1984-05-23 adjMay 23, 1984 (Adjourned from May 16, 1984)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia was held
on May 23, 1984, beginning at 4:00. P.M. in the County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia; said ~meeting being adjourned from May 16, 1984.
Present: Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr. and C. Timothy Lindstrom.
Absent: Mr. Peter T. Way.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. Joh~
and Deputy County Executive and Director of Planning and Community Development, Robert W.
Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 4:02 P.M. in Meeting Room 11,
Fourth Floor, County Office Building, with only the above noted Board members present at this
time.
Agenda Item No. 2. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to
adjourn into executive session for discussion of personnel relating to interviews of citizens
for various boards and commissions. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
None.
Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 3. The Board recessed for supper about 5:40 P.M. and reconvened in open
session in Meeting Room #7 at 7:30 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 4.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called back to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 5.
Agenda Item No. 6.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing:
Highway Budget for Fiscal Year 1984-85.
Progress on May 8 and May 15, 1984.)
Six-Year Highway Plan, and Secondary Improvement
(Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, to present the Highway
Plan for the public. Mr. Roosevelt said this plan for 1984-90 does six things:
1) Anticipates $5,604,154 will be available for improvements;
2) Allocates the minimum amount required by State Code to gravel road, hard-surfacing
improvements and distributes funds to projects where the required amount of right-of-way has
been made available by the citizens. This has been done in accordance with a policy adopted
by this Board several years ago;
3) Designates the maximum amount allowed to an ~-undesignated" category (this allows
the Board the opportunity to allocate funds to projects not shown in the plan at budget time
each year without having to revise the entire Six-Year Plan);
4) The budget includes a spot improvement for Route 652 to improve the connection
between two developments where a low-volume, dead-end road has been turned into a medium-
volume, through road. This was accomplished by reducing the "undesignated" category in the
1984-85 year by $50,000;
5) This plan anticipates further expenditures for over-runs on the Hydraulic Road
(Route 743) project - extension of curb and gutter form Georgetown Road to Whitewood Road at
a cost of approximately $80,000 - addition of a traffic signal at the intersection of Whitewood
Road and Hydraulic Road - remaining costs due to over-runs in project qualtities.
6) The plan allocates all remaining funds to the Meadow Creek Parkway (top priority of
the Board).
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Roosevelt to give a further explanation of projects listed on
a hand-out attached to the agenda this night.
Mr. Roosevelt explained that the first item is relates to the Hydraulic Road (.Route 743)
project which has been physically completed but not completely financed - this proposed plan
shows an additional expenditure of $225,000 in the 1984-85 fiscal year.
The next item listed is for the Meadow Creek Parkway (a new road beginning on Route 631 -
Rio Road, at the Vocational Technical Center and ending at Melbourne Road at the City limits)
which will be part of a joint project with the City to extend Rio Road into the City via a
new route connecting with McIntire Road and ending in the vicinity of the new County Office
Building.
The third project is Route 671, a gravel road which is to be hard-surfaced. This road
runs from Route 609 to Route 668 East, about one mile in length, and is estimated to cost
$170,000 - scheduled for construction in 1985.
Mr. Roosevelt said the next project is Route 618 near the Fluvanna County line running
from Route 729 about two miles east on Route 618, is a gravel road scheduled for hard-surfacing
in 1986.
May 23, 1984 (Adjourned from May 16, 1984)
The fifth project is a section of Route 640 which was widened several years ago as a
gravel road, but did not have a traffic count sufficient at that time to provide for hard-
surfacing. The right-of-way is available, and the road-will require only some shaping. The
improvement is from Route 20 to one mile east of Route 20. and is scheduled for 1986.
The next project is on Route 664 between Route 604 and Route 743.
which will be widened and hard-surfaced and will be financed by 1987.
This is a gravel road.
Route 622 at the Fluvanna County Line running from Route 618 is an existi.ng gravel road
which will be widened and hard-surfaced and is scheduled for improvement in late 1988 or
early 1989.
Item No. 8 is Route 643 starting at Route 649 (Proffit Road) and running east for about
one mile toward the railroad tracks. Financing of the project is begun in this plan, but the
major portion of the financing will not occur until after 1990. The road is included in this
plan so it will be in a position to be moved forward in the event there should be extra funds
received during this six-year period.
Item No. 9 is in the same situation. Route 727 from Route 627 to RouTe 795 (Blenheim
Road) has been included in the event funds are received, but it is anticipated that the
project will not be constructed until after 1990.
Project No. 10 is Route 686 running from Route 600 near Campbells to the Louisa County
line. This is a gravel road which will be widened and hard-surfaced. Only $1,000 is included
in this six-year plan, but the road is shown in the event funds should become available, the
project could then be moved forward in time.
Mr. Roosevelt said these road improvements are shown because the Board had agreed se'veral
years ago that when citizens gave the necessary right-of-way for an improvement project, that
project would be included in the next available six-year plan.
Mr. Roosevelt said the final improvement is the spot ~mprovement for Route 652 which is
the road that ran beside the Merridale School off of Rio Road. This was a dead-end road, but
with the construction of Fieldbrook Subdivision, this has become a through road between
Westmoreland Subdivision and Rio Road. The developers of the two new subdivisions along this
road will upgrade the entire length of road except for a short section of approximately 400
feet. This project was recommended by the Planning Commission who recognized that this
section will receive a great deal of new traffic and also because the connection of the road
is on a very short horizontal curve. The Planning Commission felt the Highway Department
should improve this connection and thus avoid the safety problems that might arise. An
allocation of $50,000 has been included in the 1984-85 year of the plan in the hope that the
right-of-way will be made available for the improvement.
Mr. Roosevelt said the last item is noted as being "undesignated" funds. Highway
Department policy allows the Board to set up a fund containing 13 percent of its expected
allocation, and then to designate these funds to any project they wish during budget preparatio
each year.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. There being no member of the public present.
to speak, the public hearing was immediately closed.
Mr. Roosevelt said he just received information from the State office yesterday that the
County's allocation for the Six-Year planning period has been updated and $1,525,174 is the
new allocation for the first year of the plan, 1984-85; an increase of $458,035 over what had
been anticipated. Mr. Roosevelt said this is due to the buying of new automobiles, etc.
This is a one-time, major increase over the amount which had been anticipated. He suggested
that the budget shown tonight be modified, and the new figure be shown for the 1984-85 year,
and that all projects be brought forward in time in accordance with the Board's policy guidelin
after checking these projects with the Planning Director. Mr. Roosevelt said this may be the
highest allocation the County will, or has ever received for one-year, but costs at this time
are running about 35 percent above the costs of ten years ago.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if it can be anticipated that this level of funding will remain, or
will the allocation drop back in future years. Mr. Roosevelt said it appears that funding
will drop back to the amount shown for the following year.
After a short discussion, Mr. St. John stated that the Board should readvertise for
another public hearing on this budget, with the revised figures mentioned by Mr. Roosevelt.
Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to readvertise the six-year highway
plan for the meeting of June 13, 1984. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Motion was then offered by Mrs'. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to readvertise a 1984-85
Secondary Highwya Improvements budget for the meeting of June 13, showing the revised figures
for this year. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
None.
Way.
May 23, 1984 (Adjourned from May 16, 1984)
Agenda Item No. 8. Work Session: Lickinghole Creek Regional Runoff Control Basin.
Mr. Agnor noted that Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, and Mr. Tom Muncaster, Eng
Department, were present tonight to answer any questions from the Board members concerning
the ""Lickinghole Creek Regional Runoff Control Basin" report made at the April 11, 1984
meeting. ~
Mr. Muncaster said if the concept of constructing a retention basin on Lickinghole Creek
is approved, ~this project will be included in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). A
request for $87,000 is being included in the CIP for 1984-85 for the final engineering design
of the project and land acquisition. An amendment of the Runoff Control Ordinance will be
necessary in order to allow the County to require developers to contribute funds to off-site
faci~Iities in lieu of constructing on-site facilities which are now required by the Ordinance
when five percent of the site has impervious cover. The Engineering staff also recommends
that temporary funding - maybe through Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority bonds - be pursued,
and that any future developer contributions to this project be transferred to the Rivanna
Authority.
Mr. Muncaster said a tentative budget of $458,235 has been requested for 1985-86 for
construction of the detention basin. He said that the decision to proceed with construction
of the basin could be evaluated each year considering the following factors:
A)
B)
C)
D)
Indications of developer interest in the Crozet growth area;
Amount of developer contribution likely;
Concern for uniformity of County policy;
Changes in water quality of the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir.
Mr. Fisher asked the definition of No. (C). Mr. Agnor gave two examPles: 1) A deVelop-
ment is approved and the developer constructs an on-site facility. 2) ~ development is
approved and the developer makes a financial contribution to an off-site facility which may
never.be constructed. The staff is concerned that there may be a conflict in the County's
policies for protection of the South Fork Rivanna watershed. The staff feels that when the
Crozet Sewage Interceptor is finally completed, there will be a great deal of interest shown
in the Crozet growth area~. There is also the question'of water quality. Water quality is
monitora~d continously ~so the decision to proceed with construction of the Lickinghole Creek
basin may be geared to the results of that testing.
Mr. Fisher asked when construction of the basin Would begin under What is proposed.
Mr. Muncaster said it could begin in spring of 1985. The interceptor line is to be finished
by the end of 1985 or the early part of 1986. Mr. Fisher asked if the proposed expenditures
presented tonight will be included in the next update of the Capital Improvements Plan. Mr.
Agnor said yes. Mr. Fisher asked if the Rivanna Authority had been requested to consider
selling bonds for this project. Mr. Agnor said in the event that the Board did not approve
the concept of the project, no request has been made at this time. Mr. Henley said he would
prefer that the funding for this project come from the Rivanna Authority since the project
will actually be of benefit to the users of the water system and not the citizens of the
County as a whole. Mr. Bowie concurred. Mr. Agnor said it is conceivable that developer
contributions will eventually pay for the entire project. Mr. Muncaster said some money is
needed in order to begin the project, but it is felt that developer contributions will pay
for the entire project. If the Crozet growth area develops completely, the average share
will be about $385 per acre. That is considerably less than the cost a developer would
incur if placing on-site controls. There are nearly 1,500 acres of property already zoned,
but undeveloped in the growth area that will require some type of runoff control protection.
Mr. Henley said if the money were taken from the Capital Improvements Fund and then paid
back by the developers, that would be one way to gain his support for the project. Mr.
Muncaster said construction of the basin cannot start until after the Crozet interceptor is
in place. Mr. Henley said he could see no need for construction to begin until an actual
need occurs.
Mr. Agnor said Mr. Muncaster has recommended that the engineering work on the collector
system be done, and then the project set aside until there is an apparent need. Mr. Henley
said there are some people who own land which will be affected by this basin, who would like
to know what that affect will be. Mr. Agnor said if the staff is allowed to proceed with
the project, the design work will be completed, property can than be acquired, and the
project still put on the shelf until the need for same is apparent. Mr. Lindstrom said the
project will not get any cheaper by waiting. Mr. Henley said the higher density development
for which this project is designed is not occuring at this time. Mr. Fisher said he feels
the project will also help to reduce the pollution that is already in Lickinghole Creek.
Mr. Muncaster said yes, although a large part of the pollution in the Creek is from point
sources which will be eliminated when the interceptor is completed.
Mr. Fisher asked what the Board needs to do at this time about this project. Mr. Agnor
said if concept of the project and funding for same will be returned to the Board later this
summer with the complete Capital Improvements Plan and budget. Mr. Fisher asked how much
more engineering work will be needed before the property owners will know how much land is
needed and where the dam site Will be. Mr. Muncaster said the Engineering Department is
going to obtain a computer program which will allow it to analyze how much sediment can be
expected to be captured by this facility. Once that is done, the design of the facility can
be optimized. This work will probably take a couple of months to do. The County Engineering
Department does not intend to do the final engineering work on the actual project. Mr. Fisher
said after that work is completed, he feels the Board can set a public hearing date on the
project and receive public comments.
Mrs. Lady Walton, one of the affected landowners, was present and asked to speak. She
expressed concern that unidentified people have been walking over her property. Mrs. Walton
said she had learned a little about holding ponds by visiting the offices of the Rivanna
Authority. She was referred by them to the County Engineer's Office which she did visit
with a conservationist and her lawyer, but all feel more information is needed about the
project. Mrs. Walton said there has been several hundreds of dollars of damage to her
property from the two contractors who took borings for the interceptor line. Mrs. Walton
said she loves Albemarle County and plans to live here, and does not intend to develop her
May 23, 1984 (Adjourned fromM:May 16, 1984)
property unless forced to do so. The water from this Lickinghole Creek basin will cover
only about nine acres Of her property, but there will be another fourteen acres affected by
the flood plain. Mrs. Walton noted for the Board that she owns some property which would be
cut off without access by the waters in the basin. Also, her driveway (which comes within
40 feet of her front door) is at about one-half mile in length and she will not allow heavy
machinery to use that road during construction. Mrs. Walton said she and her husband thought
they were buying land that nobody else would want or ever bother with, so they could live on
the land. Mrs. Walton said she also had present with her today, Mr. Eddie Wood, a conser-
vationist, and Mr. Herring, who rents her farm. Both have some concerns about this project.
Mr. Fisher said he feels these questions deserve an answer, but the answers are not available
tonight.
Mr. Eric Keyes, speaking for his mother, Helen Keyes, an adjoining property owner, said
she does not want her land taken in such a manner. Essentially, more information is needed
about the project.
Mr. Eddie Wood said he lives in Greenwood. He said the sewer interceptor line will
eliminate phosphorus. He questions why this basin is needed for that purpose, when the
soils in this part of the county are normally low in phosphorus. Mr. Fisher said the inter-
ceptor will remove two or three point sources of pollution, but the Board and others feel
that the interceptor will in turn stimulate a great deal of development in the Crozet area.
Of the 1,500 acres of zoned, undeveloped land in the area at this time, a great deal of that
land will be paved over. That will result in a considerable amount of surface water washing
off all the pollutants from pets, people, automobiles, insecticides, all the things that
come with urban development. This Lickinghole Creek impoundment (catch basin) will be
designed to help alleviate this problem. The Board has been discussing this problem for
three years to see what might work to help with the problem, and there has been no definite
plan until the past few months.
Mr. Mike Herring said he leases both the Keyes and Walton properties and this basin
will probably take the best bottom land from both properties. He feels the money should be
used for better conservation practices to help eliminate the problem before it begins.
Mrs. Walton again said she would like to know when people are going to be walking
around on her property. She rather resents someone planning something for her property
without her knowing about it first. Mr. Henley said there are only two or three landowners
involved, so he does not see that there should be a problem with notification. Mr. Fisher
said he hopes that'a written notice can be sen~ to all affected landowners when a public
hearing is scheduled for this project.
Agenda Item No. 9. Request of Essex Company to finance purchase of apartment project
with bonds issued by Charlottesville Housing Authority.
Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Raymond L. Roton, a principal in the Essex Company of Montgomery,
Alabama, has requested the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority to issue its
multi-family housing bonds for the purchase of the Hessian Hills Apartment complex, in Albemarle
County. However, the Charlottesville Authority will consider the request only if the Board of
Supervisors concurs in the request.
Mr. Ray Roton said Essex Company is in the process of acquiring the Hessian Hills
Apartment project. He then introduced Mr. Bill Jergens of Guilford Company, a subsidary of
Essex Company, which is actually the company acquiring the property; Ms. Barbara Bradford of
Kutak Rock & Huie, proposed bond counsel for Essex Company; and Mr. Gene Arrington, Executive
Director, Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority. Mr. R0ton said the Albemarle
county Board of Supervisors is being requested to ask the Charlottesville Redevelopment and
Housing Authority to endorse an inducement resolution on the County's behalf. The location
of the project is just out of the City limits, but under Virginia state law there is a
territorial provision which allows the local housing authority (in this case, the City
Authority) to issue bonds for such a project in the County if the Board requests the City to
do so. Passage of the inducement resolution does not mean that the bonds can be issued, but
would put the issue in line for sale after the TEFRA public hearing, and after Essex Company
came to an agreement with both the County and the City. Mr. Roton said that if Essex has an
inducement resolution before acquisition of the project, it has the ability to finance same,
otherwise it does not have that ability. Mr. Roton said that Essex does not propose to turn
.this apartment complex into a low-income or Section 8 housing project. Twenty percent of
the units will be set aside for low to moderate income people. Neither the credit of the
City Housing Authority or the credit of the County will be involved with this project, and
the City Authority will not have a mortgage on the facility. The City Authority will be
used only as a conduit for financing of the improvements which are necessary at this time.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how tenants will be chosen. Mr. Roton said the term "low and moderate
income" will be defined by the Charlottesville Housing Authority; the apartments must be let
on a first-come, first-served basis - the tenants cannot be screened. Essex Company has
employed a management firm in Richmond, Virginia, to manage the property.
Mrs. Cooke asked how the definition for "low to moderate" family income is set. Ms.
Barbara BradfOrd said Federal law requires that twent~ percent of the units in the complex
be set aside for low to moderate income tenants; this will be defined by the City Housing
Authority. The Federal standard for this definition is to use eighty percent of the median
income for the area (in 1980, in Charlottesville, this was $24,000 per year, family income).
State law requires that the City Housing Authority take into account the size of the family,
the family's income, and some general historic figures in setting rents.
May 23, 1984 (Adjourned from May 16, 1984)
i85
Mr. Lindstrom asked if approval of this application would have any bearing on future
applications to Albemarle County. Ms. BradfOrd said that under State statute the Board must
review applications on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Lindstrom asked if giVing another housing
authority approval to iSsue these bonds would take away this Board's authority in the future
to set up a housing authority for Albemarle County. Ms. Bradford said it would not. Mr.
LindStrom asked what would happen if the Board decided it did not Want some other authority
issuing these bonds. Ms. Bradford said in that event, no authority would be able to issue
the bonds. There is a State Housing Authority which could have issued the bonds, but for
various reasons, that option was not available at this time. Mr. Roton said the State
Authority only issues bonds once each year, and his company had just missed that process for
the current year.
Mr. Fisher said the Charlottesville Authority has recently been involved in discussions
concerning racial quotas. He asked if racial quotas must be met in this project. Ms. Bradford
said rental of the twenty percent of the units to low to moderate income families cannot be
based on sex, race or origin.
Mr. Bowie asked who oversees the management firm and decides whether the project is
being handled according to the various regulations. Ms. Bradford said the bonds would be
issued., and the proceeds of those bonds pledged to a trustee; a local banking authority of
some kind. That local authority will then receive periodically a certification from the
manager of the complex that the~project is being managed according to all requirements. If
at some point in the future, the complex is not in compliance with all requirements, the
trustee would report this fact to the bondholders, and from that date, the bonds would
become taxable back to the date same were issued. This is a strong incentive for the developer
to comply with regulations. Mr. Roton said there would also be a provision in the bonding
papers that should a mistake be found and the bonds become taxable, the bondholder would be
paid an additional nine percent for the period since the bonds were issued, the bonds must
then be called, and usually at a premium. There are very stiff penalties involved which
make the investment banker deal within the guidelines.
Mr. Bowie asked the rental rates on the other eighty percent of the units. Ms. Bradford
said the Housing Authority has the power to set income limits for low to moderate income
families, and cannot set the limits beyond the income of more than twenty-five percent of
the tenants who live in the complex. These rates must be set before the bonds are issued
and cannot be changed periodically by the Authority. Mr. Roton said that even if this Board
adopted an inducement resolution tonight, Essex Company would still have to come back for a
TEFRA hearing. If th8 Board did not feel that the project met its standards, the company
could be denied the issuance of the bonds.
Mr. Henley asked~who actually inspects a project to make sure it is being managed in
compliance with all regulatigns. Ms. Bradford said it is the duty of the bond trustee to
make whatever inspections ar~ required. Mr. Henley asked what the trustee stands to lose if
he does not make the inspectmons. Ms. Bradford said the bondholders can sue the trustee.
Mr. Roton said the trustee iT normally a large bank with corporate trust powers which has a
separate department to handle this kind of work.
Mr. Gene Arrington, Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority, said that so
far he has received only limited information about this project. He shares the concerns of
Mr. Henley and Mr. Bowie as to who will audit this project. If this bond issue is authorized,
a section will be written into the agreement reserving the right to review the records to be
sure that this project is administered according to.the law. Should the project go into
default, it would not be a default of the Housing Authority, but would be a "black eye" on
the Authority. The Authority will reserve the right to protect its interest. Mr. Agnor
asked if the Housing Authority will request the advice of the Board of Supervisors when
setting the rental rates. Mr. Arrington said he could not be sure, but felt the Board of
the Housing Authority and-the Board of Supervisors should reach some agreement on the rates.
In the limited time that the Housing Authority has had to investigate this request, it has
found that using eighty percent of the median income for setting rates will put the rents at
a point where it is felt that not many low to moderate income people will be able to afford
the rent.
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Arrington could make a guess as to the amount of rents for this
project. Mr. Arrington said he did not know at this time. The eighty percent of the units
will have to "pick up the slack" from the twenty percent subsidized units. Mr. Arrington
said he is concerned that the fair market rents of today will not allow any low to moderate
income people to live in the project. Knowing of problems that have arisen in other projects
around the country, the Housing Authority will have written into the'agreement that the
twenty percent of the units set aside shall be comprised of both two and three-bedroom
units. He knows of places where all of the units were 'one-bedroom units, and this is not
sufficient for families.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the tenants pay their own utilities. Mr. Roton said the rent
includes gas, water and trash pickup. Mrs. Cooke asked if the units are centrally air-
conditioned. Mr. Roton said yes. Mrs. Cooke said she did not know why the developers would
want to make these units available to people who might not be able to pay the electric utility
costs. Mr. Bill Jordan said that the rental rate is a function of the initial investment,
maintenance of the complex, and the 'interest rates paid on mortgages. These apartments were
built in two phases, sixteen and eighteen years ago. All of these apartments are two-story
units, and none are insulated. There is no insulation on the water pipes, the dUct work,
and the 'return to the air conditioning~unit runs on the outside of the building, and is not
insulated. Many of the units still have the original water heater. All units will be
insulated, water heaters and dishWashers installed. The investors anticipate spending about
$650,000 over a forty-month period on renovations. Also, about twelve of the buildings also
have the original roof. Mrs. Cooke said she believed that her point had been completely
missed. '
'May 23, 1984 (Adjourned from May 16, 1984)
Mr. St. John said he had~several questions to ask Ms. Bradford. He asked what would
happen in the event of a default. Ms. Bradford said that the bonds would have to be called
with the trustee notifying all.bondholders. This usually depends on the person furnishing
the credit enhancement. Since this is to be conduit financing, another party will be required
to guarantee the developers obligations under the bonds. Whoever that party is (an insurance
company or bank), they will insist on a mortgage on the property. That party would pay off
the bondholders and then that party would hold the proPerty, ~
Mr. St. John asked ~for a clarification that the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing
Authority would not own the property in such an event. Ms. Bradford said the documents can be
structured in such a way that the Housing Authority would never receive the property.
. Mr. St~ John said he could see no way that the manager, of this complex could ever assure
a constant supply of low to moderate income people to rent the units in order to keep the
bonds tax free. Ms. Bradford said that on the day the bonds are issued., twenty percent of
the units must be occupied by low to moderate income people, and if there is ever a vacancy,
these units are not reclassified. Mr. St. John asked what would happen if no tenant fitting
the guidelines could be found to rent these Units. Ms. Bradford said the developer would
have a choice, he could hold the twenty percent- of the Units vacant and go into default on ~'
the bonds for lack of rent money, or he could effectively reduce the rents. Mr. St. John
said the Housing Authority will have established a rent schedule and taken that decision out
of the developer's hands. Ms. Bradford said the Housing Authority has that power, but has
not taken that step at this time. Mr. St. John said that essentially the remaining eighty
percent of the tenants carry the rest of the units financially. Ms. BradfOrd said the
purchasers of this complex expect to realize $100,000 total income from the project and are
not concerned which unit actually contributes that income. Mr. St. John asked if the rental
figure on the other units is subject to the control of the Housing Authority. Ms. Bradford
said it is not.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the people renting the other eighty percent of the units will know
they are being assessed an additional amount ~o cover the rents of the subsidized units.
Ms. Bradford said when the rent schedule is set, a way to get the overall rent is defined.
The eighty percent do not have to live in this compleX; they have the opportunity to live in
another place. Mrs. Cooke asked if the rent subsidy is spelled out in the lease agreement.
Mr. Roton said the tax exempt financing is what actually subsidizes the rent.
Mr. St. John said he had some questions concerning the law on this question. Ms. Bradford
said she was using Section 36-23 of the Code of Virginia in requesting this approval tonight.
Mr. St. John asked if this section of the Code still contains language that "if the housing
authority has outstanding indebtedness for a project within the municipality (meaning this
County), no other housing authority may undertake a project within such municipality without
the consent of the housing authority which has such outstanding indebtedness or obligation."
Ms. Bradford said that language is in the Code section. Mr. St. John said he interprets
this language to mean that if the City Housing Authority issues these bonds, then any other
authority, including an authority created by this County, would have to get the concurrence
of the City before it could undertake any project in the County. Ms. Bradford said she
thinks' Mr. St. John's interpretation is probably what the statute means, but she hopes that
was not the intent. Mr. St. John said he feels that is exactly the intent because a second
project would compete with the first project. Ms. Bradford agreed that would be true if the
second obligation were to the same issuer. She did not feel it makes as much sense in a
case like that presented tonight where the Housing Authority is just being used for financing
and the revenues of the Authority are not being pledged in any way. Mr. St. John asked if
Code Section 36-23 still requires the County to hold a referendum before establishing its
own authority. Ms. Bradford said it does.
~Mr. Lindstrom said he would like for the County AttorneY to adviSe the Board in executive
session, if that is appropriate, as to the legal ramification of approval of this request.
Mr. St. John said the appropriate wording would be "litigation" or "potential litigation",
and he would like to discuss this question in executive session, but did not feel it qualified
for either of the above noted subjects. Mr. St. John said he is absolutely confident that
if the Board gave approval to this project, that the Charlottesville Redevelopment and
Housing Authority would have veto power over any later project that another authority might
try to undertake in the County. Also, as noted by the executive director of that authority,
Mr. Arrington, the City will not be just a pure conduit for financing. If the City were to
be Just a pure conduit, Mr. St. John said, there would be no legal ramifications, but Mr. i
Arrington has said they will not be a pure conduit. They will not lend their name to a
projact where.they:do not have the power to be involved administratively during the term of
the bonds. Also, in future years, the City Housing Authority may have different staff
members and Board the may not have the working relationship it now has with City Council.
No one knows what some authority might do that the Board ha's no control over at all, and
that authority would be administering a project in Albemarle County. That sounds negative,
this is the down-side of the issue. On the up-side is the fact that the County would receive
credit for dealing with the housing situation without actually having to engage in the
financing of the project and without risking any County funds, although risking the County's
credit rating.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if a referendum must be held before establishing a housing authority. 1
Mr. St. John said that is true. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a referendum is required in this
case for the same reasons that a referendum is required for a general bond issue. Mr. St. John
said his answer would be pure speculation. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this project can be imposed
on the County if it does not want same. Mr. St. John said absent a shoWing that there is
some racial impact involved, it could not be. The County is not ignoring the housing situation
there is a housing office on the staff, and there is the Section 8 Rental Subsidy Program
and the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program both in place.
Mr. Bowie said he did not like the term low/moderate income. There are a lot of people
in the County who are not necessarily "low income" who cannot afford the rents being charged.
If an outside authority would have veto authority over future actions of this Board during the
time the debt was outstanding, and had the authority to set rents in the County, he really
would have a problem with approving something that would have control over the next five
generations of supervisors.
187
May 23, 1984 (Adjourned from May 16, 1984)
Mr. Lindstrom asked if it would be possible for an outside authority to waive its veto
power on subsequent projects. Mr. St. John said he did not know the answer to that question.
Mr. Lindstrom said he really does not want to see a housing project containing one hundred
percent low-income people in one location in the County. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the
Board has an obilgation to furnish affordable housing, and he would prefer to continue the
way the County has been doing it by scattering that housing throughout the County. On the
other hand, he has the feeling that this proposal may be just a nice gimmick to get some
subsidized financing which really does not result in any affordable housing for anybody. If
that is the case, he is not willing to go through any machination to set up an authority.
Aside from those two concerns, there is a third; that is the standards that the City Authority
may set. If it were possible for the City Authority to agree in a binding way with the
County with respect to their absolute right to dictate the standards for the twenty-five
percent, and their absolute right to veto any subsequent project as long as their issue was
outstanding, Mr. Lindstrom said he would feel inclined to approved the request before the
Board tonight. If this cannot be done, Mr. Lindstrom said he is reluctant to get involved
in this project. Mr. St. John said he thinks the City and the CoUnty could enter into such
an agreement, but there would be no way of knowing whether in later years different City
personnel might take the position that the agreement is illegal. Mr. Lindstrom said that is
the reason he had asked the question. He does not think this is the last time the Board
will be faced with this question. Ms. Bradford said that even if a resolution were approved
tonight, the Board would still have to give its final approval to the bonds, and if these
issues had not been resolved by that time, the issue could be denied. Mr. Fisher said he
feels the Board needs to look carefully at the issue, and not mislead an applicant into
spending money on counsel, etc. for work on a project unless the Board feels it is willing
to support the request. Mr. Fisher said he also has been concerned about housing costs. He
feels that the limitations in the State statute which prohibit the free choice of the citizens
of this County from operating its own housing authority is a fatal consideration in this
case. Mr. Fisher said he is not saying the County should start its own housing authority in
the near future, but he does feel that if the Board took action that would prohibit any
future board from being able to set up and operate housing authority without subjecting it
to veto from an outside authority is a major step. There are other problems, but this one
seems to be fatal. Mr. Fisher said he cannot support the request from Essex Company. Mr. Bowi~
said he does not think the decision tonight has to do so much with this project, but with
the ability of an outside authority to veto any future board action in the housing area.
Mr. Lindstrom said no matter what the vote is tonight, he would like to have the County
Attorney fully explore the possibility of future authorities exploring addressing these
problems.
Mr. Roton said his company could have gone to the City Housing Authority and gotten the
inducement resolution, however, they would have had to come to the Board for the TEFRA
hearing. He asked Mr. St. John if this had been done, if Mr. St. John would be taking te
same position he has taken tonight. Mr. St. John said the City Authority could not do any
of this in Albemarle County without this Board holding a public hearing as required under
State Code. Mr. Agnor said the Federal tax laws require that the company have an inducement
resolution in hand before proceeding to close and purchase the property. That resolution
makes the financing eligible to be tax exempt, but does not mean it will be tax exempt. Mr.
Lindstrom said unless the questions raised tonight are resolved, he would not want to act
and induce anything. He then offered motion to deny the request of EsseX Company to finance
the purhcase of an apartment project with bonds issued by the Charlottesville Redevelopment
and Housing Authority. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. St. John how long it would take to answer the questions posed tonight.
Mr. St. John said that in a week or so he, write a memorandum on the problem, but he did not
feel there is any legal mechanism with which to solve these questions. Mr. Lindstrom said he
felt it would still be worthwhile investigating the problem. Roll was called and the motion to
deny carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
None.
Mr. Way.
At 9:52 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:02 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 10. Request of City Mortgage Corporation for County Staff to administer
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program.
Mr. Agnor no%ed that City Mortgage Corporation of Norfolk, Virginia represents a group
of investors who have entered into negotiations with the owners of the Jefferson Towne
Apartments to acquire that property. After acquisition, a certain amount of rehabilitation
work will be completed. To assist the investors in acquisition and rehabilitation, the
investors have obtained from HUD a Section 8 rental subsidy allocation under the fifteen
year Moderate Rehabilitation Program. The project has been inspected and there is no major
rehabilitation work necessary. The purchasers intend to paint certain apartments and
install new carpeting and appliances, where necessary. The landscaping around the buildings
will be improved by the addition of shrubs and grass seeding. The total cost of this work
is estimated to be between $350,000 and $400,000. The Jefferson Towne Apartments have been
experiencing a vacancy rate of between thirty and forty units for the past year or so. It
is believed that the rent subsidy to be supplied by HUD will mean that the apartments can
be kept fully occupied, and the additional cash flow will permit the new owners to keep the
project appropriately repaired and maintained.
Mr. Agnor said City Mortgage has determined that the administrator of the MOderate
Rehabilitation Program does not have to be a housing authority, so is requesting that the
County's Department of Planning and Community Development be the administrator of the
Section 8 Program for this project. Mr. Agnor then introduced Mr. ~Eugene C. Cook, President,
City Mortgage Corporation, Norfolk, Virginia.
188
May 23, 1984 (Adjourned from May 16, 1984)
Mr. Cook said that this particular type of rental subsidy by HUD requires that the
program be administered by a public housing agency, which HUD defines as a State agency
such as V.H.D.A., a housing authority, or a planning department of a local government. He
is present tonight to request that Albemarle County'S Department of Planning be allowed to
administer this contract. He said this will involve certain duties which he has discussed
with Mr. Robert Tucker. There are some fairly liberal fees awarded for this service. Mr.
Cook said he appreciates remarks made earlier in the meeting about not having too many
Section 8 program units in one area. These investors certainly do no want this project to
become a ghetto.
Mr. Lindstrom asked why City Mortgage had not requested a State agency such as V.H.D.A.
to administer this program. Mr. Cook said it is felt that the program should be administered
on the local level due to the fees involved.
Mr. Fisher asked how many apartment units are located in the Jefferson Towne development,
and how many of the units will be eligible for this rental subsidy. Mr. Cook said there
are 240 apartments, and preliminary information shows that all but thirty-five percent of
the present tenants are already eliglble for the subsidy; the thirty-five percent would
have to be relocated since all 240 units will be subsidized.
Mr. Fisher asked if the people presently living in this apartment complex are paying
their rents. Mr. Cook said they are trying to pay the rent, but there is a vacancy rate of
about forty units. The present owners have been losing money for more than two years, with
a similar forecast for the present year. The rents now being paid are not adequate to
properly maintain the project. With the rental subsidy furnished by HUD, the new owners
will be able to make repairs and also set up reserve accounSs for the future.
Mr. Fisher asked if the rental rates will increase as a· result of this proposal.
Mr. Cook said yes, but there will be no increase to the tenants. Mrs. Cooke asked if the
project then becomes a project of totally subsidized tenants. Mr. Cook said that is correct;
for fifteen years.
Mr. Fisher asked if there are still Federal funds available for this Section 8 program.
Mr. Cook said yes; HUD has 7,500 units of this type of rental subsidy which are being awarded
on a discretionary basis. The potential purchasers have been assured by people at the central
office of HUD that these units will be awarded to them. However, a letter from the County
Planning Department to HUD is required first.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how this subsidy will be guaranteed for fifteen years. Mr. Cook
said the purchasers will enter into a contract with HUD so that there will be a binding
commitment. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the County Planning Department will be able to mandate
standards for maintenance of the buildings. Mr. Cook said the initial rehabilitation work
has to be approved by whoever administers the Section 8 contract. After that, there is no
mention of such work in the contract. Mr. Lindstrom asked how the fair market rentals are
determined. Mr. Cook said HUD publishes adjustment factors each year. The increases are
indexed in some manner similar to the consumer price index. Mr. Lindstrom asked what will
happen if the fair market rent does not increase sufficiently over the years to provide the
owner with a maintenance fund so the property can be properly maintained; or suppose the
developer just decides to pocket the profit. What assurance is there that this property
will be maintained? Mr. Cook said there is no such assurance, however he feels the owners
will want to maintain the property in good condition because at the end of the fifteen
years, they will have a project which will have to be rented on the open market.
Mrs. Cooke asked what control the County Planning Department will have over the owners
if the property is not mainta±ned correctly. Mr. Cook said that from a practical standpoint
the actual cash funds are forwarded to the County first, and the funds are then forwarded
to the owners. From t~hat standpoint, the County could have control. Mrs. Cooke asked if
Mr. Cook were implying that the County could withhold rental payments from the owners. Mr.
Cook said that is not something the owners would object to; they would be willing to go
along with some such policy. Mr. Bowie asked if the owners would stipulate in the agreement
with the County that the project would be maintained to the satisfaction of County Planning
Staff.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were a timing limitation on this request. Mr. Cook said
no; but a letter must be forwarded to HUD immediately since the discretionary funds are
being awarded about every other month. A simple letter to HUD from the County stating that
when the grant funds are awarded, a more formal application from the County Planning Department
will be sent, is all that is required at this time. The entire process can probably be
finalized in late August or early September.
Mr. Bowie asked if Mr. Cook has the option of having this program administered by
another agency in Virginia. Mr. St. John said the Code requires that the local government
agree to any activity carried on within its bounds by V.H.D.A. Mr. St. John said he also
understands that unless there is a letter forwarded to HUD from the County requesting the
funds, HUD will not consider the request.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to have comments from the staff and County Attorney.
Mr. Tucker said the County has never administered a Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation
Program. Last week, during discussion of a request for Section 8 rental subsidies for Ho!lymea¢
Square II, the applicants indicated that they had been granted the last units under the
Section 8~program, and that is probably true. The County is at present administering 180
units of Section 8 rentals in the County. However, the moderate rehabilitation program is
a separate program.
May. 23, 1984 (Adjourned from May 16, 1984)
189
Mr. St, John said the Board can approve or not approve the administering of this program
by the County, or can authorize another agency to administer same. Mr. Fisher asked what
pitfalls might occur from approval of this request. Mr. St. John said the only pitfall he
can foresee is not a legal pitfall, but rather the question of possibly creating a ghetto by
having that much subsidized housing in one location. Mr.. Tucker said the Board might take
into account the policy which has been followed in the past; that this type of rental unit be
scattered throughout the County. The staff has expressed a concern that approval of this
request might bear an influence on the number of units which might be available to the County
under the program it presently administers. Under the current program, V.H.D.A. insists on a
ninety-five percent rental rate. The County presently meets that rate easily, however the
staff is concerned that this rate could fall after the addition of another 180 units. Mr.
Fisher asked if the County maintains a waiting list for rental subsidies. Mr. Tucker said
yes; there are 100 people on that list who cannot be served at present. After the last list
was closed, the staff kept an informal list of the number of people calling in and that
totaled 160 persons over a four-month period of time. It is quite possible that not many of
ithese people would have qualified for the subsidy, but there were requests for information
from that number.
Mrs. Cooke asked how the number of 180 units was picked for the County program. Mr. Tucke~
said the County originally was allocated 200 units but was not able to maintain the correct
rental rate due to inadequate staffing. HUD has recently indicated that they are looking
State-wide at localities that do not maintain the ninety-five percent rental rate, and will
reallocate some of those units. Albemarle County has been asked if it would like'to have
additional units, and has discussed taking an additional 20 units; a number which could be
administered with present staff. Mrs. Cooke asked how the staff could administer a new
program if it is already taxed in administering the current number of units. Mr. Tucker said
the current staff could not administer a new program.
Mr. LindStrom said it seems~from this conversation that the estimate of the need for a
rental subsidy is "iffy"; the County might actually lose some o£ the't80 units it now
Mr. Tucker said there is that possibility to consider. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Tucker if he
thinks there is a pool of people in the County to use these subsidies. Mr. Tucker said he
thinks the people are there, but he does not know if all of these people currently live in
Albemarle County. Mr. Tucker said the program does not allow residency control. Mr. Bowie
noted it has been stated that 175 of the current residents in Jefferson Towne already qualify
for this subsidy. Mrs. Cooke asked how many people living in Jefferson Towne apartments at
this time are a part of the current County program. Mr. Tucker said the County has about
thirty units in Jefferson Towne at the present time. Mr. Agnor noted that one of the reasons
so many residents of Jefferson Towne would qualify for a rental subsidy is that the rents
would increase under the new ownership. Mr. Lindstorm asked if the Board might place
on who rents in this facility. Mr. St. John said there is an affirmative prohib±tion against
the Board discriminating in favor of its own residents; rentals must be first-come, first-
Mr. Tucker said that is correct, as long as a resident meets income criteria, he is eligible
for the subsidy.
Mr. Tucker sid the staff has drafted some preliminary cost estimates for administering
this proposed program. Three additional staff persons would be needed - the salaries of an
administrative assistant and two secretaries, including fringe benefits, would cost $48,000+;
equipment and furniture would cost about $7,500; other operating expenses for a program
similar to the current program are estimated at $14,000+. That gives a total in excess of
$70,500 for the first year of the program. HUD has indicated that it will pay $500 per unit
for start-up costs of the program, with $120,000 being the maximum amount available. After
that, reimbursement would be $34.00 per month, per unit, or annually a total of $98,000.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had not seen the Jefferson Towne Apartment complex for a long time
and asked if .this project wilt be significantly improved by the work contemplated. Mr. Tucker
said the complex is deteriorating, so this improvemnt will stop that for the~t~me being. The
County would also get the benefit of supplying additional units for those in need of adequate
housing.
Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Tucker had mentioned that approval of this request would be ~a
change in policy; might set a precedent. If he votes to approve this request it will be for
the significant reason that this will improve the housing stock that presently exists in
Albemarle County. Also, the fact that so many of the residents currently living there will
~ualify for this subsidy seems to be a legitimate distinction. ~Mr. Tucker said that while
this subsidy may cover this entire complex, it must be remembered that there are more than
1,000 apartments within one-half mile'or less of this location. Mr. Bow±e said this might
help to upgrade the whole area.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the reason there has been such a vacancy rate in this complex is
because there is such a glut of available units in the area that are more desirable. Mr. Tu~
said the staff has not undertaken that type of study, but it is his suspicion that that is
the reason.
Mr. Agnor said that one thing discussed by the staff concerning these apartments is the
new bus transportation system that is to begin in this area soon. Mr. Tucker said the staff
is in favor of providing additional units, but it has been sort of an unwritten policy that
the.Board was interested in spreading the units over the entire County. Mr. Agnor said this
program requires a very rigid inspection process. Every unit must be inspected, and Mr. Cook
has already said that inspection process will be okay. Mrs. Cooke said she did not think Mr.
Cook had committed himself to any inspection process by the County. Mr. Cook said there is
an inspection requirement made by this program. To the extent that that inspection is not
adequate, the prospective owners will enter into an agreement with the County to be sure the
property is maintained correctly.
190
May 23, 1984 (Adjourned from May 16, 1984)
At this time, Mr. Fisher asked for a motion authorizing the County Executive to forward
a letter to the HUD Office in Richmond requesting that the Jefferson Towne Apartment Complex
be allocated 240 units of Section 8, Moderate Rehabilitation Program subsidy. Mr. Lindstrom
said he would offer such motion with the understanding that the Board is not signing off on
this project, but expects the formal application listing details of maintenance, etc. worked
out to the reasonable satisfaction of the Board, to be returned before the Board gives its
final approval to the program. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Mrs. Cooke said she could
support the motion with that added stipulation. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
None.
Mr. Way.
(Mr. Henley left the meeting at 10:55 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 11. Revised Agreement: Earlysville Fire Department.
Mr. St. John said he felt the letter from Deputy County Attorney, Mr. James M. Bowling,
was self-explanatory, and referred to the following:
"May 15, 1984
Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Re: Service Agreement with Earlysville Fire Department
Dear Guy:
George, Allen called my yesterday concerning the service agreement with the
Earlysville Fire Department. The deed between Earlysville and the owner of
the property upon which the fire station will be built will contain a rever-
sionary clause stating that if at any time the property is no longer used for
fire-fighting purposed by Earlysvilte or its assigns, then the property will
revert to the current owner. Therefore, we need to amend the current service
agreement with Earlysville to reflect this fact.
Enclosed please find a proposed amendment to the service contract between
the County of Albemarle and the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Department which
recognizes that if Earlysville at any point in the future no longer uses its
property for fire-fighting purposes, the County or its assigns must use the
property for fire-fighting purposes or the property will revert to the current
owner.
I am sending a copy of this agreement to George Allen for his review. If you
find the language acceptable, the Board of Supervisors should reconsider the
agreement.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
(Signed)
James M. Bowling, IV"
Mr. Fisher said the word "only" in the last sentence of the agreement seemed unduly
restrictive. This could be construed that if voter registration were held in this facilit.y
on a Saturday, that the building would revert to the owner. Mr. St. John agreed and said he
felt this word could be marked through, initialed, and the agreement returned to the Earlys-
ville Volunteer Fire Department for concurrence.
Mr. Bowie then offered motion that the agreement be approved with the change mentioned
and the Chairman authorized to signed same on behalf of the County. The motion was seconded
by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mrs. Way.
THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this 23rd day of May 1984, by and between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the County), and the EARLYSVILLE VOLUNTEER
FIRE COMPANY (Earlysville);
WITNES SETH:
WHEREAS, the County has previously entered into a service agreement with
. .!..'~a~i~s~it[l~.,.~t~ February 22, 1983, providing for the withholding of~certain
sums each year by the County from the County's annual grant to Earlysville,
as set forth in said agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, Earlysvilie now desires to receive from the County One Hundred
Six Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($106,500.00) for the construction of
a new fire station and enter into an agreement consolidating its annual
withholding of payments by the County;
May 23, 1984 (Adjourned from May 16, 1984)
191
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the operation by Ear!ysville
of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and protect property and
human life from loss or damage by fire and the construction of new fire
station during the period of this agreement, the County shall pay to Earlysville
One Hundred Six Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($106,500.00), which payment
shall be made on May 1, 1984, from the County's capital fund. Thenceforth,
the sum of Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($16,000.00) per year Shall be withheld
each year from the County's annual grant to Earlysville, for a period of
twelve (12) years, beginning with the fiscal year 1984-85 and extending
through July 1995, so that at the end of the twelfth year, which is the term
of this service agreement, a total of One Hundred Ninety-Two Thousand Dollars
($192,000.00) will have been withheld. This withholding consolidates all
prior withholdings as a result of the prior service agreement with Earlysville,
dated February 22, 1983.
If at any time during the term of this agreement, Earlysvitle is no longer
in the business of providing fire fighting services, or the property upon
which the new fire station is to be constructed (located on the south side
of State Route 660 approximately one (1) mile from its intersection with
State Route 743) is no longer used for the purpose of housing the volunteer
fire company, Earlysville covenants that it will convey its interest in the
property, as a fire-fighting organization, including all appurtenances
thereto and improvements thereon, to the County at no cost to the County so
long as the County or its assigns will use the property for fire-fighting
purposes.
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes:
No Board member had read minutes assigned.
December 21, 1983, and March 7 (Night), 1984.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from Public and Board Members.
Mr. Bowie said he had received a letter from the Rivanna respresentative to the Planning
Commission, Mr. Richard Gould, containing his comments on the development of the Six-Year
Highway Plan. Mr. Bowie has given each Board member a copy of this letter.
Mr. Fisher offered the name of John O. Higginson as a member of the Road Viewers for 1984.
Motion to appoint Mr. Higginson was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom.
None.
Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
Mr. Fisher said the Board has no public hearings scheduled for July 5, so that meeting
can be cancelled. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs.
Cooke, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom.
NAYS:~ None.
ABSENT: ~r. Henley and Mr. Way.
Mr. Fisher noted that he had received a resolution from City Council concerning a
proposed sports complex. The Mayor had spoken to Mr. Fisher several times about this subject
and Mr. Fisher said he had seen no copies of such a request from City Council. Mr. Fisher
asked that copies of the report be forwarded to the Board members so that same will not be
totally ignorant on the subject which is being discussed almost daily by the news media.
Mr. Fisher said the Governor has asked for the names of three men and three women to be
appointed to the Toxic Waste Facilities Siting Board. The statute on this matter requires
that two of the representatives be members of local government. The work of this Board will
be highly controversial and difficult. Mr. Fisher said that if any member of the Board
wants to be considered, he should forward his resume to the Governor.
Mr. Fisher noted that House Bill 412 just passed by the General Assembly changes the
amount and the method by which the salary of boards of supervisors is set. If this Board
wants to make a change it must be done by ordinance before June 30, and the ordinance reenacted
each year. Mr. Fisher said the maximum allowable salary for a board member serving Albemarle
County's population is $6,900, with an additional stipend of $1,800 for the Chairman, and an
additional stipend of $1,200 for the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Fisher said he would suggest that
the Board set an ordinance for public hearing on June 13 to increase the Board members
salary by five percent, the same amount granted to general government employees. Mr. Fisher
said this would actually cut his salary, but he thinks this is the time to take some action
on this question. It has been more than ten years since there has been a change in the
isalary of the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that if there is going to be any change at all, it should
be for the maximum allowable under the law, and offered motion to set a public hearing on
June 13 on an Ordinance to Set Salary of Board Members for Fiscal Year 1984-85. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Bowie Rnd carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
May 23, 1984 (Adjourned from May 16, 1984)
Mr. St. John asked if he should address a letter to the Harrisonburg Redevelopment
Authority and explain that there may be a big problem with the approval recently given to
Hollymead Square II, in-light of the action taken earlier this evening on the request from
Essex Company. Mr. Fisher said he thought that would be appropriate.
Agenda Item No. 11. At 11:05 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by
Mrs. Cooke, to adjourn this meeting until 3:00 P.M. on May 30, 1984. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr, Way.
6/Chairman