1984-05-09May 9, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeving of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on May 9, 1984, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (arrived at 9:22 A.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:06 A.M.),
and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County
Attorney; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.~ Director of Planning and Community D~velopment.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order.
Mr. Fisher, at 9:05 A.M.
The meeting was called to order 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. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way,
to approve Item 4.1 and to accept the remaining informational items as presented. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Item No. 4.1. Statements of Expenses for the State Compensation Board for the Director
of Finance, Sheriff and Regional Jail, for the month of April, 1984, were approved as
presented.
Stem No. 4.2. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of March, 1984,
was presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
Mr. Bowie said that he feels this report in its present formav, is unintelligible.
He requested that some form of cover letter be provided with this report in the future, in
order for the Board to have a clearer understanding of these statistics.
Item No. 4.3(a). Letter from Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, dated Aprii 11
1984, re: Eligibility of Road Additions under Section 33.1-72.1 of the Code of Virginia.
Mr. Fisher referred to the above letter as follows:
"Section 33.1-72.1 of the Code of Virginia allows counties to add sub-
division streets to the state secondary system under certain very strict
conditions. One of these conditions is that any county using this section
of the Code must have adopted a local ordinance for the control of develop-
ment of subdivision streets to the necessary standards for acceptance in
the secondary system. This means that the county must not only have adopted
a subdivision ordinance, but it must also require that streets constructed
under this ordinance be to acceptable Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation standards. This requirement is all inclusive and does not
allow for any exclusion for large lot subdivisions or for private streets
built to a lesser standard and maintained through a private maintenance
agreement.
The Department has reviewed Albemarle County's ordinance and determined
that it permits creation of substandard private access easements and
restricted streets without providing for their ultimate construction to
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards. I am,
therefore, advising the county that streets serving subdivisions will
not longer-se eligible for addition to the system under Section 33.1-72.1
of the Code of Virginia. Streets serving subdivisions will be eligible
for addition under the Department's rural policy. This policy allows
subdivisions platted prior to November 15, 1959 to be added to the
secondary system provided they meet certain conditions concerning cost
participation, right-of-way and developer interest in the properties.
There are currently three roads in Albemarle County being considered for
addition to the system under Section 33.1-72.1. The continued eligibility
of these three sections is in question and I have requested a ruling con-
cerning their status. At such time as I receive further information on
these three pending addition requests, I will advise you further."
Mr. Tucker said after discussing the information contained'in this letter with Mr.
Roosevelt, it is believed that this ruling will definitely impact rural additions in the
future. Although this information has not been brought before the Planning Commission to
date, Mr. Tucker feels it may be necessary to review the private roads provisions in the
Subdivision Ordinance to determine if it is worth continuing in light of the policy change
as addressed in Mr. Roosevelt's letter. Referring to the three roads being considered for
rural additions (road in Lakeside Subdivision and two roads in the Woolen Mills area), Mr.
Tucker said Mr. Roosevelt will attempt to determine if those roads can be exempted from
this policy since the roads are already in the process of being taken into the system with
Rural Addition funds.
May 9, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Item No. 4.3(b). Letters from the Department of Highways and Transportation, dated
April 18, 1984 re: willingness to hold public hearing concerning proposed construction of
bridge and approaches in two areas: Route 729, Project 0729-002-211, C501, B648, over
Buck Island Creek, and Route 678, Project 0678-002-212, C501 B649, over the Mechums
River.
Item No. ~.3(c). Letser from Mr. Oscar K. Mabry, Department of Highways and Transportatiol
dated April 20, '1984, as follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated January 11, 1984, the following
addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved,
effective April 20, 1984.
ADDITION
LENGTH
GREENCROFT SUBDIVISION
Rodes Drive - From U.S. Route 250, 0.20 Mi. East of
Route 637 to 0.45 Mi. Southeast of Route 250 to
Cul-de-sac.
0.47 Mi."
Item No. 4.3(d). Letter from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, dated
April 27, 1984, re: Spring Lake Drive (Windrift Subdivision) Performance Bond, as follows:
"This is to advise that the above referenced street has performed
satisfactorily for a period of one year since its acceptance into the
State Secondary Road System. Based on this performance the $7,~00
performance guarantee can be cancelled."
Item No. 4.4. Notice from Rappahannock Electric Cooperative, dated April 23, 1984, re:
notice to be filed with the State Corporation Commission, June 1, 1984, under an expedited
rate filing procedure, asking for a ten percent increase in total revenues.
Item No. 4.5. Notice dated April 9, 1984, of State Corporation Commission public hearing
on June 5, 1984 for Appalachian Power Company to increase charges for installation of under-
ground_electric facilities.
Item No. 4.6. Letter dated May ~, 1984, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive,
re: Workmen's Compensation Insurance Report, as follows:
"In 1981, with increasing costs of Workmen's Compensation Insurance, you
authorized the staff's recommendation to join a self-insurance group of
local governments formed through the Virginia Municipal League. At that
time, there were savings in the premiums, and it was estimated that once
established, the localities would share in even lower costs through refunds
in premium income exceeding costs.
The group is now established, and we have been notified that the first
dividend, or refund, of $30,129 will be credited on the FY 84-85 premium.
The refund covers two fisaal years plus investment income of premiums, as
follows:
(1)+(2) (3)-(4)
(1) (2) = (3) (4) Net Cost
Claims Investment Total County to
Surplus Income Refund Premium County
FY 81-82
FY 82-'8'3
9,004 -0- $ 9,004 $ 62,483 $ 53,479
11,67~ $ 9,450 21,125 50,188 29,063
TOTALS
$20,679 $ 9,450 $30,129 $112,671 $ 82,542
FY 83-84 (actual)
FY 84-85 (estimated)
33,817
39,580
As you can see, the gross premiums (Column 4) have reduced significantly
since the first year, and the two-year refund of $30,129 will pay 76
percent of next year's estimated premium, leaving only $9,450 required to
pay the estimated costs in FY 84-85. It is expected that refundS will be
distributed each year now that the program is well established with adequate
reserves for payments of claims."
Mr. Bowie said that the memorandum indicates the estimated amount for FY 84-85, but does
mention the actual amount of money in the budget for this expense. Hr. Agnor said the
estimated figure of $39,580 is the amount of money in the FY 84-85 budget for this category.
Item No. 4.7. Report of the County Executive for the month of April, 1984 as required by
Virginia Code Section 15.1-602 was received.
Agenda Item No. 5.
(afternoon), 1984.
Approval of Minutes:
December 21, 1983 and February 8 and March 7
~Ma~ 9, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher had not read the minutes assigned to him and Mr. Henley was not present to
comment on the minutes of December 21, 1983; these' will be forwarded. Mr. Lindstrom had
read the minutes of February 8, 1984, pages 1 through 9, and noted the following comment by
Mr._St. John on page 573 which he felt needed clarification. Under discussion of the McDonald'
Site Plan appeal these words appear: "...if one adheres to proper procedure, this is
definitely so." Mr. Lindstrom said that while he understands what Mr. St. John meant by
this statement, he feels a clarification is necessary for the record. Mr. St. John read
through the minutes and agreed to change the statement to read, "...if one goes by the books,
this is the way I feel." Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of February 8, 1984, pages 10 through
19, and noted the following correction: on page 584, in the middle paragraph a statement
reading: "Mr. Fisher said, however, that the request is primarily for five industrial units
and one plant." This should be changed to read, "five residential units and one plant."
Mrs. Cooke had not finished reading the minutes of February 8, 1984, pages 20 through 28;
these will also be forwarded. Mr. Way had read the minutes of March 7 (afternoon), 1984 and
found no errors or omissions. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom,
to approve the minutes of March 7 (afternoon) 1984. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 6(a). Highway Matters. Public Hearing. Abandonment of an "old road"
right-of-way beginning at a point approximately 300 feet northeast of the intersection of
State Routes 606 and 641 on the south side of the right-of-way for Route 641 (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on April 24 and May 1, 1984).
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Guy F. Bell, the applicant, said he has requested
the Board to abandon this section of road so the right-of-way in the old road way will revert
back to both himself and Mrs. Myrtle Bohrer, the adjoining owner. Mr. Fisher asked if other
people use this right-of-way for any purpose and Mr. Bell answered no; the right-of-way is
not being used for anything. Mr. Fisher asked if any properties will be denied access to a
public road if this request is granted. Mr. Bell said no.
_Mr. Fisher then asked for comments from other interested parties. Mr. Maynard Elrod
explained that the proposed abandonment is a small strip of land running across the front of
Mr. Bell's property. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Elrod to indicate the section in question on the
plat. Mr. Elrod did so. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, if he
had any comments to make on behalf of the Highway Department. Mr. Roosevelt sai.d he had
spoken with Mr. Bell and after investigating Highway Department records, can find no evidence
that the section of road proposed for abandonment was ever part of the secondary system of
highways. Mr. Roosevelt feels the whole purpose of this ~procedure is to insure that if any
public right-of-way had ever existed, abandonment will void any mark on Mr. Bell's deed.
The Highway Department has no interest in this section being requested for abandonment.
Mrs. Myrtle Estes Bohrer said that the section of road being discussed was the right-
of-way of Route 641 before her father granted the present right-of-way to alleviate a very
dangerous cur~e along this road. This is just a small piece of property and she would be
glad to have this abandoned to give Mr. Bell use of this old roadbed. Mrs. Bohrer said that
most people are not even aware that this old road existed and she urged the Board to abandon
this section.
With no one else present to speak for or against this request, the public hearing was
closed at 9:20 A.M. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to
adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-157, an "old road"
right-of-way b~ginning at a point approximately 300 feet northeast of the
intersection of State Routes 606 and 641 on the south side of the right-
of-way for Route 641 proceeding N53o-44'W approximately 327 feet to a
point, then N3o-19'W approximately 170 feet as shown shaded in red on a
plat by B. Aubrey Huffman, Engineer, dated March, 1966, entitled "Plat
Sh~wing Lots A, B, & C, a Division of 13.703 Acres", is hereby abandoned
effective May 9, 1984.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
(Mr. Henley arrived at 9:22 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 6(b).
Garth Road for footrace.
Highway Matters.
Request from Mark Lorenzoni - Close section of
Mr. Mark Lorenzoni referred to his letter of April 19, 1984 as follows:
"I am writing to request permission to come before the Board on May 9,
to speak to you about the Charlottesville Track Club's Second Annual
Lady Enterprise Four Mile footrace on Garth road. The race will be held
on Saturday, September 1, 1984 and will start and finish at Foxfield.
We are asking to once again have the road closed to traffic from 8:00 A.M.
until 8:45 A.M.. The proceeds will go to the Children's Rehabilitation
Center at the University of Virginia.
Sincerely,
Mark Lorenzoni
1984 Lady Enterprise Director"
140
May 9, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Lorenzoni said that last year's race attracted over 400 women participants from all
over the state. It is anticipated that this year the figure will double as the comments
from last year's race were very positive. Mr. Lorenzoni said that last year there were over
125 men helping in various capacities to facilitate this footrace. These volunteers helped
direct traffic away from the closed section of road and were supplied with maps to indicate
the detours. Some drivers were inconvenienced by the detours, but the positive response
from last year.'s race definitely outweighs this slight inconvenience.
Mr. Lorenzoni said that prior to the race last year he and his wife contacted the
people living along this section of Garth Road notifying them that this section would be
closed. He received little, if any complaints.
Regarding last year's race, Mr. Bowie asked how much advanced media notice was given
concerning the closing of a section of Garth Road. Mr. Lorenzoni answered about three
months. In so far as notices to residents of the area, these individuals were notified
approximately three week prior to the day of the race. Mr. Fisher asked the date this race
is scheduled to be held this year. Mr. Lorenzoni answered Saturday, September 1.
Sheriff Bailey said he had helped with the race last year and had received numerous
calls from citizens who were angry about the detours and the closing of a section of Garth
Road. Sheriff Bailey suggested that the instigators of this race consider another location
this year; one that is not as heavily travelled as Garth Road.
Ms. Debbie Cobb, Director of the Shelter for Help in Emergency, said she lives in Ivy
and took part in the Lady Enterprise Footrace last year. She pointed out that the Lady
Enterprise Footrace is the largest of its kind in Virginia and will eventually be a major
attraction for individuals all oYer the state and the nation. Ms. Cobb urged the Board to
support this race saying the amount of time the road will be closed is only 45 minutes. S~e
noted that she herself has been inconvenienced for over two hours to accommodate Foxfield
events and she feels Mr. Lorenzoni is asking very little by comparison in support of women's
athletics. Ms. Cobb pointed out that this is a fund-raising event for two organizations;
the Children's Rehabilitation Center, and Virginian's Against Domestic Violence, of which
she is President. In closing, she asked the Board to support this important event, adding
that many women had commented that they would not participate if the location is changed as
the Garth Road route is one of the most beautiful areas in the country.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt said that the permit to close the road will be issued by the Department
of Highways and Transportation, but because the Board of Supervisors is the spokesman for-
the citizens of Albemarle, he suggested that this request be aired before the Board. Mr.
Roosevelt said he told Mr. Lorenzoni that the Board's reaction to this event will weigh vary
heavily on whether or not a permit is issued. Mr. Roosevelt then referred to a memorandum
from Sgt. B. T. Leonard of the State Police saying Mr. Lorenzoni had already addressed the
six areas of concern mentioned in the letter. Mr. Roosevelt said that the main area of
concern was the length of the detours. He supports what the Lorenzoni's are attempting to
do, but feels a responsibility toward the people; roads are there for vehicles, not runnerS.
Mr. Roosevelt said he is looking for suggestions from the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were any signs posted prior to the race last year at the
road block sites, notifying people that a section of road would be closed. Mr. Roosevelt
said no, the Highway Department did not require such signs. Mr. Lorenzoni interjected~that
he had done this anyway, although it was not a requirement. Mr. Roosevelt said that ~roads~-
are closed in Albemarle County in a number of locations for parades, etc. The closing of
roads is not unique, although the question to be asked is how much inconvenience is the
public experiencing with regard to the closing of this ~ection of Garth Road.
Mrs. Cooke said that she had received no comments at all regarding this race last-year.
She suggested that perhaps some of the negative feedback received by others resulted from
people happening upon this situation and having no knowledge of same beforehand. She feels
that since this is the second time this race will be held, individuals will be more aware
and thus more receptive to a slight inconvenience. Mrs. Cooke said that public awareness is
important, particularly in vie~ of the fact that two worthy organizations will benefit from
what she considers a 45 minute inconvenience to some citizens. She urged the organizers of
this race to do as much advanced publicity as they can in order to eliminate opposition and
feels with this done, she can certainly support the request.
Mr. Lindstrom feels this is a legitimate use of this section of road considering the
amount of time for the actual event. His concern, however, is directed toward the increasing
scope of this footrace. He pointed out that if there were 400 participants last year and
an estimated 800 for this year; perhaps it may be necessary to find another location should
this escalation continue. Mr. Lindstrom suggested placing substantial signs in appropriate
locations in order to create the appearance of officiality. Mr. Lindstrom said he can
support this request but is concerned about the possibility of expansion.
Mr. Fisher said he received a call from a citizen who felt that Foxfield creates a much
greater problem than this footrace in that Foxfleld is an all day event twice a year. At
this time, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to support the request
made by Mr. Mark Lorenzoni to close Garth Road to traffic from 8:00 A.M. to 8:45 A.M. on
September 1, 1984, for the Lady Enterprise Four Mile footrace, adding that it is now the
responsibility of the Highway Department to act on this request. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
NOne.
Agenda Item No. 6(c).
By-pass.
Highway Matters.
Report from MPO re:
Alternatives for Western
Ma~ular Da~ Meeti_~
Mr. Lindstrom said that he and Mrs. Cooke serve as the County's representatives on the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MP0). The primary issue before the MPO at this time is
the study of alternative routes relative to solving the traffic situation in the Route 29
North Corridor. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board deleted the proposal for a Western Route 29
North By-pass from the Charlottesville/Albemarle Transportation Study (CATS) and instead
supported studying an alternative route outside of the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna
River and one which would not disrupt any established neighborhoods. At that time, the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission suggested working through the MPO as Highway
Department funds might be available for such a study. It was agreed to do so, and some
other routes were proposed for study (indicated on a map available to the Board today, and
one which Mr. Tucker will describe in more detail later). At the time these routes were
proposed, the Highway Department advertised for public comments and suggestions. Shortly
before the end of this period, Mr. Setyendra Huja, City Planning Director, suggested several
alternatives which the City wanted to have studied simultaneously with any study of what is
being referred to as an eastern by-pass. The Technical Uommittee of the MPO approved those
routes for study although concern was expressed that the routes are contrary to the resolution
adopted by the Board in December 1982. This proposal then went to the MP0 Policy Committee,
for final approval; the committee debated this vigorously and at this time, the issue is
deadlocked. The City representatives refuse to support any study unless it includes an
arterial in the Georgetown/Hydraulic Roads area. This is clearly contrary to both points of
the~Board's resolution which and both Mr. Lindstrom and Mrs. Cooke felt they had no choice
but to support, resolution. The concern of the City representatives is that an eastern
route will empty traffic onto the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway and send that traffic to the
downtown area in volumes the City cannot handle. Mr. Lindstrom said that at this point, it
was agreed that he and Mrs. Cooke would return to the Board of Supervisors, and the City
representatives to City Council to determine if there was any other proposal desired to be
submitted to the MPO.
Mr. Tucker then indicated on the map the routes suggested by Mr. Huja adding that City
Council will review these routes later this same month. One of the routes, said Mr. Tucker,
is very similar to the original Western By-pass route, beginning on Route 29 North at the
Hilton Hotel just after crossing the South Fork Rivanna River, running along the SPCA Road,
then following the right-of-way on Rio Road, skirting away from Hydraulic Road, coming back
in to the Route 29/250 By-Pass at the Ivy Road interchange. Another alternative is to
follow that same route along the SPCA Road, Rio Road, Hydraulic Road to Georgetown Road,
then across the Barracks Road/Georgetown intersection to some area that meets minimum highway
department standards for another interchange on the Route 29/250 By-pass. The idea of this
route is that it could be extended further into University of Virginia property, tie into
Madison Road, and carry traffic into the University Grounds and the University Hall area.
This is what the Technical Committee suggested as the computer-model to be run by the Highway
Department and what City Council will be reviewing later this month.
Mr. Tucker said an eastern corridor, which staff and the MP0 had been directed to
review, is just a series of lines on which the public has been invited to comment. One of
the suggestions received is to use the Southern Railroad right-of-way for a road bed and
reroute the railroad itself. An alternative route will be studied which will exit somewhere
on Route 29 North near Proffit Road, tieing also into the extension of the Meadow Creek
Parkway in this area. One variation of this route is a connector from the Meadow Creek
Parkway, over to Route 250 East and then following that route to the interchange at Interstate
64. This connection is proposed to be located south of Penn Park. Another alternative is a
route which would begin near the bridge at the North Fork Rivanna River and follow basically
the same alignment as Route 649 [Proffit Road), improving Route 20 and by following this
same variation connect to Route 250 East. Mr. Tucker said there are several different
alternatives that can be studied.
Mr. Fisher said any proposal in the Georgetown/Hydraulic Roads area would disrupt a
significant number of houses and he simply does not see that this could be done. Mr. Lindstro~
said the argument is that the real problem on Route 29 North comes about because of the
traffic trying to reach the University of Virginia; an eastern by-pass will simply not
address this situation. This is what the modeling, already approved for funding, is designed
to determine. Mr. Lindstrom then asked Mrs. Wayne Harbaugh, Executive Director Planning
District Commission, how much time is available to act on this issue before the highway
monies are lost. Mrs. Harbaugh said that the $24,000 allocated, according to Federal Highway
Administration regulations, must be used before the first of July, 1984 or the money will
not be available for another year. Mrs. Harbaugh said that in order to do the various kinds
of testing necessary, the process must begin in June. Mr. Lindstrom explained that this is
not a commitment to build any road, but merely to see what the proposed route will do to
help the traffic on Route 29 North. This will not preclude the already planned solutions
for Route 29 North, i.e. six-laning, etc. Mr. Lindstrom said he questions studying something
that is clearly not going to be a reasonable alternative. It is already known what the
Western By-pass would accomplish; that data is already in. It would seem, according to Mr.
Lindstrom, that the unresolved question is an eastern by-pass and what it might accomplish.
To consider another western by-pass which is not as good as the original western by-pass
seems to be a waste of money. Mr. Bowie asked if things will be held up by arguing the
point. Mr. Lindstrom said that if this is postponed another month funding will be lost.
Mrs. Harbaugh said the City has scheduled a work session on these questions for May 23
and the next meeting of the MPO is May 31. It is hoped that by May 31 the Highway Department
will be directed to run the various models. No model of a western by-pass will be run
unless it is approved by the MPO. Mr. Fisher said the City appears to want people downtown,
enormous amounts of money are being spent on the City's Hotel/Convention Center and other
areas, yet it would seem the City does not want any roads to come into the City. Mr. Fisher
asked Mrs. Harbaugh to explain why the City seems to impede any attempt to bring traffic
into the City. Mrs. Harbaugh answered that the City has no objection to traffic coming to
the downtown area, however, it does not wish to have traffic go through the downtown area on
its way elsewhere. City Council feels that the Meadow Creek Parkway and roads through the
center of town will encourage traffic heading west to use Fifth Street Extended out to 1-64
and this is not what the City wants. However, if traffic can be brought into the City and
dispersed downtown, this is in keeping with the City's planning process. Mrs. Harbaugh said
!42
May 9, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
this issue is tied up with development that might occur on Ridge Street; the City does not
want Ridge Street to become a thoroughfare dividing Charlottesville. Mr. Lindstrom pointed
out that there.will be two major four-lane highways joining either end of Ridge Street.
Mrs. Harbaugh said this is a real concern and a concern that is basically shared by every
city in the country; there is no desire to have a 'highway divide a city. Mrs. Harbaugh said
she is sure this is a concern of the County also.
Mrs. Cooke said that both she and Mr. Lindstrom need some direction and reinforcement
relative to the statements which they have made to the Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Mr. Fisher asked if he understands that the only way to have an eastern by-pass study done
is by agreeing to waste money on a restudy of a western by-pass. Mr. Lindstrom said actually
an agreement must be made to waste money studying a route worse than the original western
by-pass proposal. Mr. Lindstrom said any willingness to support a study must be carefully
phrased. Mrs. Cooke said that if the Board is committed to its position that it will not
allow a major thoroughfare or western by-pass to go across the South Fork Rivanna River
watershed or disrupt established neighborhoods, then she sees no need to spend money on this
study.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that there is a certain amount of pressure being brought by
communities in Virginia lying to the south of Albemarle; counties who were dissatisfied by
the decision to locate Interstate 64 through Charlottesville/Albemarle instead of Lynchburg.~
These individuals have formed a group and held a meeting which Mr. Lindstrom attended. The.
Highway Department has also taken aerial photographs of a proposed north/south corridor.
However, Mr. Lindstrom said this corridor is no longer being studied with respect to the
building of an interstate route, but rather with respect to general improvement of the
north/south corridor through the State. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that any decision the
Board reaches in the way of a Route 29 North By-pass location is likely to become a major
part of that corridor. Mr. Lindstrom feels that unless Albemarle County solves its own
problems, these problems may be solved at some future date by someone else. He feels it is
important that the County resolve its own problems.
Mr. Bowie asked if he understands the situation correctly in that the City will not
support a study unless the study includes a new Route 29 North western route and the County
does not wish to restudy the route. Mr. Lindstrom responded that City Council has never
really given its members of the MPO any directions so there is no way of knowing what their
position really is.
Mr. Roosevelt said to build the roads alre.ady approved in the Charlottesville/Albemarle
Transportation Study (CATS) without a western by-pass, is going to take more money than this
area will see for all highway improvements between now and the year 2000. Alternatives to
building more roads need to be considered. One alternative is to put more people in each
individual car, or use alternative forms of transportation. There are two railroads serving
this area, but no one will use the railroads or increase the number of individuals in each
car unless forced to do so. Mr. Roosevelt said he does not think this study will find an
alternative which will decrease traffic on Route 29 North. With the criteria this Board has
set, continued Mr. Roosevelt, there simply is no corridor which will be available. Mr.
Roosevelt said he feels that nothing will decrease the traffic on Route 29 unless something
is done to force people to put more bodies into each automobile or to use other forms of
transportation. Mr. Lindstrom said the MPO is comprised not only of representatives from
the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle, but also the University of Virginia.
He said one of the key elements in the solution to this problem is the University. Mr.
Lindstrom suggested that if the University were willing to cooperate to the extent of imposing
mandatory policies on their personnel, he would be willing to support the expenditure of
county funds' to assist the University in this process. He suggested that the University
consider placing such a high parking fee on personnel who use the Route 29 North corridor
for driving to and from work that parking at the University would be almost prohibitive.
Another possibility would be to have the County, the City, and the University pool their
efforts to provide a meaningful mass transportation system with "park and ride" areas placed
at key locations. In this way, people going to the University would have to use that trans-
portation system or spend exhorbitant amounts of money for the privilege of parking at the.
University. This, said Mr. Lindstrom, would not only eliminate the need for the six-laning
of Route 29 North, but also negate the need for the other proposals as well. Mr. Lindstrom
said that while mass transportation is enormously expensive, it would be less expensive in
terms of the resources being expended. He would like to see the County join with the City
in asking the University to seriously consider this proposal. Mr. Lindstrom stated his
willingness to expend County funds in support of this plan.
Mr. Fisher said that as an employee of the University of Virginia he could not vote on
Mr. Lindstrom's proposal. However, to bring the discussion back to the issue, since Mr.
Roosevelt said there will not be any money to begin construction of any roads for 15 to 20
years, he does not think the County should approve wasting money on the proposed study. He
suggested that other alternative routes be considered. Mr. Way said he agrees with the
Board's past position concerning the Western By-pass study and he sees no reason to spend
money and time on a study which the Board has already determined is useless.
Mr. Roosevelt said he did not intend for the Board to reject the idea of a study. He
feels there is some value in making the study in that it would show the public what such a
project would cost and what improvements would be accomplished. At the present time, all
he feels would be accomplished is to show that there will be 65,000 cars a day on a six-lane
Route 29 North parking lot in the year 2000. He does not think the Board wants to spend
$100 million to end up with a problem that is half again as bad as the problem which now
exists. Mr. Fisher said he did not mean that this study should never be done, but he does
not think the County should waste money studying six different routes when there is no real
consensus about what to do. Mr. Roosevelt said his suggeston was that consideration be
given to some alternative other than building roads. Mr. Fisher feels it will not hurt
anything to postpone this study for another year until some agreement can be reached and the
focus as to what will be studied narrowed considerably.
1
May 9, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
143
Mr. Lindstrom said that staff came up with a proposal which meets the Board's criteria
and which the Highway Department felt was worth reviewing; i.e., a route which links the
Pantops Mountain area on Route 250 East with the Hollymead area off of Route 29 North. He
asked that the Board support the study of this route, and then offered motion to adopt the
following resolution to study an eastern by-pass to Route 29 North and as part of this
resolution that the County work with the City to try and find alternatives to building roads
in order to solve the traffic problem. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie who commented
that more roads tend to generate more traffic, though he will support the study. Mr. Henley
said he is not sure that he supported the original resolution, but if he did, it was only as
a means of getting an eastern proposal studied.
WHEREAS, by Resolution dated December 15, 1982, the Board of Supervisors
expressed its desire that no alternative to a Western by-pass be studied
which would impact or intrude upon any public drinking water impoundment
watershed located in Albemarle County, or impact or intrude upon any existing
neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, studies recently suggested by the City of Charlottesville
concerning a Western by-pass are diametrically opposed to the resolution
adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 15, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors maintains its interest in alleviating
traffic congestion along the Route 29 North Corridor and continues to support
an Eastern by-pass study connecting the Route 29 North Corridor with the
Pantops area providing such study is consistent with the Board's concern for
the protection of public drinking water supplies and the protection of existing
neighborhoods;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the original position taken by said Board relative
to a Western by-pass study is hereby upheld; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that any study supported by the Board of Supervisors
be that of an Eastern by-pass connecting the Route 29 North Corridor with
the Pantops area; and
FURTHER, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors requests that the
City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia join in an attempt
to consider alternatives to the building of roads as a means of alleviating
traffic congestion created by commuter traffic in the 29 North Corridor.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: None.
Agenda Item No. 6(d).
Construction of Route 743.
Highway Matters.
Resolution re:
Changes in Relocation and
Mr. Agnor said the Board is being asked to adopt a resolution to abandon a portion of
Lambs Road (Route 657) at the corner of Albemarle High School property. This section was
relocated as a result of the construction on Hydraulic Road and the old right of way will
become a part of the High School property. Only the Albemarle County school property is
involved in this matter. ( Mr. Henley left at 10:27 A.M.) Mr. Agnor said that as he under-
stands the law, abandonment as a result of new construction can be done without a public
hearing. Mr. Lindstrom said this road is in his district and he is very familiar with the
circumstances, adding that no one will object to its abandonment. Mr. Lindstrom then offered
motion to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, secondary Route 743 from its intersection with Route 29 to a
point 2.085 miles north of Route 29 as shown on plans for Project 0743-002-153,
C501 a distance of 2.085 miles has been constructed and approved by the State
Highway Commissioner; and
WHEREAS, certain other resultant changes in the location of secondary
Route 657 have taken place in conjunction with the aforementioned project,
which changes.in location serves the same citizens as the road so altered;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the portion of secondary Route 657 shown in brown
(section 6) on the sketch titled "Changes in Secondary System Due to Relo-
cation and Construction on Route 743, Project 0743-002-153, C501" dated at
Richmond, Virginia, April 5, 1984, a total of 0.04 miles be, and hereby is,
added to the secondary system of state highways pursuant to Section 33.1-229
of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended;
AND FURTHER RESOLVED, that the sections of old location of secondary
Route 657 shown in green (section 3) a distance of 0.07 miles be, and the
same hereby is, abandoned as a public road pursuant to Section 33.1-155 of
the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke.
following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Henley (returned at 10:30 A.M.)
ABSENT: None.
May_9, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 6(e).
presented for discussion.
Other Highway Matters.
There were no other highway matters
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing. Request to consider an amendment to the project
areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include portions of properties on Tax Map
59, Parcels 23B, 23B1, and 23C which are outside of the South Fork Rivanna watershed on
Route 250 West for sewer service only (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 24 and May 1
1984). ,
Mr. Tucker briefly discussed the history relative to this proposal. He said that on
March 14, 1984 a request was made by Messrs. Sieg, Kirtley and Javor to amend the project
areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority to permit sewer service along Route 250 West,
specifically to properties owned by the applicants. At the March 14 meeting, staff presenved
the general policy for access to utilities, that being to limit utility services in those
areas located outside of the County's designated growth areas and/or those areas located
within a watershed or drinking water impoundment. Mr. Tucker said that the Board deferred
action on this matter until April 11, 1984 in order for staff to do a more definitive study
to determine which portions of these particular properties drain into a watershed other than
the South Fork Rivanna and if any portions of the properties can be served by gravity feed
sewer. At the April 11 meeting, staff presented a map prepared by the Engineering Department
indicating the portions of the properties in question which can be served by gravity flow
and which drain away from the South Fork Rivanna Watershed. Mr. Tucker then referred to the
map noting the areas marked in red which flow toward Moores Creek and outside of the South
Fork watershed, and the areas in blue which should remain in the water only area as it
presently exists.
Mr. Tucker then referred to a letter from the League of Women Voters, dated March 16,
1984 as follows:
"The Charlottesville/Albemarle League of Women Voters recommends
that this request be denied. The 1983 Albemarle Comprehensive Plan
states on page 244:
'It is strongly recommended that access to the interceptor
between...Crozet and the urban area boundary be either prohibited
or severely restricted...Without this prohibition or restriction,
scattered strip development can result along the envire Western
250 corridor and result in unplanned linear development. This
type of development is not desired by the county.'
Allowing these applicants to connect would seriously weaken the Board's
ability to prohibit future requests for connections to other portions of
the interceptor.
So great was the public concern about development on U. S. 250, at the
1973 public hearing for the new wastewater treatment plant, that funding
for the interceptor was removed from the grant in order to allow time for
further study of the impact of such a line. That study by Ecosciences
(1974-75), as well as several related studies completed more recently,
warned that there would be strong pressures in future years to connect to
the entire length of the line. Yielding to these pressures would destroy
the integrity of the area, eliminate the greenbelt [recommended in the
Comprehensive Plan) that separates the urban area from Ivy, and have a
serious detrimental effect on U. S. 250 as a designated scenic highway.
We believe there may be conditions that would necessitate some buildings
being allowed to tap in if they existed prior to start of construction of
Phase II of the Crozet interceptor. This permission would preclude any
new development on such properties. We urge the Board of Supervisors to
adopt and maintain a consistent policy concerning such tap-ins."
Mr. Tucker then referred to a letter from Mr. Henry Javor, dated March 29, 1984 which
the Board did not have at the April 11, 1984 meeting:
"Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to express my thoughts before the
Board of Supervisors at the March 14, 1984 meeting.
My request was to have the Board of Supervisors consider an amendment to the
Service Authority Jurisdictional Boundary Map to allow a sewer hookup to the
Crozet Sewer Interceptor line from my property located on Route 250 West
opposite the Boar's Head and Ednam Forest. At present only water hookup is
permitted.
With this letter I should like to further clarify the hardship this would work
without the public sewer as well as the logic behind this request:
The property consisting of 5.03 acres (Samuel Miller Magisterial
District, Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B) is zoned Light Industrial.
A site plan was submitted to the Planning Commission and approved on
September 16, 1981 by the Board of Supervisors (Note: the Board had
appealed the decision of the Planning Commission.) with several conditions.
Building plans were obtained and site work approved with Highway
Department approval for access road from Route 250 West. Ail this
expired around September of 1983.
May_~, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Condition (o) 'Public Sewerage to be available for all units' was a
real stumbling block for me as it was economically unfeasible to
reach the then existing public sewer line at Ednam Forest, about
2,000 feet East on Route 250 West.
Condition (o) in the approved site plan as specified by the Board of
Supervisors created a hardship to tie into a public sewer line which
was not a reasonable distance to my building site. The Planning
Commission had originally approved my site plan after careful and
thorough checking by the Health Department for a septic system and
drainfields.
The Board of Supervisors had placed the condition on the approval of
the site plan when it was determined that the topography showed the
five acre site in question was only partially in the Rivanna Jurisdic-
tional Area (Note: Actually the Albemarle County Service Authority
projects areas - not Rivanna Authority) but that a good deal of the
flow was away from the Rivanna Watershed.
The n'e~Cr'mze~t Sewer Interceptor Line now being installed runs directly
parallel to my five acre parcel and with a gravity flow line of 125
feet under Route 250 West it would be possible to tie into Manhole 27
as shown on the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Drawing dated
January 1983.
I have owned this five acre parcel for twelve years and have made numerous attempts
to develop it without detriment to the community, without success.
It is therefore respectfully requested of the Board of Supervisors that in
view of the commercial nature of this site and the partial drainage out of
the Rivanna Watershed and the fact that the Board of Supervisors had previously
approved my Site Plan with the condition that public sewer be made available,
that the Board of Supervisors can in good conscience amend the jurisdictional
boundary map and make public sewer available for the five acre site at the
April 11, 1984 meeting.
Sincerely yours,
Henry J. Javor"
At 10:34 A.M.., the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Paul Peatross, representing Mr. Henry Javor, noted that Mr. Javor owns the property
marked as Parcel 23(B) on the map, and he referred to the letter Mr. Javor had written (set
out above) on March 29, 1984. Mr. ?eatross basically repeated the history of this request
as set out in said letter. He pointed out that the Crozet Interceptor will soon be available
and is located only 50 yards from Mr. Javor's property line, however Mr. Javor cannot connect
to this interceptor unless his property lies within the service (jurisdictional) areas of
the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Fisher commented that approval of the original
site plan to which Mr. Peatross refers has expired. Mr. Peatross said that .is true, but the
original site plan has been resubmitted to the Planning Commission for approval and has been
deferred pending action by the Board of Supervisors today.
Mr. ?eatross pointed to the map displayed on the board and Said the areas shown in red
which have been noted as those areas which may be served were not determined an actual
s~rvey, but rather are an approximation made by the County Engineer, Mr. Maynard Elrod, as
to where the ridgeline between the Moores Creek watershed and the South Fork Rivanna River
watershed is located and where the flow starts relative to the three properties. Both the
Kirtiey and the Sieg properties have been graded; this is why a larger area on those properties
is shown in the natural grade, whereas Mr. Javor's property has never been graded. The
front portion of Mr. Javor's property does in fact flow naturally towards Moores Creek. Mr.
?eatross said Mr. Javor has resubmitted his original site plan and same is pending Planning
Commission review; however, the buildings on the site plan are located behind the Moores
Creek ridgeline so will actually lie in the South Fork Rivanna. River watershed. He then
showed the Board a copy of the site plan and said Mr. Javor is requesting that in addition
to the area shown in red, a sufficient portion of his lot be included in the service areas
so he can connect to the Moores Creek line. Mr. Peatross then noted the survey made by Mr.
R. O. Snow, Surveyor, and referred to the comments made by Mr. Snow on the site plan as
follows:
"The floor elevation shown for all proposed buildings on this site plan
indicate that they can be serYed by sanitary sewer hooked to Manhole 27
by. gravity flow."
Therefore, said Mr. Peatross, without any grading of Mr. Javor's property, buildings located
on the property can be gravity fed to Manhole 27. Mr. Peatross said Mr. Javor requested an
amendment so that his property can be connected to public sewerage service. This was the
Board's desire in 1981, and is Mr. Javor's desire now that the Crozet Interceptor is easily
accessible to his property. Mr. ?eatross concluded that while the portion of property on
which Mr. Javor proposes to locate the buildings is not in the area outlined in red on the
map, the area where the buildings will be located will in fact drain into the interceptor by
gra¥ity flow without any. grading of the property.
Mr. Kirtley then addressed the Board saying this is the third time he has approached
the Board concerning his request. Mr. Kirtley owns Parcel 23(B)1 indicated on the map, and
requests this amendment in order to be able to connect this property to the Crozet Interceptor
line. He stated that he has been in this location for 15 years; prior to that time the land
was graded to accommodate the building which is located near the railroad track. He is not
certain where the flow area begins and ends but it appears that the area in red is definitely
outside of the Rivanna River flow area. Mr. Kirtley said he would like for the Board to allow
the property indicated in red to connect to the public sewer line.
May' 9, 1984 ~Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Henley asked Mr. Elrod if some slight~grading on the Javor property would carry the
runoff out of the Rivanna watershed. Mr. Elrod said that this could be done but it would
require more than a slight amount of grading.
With no further comments for or against this amendment, the public hearing was closed at
10:45 A.M.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Tucker what uses could be located on property zoned Light
Industrial when no public sewerage facilities are available. Mr. Tucker responded that the
Health Department was willing to approve the site plan in 1981 with a Septic system for the
type of light industrial use Mr. Javor proposed at that time. Mr. Lindstrom said one of the
problems in 1981 was that the Board could not determine how many, or what type of, uses were
proposed. This determination was necessary to know whether a septic system or public sewer
was more appropriate. Mr. Tucker said this would be the question again.
Mr. Fisher said even if sewer service is allowed for str~ctures where the sewage flows
out of the watershed, there is still the runoff from roofs and parking areas that will drain
into the Rivanna River watershed. Mr. Fisher asked if there are any other properties similarly
situated where a similar argument could be made for service. Mr. Tucker said this i~ difficult
to answer without looking at each individual property in that corridor.~
Mr. Elrod said that over the years there have been similar situations in other parts of
the County. Mr. Fisher said that if this request is approved, sewage disposal will'not be a
problem to the South Fork Reservoir, but all the surface water would still drain to the
reservoir. Mr. Elrod said the surface drainage would still go toward the reservoir; a
detention basin would need to be constructed to control the phosphorous. Mr. Fisher said
approval will allow a higher density of development on the property meaning more surface water
will run into the reservoir watershed. He commented that he almost wished Mr. Javor had had
the foresight to grade the property like his neighbors had done. Mr. Henley said this is one
of the unique things about this situation. Grading was done to the properties on both sides
of Mr. Javor's property, and, in the recent past, the Board required the property be hooked
to public sewage facilities before development~of same. Mr. Henley said he has no trouble
supporting Mr. Javor's request as he feels the uniqueness of the situation would prevent the
setting of a precedent.
Mr. Elrod said he understands that Mr. Javor is willing to have his site drain toward
the Moores Creek basin and suggested that Mr. Javor's site plan can be conditioned upon the
drainage being routed out of the Rivanna basin. Mr. Fisher said he feels that would be
preferable to having the drainage follow its natural flow. Mr. Peatross commented that
rerouting the drainage would involve substantial grading and so there is a substantial cost
factor involved. Mr. Peatross pointed out that if the original site plan had been approved
using a septic system, the surface water would have run toward the Rivanna watershed anyway,
however that site plan was conditioned on obtaining public sewer. Mr. Javor is now saying
he is close to the public, sewer and can connect to same by gravity flow which alleviates the
need for any grading. Mr. Peatross commented that now the Board is suggesting that all
runoff also be directed away from the Rivanna basin.
Mr. Fisher pointed out that the LI zoning was left on Mr. Javor's property when the
zoning map was readopted in 1980 even though the property, is not in the urban area, is
located on a scenic highway, and was not developed at the time. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out
that this zoning was left consistent with the Board's policy not to rezone property on which
there was an existing, approved site plan. Mr. Henley asked Mr. Elrod which solution he
felt would be best; have the runoff drain toward Ivy Creek or have the runoff drain toward
Route 250 West. Mr. Elrod said it would be better to have the runoff directed toward Route 250
Mr. Lindstrom said he felt this would be preferable to regrading the entire tract and he
suggested providing some type of collection system in order to-address the runoff problem. ~
Mr. Henley suggested placing a collection system at the back of the property. Mr. Fisher said
the Board has discouraged people from installing sewage systems in the watershed which would~~
require pumping because of the potential failure of pumps.. However, if the Board's action~
can be worded in such a way as to allow all of the properties noted in red on the map to use
the amount of 1.and which can be drained by gravity away from the Rivanna watershed, this wilI~
solve the problems. Mr. Henley said he did not prefer pumping from the back of Mr. Javor's
property, but he felt there may be room fora sediment basin in the area if the runoff cannot
be directed toward Route 250 West. Mr. Fisher said he recalls that the back portion of the
property at the railroad track presents a problem as it is very steep and he feels it would
be difficult to place any facility in that location. Mrs. Cooke asked what methods are
available for handling the runoff at the back portion.of this property. Mr. Elrod said the
original site plan called for placement of a detention basin at the back of this property,
adding that there is room to place such a basin. He stated, however, that this type of basin
would only remove a small percentage of phosphorous.
Mr. Bowie said sewage disposal is one problem and runoff control is a different problem.
Mr. Bowie said that because of the unique location of Mr. Javor's property and the fact that
it is zoned Light Industrial, he would rather support the request and allow the property to
be connected by gravity flow to the sewer. Mr. Bowie said he would prefer that the runoff
problems be addressed during the site development process since he feels this would be
preferable to establishing a precedent of allowing lots to be graded so the runoff flows in
the appropriate direction. Mr. Henley said he does not feel phosphorus can be that much of
a problem as long as the soil does not wash away. Mr. Elrod said that the phosphorus which
falls with the rain will run off the parking area and roof. Mr. Fisher noted that the site
plan filed for approval covers almost the entire amount of acreage owned by Mr. Javor. Mr.
Henley said there may not be enough room to locate such a facility.
Mr. Lindstrom agreed that the runoff problem can be addressed during the site plan review
process. He feels this is a special situation which the Board itself has created. Mr.
Lindstrom said he did not support, in 1980, the concept of leaving zoning on properties just
because there were approved site plans at that time, but the other ~Board members did not agree,
He would like to accommodate the needs of the developer in a way that will. not create problems~
in the future in terms of a precedent. Mr. Lindstrom said he is inclined to feel that Mr.
Bowie is right and he wishes to approve the request as presented by Mr. Peatross, leaving it ~
to the Planning Commission to address the issue of runoff at site plan review stage. He does~
not like the idea of regrading the property. Mr. Lindstrom said this concept makes him uneasy~
and he is also concerned about the adequacy of the Runoff Control Ordinance in dealing with
this site, but he does view this request as an unusual Situation.
Ma2~, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher suggested adopting a motion to include lots 23(C), 23(B) and 23(B)1 for those
portions of the lots which can be served with gravity fed sewer service, but not to encourage
situations where a pumping station would have to be built. Mr. Lindstrom asked if such a
motion would cover Mr. Javor's situation. Mr. Lindstrom asked what the words "those portions
of the lots" means. Does it mean after the building is built, or absent any improvements,
they can get gravity sewer? Mr. Javor cannot get gravity sewer service until after the
building is built according to his surveyor. Mr. Fisher asked if this wording sounds like a
reasonable way to deal with the request. Mr. St. John said it sounds reasonable to him and
as long as the sewer Mr. Javor installs in the building will flow toward Route 250 West by
gravity, the Board would have little interest in whether this is on the ground floor or the
second floor. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there would ever be a problem by the Board saying "lot"
and not "building"? Also, if mr. Javor has to build the building at an elevation where he
can get gravity sewer service, is he complying with the amendment? Mr. St. John said the
Planning Commission may wonder and maybe it should be clarified that the Board is not requiring
that the surface of the lot flow by gravity to Route 250, but that whatever sewer is installed
will flow toward Route 250 West. Mr. St. John said there is also a semantic problem which
needs clarification. "Pumping station" as used by the County means a sewer pump and a force
main which are dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority. There are properties
which use a private sewer lift which is not a public pumping station. As Mr. St. John under-
stands the Board's desire, not only is a public sewer pumping station undesirable, but the
Board does not want the buildings constructed on these lots to use a private sewer lift either.
Mr. Fisher said that is correct, the flow must be by gravity.
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to amend the
Albemarle County Service Authority project areas map to include those portions of the propertiel
on Tax Map 59, parcels 23C, 23B and 23(B)1 for sewer service, as long as the sewer connection
is ~otally gravity fed. Mr. Fisher asked if it is the intent of the motion that septic systems
will hereby be excluded on these lots. Mr. Bowie said that is an entirely different subject
which the Board has not even discussed. Mr. Lindstrom stated for the record that it is the
Board's intent that this connection not be accomplished by grading the lot. In addition,
Mr. Lindstrom said it is the Board's understanding that Mr. Javor may not be able to obtain
gravity feed from the ground's surface, but when constructed, the building will have gravity
feed. Mr. Bowie said this is understood, but he does not want to preclude a little grading
during site development to force the water toward the appropriate direction. Mr. Bowie said
he prefers to approve the sewer as long as it is gravity fed and leave the runoff issue for
the site plan process. Mr. Henley felt it should be stated that this is a unique situation
considering the past history of this property and there are properties on each side which
are already developed. Mr. Henley feels this may help with properties in similar situations
as referred to by Mr. Elrod earlier. Roll was then called on the foregoing~motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Not Docketed. Mr. Agnor then introduced five students from the senior class of Albemarle
High School who are participating in 4-H Youth In Government Day sponsored by the VPI-SU
~xtension Service: April Burns (Charlottesville District), Lisa James (Scottsville District),
Whitney Perkins (Rivanna District), Jan Beasley (Charlottesville District), and Jim Bovine
(White Hall District). Mr. Fisher welcomed the students and asked them to join the Board
for lunch.
Agenda Item No. 8. Report - Littering. Mr. Agnor introduced Mr. Chuck Lebo, a director
of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Clean Community Commission, and Mr. Chick Thompson, President
of its Board of Directors. Mr. Agnor said this item was placed on the agenda due to recent
discussions with the Resident Highway Engineer about littering along the highways, and also
due to a letter from Col. Thomas Foote addressed to Mr. Henley suggesting several methods of
dealing with the problem.
Mr. Lebo said the CAC3 began about six years ago under the auspices of the state-wide
group called the Virginia Division of Litter Control from which his organization receives
direction and grant funds each year. CAC3 is also a member of the clean community system, a
program established by the "Keep America Beautiful" group. This is a City/County group with
a positive approach to the litter problem focusing on education. CAC3 has developed slide
shows and given talks to various schools, sponsored essay programs, and poster contests to
name a few. Mr. Lebo stated that the greatest accomplishment of CAC3 thus far has been the
Recycling Center located at the northern end of the County Office Building parking lot. CAC3
has saved the county landfill from receiving thousands of tons of debris which have gone to
the Recycling Center instead. This has saved the community and'the State of Virginia many
dollars worth of natural resources.
Mr. Chick Thompson, President of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Clean Community Commission,
discussed the specific objectives of CAC3 for 1984 as follows:
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES
To create, enact and evaluate an educational program for people who
litter from moving vehicles.
To establish student participation in our clean community through a
motivational school Program of projects and awards.
To recognize two days, one in spring and one in fall, as community
clean-up days.
To obtain regional media exposure about the previously mentioned
educational and clean-up efforts.
5. To acquire office space and part-time secretarial help.
To help Workshop Five with the expansion of the Recycling/Collection
Center.
May 9, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
SECONDARY OBJECTIVES
To provide a speakers' bureau.
To obtain and distribute more covered trash receptacles at strategic
locations.
To assist the existing clean-up committees from the University,
neighborhood associations, civic and religious organizations.
To be a liaison with national and state clean community organizations
such as: Keep America Beautiful and Virginia Department of Litter.
To challenge the business community, especially fast food restaurants
and supermarkets to support our clean community efforts with
advertising assistance and by setting a clean example.
Mr. Thompson then displayed a mock-up for one of the educational objectives which
consisted of cartooned cards made available for individuals to report any car from which trash
and litter is thrown, letters addressed to the offender noting the time and place and date the
littering was observed; litter bags for individuals to carry in their cars, and more.
Mr. Roger Flint, a director of the Clean Community Commission, said the savings in
clean-ups and solid waste handling at the Recycling Center have resulted in a savings to the
taxpayers of $29,500; $37,500 in electricity has been saved through the recycling of aluminum
cans; 245,220 pounds of recycled glass resulted in a tremendous gas savings; the recycling
of 817,380 pounds of newspapers resulted in the savings of numerous trees; and then there are
the wages that are paid to people at Workshop V who otherwise are unemployable. Mr. Flint
stated that no public or county funds are expended in the implementation of these projects;
all the work is done by volunteers who hold full-time jobs and who do not have the time or
the funds necessary for administrative or clerical work. Mr. Flint said CAC3 does not have
any grandiose plans, but he would like to request a simple filing cabinet, a small desk, funds
to pay the salary of a part-time clerk, and funds for telephone service. He suggested that
the County and City might be able to share these costs. Mr. Flint said that without this helps,
he feels the CAC3 programs will be severely retarded.
Mr. Agnor said that when Mr. Flint said there are no public monies put into these pro,rams
the grant monies do come from the State, but the funds are actually provided through a sur-tax
on the income of private businesses. The funds are then allocated by the State to the various
localities who run these programs. Mr. Agnor said he agrees that coordinating civic and
volunteer groups as suggested in Col. Foote's letter, and assuming responsibility of a county
clean-up program twice a year, is an activity of a magnitude that a volunteer group could
not handle. Mr. Agnor said he would talk with City Administration about the needs of CAC3
determine if some type of coordinating can be undertaken to aid CAC3 in implementation of its
Programs. Mr. Agnor said he will bring a recommendation to the Board very soon t~ provide CAC
with some logistic support for its programs to be coordinated through some department of the
City or the County. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to this
effect. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor to check with Sheriff Bailey concerning the request by
the Board to enforce a County ordinance pertaining to trucks moving trash along the public
highways.
Mr. Fisher then asked if Col. Thomas Foote was present. He was not. Mr. Fisher asked .
Mr. Agnor to consider the recommendations posed by Colonel Foote in Mr. Agnor's discussions
with the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Agnor said this is his intent.
Agenda Item No. 9.
1984).
Report:
Rape Elimination Committee (carried forward from April 18,
Ms..Barbara Burger, Chair of the Rape Task Force Project for Charlottesville NOW, referred~
to the letter from herself and Ms. Joan P. Taylor, dated May 3, 1984, as follows:
"In regard to your request that we determine how much of the increase in
rape is due to greater awareness or reporting, we have not been able to
think of a statistically sound means of testing this hypothesis in a
short period of time. It does not seem likely that a seven-fold increase
could be attributed solely to increased awareness on the part of victims.
A task force such as we are proposing could perhaps look into this issue.
Although statistics show that more than half of rapes reported are bet.ween
people who are acquainted in some way, there has been an alarming increase
in 'stranger rapes'. There have also been a lot of violent rapes in the
county such as the assault reported in late April of a University of Virginia
student. Regardless of the cause of the drastic increase in the number of
rapes reported in the county, we as a community are very concerned about this
threat.
We hope that you will support our proposal for a joint city, county, and
university task force to come up with ways to deal with this menacing
problem in our community. Any staff support you can give to this important
effort would be greatly appreciated."
Ms. Burger then read the following paper entitled: "Rape Prevention Task Force - Update".
As per your requests we have developed a more concrete proposal for a rape
prevention task force. We hope that these suggestions will answer some of
your questions and keep you informed of our progress. From responses we have
gotten it is apparent that the issue is an important one to the community and
that concern is high enough to warrant the creation of a citizens task force.
Whether the 1983 statistics reflect an increase in the number of rapes that
occurred, or an increase in percentage of rapes that were reported, has little
to do with the feelings in the commuinity concerning the need for rape prevention
efforts. When a rape does occur and it is reported we are all reminded that the
only statistic that counts is that only a small percentage of the rapes that occur
are reported to the authorities; the Charlottesville/Albemarle community must
make a collective statement that rape will not be tolerated. It is time to
increase community awareness of rape as a violent crime and a problem for the
whole community not just law enforcement officials and rape victims.
There are rich resources in our community that can be tapped for this important
project. In fact, it is imperative that almost every aspect of the population
must participate in order for the goal of rape prevention to work. Public
leaders in areas such as education and neighborhood associations must sit down
with those involved in law enforcement and the judicial system to see how the
varied resources and opportunities for public exposure can be shared. Informa-
tion about means for self protection developed by the police could be
disseminated through the school systems. Neighborhood associations could assist
police departments with identifying areas of high risk and suspicious neighborhood
activities.
Most of all, if government officials were seen to be taking a lead in the fight
against this heinous crime, perhaps it would encourage the whole community
towards the notion that a woman should not have to fear for her safety in the
homes, streets, and neighborhoods of Charlottesville and Albemarle.
Currently, a steering committee is forming to consider suggestions for representa-
tion and structure of a citizens task force. The steering committee will be
comprised of concerned individuals from all three jurisdictions representing many
of the facets of the community mentioned above. This committee will be meeting
in May and it is expected that formal requests will be forthcoming. At that time
we will be asking the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, the Charlottesville
City Council and the Office of the Dean of Students of the University of Virginia
to convene a Rape Prevention Task Force.
Since it will be necessary to have the cooperation of many different elements of
the community in research and recommendation development, we suggest that the
task force include representatives of law enforcement, government, community
groups, educational institutions, student groups and the judicial system from
each of the three jurisdictions that constitute the Charlottesville-Albemarle
community: the City, the County, and the University.
Additionally, due to the complicated nature of this project we also suggest that
the City, County, and University each provide some minimal staff support to
expedite this important work.
The proposed goals of the task force are as follows:
Identify the extent and demographics of rape in the community.
Identify current prevention programs/strategies both in the Charlottesville,/
Albemarle community and in other communities.
3. Make recommendations for:
a) coordination of resources among interested and affected agencies and
groups.
b) new Programs and policies for rape prevention.
4. Compile a report on the findings and recommendations of the task force
for evaluation and implementation by governing bodies and affected agencies.
The task force will be expected to return with its report to the convening
bodies within six months of its formation."
Ms. Burger said that there is no proposal before the Board at this time, but rather she
wishes to take this opportunity to solicit suggestions from the Board and answer any questions
the Board members may have. Mr. Fisher commented that he was pleased to know of the existence
of such a committee which will attempt, to find'a way to address the problem of rape. Beyond
this, he does not know what the Board can do until the committee has some specific requests
to make. In the meantime, Mr. Fisher said he will look forward to hearing the committee's
report and suggestions. Mr. Fisher then recommended that when the six-month report is brought
before the Board, Ms. Burger and her committee provide names of individuals from the local
jurisdiction to serve on the Task Force in order to aid the Board in the appointment process.
Mr. Way said he had read the report and commended Ms. Burger and her group for moving
forward on this subject. Mr. Way mentioned one aspect of the report to which he is particu-
larly SensitiVe, that being a suggestion that information about means for self-protection
be disseminated through the Albemarle County school system. Mr. Way says he feels that at
certain levels this would be very inappropriate. It is an issue on which he is very sensitive.
Ms. Burger said it is hoped that there will be persons from both the City and the County school
systems on the Task Force. Mrs. Cooke said she had spoken with Ms. Burger several days ago at
wh'ich 'time Mrs. Cooke was asked to serve on the Steering Committee, a responsibility she
willingly accepts. (Mr. Lindstrom left at 11:30 A.M.)
Ma. 9 1984~ (Re ~ular DajL_Meeting~
Agenda Item No. 10. Set public hearing on ordinance to amend Section 19.1-3 re:
Increasing penalty for violation of Albemarle County Service Authority Sewerage user regulationl
Mr. Agnor referred to the letter from Mr. James M. Bowling, IV, legal Counsel for the
Albemarle County Service Authority, dated April 24, 1984, as follows:
"The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Albemarle County Service
Authority recently have amended their sewerage user regulations, a copy
of which is enclosed, per regulations of the Environmental Protection
Agency. At its meeting on April 19, 1984, the Service Authority Board
requested the Board of Supervisors to amend Section 19.1-3, increasing
the criminal penalty for violation of the Authority's sewer user
regulations from a maximum of thirty days to a maximum of twelve months
in jail.
Since adoption in 1976, the Service Authority has not had to make use of
criminal penalties to enforce its regulations. Service Authority Board
members felt that any violation of the Authority's regulations in the
future which would justify criminal prosecution (illegal dumping of
hazardous waste such as kepone; sabotage of plant) would justify penalties
as severe as the law will allow.
With Mr. Agnor's concurrence, I would appreciate it if you would place
this proposed ordinance on an appropriate Board of Supervisors agenda for
consideration."
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Way, to set a public hearing for
June 13, 1984, to amend Section 19.1-3 of the Albemarle County Code in order to increase the
penalty for violation of the sewerage user regulations of the Albemarle County Service
Authority. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
(Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 11:37 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 11. AHIP - Quarterly Reports.
Mr. Gary Oliveri gave a brief slide demonstration on the highlights of the second and
third quarters of FY 83-84, showing the various projects undertaken by the Albemarle Housing
Improvement Program. Following this, Mr. Oliveri presented the following reports: (Note:
Mr. Fisher left the meeting at 11:43 A.M. and returned at 11:47 A.M.)
SECOND QUARTER FISCAL YEAR 1983-1984
Jobs Completed
Number of Families Served:
Number of Persons Served:
Percent Elderly
Percent Disabled:
Percent Minority:
6
16
25%
12%
62%
Total Cost of Materials and Subcontracts:
Total Albemarle County Grants-to-Families:
6,804.09
4,251.71
Average Cost of Materials and Subcontracts:
Average of 5 Albemarle County Grants-to-Families:
$ 1,360.82
$ 850.34
Job Type 1st Qtr. 2nd Qtr. Totals
Major Rahabs. 2 2 4
Minor Rahabs. 1 1 2
Repairs 2 3 5
5 6 11
THIRD QUARTER FISCAL YEAR 1983-1984
Number of Families Served:
Number of Persons Served:
Percent Elderly:
Percent Disabled:
Percent Minority:
6
16
19%
25%
Total Cost of Materials and Subcontracts:
Total Albemarle County Grants-to-Families:
$ 6,201.96
$ 3,775.62
Average Cost of Materials and Subcontracts:
Average of 6 Albemarle County Grants-to-Families:
$ 1,033.65
$ 629.27
Job Type 1st Qtr. 2nd Qtr. 3rd Qtr. Totals
Major Rehabs. 2 2 1 5
Minor Rehabs. 1 1 1 3
Repairs 1 3 4 9
5 6 --6-- 17
Mr. Fisher commended Mr. Oliveri and his staff for the superb job they are doing. Mr.
Oliveri thanked the Board for its support and encouragment adding that he hopes to'be able
to expand and address even more of the needs of Albemarle County in the future.
~a~-9~ 1984 (Rexular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 12.
proposals.
Discussion:
Community Development Block Grants - AHIP and ASCA
Mr. Tucker referred to the following staff report prepared by Mr. Keith Mabe, Chief of
Community Development:
"INTRODUCTION - The primary goal of the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program is to improve the economic and physical environment of
communities and neighborhoods for the benefit of low and moderate income
citizens. Local governments are the only legal recipients of the funds
which are awarded on a very competitive basis. Localities may submit only
one grant application for a maximum of $700,000. Localities may, however,
apply on behalf of other eligible jurisdictions for a regional block grant.
As you may recall, Albemarle County has submitted both a local and a regional
application for housing rehabilitation for the past two years without success.
At this time, two proposals for CDBG funds have been submitted to the County:
-Housing Rehabilitation Program - Albemarle Housing Improvement Program;
-Crozet Sewage Collection System - Albemarle County Service Authority.
CDBG DISCUSSION - Two broad categories of selection cirteria are used to
evaluate grant proposals. This report will summarize each criteria and provide
comments on how each grant proposal might fare in the competition. Most of the
comments come from discussions with representatives from the Virginia Department
of Housing and Community Development and the State Water Control Board. The
Department of Housing and Community Development, administrators of the CDBG
program, are still receiving input on this year's program; therefore, some of
the discussion on the criteria might change at grant evaluation time.
Need - Community Relative Need Criteria (income, population change,
unemployment, and tax effort/ability): It has been proposed that these
factors account for 250 points in the competition rather than the 340
points utilized in last year's program. This is a significant change and
one that will help counties such as Albemarle. These factors cannot be
challenged by the local governments. Both projects would receive the same
number of points.
Impact
- State Priorities: These priorities have not been set by the Governor
for this year. Last year, housing rehabilitation projects received 60
points, while sewage projects were awarded 80 points.
- Regional Priorities: Regional priorities were set by the Planning
District Commission on May 3 and too late to incorporate into this
report. An update on the priorities will be provided at your meeting.
Last year, both housing rehabilitation and sewage projects were awarded
80 .points.
- Impact on Local Objectives: This criteria assesses how a project impacts
local data, needs, and objectives. Both of the proposed projects should
receive top points as both of them have been a part of the County's
Comprehensive Plan for a number of years.
- Appropriate Project Costs: This criteria received an increase in
importance as the State has proposed to raise the number of points from
50 to 140. The housing rehabilitation program sould continue to receive
top points due to the history of the agency and recent estimation of costs.
Costs for the Crozet Collection System were developed by John McNair and
Associates in 1976 and are preliminary. The State has indicated that they
would have trouble' with costs developed at this date for the Collection
System.
- Leveraging: This criteria is worth 100 points. Last year, the housing
rehabilitation program received only 31 points because of stringent
requirements placed on credit letters following the submittal of the grant
application. The letters of credit can be revised again this year in an
attempt to receive more points.
Financing for the Crozet Collection System is based primarily on bonds.
Monies financed from bonds would be an acceptable leveraging component,
according to the State. However, the agency must be ready to go to market
prior to the submittal of the grant application. At this time, the Service
Authority has indicated that they will not be ready for the market until
the late part of 1984. This is unfortunately too late for consideration
and will hurt this project substantially.
- Benefit to Low and Moderate Income: This criteria has also been proposed
to be raised from 150 to 200 points. This criteria is the most important
piece of the selection process. Housing rehabilitation projects usually
receive top points as most agencies are working with persons who fall under
the State's definition of low to moderate income.
The Collection System will provide direct benefit to some low and moderate
income persons in the Crozet service area. According to some preliminary
figures developed by staff, approximately 30 percent of the persons
assisted by the project could be classified in the low to moderate income
range. This percent is very low compared to last year's grant recipients
which represented a low of 45 percent to 100 percent. This project will
probably score very low points in this criteria.
15£
May_9, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting~
- Impact on Facilities: This criteria has been reduced in value from 150
points to 100 points. In this part of the evaluation process, each project
is judged against like projects; i.e., housing against housing, industrial
development against industrial development. Both the housing rehabilitation
project and the collection system project should receive fair ratings in this
part as both projects will make a substantial impact on facilities within
each of their own service areas.
SUMMARY - The reduction in points awarded to community relative need should
help Albemarle's chances of receiving funding this year. In total, the
housing'rehabilitation grant should fare better than the collection system
due to three important criteria: appropriate project costs, leveraging, and
benefit to low and moderate income. These three criteria are worth 440 points
in the 1,000 point competition. Without good to high scores in these three
criteria, a grant would stand little chance of being funded.
Depending on the type of grant proposal the County intends to submit, a
discussion on the local and regional housing grant applications would be
appropriate. In years past, the submission of two like grant applications
attempted to provide the County with additional chances of being funded.
Whether this strategy would be successful in this year's grant application is
questionable. The State has given staff no indication on this type of approach.
If a housing grant application is submitted by the County, a decision on the
type of proposal will need to be made."
Mr. Tucker said that two of the counties who entered into the regional application with
Albemarle County last year may not be willing to do this again. Mr. Tucker said some confirma-
tion will be needed before it is decided to move forward with a regional grant application.
Mr. Fisher asked the deadline for filing an application. Mr. Tucker answered that the deadline
is late July or early August and this deadline can be met easily if applying for housing funds
because most of the information needed is already available; it is simply a matter of improving
on that material. Mr. Tucker said an application for a sewage collection system would take
longer to finalize, but the deadline could be met. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the question is
whether to apply for a local or regional application, or both, and whether to apply for a
housing Program or a sewage collection system. Mr. Tucker said he understands that only one
type of application can be submitted. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it would be a disadvantage for
Albemarle County to be one of the group submitting a regional application. Mr. Tucker said he
is inclined to submit a local application. Mr. Lindstrom agreed saying he would like to make
another attempt for a housing grant, adding that there are major housing needs in Albemarle
County Which need to be addressed.
Mr. F~sher said there is no guarantee any funds will be received regardless of which
application the County submits because the present unemployment level in Albemarle is relativel
low and relative wealth is significantly high. Mr. Fisher felt the County should support the
program identified as being the greatest need and also the program with the greatest chance of
being funded. Mr. Way suggested that before the Board decides between a local or regional
housing application, Mr. Tucker should first determine the position of the two counties
mentioned. Mr. Way did say, however, that whether regional or local, an application should be
submitted for housing rehabilitation funds. Mr. Tucker said that if the County submits a local
application, it will be for the maximum of $700,000. If a regional application is submitted
along with a local application, the County would ask for $500,000 on the local application,
and $200,000 on the regional application. Mrs. Cooke asked which counties would apply for the
regional application. Mr. Tucker said that last year Fluvanna, Louisa, Nelson and Albemarle
counties applied for the regional application. Louisa County may not join this year.
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to submit an
application for Community Development Block Grant funds relative to the housing rehabilitation
program. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher then asked the Board its feelings on whether to submit a regional or a local
application.. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Tucker when he would know the status of the other
counties. Mr. Tucker said he is hoping for an answer very soon. Mr. Fisher said he would
hate to back out if other counties want to join Albemarle in submitting a regional application.
Mrs. Cooke asked if Albemarle County's affluence has a negative affect on the other counties.
Mr. Tucker said it most likely evens out because some of the other counties are very poor.
Mr. Tucker said a big help in obtaining the grant funds is the fact that the number of points
required has been reduced and points are being allocated based on a relative needs criteria.
Mr. Lindstrom s~ggested postponing this decision until such time as Mr. Tucker receives
notification from the other interested localities. Mr. Fisher expressed appreciation for
the evaluation process concerning the two proposals and how same would affect the rating of
Albemarle County.
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Equine Center (Deferred from April 18, 1984).
At the Board's meeting on April 18, 1984, Mr. Fisher noted that the Board had received
a request from the Greene County Board of Supervisors to support that County's efforts to have
the proposed "Virginia Horse Center" located in Greene. Mr. Way said he knew of a group of
local people who were interested in this Center being located in Albemarle County. It was
agreed at that time, that no action would be taken until the Board had received a formal
proposal from some group.
M.-~'~ !_ ~84 "Re ~ular Dai _Meetin__g0_
Mr. Agnor called the Board's attention to the following staff report:
"Preliminary Review of Horse Center Proposal
Location
West side of Route 20 South, east of Biscuit Run, ~adjacent to southern
Urban Area Neighborhood Four.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan could be amended to reflect this facility,
although it may not be necessary since the Zoning Ordinance provides
for permanent horse show grounds by special use permit. Consideration
should be given to provision for related uses, such as motels, restaurants
and tack shops in the area.
The horse center should be served by public water and public sewer.
Public water is available about 12,000 feet distant on Route 742. This
utility is a twelve inch line; however, fire flow at this time is limited
to 500 gallons at 20 pounds square inch (psi). The Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority and the Albemarle County Service Authority are discussing
measures to improve pressure/flow in the southern urban area.
Public sewer is available at the Moores Creek interceptor. It appears
that gravity service may be achievable by coursing Biscuit Run a distance
of about 12,000 feet. Animal wastes will not be acceptable into the public
sewer system, due to high biological oxygen demand (BOD). Animal wastes may
require on-site treatment; however, a holding facility and reclamation may
be more likely due to profitability.
Roads
The horse center would be served by Route 20 South. The proposed location
would be convenient to 1-64, a distance of about three miles. Improvement
of this section of Route 20 may be warranted.
The Comprehensive Plan proposes a new east/west road in this general area
which would link Routes 20 South and 631. Access to the horse center should
be provided over this road. However, no access to Route 631 should be
established until that road is improved to 1-64."
Mr. Jerry Brown, President of the Charlottesville and Albemarle Chamber of Commerce,
said the Chamber of Commerce is attempting to act as a catalyst in securing this horse center
for Albemarle County. He asked the Board's support to accomplish this. The Chamber's
involvement in this issue is related to the economic impact agriculture has on this community
and the State of Virginia. Mr. Brown said that the horse industry provides about $322 million
to the State of Virginia as income; on a local basis Albemarle County's agricultural income
which includes, horses, cattle, orchards, and vineyards, totals approximately $12 million.
About $8.6 million of this comes directly from the horse industry. Mr. Brown said that the
purpose of this horse center, as proposed by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, would be to provide the State of Virginia with an equine event center,
similar to the centers in Kentucky, Florida, New Jersey and several other states, and to
provide Vriginia with an opportunity to develop a location for nation'al and international
horse events. Mr. Brown said that many horse-related organizations have expressed interest
and support of a Virginia Horse Center. At this time, Virginia has no facility where, for
example, the Arabian Association or other horse associations can hold their annual sale;
they must go to other localities to do this. He then referred to a report prepared by Mr.
Jim Sharp~, Equine Specialist~ with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,
entitled, "Virginia Horse Center, Financial Estimates". He recommended this to the Board's
perusal. Mr. Brown said part of this financial report deals with the cost of,the facility
and~much of it addresses revenues which may be generated from such a horse center. The report
indiciates that for the first two years, the horse center would require State funds for which
the General Assembly will receive a request. It is expected that after the second year the
center would become self-supporting and self-sustaining, tn addition, the number of operating
days for each year has also been projected. Mr. Brown continued that the specifics of
employment are not known at this time, and he then commented on travel-generated, tax revenue
over a four year period as being estimated to reach over $20 million. For the localities,
this-would indicate approximately $300,000 from taxes. ~Mr. Brown then referred to the site
selection as outlined in the report by the Joint Subcommittee appointed to study this Horse
Center (Senate Document No. 18) as~ follows:
"A fairly central geographic location would allow more persons from
throughout the state easier access to the facilities (an important
consideration if this center is to actually be the state center for
the use.of Virginia horsemen). Also, statewide support for construction
~could well be lessened if placed out of the central area.
Easy access from major highways is important to encourage state use and
to attract national competitions.
An equine event center should be located near a strong.support community
offering lodging, restaurants, service stations, medical care, and
other generally expected consumer services."
Mr. Brown commented that not only would it be difficult to find a more central location
than Albemarle County, but this county is easily accessible by Interstate Routes 64 and 81.
In addition, Mr. Brown stated his contention that none of the other localities submittin~ a
proposal for this horse center have nearly the support services that Albemarle County has.
Mr. Brown also pointed out that in terms of travel related dollars, Albemarle County has the
opportunity to take advantage of the attractions which are already located here, i.e.,
Monti~¢ello, Ash Lawn, the University, and much more.
May 9, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Brown said although there has been no determination as to how much space is actually
needed for such a facility, Mr. David Breeden has offered to dedicate to the State, or some
other non-profit organization operating the center, a minimum of 150 acres of land he currently
owns; the property lies outside of the urban ring south of Interstate 64 off of Route 20.
Mr. Brown then referred to a map which showed an outline of the property he just mentioned
which is only part of a tract of about 500 acres. This site was toured by both Mr. Brown
and the State Equine Specialist who indicated there is sufficient acreage and building sites
and he felt it would be an ideal location. Public water and sewage lines are in close
proximity; Mr. Breeden had stated that he might provide same to the site if that area was
selected for location of the center.
Mr. Brown said the County is not being asked to contribute to the development of this
horse cen~er at this particular time and probably not at all. It is anticipated that a
committee will be established (five horse people and five business leaders) who will raise a
minimum of $500,000 in order to provide this cen~er for the community. Mr. Brown said he is ~
requesting the Board's endorsement of the concept of a Virginia State Horse Center to be
located in Albemarle County.
Mr. Fisher asked specifically what kinds of events would be held at this equine center
in addition to the sale of horses. Mr. Brown mentioned that this horse center would provide
adequate space to hold state-wide and regional horse shows, adding that there are numerous
events held at other horse centers throughout the country each year, i.e., schools to teach
riding for horse racing, steeplechase racing, training of individuals in the horse industry,
possibly rodeos, but primarily preparation for events and horse shows. Mr. Brown said the
income from the center will come primarily from stall rentals. Mr. Fisher commented that
this income would be tax exempt from Albemarle County's standpoint because the center would
be owned by the State of Virginia. Mr. Brown acknowledged that this is so. Mr. Fisher
alluded to the fact that if this center is to be used for races, it could be viewed as a
precursor to pa~amutual betting. He added that his entire thinking would change drastically
were he to envision that at some point this center might become a place for racing and
betting. Mr. Brown said the proposal does not include a training facility for horses; there
is no starting gate and no track.
Mrs. Cooke noted that since the property would be owned by the Stata of Virginia, no
tax dollars would be generated for the locality and wondered about the loss of revenue from
th±~s-property which currently is subject to Albemarle County real property taxes. Mr. Tucker
said the proposed development is not an approved plan, and in fact the area outlined in red
on the map is outside of the urban area of the County. Mr. Lindstrom said he has had reser-
vations about projects the County has been asked to support in the past, but he feels different
about this horse center. Although not all of the details have been worked out, he finds he
can support this proposal. Mr. Lindstrom said he has very strong feelings that this County
has something very unique to offer and the Board has struggled very hard to maintain the rural
atmosphere of the area. He added that this center would inevitably generate further population
growth. At the same time, the center seems to be consistent with what has helped to preserve
much of Albemarle's development in the past; i.e. primarily agriculturally-oriented uses. '
This is horse country and the horse center is a natural extension of that history. He feels
this will enhance the attractiveness of the County and generate money through tourism. Mr.
Lindstrom said he supports this concept because such a center will at least maintain, if not
strengthen, some of the agricultural aspects of land use in this county.
Mr. Bowie said he also feels he can support this concept. He is impressed with the
potential for more employment and the economic advantages to Albemarle County in terms of
generating revenues. Mr. Bowie feels this is an excellent alternative to raising real
property taxes. Mr. Way Said he agrees with Mr. Bowie and Mr. Lindstrom, adding that it
would be a shame for Albemarle County to not at least give its tacit support to this horse
center being located in the County. He does not want to see the County lose the opportunity.
to have something of this magnitude and importance. Mr. Way said he hopes the Board can
adopt a resolution today to at least support the idea of locating such an equine center in
Albemarle County. He is delighted that a committee is in the process of being established
as it demonstrates the interest the community has in this horse center. Mr. Henley said he
too plans to support the concept. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Brown the deadline for submitting a
proposal. Mr. Brown replied that a proposal must be submitted by May 15, 1984.
Mr. St. John suggested several alternatives for the wording of a resolution. Mr. Bowie
said he would like to avoid any reference to financing in the resolution, rather, just state
the Board's support of the concept in a positive manner. Mr. Lindstrom suggested avoiding
the endorsement of any particular site. Mr. Fisher said he is not ready to vote on this as
no mention has been made of the cost to Albemarle County although there has been speculation
concerning the revenues which may be generated from an equine center. Mr. Fisher said that
as a scientist, he has a difficult time just seeing one side.of an issue. Mr. Fisher said
he suspects there will be continuing operating costs over and above the cost of running
12,000 linear feet of sewer lines and many thousands of feet of waterline, as well as repairing
the road from Interstate 64 to the site. Mr. St. John suggested that a resolution merely
express the Board's interest and that the Board might request that a report include a study
of the cost as well as the revenues and other factors which have been discussed. Mr. Lindstrom
said he understands that the resolution will not do any more than simply express support for
the concept of the center itself without respect to a specific site and without giving any
indication that the County is going to extend any financial involvement. Mr. Lindstrom said
the Board has always had a problem when involving itself in endorsements because of the
relationship to land use. While his feelings have not changed regarding endorsements in
general, in this particular case he can support the concept because he feels it follows the
Board's position with respect to land use in general. Mr. Lindstrom feels this proposal
will not have the negative impact which perhaps other development might have and will instead
have a positive impact on the County.
Mr. Way said that if the Board does not at least tacitly endorse the project, there
will be no chance of the horse center ever coming into Albemarle County. Mr. Bowie asked
Mr. St. John to read the first paragraph of a proposed resolution with the wording he suggested
Mr. St. John read as follows: "The Board hereby expresses its endorsement/support of the
concept of an Equine Center in Albemarle County and urges the Chamber of Commerce and other
members of the private sector to formulate a proposal for submission on or before May 15, 1984.
155
Ma~ular Da~ Meetin~__
Mr. St. John asked if the Board wished to review the final proposal before endorsement by
said Board, or whether same is sufficient without a subsequent review. Mr. Bowie said that
with the deadline of May 15, he did not see how the Board could review the final proposal.
Mr. St. John said this is why he mentioned it and suggested that the Board formulate something
now which will eliminate the need for the proposal coming back to the Board in its final
form. Mr. St. John said there needed to be some clarification as to whether the Board
wished to see the final proposal or not. Mr. Bowie said that he supports the concept and
has no interest in seeing the final report. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded
by Mr. Way, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby endorse the concept of a Virginia State Equine
Center to be located within Albemarle County, Virginia and does support
the Chamber of Commerce and other members of the private sector in
formulating and submitting a proposal.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Fisher (for reasons stated).
ABSTAINS: Mrs. Cooke (due to a possible conflict of interest which needs to be clarified).
Not Docketed. At 12:49 P.M. Mr. Agnor requested an executive session for legal matters
regarding possible litigation involving Agenda Item No. 15 (Financing of Hollymead Square II),
following the Board's recess for lunch with the 4-H Youth in Government students. Motion to
this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
The Board entered into Executive Session at 1:40 P.M. and reconvened into open session
at 2:18 P.M, with Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, being present at this tim~.
Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing -- Budget Amendment (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on May 1, 1984).
~ Mr. Agnor summarized his memorandum as set out in the minutes of April 11, 1984
regarding the allocation of $9,166 in State funds to the three rescue squads located in
the County. These State funds are collected specifically for emergency medical purposes.
An amendment to the 1983-84 County budget is necessary to effect this allocation.
Mr. Fisher asked if this allocation is supplemental funding and not intended to
replace the County's financial support to the three rescue squads. Mr. Agnor said that is
correct.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public to speak for or against
the budget amendment, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following
resolution to amend the Fiscal Year 1983-84 Budget and allocate $9,166 to the three County
rescue squads. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $9,166 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund
and coded to:
1-1000-32030-565000
1-1000-32030-565100
1-1000-32030-565200
Charlottesville/Albemarle Rescue Squad
Western Albemarle Rescue Squad
Scottsville Rescue Squad
$3,055
$3,055
$3,055
AND FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Revenues section of the 1983-84 County
Budget is hereby amended by the addition of $9,166 to:
2-1000-24000-240409
Emergency Medical Service Fees
$9,166
AND FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 1~. Request re: Financing of Hollymead Square II.
Mr. Agnor said this request will be presented by Mr. John B. Ashton from the firm of
Hunton and Williams, and Mr. David Goodman, developer of the Hollymead Square II project.
Mr. Ashton said on May 11, 1983, the Board approved the concept of Cavalier Associates
seeking tax-exempt financing for the Hollymead Square II project in the County from a
Virginia redevelopment and housing authority (See the details of this matter in Minute
Book 22, Pages 148 and 149). Mr. Ashton said a tentative agreement has been received from
the Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority that subject to this Board's approval,
that Authority will provide financing. Mr. Ashton also noted that drawings, plans and
specifications have been done as well as the project being tentatively bid which is required
before FHA can be considered. Mr. Ashton said Mr. Goodman has advised him that he is
prepared to proceed with financing. Therefore, approval of the resolution which has been
156
May 9, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
distributed to the Board constitutes the necessary approval for the Harrisonburg Authority
to initiate steps for the financing of this project. Mr. Ashton said hopefully with the
approval by the Board, construction can get underway this summer. He emphasized that
there is no responsibility on the County in respect to this type of financing, but rather
the revenue bonds are from the Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority. Mr.
Ashton said the previous contractor noted for this project as being Mid-City Financial has
been replaced by Bush Construction Corporation. The two architects noted as Allan Birndorf
and Thomas D. Farrell have been replaced with David R. Goodman and Walter Bucher. Mr.
Ashton refreshed the Board's memory about this request by noting that twenty percent of
the units in this project will be subsidized using HUD Section 8 rental assistance.
Further, he understands that this will be the last Section 8 program ever available. The
Federal Government is terminating the program because it has been determined that the
program is too expensive. However, this project will be subsidized for twenty years and
maintained as a rental project for that period of time. As he recalled from the discussion
in May 19'83, the Board was impressed with having Section 8 housing available in the County.
Mr. Ashton said this will not be a low-income project, but rather a luxurious type project
to fit in with the existing environment in Hollymead. This project will be well designed
and of a high quality. The project is needed since Hollymead Phase I has a waiting list
meaning there are a number of persons in need of this type of housing.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if he understood correctly that the Harrisonburg Redevelopment
and Housing Authority is simply going to provide the vehicle for financing and not the
administration of the Section 8 program. Mr. Ashton said the Albemarle County Housing
Office will administer the Section 8 rental program. Mr. Fisher asked the number of
Section 8 units. Mr. David Goodman said there are a total of one hundred and twenty units '
with twenty-four being Section 8 units. Mr. Fisher asked the total number Section 8 units
the County is currently allotted. Mr. Agnor said there are one hundred and eighty.
Mr. Bowie said he did not want an outside agency running projects in Albemarle County.
Mr. Ashton said that will not be the case.
Mr. St. John asked who will hold the title to the property. Mr. Ashton said the
partnership and the mortgage will be insured by FHA but there will not be any outside
partnerships involved. Mr. St. John asked who will sign the deed of trust. Mr. Ashton
said the partnership. Further, he explained that the bonds will be signed by the Harrisonburg
Redevelopment and Housing Authority and the authority will also pledge this mortgage as
security on the bonds. The bonds have a AAA rating which means there is very little
chance of default. Mr. St. John asked how the rent schedule will be approved for the
units. Mr. Ashton said there is no limitation on eighty percent of the units but the
twenty ~0)percent Section 8 facilities are subject to various federal government controls.
Mr. Goodman further explained that the rents on the Section 8 units are adjusted each year
by HUD and FHA. Mr. St. John asked what would happen if a default occurred. Mr. Ashton
said with the structure of the bonds, there will not be any default unless the Federal
government does not live up to its twenty year mortgage and that is very unlikely. Mr.
St. John asked what power the Harrisonburg Authority would have if that did occur. Mr.
Ashton said none, but the County would have some power due to the Section 8 facilities in
the project. Mr. Agnor asked what would happen if the County did not administer the
Section 8 units or choose not to administer these units later. Mr. Goodman said that the
units would then go to the Virginia Development Housing Authority for administration.
Mr. Fisher expressed concern that the staff appears to have~a number of unanswered
questions about this request and he suggested deferring action to a later date in order to
resolve same. Mr. Ashton assured the Board that approval from the County Attorney regarding'
the financing would be obtained before any final action is taken and a statement to that
effect could be included in the resolution. Mr. Lindstrom asked if today's request is
simply an indication of support for the financing of the project to be assisted by the
Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority but is not a final approval. Mr. Ashton
said that is correct; the request today is just to allow the project to get started. The
Board of Supervisors will have another opportunity to review the matter after a recommendation
from the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority has been received. Mr. Lindstrom
asked Mr. St. John and Mr. Agnor if more time was needed to examine this request. Mr. St.
John was satisfied with the answers to his questions. Mr. Agnor said the presentation had
answered his concerns. His main concern was whether the current staff was adequate to
administer more units.
Mr. Lindstrom said with the understanding that this resolution is simply an indication
to the Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority that the County is receptive to
the issue, he would offer motion to adopt the following resolution. Mr. Ashton noted that
the resolution should include the change noted earlier about the partners in the project.
Mr. Lindstrom accepted that as an amendment to his motion. Mr. Way seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowie said he will support the motion but is concerned about who will run projects in
the County and who gets control of same and would like an answer to that before final
approval of the project. Mr. Ashton said that will be answered. Mr. Henley said he has a
problem that another housing authority can be involved in a project in this County, but
this request appears to only be for requesting funding. Mr. Ashton said he would not
object to some wording in the resolution to reflect that concern. Mr. Lindstrom then
suggested adding the words "for the sole purpose of issuing" and deleting the words "to
issue" under paragraph "1" in the resolution. Mr. Ashton had no objection to the inclusion
of that wording. Mr. Henley said he supported that wording. Mr. Lindstrom amended his
motion to include the above wording in the resolution. Mr. Way accepted the amendment to
his second. Mr. Fisher supported the motion but would appreciate the County staff being
included in all proceedings before this matter is returned to the Board. Mr. Ashton said
approval of the County Attorney will be obtained first. Roll was called and the motion to
adopt the following resolution was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, L±ndstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
May 9, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
WHEREAS, Cavalier Associates, a limited partnership to be formed by
Bush Construction Corporation, a Virginia corporation, David R. Goodman and
Walter Bucher (the "Developer"), desires to construct a multi-family rental
townhouse project of approximately 120 units (the "Project") on Powell
Creek Road adjacent to the Hollymeade Square I apartments in Albemarle
County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Developer desires to finance the development of the
Project with the proceeds of revenue bonds exempt from taxation pursuant
to Section 103(b)(4)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code; and
WHEREAS, Virginia redevelopment and housing authorities are empowered
to make loans for assistance in housing construction outside of their
jurisdictions through the issuance of such bonds, and the Developer has
received indications that the Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority
may be willing to assist with the financing of the Project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. There is a need for the Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing
Authority to exercise its aforesaid powers within the County
for the purposes hereinabove described, and such Authority is
hereby invited and encouraged for the sole purpose of issuing
its bonds for the benefit of the Developer and the furtherance
of said purposes.
2. This resolution shall not be deemed an approval or an endorsement
of said bonds or the creditworthiness of the Developer or any
other person or entity, and the bonds shall provide that the
County shall not be obligated to pay the bonds or the interest
thereon or other costs incident thereto, and neither the faith
and credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County
or such Authority shall be pledged thereto.
Agenda Item No. 16. Francis Fife - Report: Employment Research Committee.
Mr. Francis Fife, Chairman of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Employment and Training
Commission, was present. He said this joint commission was established by the City and
County about eighteen months ago in order to help identify the problems of low-skilled
unemployed and underemployed workers in the area. Mr. Fife said three sessions were held
and devoted to hearing from invited speakers who presented the perspectives of three major
interest groups. At the first meeting held on July 27, 1983, directors of area training
programs described programs and gave an analysis of successful and unsuccessful participants.
The representatives consisted of persons from Offender Aid and Restoration, the Albemarle
County School system, Vo-Tech Center and others. Mr. Fife said the second meeting involved
some area employers who outlined their needs and identified perceived gaps in the training
of low- and moderately-skilled workers. This meeting was held on September 22, 1983 and
concerns such as motivation for a worker's success and helping low-skilled individuals
develop realistic attitudes towards their roles as workers were expressed. The third and
final meeting was held on December 6, 1983. A number of unemployed and recently employed
workers were present at this meeting to discuss their needs and frustrations in seeking
employment in this area.
Mr. Fife said there are several points of agreement obtained from the three meetings.
First, motivation is the key ingredient in a worker's success, whether in a training
program or on the job. Second, there is a need for a support system to provide help for
family or personal problems of a practical nature. This includes problems such as child
care and transportation. Another area is that the schools need to be more responsive to
the needs of area businesses and to the needs of noncollege bound students. Disagreement
centered primarily on the extent to which biases in the system makes it difficult for
certain classes of workers to find satisfactory employment. Mr. Fife said this is a very
important issue.
Mr. Fife then summarized the recommendations. One is for the appointment of a business
advisory council with appointments being made by the two school superintendents. The
objectives of this council would be to provide direct input into the school systems from
private industries so the school systems would be aware of industries needs and priorities
as well as changes in technology. Transportation is a great concern to many low- and
moderately-skil'led workers and many workers become discouraged when unable to resolve a
transportation problem. Although not recommending that transportation be provided by
bus,ness, it is noted that when this has been done, it was a great help to employees. The
third recommendation is to form an education council. This would be a council formed by
the educational systems and training agencies. This council could research broader issues
and make recommendations as well as providing a link between the unemployed and the educationa
system by using a background knowledge of the labor market. Mr. Fife said some questioned
the difference between an education council and the business advisory council. He said
the business advisory council would provide a link between local businesses and schools
and make specific recommendations for changes and suggestions for implementation of those
changes. The Education Council would research broader issues and make recommendations.
The Education Council would provide a link between the unemployed and the educational
system using a background knowledge of the labor market. The next recommendation was to
provide instruction in interview skills and training in job search techniques.
May 9, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fife said the next area recommended was for job applicant assiStance from employers.
This deals with applicants who have difficulty in finding out why they were not employed.
The commission members agreed that this responsibility lies with the job seeker and ways
to handle this were discussed. One method would be for the applicant to take a self-
addressed, stamped postcard with specific questions to the interview and ask the interviewer
to respond in a timely fashion. Next, Mr. Fife noted that in these meetings the commission
became aware that many employers do not use the Virginia Employment Commission when seeking
employees and thus, many applicants do not know when Jobs are available. A committee is
being appointed to determine if there are ways in which the Virginia Employment Commission
can be assisted in providing more services to job applicants. (Mr. Lindstrom left the
meeting at 3:05 P.M.) During the commission meetings, the Job Training Partnership Act
was also discussed, but the commission feels this is too premature to comment on effectiveness
of same. However, due to reduced funding for this program, the commission feels training
cannot be adequately provided. Mr. Fife said the commission also visited the Vo-Tech
Center and although impressed with this facility, the classes are very low on enrollment.
(Mr. Lindstrom returned at 3:09 P.M.) Mr. Fife in summarizing said the commission feels
that more Jobs are needed for the target population of this area. For that reason, the
Chamber of Commerce should be informed of the commission's work in order that the need for
low-skilled workers can be known. Mr. Fife said the greatest problem for working parents
is obvious, that is care for children. The commission feels that there are many ways
employers can help with this problem. In conclusion, Mr. Fife said the success of individuals
finding satisfying jobs is of importance to all. Sub-Committees have been appointed to
attempt to resolve some of the aforementioned problems.
Mr. Fisher extended appreciation to Mr. Fife for his presentation.
Agenda Item No. 17. Employment of Bond Counsel--Bicentennial Property.
Mr. Agnor summarized his memorandum dated May 3, 1984 pertaining to the employment of
bond counsel for the purchase of the Bicentennial Center property:
"As reported to you earlier, the County staff is coordinating the legal
and financial work for the County and City to purchase the Bicentennial
property from the State by July 1. It is necessary to engage the
services of a qualified bond attorney to provide the lending institution
an independent opinion that the financing meets all Federal and State
requirements of local government borrowing, and to prepare or review
a number of documents involved in the transaction.
It is recommended that the staff be authorized to employ Mr. Harry
Frazier of the law firm of Hunton and Williams to provide these services
for the project. His fees and expenses will be included in the financial
plan for the building purchase to be paid through the lease of the
property to the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation and the Thomas
Jefferson Visitors Bureau."
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept the recommendation
of Mr. Agnor as set out in the foregoing memorandum to authorize the staff to employ Mr.
Harry Frazier as bond counsel in the purchase of the Bicentennial Center property. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 18. Agreement: Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company.
Mr. Agnor said the Earlysvi!le Volunteer Fire Company is requesting $106,500 for the
construction of a new fire station. The Jefferson Country Firefighters Association has a
committee which determines how capital funds for the various fire departments will be
allocated. This request has been approved by the Association. The Earlysville Fire
Company already has a service agreement dated February 22, 1983, so the total to be withheld
from the County's operating allocation beginning with Fiscal Year 1984-85 through July
1995 is $192,000. Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Fisher noted yesterday that other agreements
signed when there was construction of a building involved, contained a paragraph stating
that the building would revert to the County government for public need purposes should
the fire company go out of business or cease to exist. This agreement does not include
that provision. Both Mr. Ray Jones and Mr. George St. gohn have agreed that such wording
should be included. Therefore, Mr. Agnor recommended that a paragraph be included in the _
agreement to this effect and that the Chairman be authorized to execute the agreement for-
the County. The agreement will then be returned to the fire company for its approval of
the amendment. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve tha
Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company agreement with the aforementioned amendment and that
the Chairman be authorized to execute same. Roll was c~lled and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
(NOTE: This agreement with the amendment mentioned was not agreeable to the Earlysville
Volunteer Fire Company, so a revision and reapproYal of same is set out in the minutes of
May 23, 1984.)
May 9, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
15-9
Agenda Item No. 19. Bus Contract.
Mr. Agnor said Mr. Robert Tucker, Deputy County Executive, has prepared a memorandum
in response to discussions during the budget work sessions regarding a Hydraulic/GeorEetown
Road bus route. Mr. Tucker then summarized the following memorandum dated May 3, 1984:
"You will recall that the Board of Supervisors reviewed three bus routes
proposed by the Charlottesville Transit Service earlier this year. The
three routes and their costs were as follows:
- Route 29 North (Route 7)
_ Georgetown/Hydraulic/Rio (Route 5)
- Piedmont Virginia Community College
$5,370
$2,826
$1,225
The Piedmont Virginia Community College route was not accepted; the Route
29 North route was approved; and the Georgetown/Hydraulic/Rio route was
deferred to determine if a change in the route could reduce cost while
maintaining or even improving service. After further study, with the help
of Mr. John Carter, it was determined that one minor change in this route
was warranted.
Having addressed the concerns raised, I am recommending that the Board of
Supervisors approve the contract as amended for the Route 29 North and
Georgetown/Hydraulic/Rio transit routes."
Mr. Fisher noted that although the County did not fund the Community College route,
the Board authorized a provision being included in the contract to allow the City Transit
Service to provide the service in Albemarle County. Mrs. Helen Poore, Transit Manager, was
present and said wording for the route to the Community College is contained in a separate
contract.
Mr. Bowie said he supports the contract, but would request that when this contract is
discussed during budget work sessions next year, that statistics regarding the number of
county residents actually riding the buses be submitted.
Mrs. Cooke offered motion to accept the following urban bus route contract with Mr.
Agnor being authorized to execute same on behalf of the County. Mr. Way seconded the
motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , 1984, by and between the
County of Albemarle, Virginia ("the County"), and the City of Charlottesville,
Virginia ("the City").
WITNE S SETH
WHEREAS, Albemarle County desires to enter into an agreement with the
City of Charlottesville to provide mass transit service for a portion of
the urbanized area of Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the County Executive of Albemarle has been authorized to
enter into this Agreement by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Charlottesville has authorized
the City Manager to enter into this Agreement,
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and obligations
of each as hereinafter set forth, it is mutually agreed as follows:
1) a.
The City, through Charlottesville Transit Service, shall
provide bus service between the downtown area of the City
of Charlottesville and Albemarle Square via the extension
of the CTS Route 7. The service will operate on thirty (30)
minutes headways six (6) days per week, Monday through
Saturday, between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m.,
beginning July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1985.
The City, through Charlottesville Transit Service, shall
provide bus service between the University of Virginia and
Albemarle Square via the extension of CTS Route 5. Service
will be provided to the Georgetown, Hydraulic, Commonwealth
and Rio Road areas on one hour headways during peak commuter
hours (7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.)
five days each week. During the mid-day period and on
Saturdays, service will be provided every other hour. The
bus service will begin in September, 198a and continue
through June 30, 1985.
2)
Subject to the City's other equipment and manpower commitments,
upon seven days prior written notice to Albemarle County,
reasonable modifications may be made in the proposed bus
schedules.
t BO
May 9, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
3)
4)
5)
6)
?)
8)
9)
lo)
In order to provide satisfactory services, the City shall
provide, operate and maintain buses suitable for such operation.
The City shall also provide the personnel to operate and
maintain the buses, and the City shall have full control
over and be responsible for the hiring and supervision of such
personnel, as well as for the payment of all salaries and
wages and all other employee benefits of such personnel.
The City shall also provide liability insurance coverage in
the same amount as it provides for operations within the
City limits. The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless
the County against and from any and all claims, damages, costs
and expenses because of bodily injury or death of persons
or damage to or destruction of property, or for any other
cause, resulting from or arising out of the City's negligence
in connection with its performance under this agreement,
provided such indemnification is limited to the extent of the
aforesaid liability insurance coverage.
The City shall have no responsibility for the creation, mainte-
nance or upkeep of any parking facilities related to this service.
The City shall be compensated for the service to the County as
follows:
Fares
The City shall charge the following fares for transportation
services provided during the term of this agreement:
(1)
Regular fare shall be 405 from July through August.
From September through June, the regular fare will
be 505.
(2)
Reduced fare for elderly and handicapped will be
205 from July through August, and 255 from September
through June.
The City shall be entitled to keep all fares collected.
Payment by County.
The County will pay the City a total of $8,196 for the term
of the contractual agreement. Payment is to be made in monthly
increments of $683.00. The payments are to be made on the first
day of each month, without demand.
If the City shall fail to comply with its undertakings herein
and such failure shall continue for ten days after written
notice from the County specifying such failure, then the County
may terminate this Agreement, provided however that the City
shall incur no financial liability of any kind arising out of
such termination or in any event under any provision of the entire
Agreement.
In addition to the rights of termination provided herein, either
party shall have the right to terminate or suspend service by
giving 30 days written notice to the other party of its intentions
to .do so, provided however, that-the City many suspend such service
immediately upon written notice to the County that the City does
not have sufficient fuel to perform its obligations herein. The
City,s determination as to whether it has sufficient fuel shall be
prima facie evidence of the sufficiency of fuel.
The failure of either party to observe and perform its obligation
hereunder shall not be deemed a default or breach hereof if such
failure is the result of~fire, explosion~ flood, work stoppage,
riot, communications or power supply failure, failure or mal-
function of equipment or other cause beyond the party's control.
But written notice of such cause shall promptly be given by it
to the other. Nevertheless, if any'failure so caused has
continued or clearly will continue, for a period of at least 30
days, the party entitled to notice hereof may, by written notice
to the other, promptly given, terminate this Agreement as of the
date specified therein.
No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions
hereof shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly
authorized representative of the parties hereto. Except as herein
expressly provided to the contrary, the provisions of this Agreement
are for the benefit of the parties hereto and are not for the'
benefit of any other person and any assignment.of this Agreement by eithe~
party without written consent to the other shall be void.
The term of this. Agreement shall be. for twelve (12) months, commencing
July 1, 1984, and ending June 30, 1985.
May 9, 1984 (ReEular Day Meeting)
12)
This Agreement shall be governed by laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia. The undersigned represent that they have the authority
to execute this Agreement on behalf of the respective parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused their names to be signed
in duplicates hereof, each of which shall have the force and effect of the original,
and the respective seals to be thereto affixed and attested, by their duly
authorized officers.
Attest:
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
(Signed by Guy B. Agnor~ Jr.)
County Executive
Albemarle County, Virginia
Attest:
Clerk, City Council
City Manager
City of Charlottesville, Virginia"
Agenda Item No. 20. JAUNT--Route Change.
Mr. Agnor said Ms. Donna Shaunsey, Assistant Director of JAUNT, is present to explain
for the Board's information a route change for JAUNT.
Ms. Shaunsey said the Board is well aware that there has been concern about the lack
of ridership on the Crozet route, but attempts have been to continue same. Over the
years, a lot of things have been done, but ridership has cont~ed to decline. She noted
that in March, $700.00 was spent on a massive media campaign to hopefully produce some
ridership. Ms. Shaunsey said through all of JAUNT's efforts nothing has helped to increase
the ridership. Therefore, with the present ridership below two people per trip, JAUNT
does not feel the expenditure is worth while. She explained that JAUNT is not abandoning
the Crozet area, but studies show there is a high transit dependency in the area from
Afton into Charlottesville; therefore, the possibility of having an Afton route that would
pick up some people in Crozet might be more useful. She also noted that the same type of
idea is being explored for the Esmont/Keene area with the bus using the Old Lynchburg Road
area for a commuter run since the County's Budget Review Committee recommended the Old
Lynchburg Road area during budget review as an area needing transportation. Ms. Shaunsey
said questionnaires are being distributed to determine times and suitable routes for the
Afton area. Ms. Shaunsey said JAUNT is trying to improve transportation by developing a
rural transportation development plan. She noted that JAUNT received a grant in the
amount of $17,000 to study rural transportation needs in Nelson County and rural Albemarle
County. She said the County planning staff and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission staff are in the process of developing needs in both areas and there are plans
to hire a consultant to produce a marketable plan for those areas needing transportation.
Mr. Fisher extended appreciation for the report.
Agenda Item No. 21. Jail - Request for Computer.
Mr. Agnor summarized his memo dated May 3, 1984 regarding the Jail Board's request
for a computer:
"The attached letter (copy on file in Clerk's Office) from the Chairman of
the Jail Board requests that the County and City allocate a total of $40,000
for the installation of a computerized jail management system, the funds to
be derived from a $137,500 refund due to be returned to the two localities
from FY 82-83 revenues in excess of expenditures. Capital items are divided
equally between the County and City, therefore the County is being requested
to allocate $20,000 of'a $50,500 refund. (The refund is returned in the same
proportion as the County and City appropriations, which is based on usage.)
The automated management sYstem has been developed by the State and the software
is being made available to localities at no cost, including training in the use
of the system. The hardware is Hewlett-Packard and will be connected to the
City's Hewlett-Packard mainframe. In addition to the $40,000 initial hardware
costs, annual operating costs of $10,000 - $14,000 will be created in lease
line costs and time share costs of the Central Processing Unit.
Fred Kruger has participated in consultations with the City's Data Processing
Manager in assessing the local need, and the apPlication of the State developed
system. Use of the State system avoids development costs and participates in
State efforts to standardize automated statistical reports.
Approval of the Jail Board's request is recommended."
Mr. Agnor said if this request is approved, an appropriation will have to be made at
a later date since the funds being refunded will be returned to the General Fund. Mr.
Fisher asked about the operational costs involved for this computer, Mr. Agnor said in
future years, there will be funds requested in the Jail budget for operation of the computer.
Mr. Fisher asked if the State will participate in the operational'costs. Mr. Agnor said
he did not feel any assistance will be provided.
Mr. J. M. McMahan, Jail Administrator, was present. He understands the State will
not pay any operational or hardware costs; this is totally a local responsibility. Mr.
McMahan said due to the Jail having a contract with the Federal government for the housing
of some prisoners, he has approached them regarding participation in some hardware costs.
However, there is no money available for such an expense at this time.
May 9, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom asked the economic advantage of having a computer. Mr. McMahan then
reviewed for the Board the system which the jail currently uses to keep track of prisoners.
He said the system is outdated. This computerized system will hopefully be tied to the
Commonwealth Attorney's office, police and sheriff departments in order that communications
can be improved. However, the only economic advantage he can anticipate is a reduction in
clerical staff.
Mr. Fisher said $40,000 for initial hardware costs sounds enormous since the costs of
computer systems has been decreasing. He asked justification for the price. Mr. McMahan
said several systems were examined, but this system can be tied to different offices
within the Jail complex at a lower price. Mr. Agnor said he had the same concern and had
asked Mr. Kruger to investigate the costs. With several terminals and printers being
involved, because of the security areas within the Jail complex, and since this is not
just a single hardware system, this system is the best.
Mr. McMahan said the City is to be the purchaser of the computer and will provide the
necessary training. Also, the State has said that if this system is purchased, they too
will provide training at no cost. Mr. Fisher said the State appears to be requiring more
records with same being presented to them in a uniform manner, but are offering no assistance
on the expenditures incurred. Mr. McMahan said that is correct.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Henley his feelings about this request since he is a member of
the Jail Board. Mr. Henley said the existing system is obsolete. He understands the
request, and feels is reasonable. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to approve the
concept for the computer system at the Joint Security Complex as noted in the foregoing
memorandum from Mr. Agnor with the actual appropriation to be made at a later date. Mrs.
Cooke seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 22. Staff Report: Recommendation on Fiscal Year 1983 Audit.
Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, was present. He said the Fiscal Year 1982-83
Audit contained ten recommendations for improvements which mostly dealt with internal
operations. When the audit was presented to the Board earlier this year, the staff was
requested to examine the recommendations and make a response to the Board. There have
been meetings and discussions held with the persons involved and a report entitled "FY
1982-83 Audit Recommendations Staff Report" has been distributed to the Board to respond
to those recommendations (copy of this report is on file in the Clerk's Office). This
report states the auditing firm's recommendations and the staff's assessment of the problem
and corrective action to be taken. Mr. Jones said he felt some of the recommendations
from the auditing firm were made as a result of staff explanations not being understood.
Mr. Fisher said he would prefer that the Board members ask questions regarding the
report instead of having a full discussion of same due to the limitation of time today.
Mr. Bowie said although he has no direct questions, he would point out that the Audit
Committee, of which he is a member, is to meet with the auditors in two weeks. He feels
last year's comments, plus the staff recommendations, should be the basis for the next
year audit. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to have this report sent to the Audit Committee
for use as a basis for forming the audit plan for the 1983-84 Audit. Mr. Way seconded the
motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to mention that the National Association of Counties
Board of Directors took action last week to hire an internal auditor who will report
directly to the Board of Directors and not be under the management of NACo's Executive
Director. This is a new method to obtain an independent evaluation of the internal operations
of the Association.
Agenda Item No. 25. Transfers.
Mr. Agnor summarized the memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, dated April 30, 1984
regarding transfers necessary as a result of third quarter reviews of the departmental
budgets. Mr. Agnor said it is necessary to transfer a total of $13,980 from Personnel to
seven different departments to cover costs of merit increases and the FICA conversion in
January, 1984. Mr. Agnor said $5,000 is also needed for the Legal Services budget as a
result of the County Attorney purchasing legal research material on court cases that he
and his staff have been involved in during this fiscal year. The $5,000 can be transferred
from Audit Services in the Board of Supervisor's budget. The last transfer needed, is
$1,200 for the SPCA Shelter contract since more animals than anticipated have been placed
at same and only $4,800 was budgeted for the current fiscal year. Maintenance and operation
of the Dog Wardens vehicles is running less than budgeted so the $1,200 can be transfered
from that budget.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the transfers as
recommended by Mr. Agnor and as set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
163
May 9, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
FROM:
~'_10-0-0_12030-100700
TO:
1-1000-12040-100100
1-10~0-12142-100100
1-1000-13020-100100
1-1000-41000-100100
1-1000-81010-100100
1-1000-81030-100100
1-1000-82040-100100
Personnel-Salary Adjustments
Legal Services-Compensation
Finance/Purchasing-Compensation
Board of Elections-Compensation
Engineering-Compensation
Planning-Compensation
Housing-Compensation.
Watershed Management-Compensation
$13,980
$ 1,070
1,670
1,700
4,400
3,800
260
1~080
$13,9~
FROM:
1-1000-11010-300205
Board of Supervisors-Audit Services
$5,000
TO:
12~000-12040-300201 Legal Services-County Attorney $5,000
Animal Control-Maintenance/Operation
FROM:
1-1000-35010-540800
$1,200
TO:
1L~000-91033-565500 SPCA Shelter $1,200
Agenda Item No. 23. Summary of Third Quarter Financial Report.
Mr. Agnor said the third quarter financial review has been completed and he will
summarize the findings of same. Excess fees payable to the State Treasury will exceed the
appropriation of $13,000. He explained the excess fees as those fees collected by the
Clerk of the Circuit Court in excess of the allowable expenditures for the Clerk's Office
by the State. With the increase in real estate transactions, the amount of fees collected
by the Clerk's Office have exceeded the appropriated amount for Fiscal Year 1983-84. Mr.
Agnor said when funds collected are in excess of the approved budget, the county retains
two-thirds of the funds and oneethird is returned to the State. At this time, Mm. Jones
estimates that $24,000 will be disbursed. This really does not cost the County any money,
but rather nets the County $22,000. Mr. Agnor said the staff recommends waiting until the
May financial report is completed, and then an appropriation for same will be requested.
Mr. Agnor summarized the 1983-84 revenue projections which were estimated to be
$30,110,384 and have now been revised to $33,093,718 with an overcollection of in revenues
anticipated to be $2,983,334. Mr. Agnor said this is primarily due to new construction,
property taxes, sale of vehicles, registration of vehicles and business and sales tax
revenues.
Mr. Agnor said the 1983-84 projected expenditures for general government functions
were appropriated at $13,645,140. To date, $13,159,347 has been expended leaving an
underexpenditure balance of $485,793 in general government. At this time, it is estimated
that the expenditures in the School budget will be equated to the revised appropriations
the Board recently approved. Therefore, the revenues will equal the expenditures with no
expected overcollection above the expenditures. In conclusion, Mr. Agnor said the underexpendi
ture of General Government appropriations in the amount of $485,793, plus the $2,983,334
expected as an overcollection of revenues will mean a $3,469,127 addition to the General
Fund unrestricted balance as of June 30, 1984. Mr. Agnor said the General Fund currently
has a balance of $6,106,189 for operational purposes and with the $3,469,127 added to
that, the General Fund balance remains very healthy at $9,575,316. Mr. Agnor said approximatel
$6,500,000 is necessary to be retained for operational purposes, which means there will be
approximately $3,075,316 unallocated in the General Fund. Mr. Agnor said in June a recommendat
will be made that the unallocated balance be used to remove the School Fund deficit and
also that funds be channeled into the Capital Improvements Fund to finance some projects.
In summary, Mr. Agnor said the third quarter report indicates a very healthy financial
condition for the County for Fiscal Year 1983-84.
Mr. Fisher said as he understands it will be recommended that the $3,469,127 increase
in revenues be used as follows: $1,039,141 to pay off the school debt, and $2,000,000 be
used for the capital budget. Mr. Agnor said the $1,039,141 can also be channeled back
into the Capital budget. The total School Fund deficit totals over $1,505,750 but a
request will be coming to the Board for a public hearing on the use of Federal Revenue
Sharing Funds to pay $450,000 of that deficit, with the remaining $1,031,~141 to come from
the General Fund.
Mr. Fisher asked if any action is necessary today. Mr. Agnor said this request is
only for the Board's information. However, a public hearing should be set on the Federal
Revenue Sharing Funds and he would recommend June 13, 1984 as an appropriate date. Motion
was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to advertise for a public hearing on
June 13, 1984, the use of $450,000 of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds for educational purposes.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
,- 164
'- - _ ]__ 4 Re-_ular Da._ Meeting}_
Agenda Item No. 24. Broadus Wood School -- Authority to bid project.
Mr. Agnor said the Broadus Wood School project is shown for funding in the Capital
Improvements Program in Fiscal Year 1984-85 if Literary Fund loans are available by that
time. He has been advised by the County's Education Department that Literary funds will
be available in July, 1984 with funding to be available in small increments with the bulk
of the money being available after January 1, 1985. With the third quarter review, showing
a very healthy financial condition, the County does not have to be concerned about the
flow of Literary Fund monies back into the County treasury. Since the project is already
approved in the Capital Program for funding in Fiscal Year 1984-85, the staff recommends
authorizing the School Board to proceed with the bidding process of the Broadus Wood
School project in order that this construction can begin as soon as possible.
Mr. Fisher said during a recent meeting with the School Board, a commitment in writing
regarding Literary Funds was requested. He asked if that has been received. Mr. Agnor
said a lengthy memorandum has been received and after reading same he concluded that there
is no question; the funds will be available. The Broadus Wood project was not specifically
addressed in the memorandum but was listed among the projects for funding. Mr. Agnor said
he feels there will also be Literary funds for the Henley Middle School roofing project as
well.
Mr. Fisher recognized Dr. Charles Tolbert, member of the School Board, and Dr. Carlos
Gutierrez, Superintendent of Education, and asked if various alternates for remodeling
will be included in the bidding papers. Dr. Tolbert said the architect is present today
and can answer that question. Mr. Robert Moje, architect from Vickery Partnership, said
the base bid will include everything as shown on a drawing displayed which is remodeling
of the existing building, new construction of a classroom and library wing, and a gym area
off of one side of the building, along with the following options: deleting two classrooms,
one-half of a gym as opposed to a full gym, no gym at all, and air conditioning excluded
for the two side wings.
Mr. Henley asked if a water tower will be included as an option feature. Mr. Fisher
asked if Mr. Henley desired that this also be included in the bidding process. Mr. Henley
said yes since the County is examining the idea of extending the public waterlines to the
subject location. Mr. Fisher said the cost of the waterline has not yet been determined.
Mr. MoJe said he would like to update the Board on this matter. When this project was
last discussed the water tower was to be included at the request of the County's Fire
Official. However, the Fire Official has now changed his position due to the possibility
of having the public waterline extended to this area. His position is that the project
can be built with the understanding that either the waterline be extended to the site or
the water tower be installed within five years. Mr. Fisher felt this idea was inconsistent
with the Board's previous action and asked what will be included in the bid. Mr. Moje
said the water tower will be included since same is a requirement of the Board. Mr.
Fisher recommended bidding the project with and without the water tower. Mr. Bowie said a
key factor in this is the cost of the water tower. Mr. Moje said the engineering work for
a tower has never been done because of the possibility of same not being needed, so engineerin
fees for the design will be involved.
Mrs. Barbara Herath, president of the PT0 for Broadus Wood School, was present and
urged that this project not be delayed until the water tower issue is resolved. The
project involves a year of construction which will allow ample time to gather the information
regarding that issue. She noted the urgent need to begin the project this spring. Therefore,
Mrs. Herath urged favorable support for this project to be bid and noted appreciation for
the Board's support.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke to authorize the School Board to proceed with the
bidding process for the Broadus Wood School addition so construction can begin in Fiscal
Year 1984-85. Mr. Bowie said he would second the motion with the understanding that it is
the Board's intent that the bidding process include all the options discussed, as well as
inclusion or deletion of the water tower. Mrs. Cooke agreed. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 26. Letter from Albemarle County Service Authority re:
to be part of group defining area to be served by Crozet Interceptor (Note:
be referred to as the collector system and not the Crozet Interceptor).
Board member
This should
Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, was
present and referred to his letter dated May 3, 1984 to the Board regarding the sewer
collection system in the Crozet area. He said now that construction of the Crozet Interceptor
is finally underway, the Authority is preparing to design the remainder of the system.
The first task is to identify the specific septic system problems that exist and design a
collector system to reach those areas. Mr. Brent said although the system must be sized
and routed for eventual expansion to serve the entire sewer projects area, the Authority's
first effort must be to eliminate the problems posing a risk to public health. Mr. Brent
said the Board of Supervisors will be involved in the future in making some very difficult
decisions relative to sewer in Crozet. He has suggested that the Health Department and
the Board of Supervisor work with the Authority to develop the scope of the project in
order to assure that the project is adequate to meet the current health needs and the
needs of the community. Mr. Brent said the purpose of this request is so the representative
from the Board as well as the Health Department can keep both staffs informed of the
progress and to satisfy both that the needa of Crozet will be met adequately by this
project and that the scope of the project is reasonable. This is important particularly
if the Service Authority should have to ask the Board to concur in requiring property
owners to pay connection and/or nonuser fees. In conclusion, Mr. Brent said his request
is for the Board to appoint a Board representative as well as a county staff member to
work with the Service Authority and the Health Department on the project.
May 9, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
~'Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Henley if he would be willing to serve as the Board's representative
since Crozet is in his district. Mr. Henley accepted the appointment. Motion was offered
by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to appoint Mr. Henley to work with the Albemarle
County Service Authority in developing the project scope~by defining the area to be served
by the Crozet Collector System. Mr. Agnor noted that the request also asked for a county
staff member to serve and he would recommend Mr. Robert Tucker since utilities are part of
his responsibilities. Mr. Lindstrom and Mrs. Cooke accepted the amendment to the motion
to also include Mr. Tucker. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. BoWie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 26A. Discussion of Rabies Control Program.
Mr. Agnor said there have been discussions with the Sheriff, Ray Jones and the Health
Department about the rabies problem in Northern Virginia and its spread to counties lying
just north of the Albemarle border and how same should be handled; in particular, whether
there should be an ordinance adopted requiring the innoculation of cats (Note: Such an
ordinance has just been adopted by the City of Charlottesville.) or some other means of
enforcing innoculation. He noted that the Sheriff's Department has been providing supp!ementa
services to the Animal Control officers by responding to calls about possible rabies
cases. This procedure has been working well. The staff does not feel an ordinance requiring
cats to be innoculated is enforceable, but feels that clinics for rabies innoculations
held throughout the County on several Saturdays would be beneficial. Mr. Agnor said for
purposes of this discussion today, Dr. Richard Prindle, Director of the Health Department,
is present to update the Board on the rabies matter.
Dr. Prindle briefed the Board on the status of the rabies problem. He noted that in
Loudoun County, there were four hundred rabid raccoons found last year, but the epidemic
does appear to be burning itself out in that area and moving south. In 1983, there was a
rabies case in Greene County on the Madison County border, and to this date there have
been fifteen cases in Planning District 10; thirteen raccoons, one cow and one skunk. Dr.
Prindle said this rabies outbreak is different from those that have occurred in the past.
Normally, there are rabid foxes which are a rural epidemic with dogs being bitten and transmit
the rabies. However, the rabies are mostly in raccoons who like urban areas; there are
many .raccoons in Charlottesville and Albemarle. Dr. Prindle said although there have been
no human cases reported from rabid raccoons, when raccoons become sick they get very
friendly and stay out in the open. Dr. Prindle said as to the question of an ordinance
being adopted and its effectiveness he cannot answer that question. However, even though
Mr. Agnor and Sheriff Bailey have said they do not feel an ordinance is enforceable, he
feels there is an advantage to the ordinance, particularly if your cat bits someone, that
person is in a better position to sue if your cat has not been innoculated. However, he
did agree that innoculating all cats in this area would be almost impossible.
Mr. Fisher said he owns a cat and the vet urged its innoculation; he hopes other vets
do the same. Dr. Prindle said another advantage of such an ordinance is that veterinarians
would really urge the innoculation of cats with such an ordinance in force.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Agnor has recommended against adoption of an ordinance, but since
he has not seen any written ordinance, he was unsure how same would be applied. Although,
he was not too enthusiastic about such an ordinance, he did feel the Board should at least
look at the one recently adopted by the City. Mr. Agnor said he would obtain a copy of
same for the Board's information. Dr. Prindle said he would also obtain similar ordinances
from other localities around the State. Mr. Fisher again asked if Dr. Prindle favored
adoption of such an ordinance. Dr. Prindle said the State Department of Health has re¢
an ordinance be adopted, and the General Assembly passed enabling legislation allowing
localities to adopt same. Therefore, he felt a responsibility to urge adoption of an
ordinance.
Sheriff George Baimley was present and said he felt enforcement of an ordinance requiring
innoculation of cats would be difficult to enforce due to the large amount of stray cats
in the County. Mr. Fisher asked how he felt the innoculation of cats should be handled.
Sheriff Bailey said he favored the idea of Mr. Agnor that several clinics be established
in the County. Mr. St. John said he felt enforcement of such an ordinance in court would
be difficult because all a person would have do is disown the animal.
Mr. Fisher asked Dr. Prindle if his staff could set up the clinics suggested. Dr.
Prindle said yes, and noted that a clinic is planned for May 19 from 8 A.M. to ll A.M. at
the Health Department on Rose Hill Drive. These will have to be carefully scheduled
because theoretically these clinics are not allowed where there are sufficient veterinarians
in an area. However, with an epidemic involved, more can possibly ~be done. He also noted
the cost involved since vets are compensated for this service, and the fee ~for the clinic
this Saturday is $4.00 which pays for the vaccine but with a number of clinics being held
there may be a financial problem. Mr. Fisher concurred in the recommendation for the
establishment of the clinics. Mr. Henley felt the news media should help by urging
parents to stress to their children to be aware of strange behavior in animals. Dr.
Prindle said he would'also suggest that when additional clinics are established, the
County request the media to advertise same.
May 9, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting~)
Mr. Fisher said the clinics and advertising of same is a very small expense in relation
to the rabies problem, and he felt the County should make.the effort to do both whether
the County has to fund part or all of the expense involved. He felt the clinics should be
held, and then an ordinance can be examined at a later date. Mr. Way felt the location of
the clinics should be more specific and agreed that clinics would encourage people to have
both dogs and cats innoculated. Mr. Agnor suggested two locations for two different
Saturdays; specifically, May 26 at Brownsville and Stone Robinson Elementary Schools, and
June 2, 1984 at Broadus Wood and Walton Schools. This would cover four different corners
of the County. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to accept the
recommendation of Mr. Agnor as well as requesting the news media to advertise the clinic
to be held on May 19 at the Health Department for both City and County residents, and that
the fact that these clinics are being held be heavily advertised. Roll was called and tha
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Not Docketed. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board recently asked that the Sheriff's Department
enforce Section 16-3 of the County Code regarding the hauling of trash over public highways
and asked if that has been adhered to. Sheriff Bailey said for the last month a deputy
has been checking both the landfills on weekends. Enforcement of this code section has
been effective, but there is a misunderstanding that a vehicle hauling anything has to be
covered. That is not the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said most commercial
haulers only work during the week and he felt it would be helpful if the deputies patroled
the two landfills on weekdays. Mr. Fisher agreed. Sheriff Bailey said he would make
arrangements to have someone examine the matter at least once a week. Mr. Bowie suggested
that the times of this patrol be varied. Sheriff Bailey agreed.
Mr. Way expressed a concern about the dumpsters at the Keene Landfill being filled on
weekends when many people use them. Finding the dumpsters full creates a frustrated
citizen who therefore disposes of the trash along the highways. Mr. Agnor said the operators
empty the dumpsters when leaving on Saturday but he will check into this concern and
verify the volume and the amount of people turned away as a result of the dumpsters being
found full.
Agenda Item No. 27. Appointments.
Mr. Fisher suggested the meeting on May 16 scheduled for 4 P.M. be changed to 2 P.M.
in order that interviews for the at-large school board member can be held before the
Board's meeting with the Planning Commission. He also suggested if the Board members had
any nominees for the position to inform Miss Neher in order that an interview ~a~ 'L~i~ ~
be arranged.
Mr. Agnor said the vacancies for the Equalization Board and the Albemarle County
Service Authority need to be filled as soon as possible. After a brief discussion, Mr.
Fisher suggested that the appointee to the Albemarle County Service Authority live in
either the Charlottesville or the Rivanna District, specifically the Hollymead area.
Mrs. Cooke offered motion to reappoint Mrs. Barbara Staples to the Equalization Board
with said term to expire on December 31, 1984. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke said Mr. Edward Lang, representative on the Transportation Safety Committee,
has not responded to letter written asking if he wished to continue as a member. Therefore,
she offered motion tO write a letter to Mr. Lang thanking him for his past service on the
Transportation Safety Committee. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion and same carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Bowie said regarding appointments to the various boards and commissions that he
feels persons serving could be contacted before the expiration date of their respective
terms to see if there is any interest in continuing to serve. He suggested Mr. Harry
Dickinson be contacted since his term on the Soil Erosion Advisory Board expires on June'
30, 1984. Also, Mr. Bowie said he understands that the Criminal Justice Advisory Council
is no longer a functioning committee. He would suggest that this fact be confirmed in
order that this committee be deleted from the list.
A discussion followed about the appointment of an at-large School Board member;
questions were asked as to whether there had been a deadline set for the taking of applicatio~
Mr. Fisher said May 3 was the deadline. He further stated that when there is a cut-off
date for applications, there is an obligation to interview those who have applied and if
the Board is not satisfied after those interviews, to readvertise the vacancy. Mr.
May 9, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Lindstrom said he will be out of town next week and would like to be involved in the
interviewing process. Mr. Fisher suggested May 23, 1984 at 4:00 P.M. 'as an appropriate
time. Mr. Bowie said he did not recall any deadline being involved in the applications
for the position and he has found someone who is interested and who was concerned that the
deadline had passed. Mr. Way also did not recall a deadline being involved. Mr. Lindstrom
offered motion to interview the applicants for the at-large School Board member at~ 4 P.M.
on May 23, 1984. Mr. Way seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 28. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher said a note of appreciation for the flowers from the Board has been
received from the family of Ed Bain.
Mr. Fisher said he has responded to Reverend Lavert Taylor regarding his proposal for
the establishment of a Commission on Human Rights by informing him that th& Board has
taken this under advisement.
Mr. Fisher said the NACo Annual Meeting is to be held in July in Seattle, Washington
and asked if any Board members are considering attending the meeting. Mr. Bowie said he
has some interest in attending, but has not reached a conclusion at this time. Mr.
Fisher said he will attend the meeting as a member of the NACo Board; the County is not
involved in that expense. Further, he noted that someone from the County needs to be
certified to cast ballots for the County in the event there are any written ballots
involved. He can represent the County if the Board so desires. Motion was offered by Mr.
Way, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to officially designate Mr. Fisher as the county's voting
delegate at the NACo Annual Conference in Seattle. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 29. Executive Session.
taken care of during the lunch break.
The need for this executive session was
Agenda Item No. 30. At 5:02 P.M., motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr.
Bowie, to adjourn to May 16, 1984 at 4:00 P.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.