis. However the population of
the County is growing in certain areas, and there just is no room for these events.
Mr. Fisher asked if four fields could be constructed, how long it would be before more
were needed. Mr. Mullaney said four fields would be just a first step in the program. The
four are needed now to meet current needs in the urban area and to take those programs from
McIntire and Washington Park so that those locations can be used for youth athletics.
Mrs. Cooke said there appear to be needs for both adult and youth. She feels that
scattered sites are the answer to the youth program because those sites must be convenient to
the youth in the area. Most youth cannot get to a central location to play, so she does not
feel a central location would be a big help in the program. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like
to be able to accommodate both goals without building a large complex. He feels that may
cause additional cost and problems in one location. If it is just for a matter of conve-
nience, he is not willing to support a sports complex._ Mr. Mullaney said there are fields
available to serve the current needs but most are located in the western part of the County
and not where the majority of the population is located. Mr. Lindstrom asked where they are
located in proximity to the Interstate. Mr. Mullaney said there are two at Western
Albemarle High School, two at Brownsville/Henley and one at Greenwood. However, only certain
leagues could be accommodated because of the size of the field. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the
fields could be expanded. Mr. Mullaney said he does not believe so. Mr. Fisher said the
School Board might have some other ideas about how their property is to be used. Adults
playing softball until 11:00 p.m. or midnight might be a problem. Mr. Way said the converse
of the problem is that there might be a number of problems spread out all over the County,
particularly at the school sites. Mrs. Cooke felt that would also put a strain on policing
of the areas. At least, if everything were in one spot, policing would be easier.
Mr. Fisher asked if there were more fields, if the leagues would have to play so late at
night. Mr. Mullaney said no. The fields also would not have to be lighted. In that way,
the leagues would not even need to play at night.
Mr. Way said he read the report with a great deal of interest and can tell that it
reflects a great deal of work. He agrees with a lot of the sentiments expressed. He is not
ready to decide on a lot of the issues involved. The Board is already committed to a number
of capital improvements projects, and he has not been able to determine whether or not this
is a higher priority than those projects already established. Mr. Mullaney said in the mind
of the County staff, the southern regional park is the highest priority at this time. The
report is just on what the committee felt is needed. The Board must prioritize those needs.
Mr. Lindstrom said he realizes that if a decision is made to have a central sports
complex, delay is costly. He is not sure that all the Board members agree on this idea.
There is something about this whole thing that bothers him. Mr. Way said he understands the
advantage of having a central complex is that it will not only meet the immediate needs of
the community, but there is also a lot of tournamen~ play which brings in people from other
areas. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were any possibility of recovering the initial
investment over a period of time through the fee structure. Mr. Mullaney said they might
recover the initial investment, but he doubts they will ever recover the annual operating
costs.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Board had received a memorandum from a citizen who points out
that the ASA is a money-making proposition. He does not support taking taxpayers' money to
facilitate an organization that is a money-making operation. Mr. Mullaney said he agrees.
If the County becomes involved, he feels some note should be taken of that operation to see
if any money can be made.
Mr. Fisher said the particular piece of land recommended would cost $150,000. The Board
must think about loss of tax revenues, police cars, all sorts of operating costs which would
be substantial, the continuing annual cost, and then get the cooperation of the City in this
joint venture. Mr. Lindstrom asked what the Planning staff said about the location. Mr.
Mullaney said they were not involved in site evaluation. Mr. Fisher said he would like for
the Planning staff to evaluate some of the sites from other perspectives. He wants to
provide for recreational needs, but does not know if this is the way to do it. In all the
time that this proposal has been discussed, he has not had one single softball player come to
him and ask for anything.
Mr. Lindstrom said he believes there is a strong constituency for recreational areas.
In the past the Board has talked more about family recreation and this is not family related.
Mr. Mullaney said that is one reason the committee did not feel it was wise to move the
existing softball program out into the County's rural areas. These are organized athletic
369
June 12, 1985 (Regular All Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
programs and not a family-oriented type of use. Mrs. Cooke said she does not believe that
the two types of recreational areas should be mixed at all. She said she is inclined to
support the concept of a central sports complex with the scattered sites being used for
development of youth athletic programs.
Mr. Fisher asked that the Planning staff evaluate the recommended site on a nonrecre-
ational basis and that the Parks Department make a report on what the continuing costs are
expected to be. If the existing parks were upgraded to last for an additional ten years,
what that cost would be as opposed to a new facility. Mr. Way asked if the $800,000 is to be
split between the County and the City. Mr. Mullaney said yes, and there will be some Federal
funding available. Mrs. Cooke asked what the City would do about using scattered sites in
the County. Mr. Mullaney said they probably would not participate in the cost of those
fields. Mrs. Cooke said she hoped this is not studied to death before coming to some con-
clusion as to what should be done. Mr. Fisher suggested that the staff draft a report taking
into consideration those concerns expressed during this discussion for a'discussion by the
Board at a later date.
Agenda Item No. 21. Central Virginia Transportation System.
Mrs. Betty Newell, Director of Support Services at the Central Virginia Health Center in
Buckingham County was present to make a verbal presentation on this matter. She said they
wanted the Board to know there will be a new public service coming through Albemarle County.
Central Virginia Transportation is scheduled to open July 8 and July 22 and will serve
Amelia, Cumberland, Buckingham and Fluvanna Counties, the Town of Farmville and will also
come into the City of Charlottesville. It is a joint project being operated by the Central
Virginia Community Health Center and the Central Piedmont Action Council which is the coun-
terpart of MACAA in Planning District 14. They will have fixed demand and feeder service
routes and a limited charter. They will use buses, vans, station wagons and a couple of four
wheel drive vehicles. They will be funded by the Health Center, Community Action, State
monies, agency contracts, passenger fares, and community donations. This transportation
system will only affect Albemarle County in that it will be travelling along Route 53, down
Route 250 East (Pantops Mountain), and then there will be some limited access to Albemarle
County along Route 20 South. They will stop at both hospitals and a central downtown
location and perhaps Barracks Road Shopping Center. Mrs. Newell said she is on the JAUNT
Board of Directors and has been working with Linda Wilson at JAUNT and Helen Poore at
Charlottesville Transit Service. They will not be duplicating any services now provided.
They do not propose to serve Albemarle County. It has taken three years in the planning
stages to get this system started.
Mr. Fisher asked if the primary purpose of this system is to transport clients from the
Central Virginia Health Center into the hospitals. Mrs. Newell said no, it is a general,
public transportation system. Mr. Fisher asked if they are prohibited from picking up
passengers in Albemarle County. Mrs. Newell said no, but they must have a contract to do
that with the local governing body. They do not want to duplicate any services being offered
by JAUNT. Mr. Fisher said that sometimes JAUNT only gets one-half of a van load in
Scottsville. He suggested that Mrs. Newell might talk to them to see if the two agencies
could better serve that area. Mrs. Newell said Central Virginia Transportation is applying
to the FCC for a certificate as a motor carrier because they are using the larger vehicles.
She only wanted to make this presentation so that the Board would know that the operation is
about to start.
Agenda Item No. 23. Presentation of Proposed 1985-90 Capital Improvements Program.
Agnor noted that this presentation today is of the Planning Commission's recommendation.
the end of the presentation, the Board will be asked to set a Work Session in order to go
into greater details on the Capital Improvements Program.
Mr.
Miss Katherine Imhoff said the Planning Commission approved the Capital Improvements
Program on May 28, 1985. She also made recommendations on the capital budget for 1985-86,
and priortized their recommendations.
Under Section One, Administration and Courts, there is only one project. That is
improvement to the old jailer's house. The Planning Commission supported the project.
Under Section Two for Education, there are seven projects listed, and the Planning
Commission supported all, but recommended that $10,000,000 be put into a contingency account
until receipt of the report of the School Facilities Planning Committee.
Under Section T~ree, Police, Fire, Rescue and Safety, there are two projects noted.
Under the project for the Volunteer Fire Department Advance Allocation, there is a difference
in the amount requested. The Planning Commission thought there had been a misunderstanding
on the part of the Jefferson Country Firefighters' Association. There was some confusion as
to whether the $1,000,000 was to be a revolving fund. That has since been clarified and it
will be a revolving fund. The Jefferson Country Firefighters' Association had asked for
additional funds past the first five years of the agreement, and the Planning Commission said
they felt this should remain as a five year agreement.
Under Section Four, Highways and Transportation, there is only one project listed. The
Hydraulic Road pathway similar to that on Georgetown Road. The Planning Commission recom-
mends that $5,000 be spent for engineering and location studies. The pedestrian obstacle
study is to be completed by July 1, and by that time, it should be known where the pathway
will be the most needed.
Under Section Five, Libraries, there are no requests at this time.
370
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Under Section 6, Miscellaneous, the total of the request has to do with the upgrading of
the County Computer System. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the entire
request.
Under Section Seven, Parks and Recreation, there were foUrteen projects requested. The
Planning Commission only recommended eleven, the difference being the number of handicapped
projects that are not required by the Federal Government. The Planning Commission supported
only those projects required by Federal law. The Planning Commission also changed the timing
around on a number of projects. The Parks Director had spread out the funding for a number
of the projects over the five year period. But the Planning Commission tends to move the
projects up in time because they felt there might be a cost savings to do more projects in
one year.
Under Section Eight, Utilities, there were eight projects requested, but only seven
supported by the Planning Commission. On the Camille Detention Basin, the County Engineer
had thought a number of residents would be helped by this project, but he has found that
those are rental Units owned all by one developer. He is, therefore, going to negotiate with
that developer during the next year on construction of that project. Miss Imhoff said that
concluded the presentation of the projects in which the County participates.
Mr. Fisher asked about funding for the Southern Regional Park. Mr. Agnor said the
Planning Commission had shifted the project further into the future, and the Parks Director
does not agree. He thinks the progress on the park is far enough along to have $200,000
allocated in the next fiscal year. The Planning Commission did not agree. Mr. Fisher asked
if the staff has other recommendations which are different from those of the Planning
Commission. Mr. Agnor said there are a couple. Mr. Lindstrom asked when the school
facilities report is due. Mr. Agnor said it is supposed to be here in late June. He is
going to recommend that there be an interim revision of the Capital Improvements Program when
the report is received, and there be another revision when the final report is received. Mr.
Lindstrom said he had hoped the Board would have a recommendation on the Meriwether Lewis/
Murray School situation before this program.~._revised. Mr. Agnor said this matter will be
set on the Board's agenda for July 10 for an afternoon Work Session.
Agenda Item No. 24.
Program).
Clarification of FY 85-86 Appropriation for JABA (Home Safety
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum from himself dated May 28, 1985:
"JABA (Jefferson Area Board for Aging) requested for FY 85-86 from
Albemarle County a total of $19,208 comprised of $6408 for operations,
$5078 for the Retired .Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP), and $6392 for a Home
Safety Program for older adults. Staff recommended a total of $11,486
which funded the $6408 for operations and the $5078 for RSVP.
At your budget work session, you discussed the RSVP recommendation and the
Home Safety Program request, and directed the staff to place $5000 for the
budget hearing in a Board contingency line item earmarked for the Home
Safety Program. For the budget hearing advertisement, JABA was proposed to
be funded for $11,486, and the Board's budget contained the $5000
contingency.
At your final meeting on the bUdget, the Home Safety Program was left in
your contingency allocation for determination of its use at a later date.
The JABA and RSVP allocation was not discussed.
The Home Safety Program, as you will recall, is aimed at improving the
safety of homes owned or rented by the frail elderly.
Gordon Walker of JABA and Gary Olivera of AHIP have met to determine the
most efficient method of providing these improvements. Since JABA will be
coordinating the repairs and improvements of these homes, they are request-
ing that the $5000 appropriated in the Board's contingency fund be trans-
ferred to JABA's account for implementation of the program beginning July
1, 1985. I am attaching a copy of Mr. Walker's letter dated May 14, 1985,
which further defines the program.
Additionally, clarification of the total funds appropriated to JABA in FY
85-86 is needed. It was not until after your final budget session that the
executive staff and Board Clerk discovered a difference of interpretation
on funding the RSVP program. The executive staff thought the Board
accepted staff's recommendation to fund the RSVP program. The Clerk
thought the $5000 contingency allocation for the Home Safety Program was in
lieu of the RSVP recommendation. The tapes of the discussion do not
clarify the two interpretations.
Please clarify the total funds approved for JABA as to whether or no~ they
included $5078 for the RSVP program.
Beyond the above clarification, staff recommends the transfer of $5000 for
the Home Safety Program, effective July 1, 1985 as follows:
From:
To:
1-1000-11010-999999, Board of Supervisors Contingency Fund
1-1000-91032-563200, Jefferson Area Board for Aging
372.
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Fisher said he thinks the $5,000 in the Contingency Fund was for the Home Safety
Program and had nothing at all to do with RSVP. He really does not remember what the Board
did with RSVP. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not think there was any confusion that the $5,000
was for the Home Safety Repair Program, and he frankly cannot remember about RSVP, either.
Mr. Fisher asked the recommendation of the staff. Mr. Agnor said it was to fund the RSVP
Program. Mr. Fisher asked if it was a first time funding request. Mr. Agnor said yes. The
recommendation came from the committee reviewing social programs. The Home Safety Program
was not recommended for funding by that committee, but the Board said it wanted to look at
the program so the amount was put into a Contingency Fund so that the Board could look at the
program again. Mr. Agnor said the budget advertised for the Jefferson Area Board for Aging
was $11,000, a combination of its operating budget request and the RSVP Program. Mr. Henley
said he thinks that was right except the Board set the $5,000 for the Home Safety Program
aside. Mr. Way said he thought the Board approved the RSVP Program, and Mr. Lindstrom felt
so strongly about the Home Safety Repair Program that a compromise was reached by putting the
$5,000 aside.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve a transfer of
$5,000 from the Board's contingency Fund to JABA. Roll was called, and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Henley, to clarify that it was the
intent of the Board to fund the RSVP Program in the amount of $5,078 for FY 85-86. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 25. Discussion: Future of Visitors Bureau.
Mr. Fisher said he had handed to the other Board members a copy of a letter he received
from Mr. Jerry Brown, President of the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Brown asked about appoint-
ment of a member to a committee to figure out the functions of the Visitors' Bureau and
funding for same. He requests that this person be a member of the Board of Supervisors. Mr.
Agnor said there would be seven members, three from the Visitors' Bureau Committee, one each
from the City, the County, the Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. Brown, who would serve as
coordinator.
Mr. Lindstrom said the County owns the building so it provides that resource although it
does get reimbursed from the Memorial Foundation. He doesn't care what they do, and he does
not care to pay any more funds into the operation. Because the Board of Supervisors imposes
the transient occupancy tax, he has always thought there should be some provision made for
the Visitors' Bureau. Beyond that, nothing. Mr. Fisher asked if he would agree to
appointing someone to the committee, but say that the Board should have two representatives
as the Chamber of Commerce does. Mr. Fisher said he might want to be on that committee. Mr.
Henley said Mr. Fisher certainly would get his vote. Mr. Fisher suggested that two Board
members be appointed.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion that the Board make that suggestion and if they approve two
people being appointed, that Mr. Fisher and Mr. Way serve in this capacity. That motion was
seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. Way clarified that if only one member of this Board is allowed
to serve, that should be Mr. Fisher. If two are to serve, he will also serve. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 26. Claims against the Dog Tax Fund.
Claim was received from Ms. Susan F. Wetsel for 12 rabbits killed by dogs on April 20,
1985. The Animal Control Officer had recommended that a total of $70.00 be paid for this
claim.
Claim was received from Mr. John T. Walker of North Garden for one ewe killed by dogs on
April 12, 1985, and one ewe killed by dogs on APril 25, 1985. The Animal Control Officer
had recommended that a total of $110.00 be paid for this claim.
Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept the recommenda-
tions of the Animal Control Officer, and to pay the amounts noted above. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 27. Appointments. There were no names offered for appointment.
372
June 12, 1985 (Regular Ail Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Agenda Item No. 28. Selection of Delegate for National Association of Counties Conven-
tion. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, that Mr. Fisher be appointed
as Albemarle County,s voting delegate at NACO's 50th Annual Conference. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 29.
Public.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and the
Mr. Ed Bain, Attorney, was present to speak on behalf of the Keswick Trust, He said
they had received a notice this week that the meeting to discuss the Keswick petition which
was scheduled for June 19th and has now been rescheduled for August 8th. That is a seven
week delay. He understands that Mr. Fisher will not be present next week, and Mr. Bowie is
not present this week. If there is any way possible for this petition to be heard in July,
he would like to request the Board's assistance. They are trying to find a way when all five
members of the Board can be present. (Mr. Lindstrom abstaining from this discussion.) Mr.
Bain said the applicant has made his presentation, and they do not expect to take another two
hours.
Mr. Fisher said he had asked that this petition be rescheduled but did not realize it
would be put so far off. He does not know what the Board can do, since they have cancelled
the first meeting in July. Mr. Way said he would have no objections to holding an extra
meeting. Mr. Henley said he also would be willing to hold an extra meeting because the Board
will not be meeting the first of July. Mr. Fisher then suggested that the Board hold an
extra meeting to hear this petition on June 26, 1985, and if that is not possible, that it be
done during the regular day meeting on July 10th. Motion to this effect was offered by Mrs.
Cooke, seconded by Mr. Henley. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Agnor had an answer to the question concerning the walkway
between the Courthouse and the County Office Building on Court Square. Mr. Agnor said the
staff had requested a price for making a change in that connector from the contractor, and
for details from the architect. The price received was much higher than expected. Some
information on this project should be available by next week,
Mr. Lindstrom referred to action taken earlier in the day concerning the problems at
Greenwood Chemical. He suggested the staff prepare a contingency plan in the event that all
avenues of investigation are exhausted in the near future. For this type of problem to exist
in watershed areas, is something the Board cannot "pass the buck on." He found the letter
from the EPA to be particularly distressing. Mr. St. John said this might be a proper
subject for an executive session. Mr. Lindstrom said it is not an unreasonable request, he
would like to have some report at next week's meeting.
Mr. Fisher noted that he had been invited to the 50th Anniversary celebration of the
Blue Ridge Parkway.
Mr. Agnor said the Board had asked for a report on the situation at Pancake Falls. The
Police Department issued 23 warnings, and made 12 arrests during the month of May, all for
parking violations. They have attempted to check the area twice on each shift. A problem
arises in that Mr. Powell, a property owner in the area, is giving people permission to use
his land, and those people invite their friends, so the people come in masses. A letter has
been sent to Mr. Powell asking that he limit his authorization to use the property, and that
he furnish the Police Department with the names of the people who have permission to use the
property.
Agenda Item No. 30. At 4:22 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr.
Way, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters and property acquisition.
Roll was called and the motion carried by 'the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher,~.Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Bowie.
The Board reconvened into open session at 5:30 P.M., and immediately adjourned.