1984-09-12388
September 12, 198~ (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
Charlottesville,~°n September 12, Virginia. 1984, at 9:00 a.m. in Meeting Room #?, County Office Building, McIntire Road,
Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, and Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T
Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. '
Absent: None.
Officers Present: Deputy County Executives, Ray B. Jones and Robert W. Tucker, Jr. and
County Attorney, George R. St. John.
Agenda Item No. t.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 9:10 a.m., by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Upon motion by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Henley,
the consent agenda was approved as presented. 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. ·
Item No. 4.1. Statements of Expenses (State Compensation Board) of the Director of
Finance, the Sheriff, and the Commonwealth's Attorney for the month of August, 1984, were
approved as presented.
Item No. 4.la. Request having been received from Wendell W. Wood, for Woodbriar
Associates, requesting that Lonicera Way in North Pines Subdivision be taken into the State
Secondary System of Highways, the following resolution was adopted:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways,
subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Engineer,
- the following road in North Pines Subdivision:
Beginning at station 0+11 a point common with the edge
of pavement of Route 606 and the centerline of Lonicera
Way, thus in a northerly direction 2,085.43 feet to station
20+96.43, a point common with the centerline intersection
of Lonicera Way and Forsythia Lane.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 60 foo~ unobstructed right-
of-way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded
by plat in the Office oI' the Clerk of the Circuit Court o~' Albemarle
County in Deed Book 703, Page 743.
Item No. 4.2. Notice from the State Corporation Commission dated August 24, 1984,
re: Ex Parte: In the matter of amending rules for expedited ra~e increase for electric
cooperatives and requiring cooperatives to'file certain schedules ~'or genera± rate cases,
was recemvem as znformation.
Item No. 4.3. Notice from Central Virginia Electric Cooperative dated August 30, 1984,
on the same subject as Item No. 4.2.
Item No. 4.4. Notice from Central Virginia Electric Cooperative dated September 4, 1984,
on the same subject as Item No. 4.2, but with amendments to same.
Item No. 4.5. Mobile Home Study by the Albemarle County Planning staff dated September 4,
1984. Mr. Fisher thanked Mrs. Cooke for having this study mailed to the Board members and
asked when the Board will officially receive the report. Mrs. Cooke said the Planning
Commission has not taken any~action relative to recommendations in the report, however,
since the subject of mobile homes is a "hot issue" right at the moment, she felt the Board
members should be aware of what is being discussed.
Item No. 4.6. Report of the Five C's Committee -- Softball, dated August
received as information.
Item No. 4.7. Notice from State Department of Education dated August 13,
approval of C~apter I, Education Consolidation and Improvement Act Grant Funds
of $357,464.00 for the Fiscal Year 1984-85 was received as information.
31, 1984, was
1984, noting
in the amount
September 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
389
Item No. 4.8~. Notice from the State Department of Education dated September 4, 1984,
noting approval of a Grant Award to Schools for EDIA, Chapter I, Migrant Education, in the
amount of $20,000.00 for Fiscal Year 1984-85, was received as information.
Item No. 4.9. Memorandum from Ms. Judy S. GOugh, dated September 10, 1984, listing
Bingo, Raffle and Lottery Permits, issued administratively as of September 1, 1984, was
received as information.
Item No. 4.10. Letter from Senator Paul Trible dated August 13, 1984, re:
Corridor was received as information as follows:
"Miss Lettie E. Neher
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Miss Neher:
I understand that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
has not yet determined if new construction in the South Fork Rivanna
River watershed will be necessary. I emphasized the concerns of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors with Commissioner King and trust
that he will contact you before making any final recommendations.
Please keep me informed on the progress of the study, and do not hesitate
to contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Paul Trib le"
Piedmont
Not Docketed: Mr. Lindstrom said that sent to the Board a couple of weeks ago, was a
copy of a letter from Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk, to the State Compensation Board appealing
allowances on salaries and expenses. He asked for an explanation of same. Mr. Jones said
he was not sure exactly what the appeal is for, but does know that at the time she made
her original request, she had requested an additional staff person, and that request was
denied.-
Mr. Lindstrom then noted a copy of a letter from Richmond and Fishburne, relative to
the Seagram petition, and the Board of Supervisors~' appeal to the Circuit Court of a decision
of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Judge had lifted the stay.
Mr. St. John said no; when the appeal was noted, Seagram was in the middle of some earth-
disturbing activity which would have led to a soil erosion problem. The question was whether
they had to stop everything immediately, but his advice was to continue what they were doing
until the soil erosion situation was solved. It seems that Seagram wanted to use a very
expensive grass seed for a golf course instead of fast-growing rye seed. Mr. St. John said
he advised~to let them plant the type of seed they wished, knowing that they were doing same
at their own risk.
Mr. Lindstrom said the hearing on this case was yesterday. Mr. St. John said that was
correct, and he will inform the Board of the proceedings during executive session later this
date.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes:
May 16 (Afternoon), 1984.
April 11, April 18 (Night), May 2, May 9, and
Mrs. Cooke said she had not read pages 1 - 10 of April 11, 1984.
Mr. Bowie said he had read pages 11 - 22 of April 11, 1984, and found three typographical
~rs. He also asked about a discussion of a Library Board appointee set out at the bottom
of Page 20. Mr. Lindstrom said the person he had in mind for this appointment is not intereste
in same. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Bowie if he will find someone to fill this vacancy since the
person resigning lives in the Rivanna District.
Mr. Lindstrom said he was assigned Pages 1 - 10 of April 18, (Night),-1984. He noted
finding one typographical error.
Mr. Henley said he had the remainder of April 18, 1984 (Night) and found no errors.
Mr. Way said he had read May 2, 1984, and found them to be satisfactory, with the
exception of one minor typographical error.
Mr. Way said he had not yet read pages 1 - 14 of May 9. Mr. Fisher said he had read
the remaining portion of May 9, and found no substantative errors, but would ask a couple of
questions. He noted that at this meeting Mrs. Cooke had abstained from voting on the
question of an equine center and the reason given was "Due to a possible conflict of interest
which needs to be clarified." Mrs. Cooke said she thought she had explained at the May 9
meeting that "We own property in Greene County very close to one of the sites being considered.
Mr. Fisher also asked about the first resolution adopted by the Board on the Hollymead Square
bond financing. He said there is no wording in the resolution which does what the side
comments about the motion indicate should be done. The comments say that this was not a
final approval by the Board, but the resolution in the minutes-appears to be a final approval.
390
. Se_-:tember 12~ular ~ '~
St. John said there were statements made by Mr. John Ashton in which he assured the Board
that it was not final approval. Mr. Lindstrom said the adoption of the resolution recorded
in the minutes is clearly conditioned upon it being an indication of interest - that the
BOard was receptive to the issue and not a final resolution, although the resolution itself
does not state that. Mr. St. John said the gist of what the Board was told is that under
the law, the resolution could not be final because a public hearing still had to be held
according to Federal statutes. Mr. St. John said he did not believe the wording of the
resolution could be changed at this time. Mr. Fisher said he was aware of that, but felt
the Board should be careful about adopting resolutions which look final when they say. they
are not. Mr. St. John said the resolution is in a form assigned by the bond counsel, and
the Board must stick close to the wording of same in order for the resolution to have any
effect.
Mr. Bowie said he had read the minutes of May 16, (afternoon) 1984, and found numerous
typographical errors, none of a substantive nature.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the minutes of April 11 (pages 11-22)
April 18 (Night), May 2, May 9 (pages 15 - end), and May 16 (Afternoon), 1984, with the
corrections noted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6. Highway Matters:
Item No'. 6'a. Re'qUes't'fo'r'St'ree~t Names:
Item No. 6al. Dorrier Drive (State Route 1422). A letter from John R. Dorrier dated
August 15, 1984, had placed this item on the agenda. The letter was accompanied by a
petition signed by John R., Loraine C., Herman H. and Scybel D. Dorrier.
"GENTLEMEN:
The purpose of this letter is to request that the Board formally rename
State Route 1422 off of State Route 20 (Stony Point Road) to Dorrier Drive.
State Route 1422 is a small road just outside of Charlottesville that
leaves Route 20 to the west, runs parallel to it for a quarter of a mile,
and then rejoins Route 20. I am the only owner on the road that has
developed the property.
The other owners along State Route 1422 have consented to this renaming
as indicated in the petition attached (on file).
We have experienced the inconvenience of having seven address changes
in the last 15 years with a rural route designation. Renaming the route
would give some permanence to our address.
I thank you for your attention to this request.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) John R. Dorrier"
The following planning staff report dated October 3, 1984, was received along with a
map of the route:
"State Route 1422 presently serves four parcels with a total length of
0.42 mile. The proposed name of Dorrier Drive does not conflict with
any existing street names. Staff recommends approval of the proposed
name."
Mr. Tucker said that if a street name is given to this route, the planning department
will assign a house number, and the residents will not have to worry with changes in their
addresses again. Mr. Tucker said that normally'when a request is made, the staff checks t6'~
see if the route has another name of historical significance, before making a recommendation.
Mr. Fisher said he prefers to use the old names as much as possible, so as not to lose~ any
history of the route. Mr. Tucker said the staff needs some direction. If the Board desires
to have such requests researched, keeping in mind that the route might have a local name of
historical significance, that will be done. Mr. Fisher said he wished the staff would do
this. Mr. Lindstrom noted that there are other property owners on that route who did not
sign the petition. Mr.. Tucker said he believes those parcels have access on Route 20. Mr.
Lindstrom suggested these property owners be made aware of the request so they might comment
on same.
Bloomfield Road (State Roue 677).
Item 6a2.
road, as follows, brought this request to the Board:
A petition signed by 15 residents of the
"We, the undersigned, being residents of State Route 677 (from Route 250 West,
south to State Route 637) and known as the BLOOMFIELD ROAD in Albemarle
County, as owners or tenants of property of said road, do hereby petition
the Board of Supervisors to dedicate this route as BLOOMFIELD ROAD and assign
house numbers to the residences presently receiving mail as Route 10,
Charlottesville, Virginia, 22901."
September 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Tucker noted receipt of the following staff report of the Planning Department, dated
September 6, 1985:
"A petition was submitted by residents of State Route 677, from Route 250 West,
south to Route 637, requesting a street name designation of Bloomfield Road.
This request was initiated as a result of the Post Office's redesignation
of the post office box numbers for the purpose of mail delivery along this
section of road. In addition, four residents of the area were using
Bloomfield Road as their mailing address and were assigned new street
numbers.
State Route 677 is approximately 2.1 miles in length and serves fourteen
landowners and an additional eight tenant residents on the road.
Bloomfield Road does not duplicate any existing road names in the County
nor is the road known historically by any other name. Staff recommends
approval of the requested street name."
Mr. Tucker said there had been one call from a resident on Route 677 in opposition to
the request, but after an explanation of the reasons for the request, was undecided. Mr.
Tucker said this person had been requested to write a letter if he decided to remain in
opposition, but no such letter has been received. Mr. Fisher said he has never heard this
route called anything other than Bloomfield Road, and supports the .request. Motion was then
offered by Mrs. Cooke to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that State Route 677 from U. S. Route 250 West south to
State Route 637 be named Bloomfield Road.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
None.
Item No. 6a3. Gasoline Alley (State Route 650). A petition dated August 14, 1984,
delivered to the Board's office by Ms. Polly Joseph, signed by 11 persons, as follows brought
this item on the Board's agenda:
"We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the Board of Supervisors to
designate State Route 650 (beginning at Rio Road and terminating at the
Southern Railroad) with the name "Gasoline Alley". We feel that this
name will give the area its own personal identification that will be
readily accepted by the general public."
Mr. Tucker noted the following Planning Staff report dated October 3, 1984:
"State Route 650 serves four parcels and is 0.11 mile in length. The
proposed name of Gasoline Alley does not conflict with other existing
street names presently in use and is appropriate if the recently approved
site plan for development of Parcels 148 and 149, is completed."
Mr. Tucker said the staff has not reviewed this request to see if the road has another
historical name. Mrs. Cooke requested that the staff do so.
Agenda Item No. 6b: Report on request of Percy Lawrence re: Route 601.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Lawrence had brought this matter to the Board's attention in July,
at which time Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, had agreed to ride over the road
t~ascertain the exact problems. The following letter has been received~from Mr. Roosevelt,
dated September 4, 1984, relative to Route 601: . r
"At the regular July meeting of the Board of Supervisors I was requested
to review and report on the improvement need along Route 601 between
Route 668 and Route 810.
On July 16, 1984, I met with Mr. Percy F. Lawrence to review this section.
We determined that additional right of way would be needed to improve the
sight distance on the numerous horizontal and vertical curves which exist
along this 4.3 mile section. We looked at four locations where narrow
bridges or pipe headwalls further reduced the width of the roadway. We
have taken steps to cut down the headwall, trim for sight distance at one
bridge and placed delineators at the other two locations to improve this
situation.
I have also requested accident information for this section of road. I
am advised that only two reported accidents occurred during 1982 and 1983.
The first occurred on November 13, 1982, when a vehicle turning left at the
intersection of Route 671 ran into a vehicle which attempted to pass. The
other accident occurred on April 24, 1983, at the intersection of Route 601
and Route 667. This vehicle ran off the road, skidding on we~ pavement.
September 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)~
Although every accident should be considered a problem, certainly two
accidents over a two year period does not indicate this section is
accident-prone. In response to requests concerning the narrowness of
this section, we posted curve warning and maximum safe speed signs in
November 1983.
I certainly recognize this section of 601 as in improvement need. With
the limited funds available, however, the limited number of a6cidents
and the signing and maintenance improvements recently Undertaken, I
cannot recommend improvements in this section as a top priority.
I request that you make the Board aware of this information. I am
prepared to discuss it with them at a future meeting should they so
desire.
Yours truly,
(Signed) D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer"
Mr. Roosevelt was present. He said there is no doubt that this road is in need of
improvement, but with limited funds available, he would not be able to recommend that any
improvement to this road be in the top five percent over the next six years. Any improvement
undertaken on this road would cost at least $30,000 to $40,000 for some curb cutting or
widening of a bridge. This would be one spot improvement on a road 4.3 miles in length.
Mr. Roosevelt said it is not as high a priority as other roads in the Six-Year Highway Plan.
Mr. Henley asked if Mr. Lawrence had seen a copy this letter. Mr. Roosevelt said he
had not forwarded a copy. Mr. Henley suggested Mr. Lawrence be sent a copy of the letter.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Request to close Route 9003. The following letter dated August 7,
1984, was received from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer:
"Albemarle County has closed Greenwood Elementary School. It would appear
that the secondary route, #9003, which serves this school is no longer
needed. The purpose of this letter is to request the County to abandon
this school route from the secondary system. The procedure for this abandon-
ment is covered in Section 33.1-153 of the Code of Virginia. Attached is
a copy of the sketch showing this road for your information. I would
appreciate the County taking action on this matter.
Yours truly,
(Signed) D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer"
Mr. Tucker said after the staff reviewed the request, they felt that since the School
Board had not been consulted about this abandonment, their comments on same might be requested.
The Highway Department does not want to have to clear snow from this road during the coming
winter.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. David Papenfuse if the School Board had seen this request. Mr.
Papenfuse said the School Division will need access to the building for emergency services,
and for storage, and would not be requesting that the road be abandoned this year-. Mr. Henley
said he did not feel the right of way should be abandoned because the School Board has not
decided what will be done to the building on a permanent basis.
Mr. Roosevelt said the road is in the public system and open to the~public, and if the.
School Board wants the road to remain open as access to the school, that is possible.
However, if the road remains a part of the Secondary System, the Highway Department has some
financial responsibilities for maintenance. Mr. Henley said it is possible that' in the
future some part of the property will be used for recreation, and he would prefer that the
road stay in the system.
Mr. Roosevelt said that at the' request of the Clerk he had done some work on the abandon,
ment procedure, and the section cited should have been 33.1-151 instead of 33.1-153. Mr.
Roosevelt said in talking with his Secondary Roads Office, it appears that this road could
be abandoned by resolutions of agreement signed by the School Board and Board of Supervisors
without going through the normal advertising procedures. If the Board does not want to take
any action on the request, Mr. Roosevelt said he will not press the Highway Department to do
it on its own.
Mr. Fisher said it does not appear that either the Board or the School Board wishes to
take any action-on this request at this time.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Discussion: Lewis Hills West Private Road. Mr. Lindstrom said he
had received a call several months ago from a resident of Lewis Hills who raised a concern
about the road. He had asked the County Engineer to check into the situation and give the
Board a report (that report is set out below):
"TO:
Board of Supervisors
FROM:
Maynard L. Elrod, County Engineer
RE:
Report on Stowe Court
(A 'Restricted Road' in Lewis Hills West Subdivision)
DATE:
August 30, 1984
The entrance into Stowe Court from State Route 678 was not constructed
according to the approved road plans. The road was constructed in 1974-75
and was approved by the County Engineering Department in August, 1975.
The developer has since passed away and the County does not hold any bond
for this project.
September t2~_1984 (Re_g~lar Day Meeting)
The problem is that a "hump' was created in the entrance road that prevents
motorists from being able to see a sufficient distance ahead. It is a low
traffic intersection (it surves.only seven lots), however, it is unsafe
and should be regraded for the safety of children in the area, pedestrians,
and vehicles. Mr. Bob Belton of 2630 Stowe Court has complained to my
office about this situation and I have viewed it with the Highway Department's
Resident Engineer who agrees that the road would not meet state criteria
for safe sight distance.
It would cost between $5,000 and $6,000 to regrade the road, lower the
existing waterline as necessary, and repave."
Mr. Elrod said this road was approved by the County as a restricted, public road to
serve seven lots in Lewis Hills West. The residents called in May of 1984 and asked what it
would take to get the road into the State Secondary System. They were aware that they would
have to spend money to make repairs to the road to get it into the system. Mr. Elrod said
the first thing he noticed when he went to view the road is that there is a hump at the
entrance on Route 678 that restricts sight distance considerably causing a very hazardous
situation. Mr. Elrod said that on May 7 he wrote a letter to Mr. Bob Belton giving a list
of items that would have to be done to get the road into the System. The most costly item
is getting the road lowered because a waterline in that area must also be lowered. Mr. Elrod
said he did not know if the contractor who built the road had done so in accordnace with
approved plans, suspecting that he might have hit rock. About a month ago, there was a
boring machine in the vicinity, so Mr. Elrod had a test made in which they drilled over ten
feet deep, and no rock was hit.
Mr. Fisher asked if any information had been found in the County Engineer's files from
1975 to show that any variance had been granted on the approved plans. Mr. Elrod said that
there is no mention of this particular problem at all. The plans show the road falling away
from Route 668 its entire length, but the road is not built like the plans show.
Mr. Fisher said the question of the County fixing a private road creates a serious
problem. Mr. Lindstrom said he had some concerns about that also, and he met with Mr. Tucker,
Mr. Elrod, and Mr. St. John about it (the Board approved funds for a similar request on
Greenbrier Drive on a very short section that was sort of a "no-man's land" and had a manhole
cover sitting above ground level). Mr. Lindstrom said that although he does not feel the
County has any liability, he feels the Board has some responsibility because the road was
accepted, and the County Engineer evidently failed to require that the road be built to the
standards required by the Planning Commission. Also, this problem is not Just an inconvenience
but it is a safety hazard. If it had not been for the action taken by the County Engineer
in 1975, he would not make this request. Under these circumstances is does not seem it is
unreasonable for the County to try and correct the problem. He asked the County Attorney if
th~ Board would get itself into a situation legally where every citizen with road problems
would be able to ask the Board for help.
Mr. St. John said the precedent which would be set would apply only to facts exactly
like this situation. He does not feel this case would allow citizens all over the County
who have difficulties with private or restricted roads to apply for relief.
Mr. Fisher asked if there is any form of bonding on official actions to protect the
public against such liabilities. Mr. St. John said there is a fidelity bond on public
officials to cover actual breeches of duties. The County Engineer's Office is not covered
under this bond because that office does not handle money. However, public officials are
absolutely immune to any error in judgment made while performing their public duties.
Mr. Dave Garrett, Stowe Court, said he did not realize how dangerous the situation was
until school started and he found that the children waited for the bus below the hump in the
road, rather than on the top of the hump. Anyone coming in from the state road across the
hump would not'see the children until too late. The homeowners have just had the road
graveled, and a'bad washout situation has occurred recently because of the bad incline. He
asked that the Board consider the request favorably.
Mr. Bob B~lton of 2670 Stowe Court said the issue relative to safety aspects has been
adequately covered. In this case, the citizens have been left with an unfortunate situation.
Although he realizes that the legal situation is as stated by Mr. St. John, he hoped the
Board would act favorably out of a sense of responsibility for the safety and well-being of
the citizens of the County.
Mr. Fisher said there must be several hundred miles of private roads in the County
which are not in good shape, and many people could make the same claim. The only question
here seems to be whether the safety situation is such a magnitude that it makes a difference
and the public should be requested to pay for repairs to this road which is a private road.
Mr. Bowie said he also lives on a private road, and if it washes out or it snows, the
homeowners must take care of it. The children are of concern, but he feels it is the ret
bility of the parents to see that the children stand in the right place. Mr. Bowie said he
has always taken the position that a private road is just that, and such a road must be
brought to state standard by the homeowners involved.
Mr. Lindstrom said when he first heard about this situation, his reaction was the same.
After talking with Mr. Tucker and Mr. Elrod, the problem is the result of the bond having
been released by the County Engineer when the road was not built to the standards required.
There never was any suggestion that the road was built to state standards, since it was not
even built to the standards required'for private roads. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not know
how the homeowners would feel about sharing in the cost of this repair, but they certainly
have some responsibility since they bought homes where they knew there was a problem with
the road.
Mr. Bowie wondered if the homeowners had been asked to contribute to the cost of this
repair.
"394
September 12 i~R lar Da' Meetin._~.
Mr. St. John said he understands this is a restricted, and not a private road, and he
thinks that is a revelant distinction. A restricted road is one which is maintained privately
Unlike the majority of private roads, this road has been dedicated to public use, and that
dedication was accepted by the County. The County actually owns the fee simple in this "hump"
not the landowners as is usually the case with private roads.
At this point, Mr, Lindstrom offered motion to appropriate up to $6,000 for regrading
the road to bring that one area into conformance with the standards which would have been
required by the Planning Commission for a restricted road.
Mr. Way asked how many people live on this road. Mr. Fisher said there are seven lots
on the road. Mr. Henley said he would support the County paying one-half of the cost, which
is what has been done in the past. Mr. Henley suggested that the County also provide some
of the engineering or design work for the repair ....
At this point, Mr. Fisher ruled that for lack of a second, the previous motion was
void. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that the County share on a 50/50 basis the cost of
making the correction and provide whatever engineering assistance it can. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. Lindstrom then amended the motion to put a one-year time limit'~
on the County's offer. Mr. Henley accepted this amendment. 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.
Mr. Fisher said he is disturbed when he hears that the County approves projects and
they are not built according to plans. This is a serious matter.- Normally, he would not
vote for fixing any private road, but he feels the County Engineer in 1975 made a serious
mistake in approving this road. Mr. Fisher said he does not like the situation this puts
the taxpayers in. He does not know how to avoid such a situation again, but hopes that .... ~.
procedures can be tightened up. Mr. Lindstrom reminded Mr. FiSher that this situation
occurred over nine years ago.
Item No. 6e. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Roosevelt said about two months ago the Board had requested that the Highway Departrl~
merit hold a public hearing on the bridge improvement on Route 729. This public hearing has
been set for November 19, 1984, at 7:30 p.m. at Mount Eagle Baptist Church.
Mr. Lindstrom said about two months ago at a meeting of the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO), they had seen aerials of the proposed Piedmont Corridor 'Highway which
less than an interstate but more than a primary highway. Mr. Ken Lantz of the Highway
Department had given him a copy of the maps this past Monday. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels
the Board has a responsibility to the public to let them know that these drawings are
Mr. Lindstrom said he has looked at the drawings rather carefully, but does not feel the map~-
on the front is an accurate depiction of where the road will go. Also, in any discussion,
it needs to be made clear that this is a highly conceptual proposal, and there is no money
for its construction, and undoubtedly the route will change if it is built. He feels the
staff should transpose the route onto a tax map so the County's citizens can see if their
property is affected by the road. Mr. Lindstrom said he had read Commissioner Harold
statement in the newspaper recently and could not understand what he was indicating.
Mr. Fisher said he also feels the drawings should be transferred to tax maps so that
the actual people affected by such a route will know about the proposal. Mr. Lindstrom
noted that the proposed highway does go directly across the South Fork Rivanna reservoir and
that would require construction of a bridge.
Mr. Bowie said that the Area-Wide Highway Plan was presented to the Planning District
Commission recently and it was approved, but did not contain any improvements for Route 250
East or the bridge across the Rivanna River (Free Bridge). The Commission did comment to
the Highway Commissioner that there is a need for repairs to the roads in that area.
Agenda Item No. 7. Staff Report: Zoning on Property Adjacent to and Behind Rock Store
on Hydraulic Road. (Mr. Lindstrom abstained from discussion of this matter since his firm
represents the owner of the property in question.)
Mr. Ron Keeler gave the staff's report'
"ZMA-84-13 (Edward H. Bain, Jr. for Benton Patterson) requested rezoning of
0.4 acres f 6.543 acres from LI, Light Industrial to C-I, Commercial. At
time of approval of the rezoning, the Board of Supervisors requested the
staff to review the appropriateness of LI zoning on the six, plus more acre
residue.
Background
The property (Tax Map 45, Parcel 22) is located at the intersection of
Hydraulic and Rio Roads and is developed with a convenience store, garage-
type commercial building, and a 26-unit .mobile home park. The property is
located on the fringe of the Urban Area in the Comprehensive Plan but is
not designated for urban type development since it drains to the South Fork
Rivanna River reservoir.
September 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
395
Under prior zoning, the entire property was zoned M-i, Industrial Limited.
During consideration of the 1980 zoning map, agent for Mr. Patterson appeared
before the Board of Supervisors requesting that industrial zoning be main-
tained on the entire tract, partly because the garage building was in indus-
trial use at the time (i.e., cabinetry shop). Under ZMA-8~-13~ the store
and garage building were rezoned to C-i, Commercial, raising the question
of appropriateness of maintaining industrial zoning on the remainder of the
property (i.e., mobile home park).
Staff Comment
The ~emainder of this memorandum will address the appropriateness of this
property for LI, Light Industrial zoning as well as alternative zoning.
Comprehensive Plan: Due to location in the South Fork Rivanna River water-
shed, this property is not recommended for urban type development zoning
and is Shown for rural designation. Chapter 10 of the Comprehensive plan
Standards contains locational and developmental standards for industrial
usage:
Industrial uses should seek locations adjacent to compatible uses
(commercial, public or other industrial, etc.) as opposed to resi-
dential, agricultural, or other sensitive areas. Where an industrial
use desires a location near a sensitive area, consideration should be
given to transitional uses' such as commercial offices.
Property adjacent to the east is zoned LI, Light Industrial while
other properties are zoned RA, Rural Areas. Squirrel Ridge, a 24-1ot
subdivision is to the north (average lot size: 1.2 acres).
Objectionable aspects of an industrial use should be addressed through
a combination approach including realistic performance standards,
buffering and special setback regulations. This approach should be
flexible so as to accomplish the objective without creating burdensome
and arbitrary regulations. At time of rezoning, the applicant should
submit proposals to mitigate objectionable aspects.
Since the property is currently zoned LI, Light Industrial, no oppor-
tunity is offered for the applicant to address objectionable aspects
"at time of rezoning". Control would be exercised through the site
plan ordinance, run-off control ordinance, industrial performance
standards and other applicable regulations.
While industrial sites need not be restricted to designated growth
areas, such employment centers should have convenient access from
growth areas.
This site is convenient to the Urban Area of the Comprehensive Plan.
Industrial uses should locate in areas where public utilities and
facilities are adequate to support such uses. Upgrading and extension
of roads, water, sewer, electrical, telephone and natural gas systems
should be considered in review of an industrial application.
Public water was extended to the existing mobile home park in recent
years. By Board of Supervisors' policy, public sewer is not available
to new uses.
Industrial uses should locate within a half-mile of highway, air or
rail transportation facilities no~ only for convenience of the industry,
but also to avoid industria-1 traffic through residential and agricultural
areas and on roads not designed for such traffic.
While Hydraulic Road has recently been upgraded to four lanes, most
traffic is residential and travel distance to U. S. Route 29 is more
than one-half mile. Rail and air service are not within one-half mile
of the site.
Industrial access should be to major collector, state primary or arterial
highways. Industrial intersections should be planned to minimize traffic
conflicts with other land use activities and with road functions.
No proposals for industrial intersections have been reviewed. Should
significant trucking be involved, conflict with the Rio/Hydraulic
intersection may be realized.
Natural site characteristics should be appropriate to the intended use.
Extensive grading, cutting and filling, piping of streams, tree removal
and like activities to accommodate an industrial development should be
viewed as inconsistent with other Comprehensive Plan Standards.
A swale and stream traverse the site, limiting, in terms of Comprehensive
Plan Standards, area available for development.
3'96
September 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Statement of I'ntent':' 'LI,''Light Industrial DiS'tr'ict: The Zoning Ordinance
states that "it is intended that LI districts may be established in areas
having all of the following characteristics:"
o Areas served by water and sewer facilities or if such facilities are
reasOnabTy 'aVa'iTable: This property ms outside of Albemarle County
Service Authority (~CSA) project areas for public sewer, service,
theregore, public sewer is deemed not to be reasonably available.
Public water service is limited to existing structures only.
Areas served bY major highway, rail or air service or secondary road
'~p'~Ve'~ 't'o''s't'~nd~rds''~ppro'Ved by the County: While Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation has not been consulted, the Physical
design of Hydraulic Road is likely adequate for much LI-generated traffic.
Areas ~aving clearly demonstrated suitability for intended uses with
regard 't'o' p'hy's~c'~I 'c~aracteristics and relationship to surrounding
deve'l'op~ent: As stated earlier, topographic features of the site are
not particularly suited to industrial development.
Summary
In terms of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, this property does
not seem well-suited to industrial zoning, since the owner has voluntarily
rezoned a portion of the property, he has extinguished the need for indus-
trial designation in terms of the Board of Supervisors' policy of October,
1980 regarding development of the zoning map. RA, Rural Areas would be a
designation more in keeping with the current use of the property (mobile
home park) and the Board of Supervisors' policy."
Mr. Fisher said the zoning map recommendation in 1980 was to make all of this property
RA, but the Board did not want to make the existing structure non-conforming. Now, the
parcel has been divided and the structure put into a different zoning category at the request
of the owner, and that action has left this six-acre residue which is essentially undeveloped.
Six acres could be a substantial amount of LI development. Under RA the property could
continue with its current use, and in fact, would be conforming. Mr. Keeler said yes, and
if the owner made application for a special use permit the mobile home park could be conforming
Mr. Fisher said he feels the Board should adopt a resolution of intent to refer this situation
to the Planning Commission for public hearing to see if they concur with the staff's report.
At this point, Mrs. Cooke offered motion to adopt the following resolution of intent:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby state its intent to rezone property known as Parcel
22 (part), Tax Map 45 from its current designation of LI Light Industrial
to RA Rural Areas; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Planning Commission is
hereby reqeusted to study such intent, and after public hearing to return
its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie, roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 8. Report from Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) on Board's
Request to Study Extending Waterline to Earlysville. (RepOrt dated August, 1984 from the
Albemarle County Service Authority had been received and forwarded to the Board members.)
Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, was present to
go over the report in detail. He said the ACSA Board of Directors voted unanimously to
forward the report emphasizing that the project is not economically feasible even under the
most favorable circumstances. Mr. Brent then summarized the following report:
"This report has been prepared at the request of the Board of Supervisors
to determine if the extension of public water to Earlysville would be an
affordable alternative to installing a water storage tank at Broadus Wood
School for fire protection purposes. In preparing this report numerous
assumptions have been made. They are as follows:
Should Earlysville be added as a service area, it 'would be incorporated
into the present consolidated system for rate purposes.
The area between the Airport and the village of Earlysville as shown in
the County's Comprehensive Plan would not be included as a service area.
Therefore, these estimates do not include the cost of fire hydrants in
this area.
Approximately 1,100 feet of waterline presently approved for construction
by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport will be installed. (Cost of that
construction is not a part of the report.)
Teledyne Avionics, Inc. remains uninterested in public water and will not
connect to the waterline.
Se~t'ember l~ular Da~Meetin)~~.
The Earlysville Forest and Earlysville Heights central water systems will
be dedicated to the ACSA without charge. (After discussions with the owner
of the Earlysville Forest system we acknowledge that this is an unrealistic
assumption. The owner advises that the system is set up on a utility basis
with the investment in the system being recovered through the rates rather
than through the sale of the lots. Therefore, he is not in a position to
dedicate the system to the Authority at this time. No contact was made with
the owner of the Earlysville Heights system. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Brent
had assumed that all of the customers presently on the system would pay
another connection fee. Mr. Brent said that was correct. Mr. Fisher asked
the cost of that connection. Mr. Brent said it would be between $525 and
$2,225.)
All lots in Earlysville Forest and Earlysville Heights will connect
to the system and pay all applicable connection fees.
Extension of water to the Crouse-Hinds plant will generate deba~e because of
its location within the South Fork Rivanna watershed. (Because of this firm's
serious interest in water service, their indication of paying for the line to
their plant, and the favorable impact this user would have on revenues, the
staff considered it important to include Crouse-Hinds in this study. It must
be noted that Crouse-Hinds plans major capital improvements to their present
water system in 1985. If public water does not become available in 1985 this
firm cannot be considered a revenue source.)
No other connections would be permitted along Route 660.
Earlysville Forest will be completely developed by the time the water line
is in place.
Revenue projections are based upon present rates.
Water costs are based upon present water costs.
The information provided in this report shows that even with the stated
optimistic assumptions the annual cost of providing water to Earlysville
will exceed revenues by $28,781.
The Planning Department has advised that the ultimate development of
Earlysville according to the Comprehensive Plan will accommodate 367
residential units - 152 more than the basis for current revenue. Even
when completely developed to maximum holding capacity, revenues will not
cover costs.
This is not to suggest that this project, or any other, must stand alone;
not all can. This was a major consideration in the Authority consolidating
all of its systems into one rate base. By increase in the present rate to
all customers by three cents per 1,000 gallons, the annual deficit for the
Earlysville project would be erased. This option must be weighed against
the extent of the need for water in Earlysville.
We do not believe Earlysville would qualify for any Federal or State grants
to fund a water system.
In summary, providing water to Earlysville will require either the subsidi-
zation of the project by all customers, or increased potential for develop-
ment to generate additional revenues."
Mr. Brent said one other thing to take into consideration is that the area is now
supplied from the North Rivanna Water Treatment Plant which is designed to produce two
million gallons of water per day, while only 800,000 gallons per day can be drawn from the
river. Increased demand on this plant will shorten the time when Chris Greene Lake (originall
built and developed to be a public drinking water supply) will be needed to supply water to
this plant. Also, there are two industrial parks in this area which are served by this
water plant (the Wendell Wood property and the Northside Industrial Park). It is not incon-
ceivable that there could be a use move in that would create a sudden demand on water
resources. In this area, General Electric is served by this plant. When the County adopted
its watershed protection measures a few years ago, Chris Greene Lake was not covered by
those regulations. Those measures would need to be extended to this area if the waterline
were extended to Earlysville. Mr. Brent then went over the cost estimates. He noted that
based on the best estimates available, operational costs would be approximately $72,000 per
year, whereas, revenues would be only $43,000. Also, any person who has a usable water
source cannot be required to connect to the public waterline. They can be required to pay a
connection fee and a monthly non-user service charge which might cover the cost of postage.
i
Mr. Fisher said it appears that the assumptions for financing were based on every house
in'Earlysville Heights and Earlysville Forest paying the full connection fee before any
money is borrowed. Mr. Brent said that was correct. Mr. Fisher said~he does not believe
that could ever happen without having a mandatory connection policy, and he is no~ in favor
of that legislation. Mr. Bren~ said he chose this optimistic approach to the problem, since
he did not think the Board of Directors of the ACSA would tell~the present customers that
they had to pay to extend a waterline to Earlysville.
Mr. Fisher said this report does not take into account extending the waterline as far
as Broadus Wood SchOol. Mr. Brent said some estimates were made of that cost, which would
be about $450,000 to get the line to the school and build a storage tank at that point. The
200,000 gallon storage tank would be needed in order to operate the system.
,398
September 12 1983 (Regular Da.. Meetin':) .= ~
Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Broadus .Wood School Project: Deduct Option re: Water
Tank.
Mr. Ray Jones noted that the Board had given approval for this project at its meeting
in July, but had reserved the right to deduct the cost of the water tank, pending the study
just received on extending public water to Earlysville. The Board now needs to take final
action on that one portion of this project.
Mr. Fisher said this water tank was recommended by the Fire Official for the purpose of
fire suppression. The Board had also thought that to build a new $2.0 million school, there
should be some way to put out a fire should that be necessary.
Mr. Bowie said he spoke with the architects yesterday about the tank, but could not
remember the size of the tank. Mr. Bob Moje said the tank proposed is steel, 23 feet high,
sits on the ground and holds 120,000 gallons, and is 31 feet in diameter. Because of the
slope of the land, the tank will be set into a four-foot berm on one side. The tank will
feed through an underground line to a hydrant located on the loop road in front of the
school. A fire truck would have to draw the water from the tank.
Mr. Bowie asked exactly where the hydrant will be located. Mr. Moje said it is near
the cafeteria. Mr. Henley asked if the hydrant can be used for other than a fire at the
school. Mr. Moje said he understands that according to state law, if a fire breaks out
anywhere in the vicinity, the fire company has a legal right to use the water.
Mr. Ira Cortez, County Fire Official, said he would like to make a few comments. He
has talked with the School Board, the architects, and Mr. Bowie. Since his original recommen-
dation concerning the size of the school, and the addition thereto, several things have
happened. It is now planned to have two-hour firewalls between the existing school and the
addition, so there will be two different wings. The existing school of 19,000 square feet
already has an extreme fire problem. The two additions are in the form of a gymnasium
(6,000 square feet), and classroom space (11,000 square feet). This does not increase, or
decrease, the hazard for the existing space. Because of the firewalls, the fire area has
been limited, as has been the amount of water needed for suppression. In addition, the
School Board has agreed to have installed an elaborate alarm system with an automatic Sending
unit to the Charlottesville Fire Department dispatcher. This unit would detect a fire
during its incepient stage, thereby improving the fire conditions in the building. Because
of the design consideration of the 120,000 gallon water tank which is to be placed behind
the school, and the proximity of the fire department obtaining water, and because no hydrant
can be placed on Route 743, Mr. Cortez said he now recommends that the idea of constructing ~
a water tank be deleted at this time until a better water study is done of the Earlysvi!le
area. Mr. Cortez said he does not feel the $36,000 would be well-spent at this time. - '~
Because of the protection that the architect has planned, and the School Board has approved,-
he does not believe there is much of a need for the water tank. Detection during the incepkent
stage of fire is necessary. Mr. Cortez said he has taIked with Chief Huckstep of the
Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company, and he agrees on this issue.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Cortez of he is indicating that water is not needed at the school.
Mr. Cortez said he is not indicating that the water is not needed, only that there are bet~r
locations for a tank. The Albemarle County Service Authority says that an elevated, 200,000
gallon tank is needed in order to make its use viable. Mr. Cortez said that if the money
could be set aside for a good system in the next'few years, he would be willing to hope that_~ ~
there would not be a fire in the next five years. Mr. Fisher said he did not know how Mr.
Cortez could now say as fire official, after his remarks at earlier meetings, that water is
not needed at this site to put out a fire. Mr. Cortez said water is needed, but instead of a
stop-gap measure at this time, to hold off and put in a good viable system for the whole area~
Mr. Fisher said this discussion has been going on for two or three years and he wonders how
long it will take to figure out what is really needed. Mr. Cortez said the Albemarle County
Service Authority has said that extending the.waterline to Earlysville is not economiaally
feasible at this time. Mr. Fisher said he did not understand what Mr. Cortez was proposing.
Mr~Bowie said he had been working with Mr. Brent and his staff for a least four months
on this report and he thanks them for their efforts. There was a meeting last night in
Earlysville on this report which was attended by about 150 people. Extension of a waterline
is just not economically feasible at this time. At least the Board knows now what is required,
and that was not known previously.
Mr. Fisher said it sounds as though a water storage tank would also be needed. He
asked if the location of such a tank is known. Mr. Brent .said that ideally a tank would be
at the end of the line. This would be an elevated tank and not a ground level tank.
Mr. Fisher asked what sort of storage tank is included in the bid for renovations of the
Broadus Wood School. Mr. Bowie said he is not sure, but believes it is smaller than 200,000
gallons. Mr. Fisher said that even though a waterline cannot be extended now, the tank should
not be constructed without thinking of the future. Mr. Brent said he understands it is~a
minimal, ground-level storage tank, and would have minimal benefit for a public water system.
At this time, Mr. Bowie offered motion to officially receive the report. The motion was
seconded by Mrs. Cooke, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
S_~tember 12_ 1984 (Re-:~lar Da~ Meeting_)
Mr. Bowie said he was not privy to the considerations of this project which took place
two years ago, but he understands that the original plans called for a building of the total
amount of floor space with no fire walls, or alarm system. Since that time, the design has
changed. There is not the same fire danger. Mr. Bowie said he feels this is not the correct
loC~tion for a fire protection tower, with a fire hydrant 40 feet from the school located
right at the entrance to the school's cafeteria, and saying that it is protecting Earlysville.
Mr. Bowie said Mr. Cortez seems to be saying that $36,000 at this time will not solve anything
and it is probably not the best use of the taxpayers' money.
Mr. Fisher said that is not his judgment. Mr. Fisher told Mr. Cortez that because of
his~recommendation, the Board had. required that the tower be designed and bid and to now
turn around and say it is not needed, he cannot believe it. Mr. Cortez said he was not
saying that it is no~ needed. The original plan that came through the Planning Commission
was for one large building with no provision for firewalls, or the alarm which could not be
required by code. The School Board has now agreed to put in an alarm system in the largest
section of the building. Mr. Cortez said that an elevated tower was not envisioned. This
was the design of the architects. He had envisioned a below-ground tank where the water
would be taken from it and discharged into Route 743.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Cortez sure had put a lot of people to a lot of work which will all
be wasted. Mr. Cortez said several alternatives have come to light which were not there
originally. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Cortez will have a hard time getting his support on various
rulings about what people need for water for future development. Mr. Cortez said the water
is needed, but if there is a better place, and a better way to provide the water, he thinks
that idea should be explored.
Mr. Henley asked if Crouse-Hinds develops a new water system if they can also provide
some storage capacity for the community to use. Mr. Cortez said Crouse-Hinds has storage
now, but it is Just at the maximum of their personal needs in the event of a fire. Mr. Henley
wondered if the County could add to it and provide some water the community could use.
Mr. Cortez did not know.
Mr. Lindstrom said if it were known that there would be no waterline in Earlysville for
at least ten more years, would Mr. Cortez still feel the County should wait instead of
putting in the tower. The primary reason for installing the tower was to protect the school,
and' now the focus seems to have shifted to the community. Would it not be better to go
ahead with the tower to protect the school at this time? Mr. Cortez said he did not mean to
indicate that wa~er is not needed now. It is needed to protect the school and the village
area. But, if it is more feasible to put thetank at some location other than on the school
grounds where it is hard for the fire department to access the water, then spend the $38,000
toput a tank at some other location, and do it now. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Cortez if he
is thinking about water for the community and not the school. Mr. Cortez said no, he was
thinking of the school. Mr. Lindstrom said he was confused when Mr. Bowie said that if the
tank is not to serve the community, it is no use putting it there. The first emphasis for
the tank was to protect the school, and the emphasis has changed. Also, Mr. Brent said if a
tank were installed, this would be the location for same. Mr. Cortez said the difference is
that it would be an elevated tank and not a ground-level tank. Mr. Lindstrom said that
unless the Board tells the Albemarle County Service Authority to spend money it will not
recover, there will be no waterline. That being the case, he feels the tank should be'built
were originally planned unless there has been some big change in circumstances. Mr. Cortez
said'the school is still of concern, but not as great as when the original proposal was
made. The Ear!ysville Volunteer Fire Company has also purchased a piece of equipment in the
past year which carries a much large water supply. Because of that, a tank anywhere within
a mile of this location will afford as much fire protection as having the tank right on the
school site. The tank proposed will afford protection only to the school since the Earl
Fire Chief has determined that he does not want to bring his equipment into that circular
drive at the front door of the school.
Mr. Fisher asked why a waterline cannot be put out to Route 743. Mr. Cortez said that
was his original request, but has been told by the Highway Department that because Route 743
is a two-lane road, this is no~ possible.
Mrs. Cooke said she can understand that Mr. Cortez' presentation today is based on a
change in circumstance since the original request. She asked what time frame would be
needed in order to study that area to determine what is actually needed for protection to
the whole area including the school. Mr. Cortez said there is a need for water in that area
now. At the present, the fire company has to go to the Airport and shuttle water all the
way to Nortonsville. Mrs. Cooke asked how large of a storage tank would be needed. Mr. Cortes
said that based on remarks of Mr. Brent earlier in the meeting, he feels the 200,000 gallon
tank to service only fire protection needs, would be adequate. Mr. Fisher said the cost of
the tank would have to be added to land acquisition costs, drilling of well(s), pumping
system, etc. Mr. Cortez said Mr. Bowie has spoken to a landowner in the vicinity who may be
amiable to providing the land. Mr. Bowie said he does not want to get into the position of
negotiating, but there has been some interest in the private sector in providing better
service to the entire community.
Mr. Fisher said it will cost more and take longer to finalize. So the community will
be without water for fire suppression for a longer period of time, and the water will still
have to.be shuttled. Mr. Cortez said when the engineers designed the tank for Broadus Wood
School they did not have the report just presented by the Service Authority. Even if it was
decided that there would be a 200,000 gallon tank, it would be located in the wrong place,
and at the wrong elevation. Mr. Cortez said he did not mean to give the impression that the
area does not need water, since that is not the truth.
40O
Se tember ~2. 1_84 (Re_ula~ Da~_eting~)
Mr. Fisher said to take a project which was to serve just a school, and make it a
community project, is not what he feels should-be done. Mrs. Cooke said if the tank is put
in at the school, there is still need for something to serve the community. There will be
two tanks in the area instead of just one to serve the entire community, and the County will
have spent a whole lot of money. Mr. Fisher said he does not believe the County is going t9
pay the entire cost for a 200,000 gallon storage tank. Mrs. Cooke said there seems to be .
community interest in this project, and she would prefer that the Board take a look into it
before scrapping the whole idea.
Mr. Lindstrom said this whole problem is one of major planning proportions. Basically,
this area has been a rural community, and the CoHnty has tried to encourage development in .
the past few years to take place in areas where the County did not have to worry about this
type of thing. However, when people choose to live in far-flung areas, is the County going]~
to be put in the position of running a public waterline to people who want to live in a
rural setting? If that is what the Board is going to do, it really does become more of a
question than just having a water tank out there that will serve Earlysville. and not the
school. The original proposal had only to do with the school This is the battle and why
the planning goes on and that is the reason he does not want ~o remove construction of the_
water tank from the bid.
Mr. Bowie said he tends to generally agree. The difference here is that the community
is willing to participate. Also, there is a general feeling in the community that the wate~
tank as proposed will be an attractive nuisance. The people will tell you that there is
ladder on the tower. There is also no ladder on the school, and yet the kids get on the
roof. This will be a 23-foot high tower with a door at the top and the tower is full of
water. At the meeting last night, all 150 people asked that the tower not be put on the
school grounds. The tower does not protect children, only property, and the risk.to the
property has been reduced through a change in design. Whether or not the tower i.s put on
the school property, or somewhere else it is not needed now just because it was thought it ''~
was needed three years ago.
At this point, Mr. Henley offered motion to deduct the water tower from the project.
He said that maybe at some'future date the Board might want to set up a committee to study
some way of providing water in that area. Mr. Bowie gave second to the motion, and suggested
it be looked at in the Capital Improvements Program in future years. He also said the _~_
motion should include reducing the previous appropriation for this project by $36,951. Mr.
Henley made that a part of the motion.
Mr. Fisher said there is no commitment in that motion to build a water, tank in Early
or anywhere else in the County. He feels it will do a disservice to the whole community by .
putting off, perhaps forever, any kind of a water system, and he will not support the motion.
Mr. Henley said he feels something better will come up if the Board Just gives it time to w~k
itself out.
Mr. Lindstrom said his concern is with the planning implications. He remembers that
when the water tank was first' discussed it was mentioned that it was not for the kids, but_
had to do with protecting the property. Today, Mr. Cortez has convinced him that the design.,
of the building is different enough that the building will be protected through the lead
time. available. There is nothing in the Service Authority report to lead him to believe
there will be a waterline in that area in the near future. Mr. Lindstrom said he never
looked at the water tank as providing anything for the community, but only for the school.
He said he will support the motion. He has some reservations about the implications.
Mrs. Cooke said she will support the motion because of what Mr. Cortez has said today?
Mr. Way said the principal of Broadus Wood school is present, and he asked if she had' .
anything to say.
Mrs. Majorie Webber said the main concern is for the safety of the children. They feel
that placing the water tower on school grounds will be a safety factor. Even if a fire
truck only came on the grounds every few years, the children might be attracted to rUn and
see what was going on. She feels there is more danger to lose a life by having the water
tank on the property, than by not having it on the grounds.
At this time, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following, recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to state that there is no money set aside anywhere for
water tank. He hopes this ~turns out to be a good. decision, but he does not think it will.
Agenda Item No. 10a. Appropriation Request - School Fund. Mr. Jones noted that a
notice was received from the Virginia Department of Education tht additional revenues are .-
available for Special Education and Flow Through Funds. Both of these revenue sources are
on a reimbursable basis, therefore depend on actual qualifying expenditures by the County.
Revised budgets for these programs have been approved by the State necessitating adjustments
to the 198~-85 County Appropriation Ordinance. Mr. Jones noted that the School Board took
action on August 13, 1984, to request amendment of the School budget. The additional
appropriation of $55,622 will provide for the hiring, of a pre-school teacher, a physical
therapist, a half-time secretary, and cover the lease payment on eleven computer systems to¢
be used in computer-aided instruction. Mr. Jones said h'e concurs with the request. Motion
was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the request by adopting
the following resolution:
Sf
e tember 12 4 · .~
401
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $55,622 be, nd the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Fund
and coded as follows for expenses chargeable to Special Education and Flow
Through Funds:
1-2000-60000-100135
1-2000-60000-200100
1-2000-60000-200200
1-2000-60000-200500
1-2000-60000-200600
1-2000-60140-100140
1-2000-60130-200100
1-2000-60150-540105
1-2000-60151-540105
1-2000-60151-700200
1-2000-60151-800100
1-2000-60154-550100
Compensation-Teacher $33,383
FICA 2,345
VSRS 5,388
Health Insurance 600
Life Insurance 360
Compensation-Clerical 6,178
FICA 435
Software -2,330
Software 800
Furniture 2,197
Lease-Equipment 5,285
Routine Travel 981
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues Section of the 1984-85 School Fund
budget be increased by the addition of the following:
2-0000-24000-204212
2-2000-33000-330110
Stat~ Aid-Special Education
Flow Through
$49,670
5,952
AND, FURTHER RESOLVED that these changes are made effective this date.
Dr. Elizabeth Morie was present. She said the funds are for an occupational therapist.
There are handicapped children. Mr. Fisher asked about the computers. Dr. Morie said they
will be used by speech pathologists, and people of that type, who are writing individual
educational plans for these students. This is a requirement of Federal and State law, and
it is hoped that the use of computers will reduce the paperwork involved. Mr. Fisher asked
how many people are on that staff. Dr. Morie said there are six psychologists, and some of
the computers will be used in the classroom for handicapped children. Mr. Fisher asked if
the computers are on a one-year lease. Mr. David Papenfuse said they will be on a lease/
purchase agreement. Continuation of the lease is contingent upon the yearly appropriation.
Mrs. Cooke asked if these are federally mandated programs which the schools are implementing
on the computers. Dr. Morie said the programs are already in place. This is to give addi-
tional assistance to students; supporting programs already in place, and serving some individua
students better. Mr. Papenfuse said a number of these services have been provided in the
past through the PREP regional board for pre-school children. The money that PREP did get
will now come directly to the County from the State.
AYES:
NAYS:
At this time, the roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
None.
Mr. Jones then presented a second part to this request. This request was brought to
the Board through a memorandum from Mr. David C. Papenfuse, dated August 23, 1984.
"SUBJECT: Reappropriation of 1983-84 School Fund Balance
At its August 20, 1984 special meeting, the Albemarle County School Board
instructed me to forward the following reappropriation requests for your
consideration.
It is requested that a sum of $10,250 be appropriated to cover the
expenses that will be incurred in a search for a new superintendent of
schools. The following costs are anticipated:
Advertising $1,800
Travel 3,500
Meetings 700
Supplies 250
Relocation 4,000
The School Board at its regular meeting on August 13, 1984 unanimously
approved a change to the vacation policy as it applies to twelve-month
teachers. Effective with the fiscal year 1985-86 twelve month teachers
will no longer accrue vacation.
In the past, these teachers were contracted for 240 days and allowed
vacation leave. Considering that eleven-month teachers are contracted
for 220 days, it is conceivable that a twelve-month teacher need only
work two more days than an eleven-month teacher for an additional months
pay. This was never the intent of the School Board and their aCtion on
August 13 corrected the problem.
With the elimination of the vacation accrual, the School Board is in a
position of being liable for all outstanding vacation balances of these
twelve-month teachers. The amount of the accrued vacation balance as of
the end of the 1983-84 fiscal year amounts to $56,000.
It is therefore requested that this amount be appropriated from the
School Pund balance to meet prior period commitments and allow for the
payment of this liability.
- ;02
September 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
One final-request is the appropriation of $9,654 to cover payroll expenses
incurred in FY 1983-84, but charged against the 1984-85 budget. A number
of payroll charges were considered as immaterial during the accrual process.
Since these were charges incurred in the 1984-85 school year it is requested
that a portion of the 1984-85 balance be appropriated against them."
A memorandum from Mr. Melvin Breeden in relation to this request states: "These requests
can be funded from the 83/84 unexpended balance, but should be considered as additional
84/85 appropriations and not reappropriations since they were not items which were included
in the 83/84 appropriation ordinance.
I have reviewed these requests, and they have been presented for your approval by the
School Board. However, I do have concerns about several items included in this request.
The request for funds to employ a new school superintendent apparently assumes that the
person employed will be from outside the community since it included $4,000 for relocation
expenses of the person employed. This portion of the request possibly should be delayed
until that decision is made. Also, the request for $9,654 in compensation codes is the
result of wages earned during the latter part of June, 1984 after the County's payroll cut-off
date, but which were not paid until July, 1984. In the opinion of the County's auditors the
amount of these wages were not significant, and therefore will not be included as 83/84
expenses Ail indications are that similar conditions will occur in June, 1985, therefore
this would appear to be a duplication of funds for these wages.
Mr. Jones then referred to his own memorandum to the Board dated September 6, 1984:
"The request for funds to employ a superintendent, pay accrued vacation and
compensate those hourly employees for wages earned in June and paid
in July, has raised some concerns with the Director of Finance, and I concur
in these concerns.
'When you consider there were four department heads (Police Chief, Zoning
Administrator, Director of Planning and Director of Finance) hired in
FY 83/84 in General Government for less than one-third their request of
$10,250 which required no additional appropriations, the request does
seem excessive. The difference is that in General Government, no travel
expenses are paid for the applicant on the first interview and no allowance
is made for relocation or moving expenses. The $3,500 portion of the
request for travel could be reduced by this method as well.
The $56,000 request for accrued vacation is also a departure from past
procedures. Normally, accrued vacation is only paid when the employee
leaves the system and not when there is a change in policy. However, I
understand the School Board has made a commitment to these 27 employees.
The $9,654 request should not be made if the situation is going to recur
in FY 84/85 and especially due to the fact it is not going to be included
by the County Auditors in the County's annual-financial statements.
Therefore, you could adjust the appropriation, if you chose, from $75,905
to $62,000 as follows:
EXPENDITURES
Employment - New Superintendent
Accrued Vacation
Compensation
$ 6,000
56,000
0
$62,000
I believe this amount would be adequate to meet the needs."
Mr. Lindstrom asked if eleven-month contract employees receive annual leave. Dr. Carole
Hastings, Personnel Director, said the eleven-month employees have never received annual
leave. It was a mistake in the School Board policy which stated "Ail twelve-month employees
may accrue annual leave." Actually, secretaries, administrators, etc. were never paid on
the basis of a daily type contract. However, for teacher contracts beginning with 240 days,
based on State regulations, there is a difference, and these people were accumulating vacation
under this policy, when in fact they should have just been contracted for either the 240 or
220 days they were supposed to work. It was a basic difference in the interpretation of the
policy, and the intent of the policy. When this was brought to the attention of the School
Board they decided to rectify the error, but these people have accumulated vacation under a
bona fide school board policy.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the entire amount would be used at one time. Dr. Hastings said
the $56,000 being requested is what has already been accrued through June 30, 1984. By the
action taken by the School Board, these employees will still be able to accrue vacation for
one more year. This puts them on notice that in July, 1985, this benefit will cease. It is
possible some of these people will take vacation leave this year and that will lower the
liability. The potential expense for 84/85 is about $32,000 if no leave is used during the
year.
Mr. Jones said he does not believe the County has ever paid accrued vacation leave to
current employees. Mr. Lindstrom said that. is whY he had asked the question. Dr. Hastings
said the intent is to pay these people on June 30, 1985, when it is known what the balance
will be.
S ~.i ]:er 12.. i 84 Re-.ular Da_~ Meeti~
403
Mr. Bowie asked if the intent of the School Board action was that these employees would
be allowed to accure leave for one more year. Dr. Hastings said that is correct. Mr. Bowie
said the word "teachers" is used in the memo, and he would like to know who these twelve-month
employees are. Dr. Hastings said many are vocational, home economic, industrial arts teachers,
guidance counselors, school psychologists, and visiting teachers.
Mr. Bowie said this request is'being made in the first quarter of the school fiscal
year and it concerns him. Over $30 million has already been appropriated to the School
Fund, and he has trouble to say Just keep on spending. Why not Just manage the funds for
six months and then see where things stand? Authorizing something to be done is one thing,
but there is no need to appropriate the funds at this time. Also, if these people are going
to be allowed to accrue leave for another year, just tell them to take some time off. Dr.
Hastings said these are critical positions, and to have someone off from work for 30 days
during the 180-day instructional period would be disruptive of the educational program. Mr.
Bowie asked if these people have taken leave time in the past. Dr. Hastings said it is
normally done during school vacation times. She said the School Board feels these people
have been done a disservice because they were working a 260-day schedule, but were being
paid for only 240. In many cases, these people were putting in more time than they were
being paid for-. They were bold they were being paid for annual leave, and holidays, and
that was not the case, they were only being paid for 240 days. The School Board felt that
in fairness to this group of people, that the payment was Justified, particularly when they
were changing the policy.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Jones for his recommendation.
in the memo above.
Mr. Jones restated what is-set out
Mr. Bowie said if the reqeust if for authorization and not appropriation, he has no
trouble. However, he cannot see appropriating funds in the first month of the school year.
He feels that some of this request should be handled through management. Mr. Bowie said he
feels it behooves all county employees to manage the money they have already been granted
for the fiscal year, at least until the mid-point of the year in order to protect the
taxpayer's interest. Although the Board may eventually have to appropriate these funds,
he feels the School Board should manage its funds at least until the mid-year point. Past
errors in compensation and Board changes in policies are not the taxpayers responsibility
to fund until it is seen how well current funds can be managed.
Mr. David Papenfuse said in the past, he understood that the Board of Supervisors wanted
to be kept informed of any overexpenditure that might occur. As concerns the search for a
school superintendent, the School Board does not have $10,250 in discretionary funds to
cover this expenditure, so a request is being made at this time. He understands the recommen-
dation by Mr. Jones that only $6,000 be approved since it is not known that relocation
expenses will have to be paid. Legally, Mr. Papenfuse said, he cannot commit funds to
relocation expenses in excess of this request without an appropriation. The $56,000 in
accrued vacation pay is an unexpected expenditure. Mr. Papenfuse said he cannot hope to
recover'this amount in six months. He disagrees that the $9,600 is a roll-over; it is an
expenditure which was incurred through an obligation to pay the funds in the final quarter
of the fiscal year and the detailed records were not available. It is not a case such as
when substitute teacher records are not received in the last few weeks of a fiscal year.
That occurs every year. He is only asking for that amount which he can identify as an
expense of the prior year. Because ~here was a surplus in funds at the end of the prior
year, the request is that the surplus be allocated to the expense of prior years.
Mr. Fisher said it seems to him that the allocation of School funds to cost centers is
purely an internal control, and the actual appropriations were not as limiting as the cost
centers, so if major changes can be made in major categories, then amounts may be assigned
to other items in those major categories. Mr. Fisher said that is his understanding of how
funds are managed in all departments. At this time the school year is just beginning, and
Mr. Fisher said he agrees with Mr. Bowie that not as many changes should be needed in
appropriations as were made last year. That is not the type of management the Board would
like to see.
Mr Papenfuse said he understands what the Board is saying to mean that it does not want
to know about problems until it is too late. Mr. Bowie said he would like to respond. That
is not what he said, nor what he intended.. He feels that the Board wants to know about
expenditures which occur which were not anticipated. As far as he is concerned, this does
not mean writing a check at this time. The Board certainly does not want to wait until next
April to find out about these things. He realizes that the cost centers have been designed
by the School Division to help manage appropriations, and that is fine. But, to say at this
time that there is no where that the Schools can find any amount of money cannot be correct;
something has to be there someplace. Mr.~BOwie said he read in last night's newspaper that
the County's school enrollment was higher than expected. He asked how that will effect
revenues. Mr. Papenfuse said he is not _anticipating any increase in revenues at this time.
Mr. Bowie asked if there was not an increase in enrollment. Mrs. Cooke said it had decreased,
as did Mr. Papenfuse. He said the School's had budgeted for 8,800 students, and there are
8,866. The Sta~e reimburses not on the 8,866, but on the average enrollment through March
31. He cannot say that no students will be lost by that time, so he is not anticipating any
additional revenue at this time.
Mr. Bowie said he is only asking that the money be managed for a little while. Mr. Fi
sai~ transfers are easier to handle than appropriations of new £unds. Mr. Papenfuse said
the only reason the schools had a surplus at the end of the last fiscal year was because the
$9,654 bill did not get paid last year.
Mr. Lindstrom said he can appreciate Mr. Papenfuse's position, and also the positions
of Mr. Fisher and Mr. Bowie. He understands the recommendation is to see if the money cannot
be saved somewhere and if there are no additional revenues, then to come back with a request
to the Board later in the year. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not critical of the new approach to
managing the school budget, but everyone is just getting adjusted to this new way of
management. He asked if it is not possible to wait for a while to see if anything changes.
'404
September 12,~ 1984 (Regular Day Meeting).
Mr. Papenfuse said he stood in this same spot two years ago and listened to a lot of
comments about the school administration not knowing what they were doing financially.
These. controls have been put on, and he would like to say that the items mentioned are
potential areas for overexpenditure. Mr. Fisher asked for a list of underexpenditures. Mr.
Papenfuse said he did not have such a list. Mr. Fisher said the Board is only seeing one ~'
side of the story. Mr. Papenfuse said his copy of the Annual Appropriation Ordinance showed
the appropriations by cost centers. If that is the case, then the School Board budget would
already be in trouble with these expenditures.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the request is reasonable. The Board does not want the
School Board to come at the end of the fiscal year and list expenditures which were not
budgeted, but which they were obligated to pay, so they went ahead and made the payments.
Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that in prior years the School Board said that when there
was a change in the rules about insurance they had to go ahead and spend the money, but
never mentioned the large change in expenditures. He would prefer to know about potential
problesm but would like to wait and see if any money "shakes loose", before making an
appropriation.
Mrs. Cooke said she appreciates knowing about this problem at this time. She will have~
no problem in voting to approve an appropriation for these expenditures if the request comes
back to the Board. She then commended Mr. Papenfuse for his way of handling the School
budget.
Mr. Lindstrom said the search for a school superintendent was not anticipated when this
budget was drafted, so he does not find that request unreasonable. He feels the Board
should appropriate $6,000 now. He understands the $56,000 will not have to be spent until
about June 30, and he is not sure about the $9,654. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to
adopt the following resolution, with the understanding that if the School Board needs funds~'~'~'
for moving expenses, the Board will consider that appropriation at a later date. The motion
was seconded by Mrs. Cooke.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $6,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Fund and
coded as follows:
$6,000
1-2000-60100-201600 - Recruitment and Employment -
Superintendent of Schools
AND, FURTHER that this appropriation from the School Fund is effective
this date.
Mr. Fisher said if the School Board can get through December 21 or January 15 and
analyze all expenditures and'revenues, he would rather make appropriations and transfers as
a more routine type of transaction. As a member of the Board's Audit Committee, he can
state that the auditors were concerned about the many changes requested last year.
The roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vbte:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
AYES:
NAYS:
At 12:06 p.m. the Board recessed, and reconvenedat 12:15 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 10b. Appropriation Request: Capital Improvements Program Budget for
1984'85. Mr. Ray B. Jones summarized the following memorandum:
'!The public hearing conducted by you on August 23, 1984, moved the Capital
Improvement Program to the appropriation process for FY 1984/85. The Director
of Finance is requesting appropriations for most of the projects that were
recommended for funding in the FY 84/85 C.I.P. Budget.
Based on your discussion at the August 2.3, 1984 public hearing; full funding
of the FY 84/85 requests for Data Processing Equipment and Southern Swimming
Facility are not being requested at this time. However, we are requesting
$6,600 to purchase a paper shredder in Data Processing and $20,000 in planning
money for the Southern Swimming Facility.
The paper shredder will be used by many departments such as Social Services and
Finance to dispose of certain documents pertaining to records of individual
incomes that fall under the Secrecy of Information Act. Currently an employee
has to take the doCuments to the landfill and wait there while they are burned.
The shredder is not a cheap, light-weight machine, but a medium-weight type that
can handle paper clips without incurring damage. Therefore, it is being included
in the requests.
The $20,000 will be used to purchase the services of a consultant to evaluate
sites and provide preliminary cost estimates on those sites.
The staff recommendation is for you to approve the transfer of funds and appro-
priations as Set out in the request of the Director of Finance. The money is
available and all advertising requirements have been met in order to proceed
with the appropriations. The Capital Improvements Fund has an unallocated
balance of $2.1 million available to fund the $1.9 million in requests."
September 12z__1984 (Regular Day_ Meetin~
4O5
Mr. Henley said he was not present at the public hearing so did not understand the
difference between the requested amounts for the southern swimming facility, and the Hardware
Rapids Park. He asked if these are two different facilities. Mr. Fisher said that is correct.
Mr, Henley asked if it had been decided to put a swimming pool at a school. Mr. Way said
that is still undetermined. Mrs. Cooke asked about the $20,000 appropriation. Mr. Lindstrom
said it is for a study of possible sites for a full-facility park. Mr. Fisher said Hardware
Rapids is to be only a very small area to protect that area from development.
Mr. Way asked if the study is completed in a short period, and there is only this small
amount of money in the bUdget, if there would be any possibility of proceeding in this
fiscal year. Mr. Jones said the staff looked at this in light of how much funding would be
needed from the General Fund in order to fund these requests. When the Director of Finance
took into account all monies it was found that there is nearly $3,000,000 which could be
transferred from the General Fund to the CIP Fund for these expenditures, however, if~no
expenditures are anticipated at this time, he would rather leave the money in the General
Fund in order to increase the earnings on investments.
Mr. Henley asked who will determine how to spend the $20,000 shown. Mr. Jones said
that five staff members will select a number of sites and then a consultant will review
those sites to develop cost estimates, etc. Mr. Henley said he feels someone on the staff
should be able to select a site for this purpose without using a consultant. Mr. Tucker
said that once a number of sites are selected, the consultant will study individually each
site and make a recommendation as to what type of faciltiies can be placed on a particular
site, and the cost of such facilities. Mr. Henley said he still feels that.the staff can
narrow the selection down to one site, and then a consultant recommend how the site can be
used. Mr. Bowie questioned the amount of the appropriation. Mr. Tucker said these planning
funds are included at this time because the Board had asked the staff to make a recommendation
on a facility. If the Board would prefer to make the entire appropriation after the actual
site is selected, that will be no problem. Mr. Bowie said he had no problem as long as no
funds are spent until it is known what will actually be needed.
At this point, Mr. Bowie offered motion to adopt the following resolution making appropri-
ations as recommended by the staff. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and 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 $1,965,158 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Capital
Improvement Fund and coded to the following projects:
1-9000-00200-970200
1-9000-01800-300404
1-9000-05803-975803
1-9000-06000-400300
1-9000-06000-700200
1-9000-12200-700100
1-9000-21050-70.1002
1-9000-21060-700101
1-9000-31010-700100
1-9000-31040-700300
1-9000-32010-700503
1-9000-32010-701006
1-9000-33020-701007
1-9000-41020-703000
1-9000-43000-700102
1-9000-43000-701003
1-9000-43000-701004
1-9000-43000-701005
1-9000-43000-701008
1-9000-60100-300219
1-9000-60622-300404
1-9000-60750-700100
1-9000-71000-702002
1-9000-71000-702003
1-9000-71000-702004
1-9000-7~000-7.02005
1-9000-71000-702006
1-9000-71000-702007
1-9000-71001-999999
1-9000-81010-700103
1-9000-81010-300220
1-9100-41030-999999
School Refurbishment - Phase I
Re-Roofing - Maintenance Shop
Fire Service Training Center
Phone System - Court Square
Furniture & Equipment - Court Square
Data Processing
Juvenile and Domestic Court
Circuit Court Equipment
Radios and Tachometers - Police Dept.
Joint Dispatch Center
County Fire Engine
Dry Hydrants
Sprinkler System - Joint Security
Hydraulic Road Improvements
Microfilm Center
Auditorium Renovation COB
Gas Pump Canopy COB
Re-roofing - Jailor's House
Security System COB
School Comprehensive Plan
Re-roofing and Masonry - Brownsville
Emergency Generator - WAHS
Whitewood Road - Phase I
Jouett Tennis Court
Hollymead Little League - Fencing
StOny Point Recreational Improvements
Albemarle Tennis Courts - Resurfacing
Hardware Rapids Park
Southern Swimming Facility
Equipment - Information Review System
Aerial Topo Mapping
Storm Sewers and Detention Basins
TOTAL
86,366
27,000
25,000
75~000
16,700
4,600
6,500
84,000
190,400
5'8,800
162,000
48,000
24,938
97,253
35,000
102,140
5,500
6,000
12,225
35,000
155,000
86,000
34,000
31,000
6,000
4,000
10,000
31,000
20,000
13,800
45,000
429,936
$1,968,158
Agenda Item No. 11. Request to Connect to Albemarle County Service Authority Sewer
System: Erkenbrack, Kerewich, Brugh.
Mr. Bob Brugh was present and read the following statement:
"I am present for the prupose of reqUesting permission to hook up to the sewer
line in the Terrell Subdivision which now goes across additional lots and is
located on three lots in this subdivision. I realize that this request for
hook-up on Lot 2 has been before you prior to now, but all of us believe that
there must be something that we have not conveyed as we do not understand how
this reqUest, or permission, could be denied when the following is taken into
consideration: Once again, and let me point out to each of you, that the sewer
406
September 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meetiag)
line that we refer to is located on these lots of this project. I would also
like to remind you that I live on Old Forge Road. In fact, my lot adjoins Lot 5
in the Terrell Subdivision. On Old Forge Road you have granted permission to
hook up to this sewer line. We have been ~continously told, or led to believe,
that all of this has been done for the purpose of protecting the reservoirs, so
that the systems that are now failing on Old Forge Road may hook up. We are
further led to believe that denial of this request is to discourage growth.
Members of the Board, these lots have been approved and are going to be built
on so that granting, or not granting this request, it is not going to contribute
to growth.
Now, let's discuss it from an environmental standpoint. I want to point out that
I am just as concerned about the environment as you. In fact, I belong to two
environmental groups. It would be keeping within your goal of protecting the
Reservoir by granting us this h~ok-up. As you know, directly behind these lots,
we have a stream that flows to the Reservoir. No septic system is 100 percent
sound. There will be drainage into this stream area from these systems. Further-
more, as you may know, these systems are going to fail as failure is ~high in this
area as has been proven by the number of systems that have failed on Old Forge
Road which is on the other side of the stream. Therefore, by granting us permis-
sion now, you are assuring a safe proof system for these lots and protection for
the reservoir, whereas denial will contribute to the problems of the reservoir.
I would also like to point out that due to stream location on the rear of these
properties it was necessary for you all to have a 100 foot septic line setback.
The Planning Department in practically every locale including yours, stresses the
fact of trying to preserve the natural habitat of the area. These are our
objectives too, and our utmost desires. This is what we are faced with. If
we are to put in these three septic fields, we'will have to cut and clear
approximately three-eighths of an acre of woodland and we might add, cutting
some of the prettiest trees that you could find, as it is virgin timber there.
Also, let me point out, due to the fact that you normally locate these systems
to the rear of where you have to clear, for basement and rear yard use, in our
case this area cannot be used for the septic system as a result of the 100 foot
septic setback line. We, in turn, will have to cut trees for the sole purpose
of putting in a system when we have a sewer line right on the property.
Members of the Board, you have granted us water, and by not granting us sewer,
it gives us the feeling that we are being teased. I would like to present a
letter to you that I have received unsolicited from the City of Charlottesville
(hands letter to Board). This letter from the City requests information concerning
our needs for gas, and if we have that need, they are willing to place a gas line
into the subdivision. We have one municipality which has no governmental
authority willing to assist new property owners with their needs, and I am asking
you, in fact begging you, to grant us permission to hook up to this sewer line so
we do not have to cut down the trees on the side of each of our lots. I further
think that each citizen, assuming similar conditions are deserving of equal
opportunity to benefit from the utilities that the County furnishes. People on
one side of the line can come in and attach to that line, but Albemarle County
citizens on the other side of that line are being denied that privilege. It
makes me wonder why they did not locate the sewer line on the other side of
the lots that you are serving instead of putting it on the opposite side where
you are not going to serve and denying use of it. I would also like to point
out to the best of my knowledge, I have not found any reason, whereas the
granting use of the sewer line to these three lots cannot create any impact on
the system. As I understand it, the system is able to handle these three lotS.
I have heard that these requests are denied because they are setting a precedent
and I want to point out to you that I have made an absolute, pure, logical
request right in with your plans to protect the reservoir and to preserve nature.
I have no paid attorney, and I have no lobbying organization to go to for help.
As far as I am concerned, you are my lobbying organization. This has been
considered a precedent, as I understand it, concerning certain legal suits
which are pending. It appears to me that you may be forgetting that your
responsibility to the needs of citizens when they come in with a Justifiable,
logical request. I don't think any Judge is going to hold this against you in
court as the granting of these three lots is nothing more than a ripple. I think
a judge would say to you that you are acting~in the-course of fulfilling your
citizens' needs, and is certainly not setting a precedent. I also think he
does not want his court to be used to deny these things because of a case
pending in court."
Mrs. Cooke asked if the sewer line was already on the lot when Mr. Brugh bought the
lot. Mr. Brugh said it was, but he was not aware at that time of how the 100 foot septic
setback line was going to force him to put the septic system in the front yard and to the
side of the house. Mr. Lindstrom said he was curious, and asked if Mr. Brugh was building
the house to live in himself. Mr. Brugh said he is building for' himself, and he feels it is
the same for the other two people, that all are moving into these houses. Mr. Bowie said
he was surprised at the estimate of cutting down three-eighths of an acre of trees, he felt_~
it would be more. .He asked if that is just the amount to be cut on Mr. Brugh's lot. Mr. Brugh
said that is the amount for all three lots.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Brugh has made a very convincing case, and this is one reason why
he sometimes wishes he were not on the Board, because it is a "no-win" situation. Whatever
the Board decides will be a problem in some way. Mr. Lindstrom said this is a very convinc~ing
case. He has concern about the precedent the Board may set because of cases which arc.now
being considered, and~may be faced in the future. However, he said there seems to be some
distinctions in this case; these distinctions were present when Mr. ErkenBrack presented the
case previously. There is proximity of the line, the subdivision is already approved, and
Sep~tember 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
407
there would need to be substantial clearing in the watershed. Mr. Lindstrom said he does
not Want to do anything to approve more development than is already approved in the watershed.
He does not want to do anything to set a precedent for providing sewer lines that would
stimulate development, but he feels hardput to explain why the Board would not provide
service to lots that are crossed by the line, already approved and which will be developed
at a density which is already approved. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not see this as stimulating
growth, and may be less amenable to the watershed than alternatives the ~Board has discussed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is very uneasy and has been concerned about this for a long time, and
the Board members might like to have a brief executive session to discuss the Stowe case
implications before their consideration of this request. Mr. Lindstrom then moved for an
executive session. Mr. Bowie said the Board already has an executive session scheduled
during lunch break.
Mrs. Cooke said what Mr. Brugh ~said is very logical-, but by the same token she does not
want to make a decision concerning the request until such time as the Board holds an executive
session and receives legal counseling. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board's decisions are not
always looked at by the people who make the ultimate decision about the validity of those
decisions. That is Mr. Lindstrom's concern.
Mr. Brugh said there is one thing he feels is important. He has found in his experience
in court: The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of the State Supreme
Court have both said that a majority, or a large amount, of material presented in cases is
irrevelant. Mr. Brugh said he feelS judges are concerned with waves and not ripples, and
there are so many opinions going, he does not feel the Board should stop responding to the
need. Mr. Fisher said he feels the only way to handle this request today is to discuss it
in executive session.
Dr. Kerewich said he is beginning to excavate for his house, foundation and a decision
must be made in the next week as to putting in a septic system or hooking to the public sewer.
If a decision is put off too long, it will be too late. Also, the contractor is beginning
to run into rock. Dr. Kerewich said he understands that putting systems into this kind of
area makes them less than what they should be. Mr. ErkenBrack said his contractor has also
run into rock during excavation. Dr. Kerewich said this was not anticipated. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if the Health Department had given approval for these lots. Dr. Kerewich said yes; he
ms only 125 feet from the public sewer line on the back of his lot, and if his septic system
should fail, it will affect the reservoir.
Agenda Item No. 16. Executive Session: Legal Matters. At 12:50 P.M., motion was
offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adjourn into executive session for the
following legal matters, and a discussion of personnel matters: 1) the request just heard
concerning connection to the Albemarle County Service Authority's public sewage system; 2)
David C. Carr, Trustee vs. Albemarle County; 3) Monticello Memory Gardens vs. Albemarle
County; 4) Virginia Federal Savings and Loan vs. Albemarle County; 5) the potential litigation
under the heading of Joseph Seagram and & Sons Board of Zoning Appeals hearing; 6) Hollymead
Square II, an item on the agenda for this afternoon; and 7) Lickinghole Creek basin. 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.
The Board reconvened into open session at 2:10 P.M. and proceeded with the agenda.
Agenda Item No. 17. Certificate of Appreciation. Mr. Fisher recognized Mr. L. A. "Bub"
Lacy, who served on the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors from February,
1972, until April, 1984, serving as Chairman from April, 1978 until April, 1984. Mr. Fisher
listed the various projects, agreements and contracts that Mr.~ Lacy participated in as a
member of the Service Authority Board of Directors: The Four-Party Agreement, 1972, which
led to the development of the Moore's Creek Sewage Treatment Plant, the upgrading of the
water systems, the planning for the Crozet Interceptor, and all of the projects for the City
and County that were jointly done through the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority; the constr~
t~ion of the Ivy waterline in 1973; the acquisition of the City-owned water and sewer lines
in the County; construction of the Hessian Hills sanitary sewer system; the contract that
was entered into with Morton Frozen Foods ensuring connection to the Crozet Interceptor-that
was a very difficult problem for a long time; implemented financial incentives to encourage
water and sewer mains; construction of the Old Forge Road sanitary sewer system; construction
of the Westmoreland sewer system; upgrading of the northwest urban water system-the high
pressure project; participation in the construction of the sanitary sewer system in Crozet
to eliminate raw sewage discharge; development of the water and sewer master plan; and the
joint resolution with the City/County/Rivanna Authority and the Albemarle County Service
Authority for the Buck Mountain reservoir. Mr. Fisher said that is just a capsule summary
of things that have been going on in the County concerning the utility business over this
period of time. Mr. Fisher then presented Mr. Lacy with a certificate of appreciation.
Mr. Lacy thanked the Board for the certificate, saying it went a little way toward the
long hours, and low pay. He said it has been a lot of fun and a lot of work and said that
the Service Authority has an excellent Board of Directors and staff; an organization of
which the County can be proud. Mr. Lacy said he hopes he has contributed somewhat to this
organization. Mr. Fisher said the Board appreciates Mr. Lacy's service.
Agenda Item No. 12. Proposed Changes: Personnel Policies and Merit Evaluation Procedures
General Government Employees. Mr. Fisher said the Board did not have time to discuss this
item during the morning session, so same will be rescheduled; date not known at this time.
4'08
September 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 13. AHIP Quarterly Report. Mr. Gary Olivera was present and presented
a slide show presentation of work accomplished through this program during the fourth quarter~
of FY 1983-84 and also presented the annual report.
"YEAR END PROGRAM TOTALS FY 1~983'-1'984
Major rehabilitations, 6; minor rehabilitations, 6; repairs, 11; Total 23.
Families served, 23; persons served, 68 (elderly, 17-25%;
disabled, 12-18%; minority, 47-69%.
Total Cost of Materials and Subcontracts:
Total Albemarle County Housing Assistance Grants:
Average Cost of Material and Subcontracts:
Average Albemarle Housing Assistance Grant:
REQUEST TO RETAIN UNSPENT OPERATING FUNDS:
$37,517.40
16,068.26
$ 1,631.20
$ 765.15
AHIP's annual audit has identified $177.18 in unspent ?Y 83-84 County allocated
operating funds. In the past, AHIP has yearly reported such 'excess' operating
money to be returned to the County, if so requested. However, AHIP requests that
it be allowed to retain these funds for use in the current fiscal year as
additional Housing Assistance Grants (HAG), for the following reasons: $1,068.~26
of this year's HAG fund has already been committed to units completed by mid-
November. This leaves, of this year's $15,000 HAG fund, $7,343.67 for the
remaining seven and one-half months of the fiscal year. The $177.18 requested
for retention will be well used in helping to stretch this year's Housing
Assistance Grants.
PROSPECTS FOR FY 84-85 PRODUCTION
Going into the new year, AHIP is in an excellent position to increase its
completion of major and comprehensive per unit rehabilitations. For the past
two years, AHI? has sought to accomplish more of these substantial rehabili-
tations, but has lacked the outside funds necessary to finance additional field
personnel and building materials. However, this year five such rehabs are
already scheduled, three of which will be financed by the Charlottesville
Housing Foundation (CHF)Loan Fund, and two by ~mHA 504 Grants to the Elderly.
In addition, and more encouraging, AHIP has recently'been awarded a Discretionary
Block Grant by the Office of Community Services, U. S. Department of Health and
~Human Services. We are also hOpefUl of receiving the State CDBG funds for which
the County has recently applied.' Either one of these grants, and certainly both,
will expand our capability to deal with many more of these major housing
deficiencies.' With some 80 families throughout the County already identified
as eligible clients in need of substantial hoUsing assistance, these much needed
and long-sought-after resources will be well applied. ~inally, AHIP has been
recertified by the Neighborhood Assistance Program to receive as much as $36,740
in cash or in-kind donations from area businesses, which would be eligible for
a 50 percent State tax credit. Depending upon AHIP's most pressing needs at a
given time, such donations will be used toward obtaining additional vehicles
and equipment, hiring additional field personnel, and/or providing additional
materials financing for the neediest client families.
Overall, the combination of private, local, State and ?ederal funds in the
year ahead will provide AHIP with the opportunity for greatly expanding
operations in its housing rehabilitation efforts." '
Mr. Fisher asked if the $177.18 amount requested would need to. be. reappropriated.
Ray J~ones said the money has already been paid to ~AHI~, and they are requesting that the
funds be left in their account instead of returning same to the County. Since it is such fa
small, amount,-the Board need only zdopt a ~esolution grantingjthe request. Mr. Fisher asked
if the County has received a copy of AHIP's audit report. Mr. Olivera said AHIP's auditing
firm has not yet completed the~financial statements. Mr. Fisher said approval of this requ~t
should be conditioned on receipt of such an audit 'promptly.
Mrs. Cooke then offered motion that AHIP be allowed to retain $177.18 in Albemarle
County funds remaining in its 1983-84 budget for use in its 1984-85 program. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowie and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, .Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Olivera said that production last year had been somewhat lower than he had hoped..q
They did some 23 units, concentrating on major re.pairs to houses classified as sub-standard~7
There were many minor Jobs completed, because if left too long, these minor repairs can
become major problems. They hope to do more major rehab Jobs in the 1984-85 year; five jobs
are financed and ready to begin at thais moment. Mr. Olivera proceeded to summarize the last
paragraph of the letter above. He said he appreciates the County's support of the AHIP
program.
Mr. Bowie said the Board had funded an extra position this year, and it appears that
this person can be used to expand the program in the new year. Mr. Bowie said he feels this
is an excellent rep~ort, but he feels that when the quarterly reports are made it would help
if the figures could be compared against previous years' work figures.
~Se~tember 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 18. Daniel Becker. Request to locate a single-wide mobile home on 21
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Located on the southeast side of Route 706, onehalf mile north-
east of its intersection with Route 708. County Tax Map 100, Parcel 27F (part of), Samuel
Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on Aguust 28 and September 4, 1984.)
Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development, gave the staff's
report:
"Request: Mobile Home
Acreage: 21 acres
Zoning:
RA, Rural Areas
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 100, Parcel 27F, is located on the
southeast side of Route 706, about 2000 feet from Route 708 near Red Hill.
History: This parcel contains no rights to further division and not more than
one dwelling unit may-be located on the property. SP-82-20 (Margaret C. Carson),
a request to divide this property into four lots was denied by the Board of
Supervisors in June, 1982.
Character of Area: Two single-family dwellings are located southwest of
the site (parcels 27B and 27C) and one single-family dwelling is located
southeast (parcel 28). Other properties immediately adjacent are vacant.
'Staff Comment: This property is open pasture and heavy woodland. The
mobile home is proposed to be located in a wooded area about 150 feet from
the eastern property line, 500 feet from the western property line and 300
feet from the rear line. Staff opinion is that the mobile home would not
be visible from the public road or dwellings in the area in this location.
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff
recommends the following conditions:
1) Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2)
Maintenance to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator
of a wooded buffer around mobile home site for screening purposes."
Mr. Donnelly said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of September 4, 1984,
unanimously recommended approval of the petition with the conditions of the staff, plus a #3
reading: "The special use permit and all authority granted hereunder shall expire three
years from date of approval by the Board of Supervisors." Mr. Donnelly said the three year
limit was put on the permit because the applicant stated that he will have built a permanent
structure by that time.
Mr. Fisher asked what had occurred to bring this petition before the Board. Mr. Donnelly
said there was written opposition from adjacent property owners. Mr. Fisher said the Board
did not receive a copy of these letters and asked for a summary of the opposition. Mr.
Donnelly said letters from Mr. Stinnert, John and Deborah Grady, and Kathleen Carson had been
received.
At this time, the public hearing was opened·
representing Mr. Becker.
Mr. Becker was not present, nor anyone
Mr. Julian Thomas, an adjoining property owner, was present. He did not object to
placement of the mobile home on the property. Mr. Thomas said he had tried to put in a
mobile home park about ten years ago, and was told that the County. did not need such a facilitl
Now', 'he understands that there is a great need for such a place,, and he hopes that Mr. Becker
is granted his request. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Becker intends to live in the mobile home.
Mr. Thomas said that is his understanding, although he has not yet met Mr. Becker. Mr.
ThOmas said his son also owns adjoining land, and has no objection. There was no one else
present to speak, and the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher said that normally the Board does not take action in the applicant's absence.
Mrr~ Lindstrom said he did not think the action he proposes would be upsetting to the applicant
andathen offered motion to approve SP-84-49 with the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission, as follows:
Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Maintenance to the reasonable satisfaction of the ZOning Administrator
of a wooded buffer around mobile home site for-screening purposes.
The special use permit and all authority granted hereunder shall expire
three years from date of approval by the Board of Supervisors."
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 19. John Ashton:
Redevelopment and Housing Authority.
Request re:
Hollymead Square II and Harrisonburg
Mr. Ashton said that on May 9, 1984, the Board of Supervisors had adopted a resolution
in which it invited and encouraged the Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority
(HRHA) to issue bonds to finance the Hollymeade Square II Apartments which is a twenty-
percent, Section 8 assisted, multi-family housing project in Albemarle County. The adoption
of this resolution cleared the way for the developer of the project, Cavalier Associates, to
apply for an inducement resolution from the Housing Authority. A resolution providing that
410
September 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
no bonds would be issued until there was a public hearing conducted by the Industrial Develo
Authority of Albemarle County and the bond issue was approved by this Board was then adopted.
However, before the public hearing could be arranged, Mr. Ashton said he received a letter
from Mr. St. John indicating that the Board had serious reservations about this financing
proceeding. Mr. Ashton said he had responded to Mr. St. John's letter on June 7, 1984, and'
assured Mr. St. John that the financing would not go forward unless and until this Board's
concerns were resolved, and he attempted to explain why he feels this Board's concerns are
unfounded.
Mr. Ashton said he is not asking that the Board of Supervisors permit a financing
to be used in Albemarle County that is new, different or untried. Similar multi-family
ects have been, or are currently being, financed in the City of Virginia Beach, Arlington
County, the City of Falls Church, Spotsylvania County, Isle of Wight County and York County
(none of which have their own redevelopment and housing authorities). The Harrisonburg
Authority is currently providing the financing for two major projects in Prince William
County. The Virginia Housing Development Authority in Richmond finances projects throughout
the State. In each of these instances the City Council and/or Board of Supervisors of the
jurisdiction in which the projects are (or will be) located have approved a housing authority
from another jurisdiction providing the financing. Mr. Ashton said it is extremely difficult
to build multi-family rental projects on a financially feasible basis anywhere in Virginia
without the benefits derived from tax-exempt financing.
Mr. Ashton said the Board perceived a problem with Section 36-23 of the Code in which it
is stated that once a housing project is financed by a redevelopment and housing authority,
subsequently that authority has to be asked before a new project is developed in that same
area. He proposed to proceed under a new statute, 36-19(f)(1), therefore, the Housing
Authority in Harrisonburg will have no say in governmental affairs in Albemarle County because
of this financing. The proposed resolution specifically states that the findings required
pursuant to Section 36-23 of the Code are not being made in this resolution, and that the
resolution should not be construed as giving anyone any rights under Section 36-23. Hunton &
Williams proposes to provide in the Harrisonburg proceedings an acknowledgment by them that
the proceedings are not under Section 36-23, and if it is a waiver of any rights to inject
themselves into Albemarle County's business, the bonds will be validated by the Court in
Harrisonburg, and they will ask the Court in its decree to state that this financing is not
made pursuant to Section 36-23. Mr. Ashton said he and Mr. St. John have had several discussio
about this, but he cannot imagine that the court in Harrisonburg would rule that the HRDA has
any authority in Albemarle County. He does not see the Harrisonburg Authority as any threat
to Albemarle County, they are simply doing this as an accommodation, and have no desires to
take over any governmental function in Albemarle County. Mr. Ashton said if there is concern
that other projects such as this might be financed without the consent of the Board, he
assures the Board that under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1983 (TEFRA) no
one can finance any private activity bonds in Albemarle County without this Board giving
permission to do so, therefore the Board has total control over any future projects. Also,
there is now a State cap on private activity bonds, the amount of industrial development
bonds which can be issued in Albemarle County is limited. Housing is exempt from that
so this project will not affect the County's cap whatsoever. Mr. Ashton said he does not
believe this should be a legal grounds to deny this request. He believes there is no particula
ramification that will come from this financing. Any future financing will be totally in the
Board's control, and the Harrisonburg Authority will have no authority to do anything in
Albemarle County, and he will provide documentation of this.
~':~M~'. David Goodman, the developer, said that two years ago, HUD agreed to grant Albemarle
County $2.5 million over the next twenty years to house some of its lower income citizens,
along with another 100 units of non-subsidized housing. He has been trying to produce an
outstanding project, and this procedure is all that keeps the project from moving forward.
It would be a shame to give back to the government this 24 units of housing, since the
program has now ended.
Mr. Fisher said as a.result of reviewing another application, the Board had run int° the
question of the Ie'gality and the extra territorial powers housing authorities seem to have, ~o
and this caused the Board a considerable degree of concern. He believes that what has been
discovered at least provides a legal mechanism'for an outside authority to say that no
public housing project can be undertaken if they do not agree. Although that may seem to.be
an unlikely prospect, that is what the state law says. He feels the Board is most reluctant.~
to move forward with any outside authority operating in this County.
Mr. Ashton Said he has provided the Board with an opinion (on file) and will be glad~tg~.-~.I
provide the Board With a further, more formal opinion. He feels it is a wrong conclusion~o~
law, and he feels there is~no basis for it, and is an unfounded fear
Mr. Lindstrom Said he has been supportive of this project since it was first proposed.
He has followed the legal arguments and understands the Concern brought up during discussion
of the Hessian Hills Apartments issue. He also understands that the Board can establish its
own Housing Authority after a referendum. What is requested here does not necessarily justify
such a procedure. Mr. Lindstorm said he had read Mr. Ashton's memorandum and understands his
justification. He.has also heard arguments from the other side and on balance, he thinks
there is a difference, and he does not perceive a threat although he was concerned at one
time. He does not believe the Harrisonburg Authority will try to exercise that authority.
He believes Mr.~ Ashton is correct and they would not be able to exercise that kind of authority
He thinks it is a good project, and is willing to go forward, and at the same time he does
not feel this will open'the door for anyone else wanting the same kind of financing. He is
convinced the County has a tremendous need for housing that is not being met in other ways,
and he thinks there is a need for a project of this nature. He has read all the papers
forwarded to the Board, and understands what Mr. Ashton has presented.
Mr. Goodman said this is not an opinion that is unique to Mr. Ashton's firm. Every
leading bond firm in the State, every firm that does this kind of work on a nationally reQogniz~
basis, is of the same opinion as that of Mr. Ashton's firm.
d
September 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher said when the Board knew there was a problem, they had requested that the
County Attorney write immediately to advise Mr. Goodman of the Board's concern to try and
avoid any further problems for Mr. Goodman and the Harrisonburg Authority.
Mr. Ashton said an opinion could be requested from the Attorney General. Mr. Fisher
said he would not mind knowing what the Attorney General has to say, but does not think
legislative approval should be contingent on his opinion. Mr. Ashton said he thinks the
Board is afraid that this bond issue could get in a Judicial posture and the case might get
decided on "what the Judge ate for breakfast." Although there are sometimes situations like
that where you do not understand how the decision came out like it did and he cannot guarantee
what a court will do, he really does not believe there is a risk in this instance. As far as
future projects are concerned, TEFRA covers that. The Board has an absolute right, Federally
granted, to say when tax-exempt financing can be used in the County. He does not believe t-he
legal concerns should be a reason to turn this project down. The merit of the project itself
is an entirely different matter.
Mr. Goodman said if the Board does not like the project, he would prefer that it be
turned down for that reason, and not for a reason that seems to be unique in all the world.
Mr.. Fisher said the Board has had similar problems before. He remembers one in particular
concerning funding for JAUNT in which Mr. St. John disagreed with almost all of the rest of
the State and his opinion was found to be correct.
Mr.F~her asked Mr. St. John if he had heard anything which changed his opinion. Mr.
St. John said there have been laws which read a certain way in black and white, and yet when
in court, judges have interpreted those laws in exactly the opposite way, and no one is sure
why.~ but that interpretation then becomes the law. Also, in this particular area of law,
whi'¢h he does not practice every day, he is out of his element,_and he does not claim to be
expert in this particular field of law. Hunton & Williams is, and what they say should weigh
ten'~times more than what he says even though it is his job to advise the Board. Mr. St. John
saidhe does not feel confident that he has the expertise in this field. The County could go
to court now and get a non-contested judgement validating these bonds which Mr. Ashton said
he Will do in Harrisonburg. That is one thing. Look down the road eight years from.n.ow and
imagine investors have lost millions of dollars, and if they look to find someone liable,
op±nionS change over the years, they will try to read this statute to give them right to
access somebody's treasury. If that means the Harrisonburg or Rockingham County treasury,
and Rockingham County is somehow held liable and the only way they could save their treasury
is to make money on this housing project, they would not want Albemarle County to compete
with them. Mr. St. John said he thinks the purpose of this statute is that when one authority
has issued its bonds, it has a vested interest in preventing any competition from coming in
with other low cost housing that would tend to compete with the housing it funded. That is
the' only purpose he sees for this statute.
Mr. Ashton said the Harrisonburg bonds will be guaranteed by FHA insurance; these will
be triple "A" rated bonds. Harrisonburg has no more guarantee than this Board that the
Federal government will not go into default. Mr. St. John said that is the same statement
that is made each time a bond issue is approved; that the County is a pure conduit. If that
is.true, there is no need for a statute like 36-23. Mr. Ashton said this is an entirely
different situation. Mr. St. John said most of the enabling statutes speak of "within its
operational area". Mr. Ashton said the bottom line is that if this type of housing is to be
built in Albemarle County, the Board has to go along with this proposal. The idea of setting
up a redevelopment housing authority is very expensive. Most areas that have housing author-
ities, with the cut in federal funds, are finding that they can no longer afford these
autho'rities.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John to explain to the Board once again the statute governing
this situation. Mr. St. John read from the Code of Virginia portions of Section 36-23., as
follows:
"In addition to its powers, any housing authority may exercise any or all of
its powers within the territorial boundaries of any municipality not included
in the area of operation of such housing authority, for the purpose of
planning, undertaking, financing, rehabilitating, constructing and operating
a housing project or projects or a multi-family residential building or buildings
within such municipality; provided that a resolution shall have been adopted .... "
Mrs. St. John said the resolution required must contain certain findings as set out in
the Code. It is Mr. Ashton's opinion that what is being done is not a housing proJ.ect or
multi-family residential building, etc., and he has specifically eliminated these findings
from the resolution. He has spelled out that the findings required are not being made by the
Board., but the final portion of Code Section 36-23, reads: "During the time that, pursuant
to the'se findings, the aforesaid housing authority has outstanding (or is under contract to
issue) any evidences of indebtedness for a project within the municipality, no other housing
autho'r'ity may nndertake a project within such municipality without the consent of the housing
author'ity which has such outstanding indebtedness, or obligation-."
Mr. Ashton said the only power that the other authority has is to P~a~t an authority
from an outside Jurisdiction from coming into the area. The only thing Harrisonburg could
do, if the statute were applicable, would be to prevent the Charlottesville Redevelopment &
Housing Authority from cominginto Albemarle .County without its consent. The most telling
thing is that if anyone says that the Harrisonburg Authority gains some powers in Albemarle,
they would have to go literally by the statute, and say that Harrisonburg had complied with
the' statute. The resolution specifically states that the statute is not being complied with
and the findings are not being made.
Mr. Fisher asked if this section of the Code is just being ignored. Mr. St. John said
it is not being ignored; the findings required under this section are Just not being made.
. Fisher said that most of the people sitting at the Board table today are not-lawyers, and
this is getting "into deep waters".' H'e is seriously troubled by the whole proposition, and
does not want to vote for anything that will cause problems for board members ten or
[ftee'n years hence.
September 12, 1984 (Regul~r~.~Day Meeting)
Mr. Ashton said he would not have presented this proposal to the Board if he thought
there could be a problem in the future because of approval of the project. Mr. Ashton said
there must still be a TEFRA public hearing on this project, and then it must come back bef0r8
this board. However, he did not want to have that public hearing and involve the public in
the process until the Board was happy with the project.
Mr. Lindstorm said in order to get something done, he would move that the Board adopt as
a substitute resolution, the resolution attached to a letter of Hunton & Williams dated July
25, 1984, marked as "Exhibit E". Mr. Lindstrom said he believes the project is a good
project, as he feels it will be beneficial to residents in the County. He does not believe
that anyone present today can predict with any certainty what might or might not happen in
court. With due respect to Mr. St. John, he does not believe approval of this project will
put the Board in the position of precluding, the creation of an Albemarle County Housing
Authority should the Board decide to set one up. That was his major concern. He agrees that
the arguments about the nature of the project make Section 36-23 inapplicable, and that
Section 36-19(f)(1) is applicable, and that the procedure outlined will give him assurance
there will not be legal difficulties in the future.
Mr. Way asked exactly what the procedure is if this resolution is adopted~. Mr. Ashton~-~
said that the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority must hold a public hearing
according to the TEFRA requirements. The IDA will make a report on that public hearing to
the Board, and at that time, the Board will either approve or disapprove the project on the
basis of public reaction.
Mr. Bowie asked if approval of this resolution will preclude the Board's ability to say
no in the future to 'other funding projects the Board does not like. Mr. St. John said that
theoretically the answer is no. There are no standards set out as to what criteria is to be
used to approve or not approve these projects; either Federal or State. That does not mean
that the Board is not bound by the equal protection clause or the Constitution. TheoretiCally
when the Board approves something a precedent is set because the Board is then obliged to
treat people similarly situated in a similar manner, unless the Board can articulate a reason
why they were not treated similarly. Mr. Ashton said clearly Congress intended that the
Board could represent the interests of the people in its jurisdiction when it approves or
disapproves these projects. There was some perception that there were projects being done
without any in~emen~t~ of the governing bodies of jurisdictions, and without showing any
sense of responsibility to the people. The TEFRA requirements are new and it remains to b~
seen if anyone can develop rights. Mr. Ashton said there are cases that hold that the grantin
of the tax exemption in industrial development financing is totally within the Board's
and that the reasons for turning down a project do not have to be substantiated for any legai.~
basis.
Mr. Henley said he has been concerned that Harrisonburg, someone outside of the County,
has a part in this, but it seems to be a very small part. If Harrisonburg keeps Albemarle
County from creating its own housing authority, that may be a good thing, and Mr. Henley
offered second to the foregoing motion. The resolution is set out below:
WHEREAS, Cavalier Associates, a limited partnership to be formed (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 Project with the proceeds of
revenue bonds exempt from taxation pursuant to Section 103(b)(4)(A) of the Internal
Revenue Code; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has advised the Board that Virginia redevelopment and
housing authorities are empowered to make loans for assistance in housing construc-
tion outside of their jurisdictions through the issuance of such bonds pursuant to
Section 36-19(fl) of the Virginia Housing Authorities Act (the "Act"), and the
Developer has received indications that the Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing
Authority is 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 being no redevelopment and housing authority established in
Albemarle County, the County hereby consents to the issuance of bonds to
finance the Project by the Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority,
provided that such financing is pursuant to Section 36-19(fl) of the Act and
not pursuant to Section 36-19(f3) or Section 36-23 of the Act.
2. This resolution shall not be deemed an endorsement of the credit-
worthiness of such bonds, the Project, the Developer or any other person or
entity, and the County shall have no obligation whatsoever with respect to
the Project or the payment of the bonds.
3. This resolution shall not be construed as being adopted in accordance
with Section 36-23 of the Act and the Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing
AuthoritY shall not be entitled to exercise any other power in, or with respect
to, Albemarle CoUnty by virtue of such Section 36-23.
4. The resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 9, 1984,
dealing with the subject matter hereof is hereby repealed.
Mr. Bowie said since it seems that the lawyers agree, he will support the motion.~ Mr.,~
Fisher said i'f the motion passes, he would like to get a third opinion, but not necessarily
that of the Attorney General. He asked how the Board might look at this issue while the IDA
September 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
'41,'-
is going through the public hearing process. Mr. St. John said Mr. Ashton has offered to
furnish cases and samples from other localities, but he does not know whose opinion he would
request. He does not believe the Board will get a better opinion than the materials offered.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. St. John had done a good job of convincing him a few weeks ago that
this is a serious problem, and he wants to know if Mr. St. John has now changed his mind.
Mr. St. John said he has changed his mind. He does not think the question has been absolutely
answered and he can still voice arguments contrary to the arguments made in support, and the
arguments that have already been accepted by courts in friendly suits, but that does not mean
that the Board does not go with the best opinion that it can get. Mr. St. John Said he
thinks the Board has gotten from Mr. Ashton the best opinion available. He does not like the
set-up which is the bottom line result of this because if these arguments are correc-t, then
the only reason this is before the Board is the Federal requirement, and absen~ that requiremen'
Harrisonburg could come in and do this without any approval of the Board under State law.
Mr. St. John said he questions whether the State ever intended that, but that is the way the
law is written. Mr. St. John said he has changed his mind. He has been persuaded by Hunton
& Williams to change his mind.
Mr. Bowie asked if Exhibit "E" which is the subject of the motion on the floor is not
different from the original resolution adopted in May. Mr. St. John said that is correct,
the new resolution is totally unambiguous. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Henley was right in that
this is a way to get a benefit for the County without getting the bureaucracy that goes with
it.
At this time, roll was called on the motion, and the resolution was ad~Dted by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS.: .None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Request to connect to Albemarle County Service Authority Se~er
System (carried over from the morning session').
Mr. Lindstrom said this land lies in his district, so he would like to offer motion to
set this request for a public hearing. Mr. Lindstrom said he is favorably inclined for a
couple of reasons or he would not make the motion. The sewer line the applicants desire to
connect to crosses their lots. Also, the lots they desire to build upon are already approved,
and the density has been approved and set. Third, the He. alth Department has indicated,
according to the applicants, approval of the septic fields that they have suggested; For
these reasons, it seems virtually certain that the lots will be developed regardless of
whether this board approves the request or no~. Construction of the septic fields is likely
to result in removal of trees and vegetative cover that will contribute to erosion that would
be harmful to the reservoir. For these reasons, and due to the peculiar circumstances of
these particular lots, he is willing to make an exception to the general policy the Board has
against expansion of the sewer service boundaries beyond the boundaries of the urban area
(growth areas) in the Comprehensive Plan. He offered motion to amend the service areas to
include the lots that have been suggested. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie.
Mr. St. John said just to clarify a point, these lots are adjacent to the delineation on
the 'Comprehensive Plan so that no amendment of the Plan is needed. Mr. Tucker said that is
correct since the area would be too small to detect on the Plan.
Mr. Fisher asked if the motion was stated to advertise for a public hearing on this
amendment for October 3. Mr. Henley said he would be willing to support that request. 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. 20. Library: Request re' '.State and Federal Aid.
the following memorandum explaining the request:
Mr. Tucker presented
"TO:
Board of Supervisors
FROM:
RE:
Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive (by Robert W. Tucker, Jr;)
Unanticipated State and Federal Aid to the Jefferson-Madison
Regional Library
DATE:
September 6, 1984
The Jefferson-Madison Regional Library will receive~$89,501~more in grant
moneys this year than was anticipated when the Library's budget was
submitted to the Board last spring.
The additional grant funds reflect $77,641 of State Aid which resulted from
the General Assembly, for the first time since its adoption in 1969, fully
funding the formula by which grants-in-aid are allocated to public libraries.
An unexpected Federal Aid grant of $11,860 was also received by the Library.
Despite this windfall in unanticipated'State and Federal Aid funds, the
Virginia State Library (VSL) places stiff penalties on local governments who
reduce or recapture previously budgeted library funds. Specifically the VSL
regulations state:
4;[4
September 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
'If the library's budget is reduced (by the local government) and other (local
government') agencies' budgets are not, then the library would receive no
state grant-in-aid and would be une!igible for one until local expenditures
shall have again reached or exceeded the local effort at the time of the last
previous grant.'
Thus, any reduction of local funds budgeted to the Jefferson-Madison Regional
Library could result in the elimination of State grant-in-aid to the facility.
Rather than returning the additional funds, the Library is requesting to use
the $89,501 to fund further improvements to the Library's computerized
cataloguing system and to implement needed financial/accounting controls.
The cataloguing improvements would involve the computerized cataloguing of
new books; maintenance of the data base; and projection of computer output
microfiche (COM) catalogs of the Library's holdings. The financial improvements,
based on the results of a recent internal accounting report which found defi-
ciencies in the Library's accounting system, would involve hiring an Assistant
Director of Finance to oversee the financial activities of the Library.
The details of the Library's proposed budget for use of the $89,501 follows:
BUDGET
On-Line Cataloguing/Data Base
Maintenance/COM Production
Salary, On-Line Cataloguer (11 mos)
BATA Acquisition System
Microcomputer Hardware
Data Processing Support Service
Director's Salary Supplement
Salary, Assistant Director of Finance (9 mos)
Photocopier, Administration Department
Books, Equipment
Equipment (Administration $335, Technical Services $803)
TOTAL
$33,500
15,801
3,600
7,600
5,400
67
15,401
6,710
284
1.,138
$89,501
Staff is supportive of the Library Board's proposed use of the additional
grant money received for several reasons. First, the statistical data
generated by a library system of this size, both informational and financial
data as well as other management statistics points out the need for an auto-
mated information system. Second, the Library Board of Trustees' interest
in improving the fiscal integrity of the system shown by their efforts to
revise the regional agreement', the preparation of the past two fiscal budgets
and the ability and interest shown by the new Director in management responsi-
bilities convinces staff that the Assistant Director of Finance position should
be supported; Finally, the Virginia State Library requirement which indicates
a potential loss of State grant-in-aid funds caused by a reduction in local
funds could be disastrous to the local library.
Approval of the use of these unanticipated funds will necessitate your
authorizing the County Executive, on behalf of the County of Albemarle, to
accept the State and Federal grants-in-aid for library expenditure.
For your further information concerning this matter, attached is Mr. William R.
Swinson"s report on the proposed use of the unanticipated State and Federal
aid funds (on file). Incidentally, Mr. Swinson will be at your meeting on
September 12, to answer any questions you may have."
Mr. Fisher asked since this is a regional facility, should not all of the participating
jurisdictions approve this amendment to the budget. Mr. William Swinson was present. He
said that all of the other jurisdictions have approved clearance of Federal and State aid
grants to the Virginia State Library. Mr. Fisher asked if the Regional Library Budget
Committee has reviewed this request. Mr. Swinson said the uses set forth have been apProved
by the Library Committee, and a copy has been sent to the members of the Budget committee,
and no comments have been received, but this is actually a staff recommendation. Mr. Tucker
said he feels that since all of the jurisdictions have approved this request, that would
satisfy requirements. Mr. Fisher said he believes that when changes of this sort are pro-
posed that the request should go directly to ~he budget committee before bringing it before
the jurisdictions. Mr. Swinson said this is a coordination problem between the Library Board
and the State Library.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is a member of that committee, has reviewed the request and has no
problem with. the staff recommendation. He then offered motion to approve the request. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie. Roll was calIed 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. 21. Appeal: Soil Erosion--Rugby Farms.
Mr. Tucker said this appeal had been brought by Mr. Mike Boggs and Mr. Chuck Kincannon.
This matter just came up yesterday, and Mr. Boggs will make his appeal to the Board verbally.
(Mr. Lindstrom said it is hard to tell who the applicant is, but he will abstain on this
matter since his firm may represent one of the parties. He left the room at 3:45 p.m.) Mr.
Fisher asked how this matter got on the Board's agenda with no letter of appeal, no staff
report, or anything else. Mr. Boggs said Mr. Ed Bain, Attorney, had emergency surgery ~
but he had made the request verbally before yesterday.
SePtember 12 1984 (Re ular Day Meeting)
415
Mr. Chuck Kincannon was present to present a brief history of the problem. Mr. William H.
Burruss purchased Rugby Farms as it is known to some (or Mechunk Creek Farm), in December, 1983
and upon purchase decided to clear about 250 acres of property which had been clear-cut. He
wanted to reclaim the property as pastureland. A contract was signed with Haley, Chisholm and
Morris to proceed with the clearing. Mr. Burruss thought he was clearing this property as a
farmer and had that right under the Soil Erosion Ordinance. He then went on the market to
.s'ell~the property, and asked Mr. Kincannon the best way to do so. Mr. Kincannon suggested it
be done in lots of 21 acres or more, .so a subdivision plan was submitted to the County. At
that time, the problem with the Soil Erosion Ordinance came to light. About threefourths of
the property has been cleared, and it is being seeded in grass. Ail requirements of the
County Engineer have been met to this point. If a road is put in, all other requirements
will also be met.
~Mr. Mike Boggs came forward to speak. Mr. Fisher asked Just why this matter is before
the Board. Mr. Tucker said he understands that the property was clear-cut as a farm. When a
subdivision plat is submitted, no soil erosion plan can be approved until that subdivision
plan is approved, and they were already clearing and grubbing according to rules for a farm
operation. They did not realize a soil erosion plan was required, and a stop work order was
issued when it was found that the subdivision plat had not been approved.
Mr. Fisher asked who was doing the clearing. Mr. Boggs said it is Haley, Chisholm and
Morris. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Boggs if he did not know that a soil erosion plan was required.
Mr. Boggs said he did not feel then, and does not feel now, that a soil erosion plan ~s
required for the work they were performing when stopped. Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer,
has ruled that they are clearing for a subdivision. They feel they are clearing for agricul-
tural purposes. Mr. Tucker said the issue has come up because there is a road and culverts
involved, and based on that, Mr. Elrod feels there is a road being built for future subdivision
use. He therefore feels the land is ultimately being cleared for subdivision purposes.
Mr. Boggs said they contracted in April, and then started in June, to clear 200 acres.
They also contracted to build an access road to this acreage. The owner did have tentative
plans to build a subdivision, and wanted the access road constructed for that possible future
subdi¥ision. They were concerned that with several, deep running streams through the property,
they should put in proper pipe sizes before building any road over the pipes. He had talked
with Mr. Elrod about reviewing the pipe sizes so that they would be of a size to be approved
if a subdivision plat should become a reality. Mr. Elrod said he could not make that review
without subdivision plat and soil erosion plans. When about 150 acres had been cleared, a
subdivision plat was filed with the County and they were "caught". It was determined that
they were grading for a subdivision and a stop work order was issued. However, they were
allowed to continue to seed on the 150 acres that had been disturbed. If they have to wait
for grass to be established on the 150 acres, and then wait for approval of the subdivision,
the land will lay barren all winter. It was not the intent of the owner to abuse the agri-
cultural exemption in the subdivision ordinance. He was afraid that the soil erosion process
would be costly. He is spending about $1,200 an acre to clean and reseed the property. What
was there before resembled a tornado, forest fire and bombing combined. There had been a
sawmill operation on the property and log skidding roads were all through the property, and
erosion was occurring in many areas. The land could not have supported even a reseeding of
trees in its existing condition.
Mr. Fisher said that when you build a subdivision road, culverts and grade all in advance
of the approYal of a subdivision plat, that is clearly a violation of the ordinance. Mr. Boggs
said they are not arguing about the road now. They want only to finish clearing the final 50
acre's. The owner now has to driYe five miles around the property to get equipment into
certain areas because of the many streams.
Mr. Elrod said his story is greatly different from what the Board has heard. Back in
March or April, a preliminary subdivision plan was submitted to the Planning Commission and
it-got through the site review procedure, and was ready for the Planning Commission's review
when-it was withdrawn. Mr. Elrod said he did not hear anymore from it until July when Mr. Bogg:
called him and said there were some large culverts that would have-to be put in as part of
construction of the road, and he wanted him to review them before installation. Mr. Elrod
said he had told Mr. Boggs that he could not make the review because no plan was before the
Planning Commission, and secondly, the construction could not be done because the owner had
no soil erosion control permit. At that time, Mr. Elrod sent out an inspector to check the
work, and a stop-work order was placed. On about July 23, an erosion control application was
received from Roudabush & Associates. According to the ordinance, the County Engineer cannot
issue a soil erosion permit until after approval by the Planning 'Commission. Mr. Boggs'
question is: does the ordinance allow the clearing of grub and stumps under the agricultural
exemption? Mr. Elrod said he contends that under both the State enabling legislation and the
County ordinance, land-disturbing activities are not allowed as part of that exemption.
SeVeral months ago, he wrote a letter to the State asking for a concurrence in that opinion,
and. he had received a reply that his request has been forwarded to the Attorney General. No
further reply has been received. To date he has required the owners of agricultural property,
to get a permit for clearing of grub and stumps on rural lands. The deputy county attorneys
d$~e~!?that permits should be required. Mr. Elrod said the reason they had stopped work on
this property is because they feel this work is being done for the purpose of creating a
subdivision.
Mr. Fisher said the Board has not had this kind of problem for some years, since changes
were made in ordinances to require an erosion control permit before grading started. Mt. Fisher
asked' what can be done to remedy the situation now. Mr. Elrod said the owner has done what
can; planted grass. Mr. Fisher asked if a-soil erosion plan must be approved for the rest
of the grading. Mr. Elrod said it is his position that if this is a violation, then only an
erosion control permit to correct the violation can be issued~ but the owner cannot do addi~
tional work. That is the policy the County Engineer has been following.
Mr. Fisher asked if the next step for the owner is to get subdivision plan approval.
Mr. Elrod said only after the land is out of violation. Mr. Bowie asked if the subdivision
plat has been put back into the process for approval. Mr. Elrod said they did, but his office
had recommended deferral because the land is in violation of the ordinance. Mr. Bowie said
the' actions of the owner at this time indicate that he wants subdivision approval. Mr. Elrod
said that is correct.
September 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked the County Attorney if the Board has the right to waive ordinance
requirements as requested this date. Mr. St. John said the Board has that right if it is ....
found to be in the public interest to do so. Mr. Fisher said that private urgency is not
necessarily in the public interest. Mr. St. John said it is at the Board's discretion; that
is not a valid sole reason.
Mr. Kincannon said that fertilizer is being spread over all the land that is in violation
and it will be reseeded as soon as there is enough moisture for the seed to germinate. What~
they request is that they be allowed to complete the grubbing, etc. on the remaining 50 acres-
which are also eroding into the streams. He said that nothing has been done that a normal
farmer would not do in converting clear-cut timberland into pasture!and.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Elrod his opinion of the condition of the land; is it in better
condition stabilized as it is now, or is it likely to be grubbed up and reseeded without any
soil erosion plan? Mr. Elrod said he feels it is better to leave it as it is, but once the
grass grows it may be better than the existing condition, but in the meantime there will be~
erosion. Mr. HenZey asked how the remaining part of the land lies. Mr. Elrod said it is
rolling land. Mr. Henley asked how long it would take to finish cleaning up. Mr. Boggs said
about two more weeks. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Elrod if it is his opinion that the land would.be
better off as it stands than to grub it and reseed. Mr. Elrod said that is correct. Mr.
Henley said he did not think the land can be grubbed and reseeded before winter sets in, and
he would prefer to see the land remain in its present state.
Mr. Boggs said they have not done any grading on the road, only asked to grade the road-
as an access road to tillable land. This is being done on many parcels of land throughout
the County. If the grass is allowed to grow, and the subdivision plat proceeds, and is
approved in November, the County could not deny them the soil erosion permit. They would
then be grubbing in the winter months and the land would be barren throughout the winter.
Mr. Fisher asked how they could go in and do that without erosion control. Mr. Boggs said
they would be able to get a permit then. Mr. Fisher said that all concerned would then have
to decide whether there would be catch basins, etc. to keep the erosion from going on someone
else'.s property. Mr. Boggs said that is correct, but more on-site erosion will occur on the~
property than at the present time. Mr. Fisher said he would feel better if this were done in
conjunction with the normal planning process. Mr. Boggs felt they were completely within
their rights until the subdivision plat was presented. This would have been done regardles~
of subdivision plat approval since the land was not usable as it existed. No contours are
being changed. The only excavation occurring is transferring stumps that won't burn. Mr.
Henley said since this is a potential subdivision he thinks it should be done in accordance'~
with rules. Mr. Fisher said the Board cannot prove a person's intent until he takes some
overt action that proves the intent. Filing of a plat is a pretty overt action. Mr. Boggs~
said clearing and grubbing has never been interpreted as clearing for a subdivision before;'~
that is a gray area.
Mr. St. John said he does not understand what is being appealed. Mr. Fisher said the
applicant wants the right to proceed to clear and grub without a soil erosion permit.
Mr. St. John said he understands that, but what ruling, what action is specifically being
appealed? It must be Mr. Elrod's decision that this process is subject to subdivision
regulations. Mr. Boggs said he thinks he is asking what the intent of the Board was whe~n
they wrote those laws. He did not think it was done with the intent of restricting clearing
operations to reclaim property. Mr. Fisher said if a farmer decides to clear some of his
land, he would assume that is agricultural. That is the way the ordinances are written, to
give the agricultural land as much exemption as can be given, but when someone drives a truck
through that loophole, it gets tightened again. That is the problem the Board has.
Mr. Kincannon said a deputy county attorney is interpreting the ordinance to include
farming under the Soil Erosion Ordinance. Mr. Kincannon said as a person selling land around
the County, he would like to know if they would be in violation of the ordinance. Mr. Fisher~
said County staff would like to hear the answer to that from the State too. Mr. St. John
said the County is not actually doing that. Mr. Fred Payne has said he thinks the County
should be requiring a permit, but it is not being done at this time. Mr. Elrod said until
the ordinance is made clearer, or the County gets a ruling from the State, he is not requiring
a permit mnless a problem is found. .Even if the ordinance is changed, some time would be
needed to get the word out to property owners 'about the requirement. Mr. Boggs asked if the-~
subdivision plat is withdrawn if the land goes back to agricultural. Could they proceed on
that basis since a subdivision is not a subdivision until approved? Mr. Fisher said that
intent is still intent, and that if people are going to play those kinds of games, then the
ordinance will have to be tightened to the place where there is no agricultural exemption.
Mr. Boggs said they are trying to address a problem without playing games.
Mr. Henley asked if there was much runoff from the areas that have been cleaned up? Mr.
B0ggs said they took measures by leaving buffer zones all around the property and the swales
of the streams. There will be less runoff from clearing and grubbing than from other clearing
operations.
Mr. Kincannon thanked the Board members for their time. He said his client will compiy
with the ordinance. Mr. Bowie said that normally he would support going ahead and clearing.
The fact that a subdivision plan has been applied for, and it appears that a subdivision will
be put on that land makes it an entirely different ball game. Mr. Boggs said he had requested
that they be allowed to bond the seeding of the existing 150 acres, however it was interpreted
that this could not be done until the violation was corrected. Mr. St. John said the soil
erosion control bonds contain~a provision that if at any time during the life of the bond,
the provisions of the soil erosion control ordinance are Violated, the bond is forfeited, s$
as soon as a bond were given it would be, by its own terms, forfeited.
Mr. Fisher said that if there were no motion by this Board to change the ruling of the
County Engineer, his ruling stands. (Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 4:17 P.M.)
September 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting.)
Agenda Item No. 23a. Discussion: Reducing JAUNT rates. Ms. Linda Wilson, Executive
Director of JAUNT, was present and summarized the following memorandum:
"TO:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
The Executive Committee of the JAUNT Board of Directors
Proposed use of local match for FY 1984-85
September 12, 1984
In past years JAUNT has requested funding from Albemarle County in order to
leverage federal and state grant funds. Ail JAUNT's match from the localities
was needed to obtain subsidy to lower JAUNT's overall cost to users. Although
subsidy funds have reduced rider costs considerably below actual costs other
factors have kept JAUNT's fares prohibitively high, especially to individuals
who are not sponsored by human service agencies. Prior to 1980, availability
of free staff through the CETA program, lower gasoline costs, and heavy
sponsorship by human service agencies virtually guaranteed low-cost trans-
portation to the elderly, handicapped and disadvantaged. By 1982, agency
budget cuts, loss of CETA, and inflation had forced JAUNT's recovery factor
to double from $6.00 to $12.50 an hour. Since then, carefUl management,
tighter coordination and increased local funding support have enabled us to
gradually lower the rates to their present $10.50 an hour.
In planning with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for
the 1984-85 fiscal year, we learned that as a public transportation provider,
JAUNT is eligible to receive funds earmarked by the Virginia Legislature to
offset local costs for fuel, tires, lubricants and vehicle maintenance. These
funds can supplant some of the local money needed to match.federal grants for
public transportation subsidy. The result is that over half of the allocation
from Albemarle County, along with some carry-over funds from 1983-84, (estimated
at $6,100) can be used to reduce costs to the most needy users and to subsidize
special services prioritized by the County's Program Review Committee:
Recommendation #6: The committee recommends that the feasibility
of providing regular service to the Old Lynchburg Road area (Country
Green Apartments and Southwood Mobile Home Park) be examined.
Recommendation #8: JAUNT should be noted as the central agency
which addresses the identified community objective of 'promote
projects which provide emphasis on providing services to low-income
and transportation disadvantaged populations.'
The JAUNT Board and staff have prepared a schedule for the use of local funds
for 1984-~85. We are providing this information to the County to assure you
that funds are being used as the County has designated and to obtain the Board's
approval of the plan.
We understand that State funding for public transit will continue in its present
form through 1985-86. Therefore, lowering the rates as planned, even with
increased ridership, should not require our requesting more than an inflationary
increase in local match for 1985-86."
(Mr. Henley left the meeting at 4:20 p.m.) (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 4:21 p.m.)
Mr. Fisher asked if the staff had reviewed this request. Mr. Tucker said yes, and supports
what has been outlined. He said he has discussed with Ms. Wilson a study to be undertaken
early next year, and had real problems with money being earmarked when no one knew what the
outcome of that study would be. She has proposed to use that money for items which have been
recommended to JAUNT. (Mr. Henley returned to the meeting at 4:22 p.m.)
Mr. Way said he agreed with the proposal, and feels it is a better way to spend the
funds, and he concurs with the request.
Mr. Fisher asked what procedure the Board would use to grant this request. Mr. Jones
said since these are all follow-up items which the budget review committee had recommended
earlier, the Board might just allow JAUNT to not reimburse the County unused funds.
Mr. Way then offered motion to allow JAUNT to retain the carry-over funds from Fiscal
Year 1983-84 in the estimated maximum amount of $6,100, however, when the audit of JAUNT has
bgen completed, if the actual amount of funds carried over exceeds that amount, additional
action will be needed by this Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
-- (Mr. Bowie left the meeting at 4:29 p.m.) (Mr St John returned to the meeting at 4:30 p
Agenda Item No. 24a. Appointment: Policy Decision on Membership of: Albemarle County
Service Authority, Equalization Board, Welfare Board, and Transportation Safety Committee.
Mr. Ray Jones presented the following memorandum from the ~ounty Attorney:.
September 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
"August 31, 1984
Mrs. Linda W. Leake
Deputy Clerk
Office of Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Re:
Powers of Board of Supervisors
(Our File #ACG 248)
Dear Mrs. Leake:
I am writing in response to your letter of August 29, 1984, in which you
inquire as to the Board's power to amend the make-up of the Service Authority,
Equalization Board, Welfare Board and Transportation Safety Committee.
I will address these Boards in order:
1. Membership in the Service Authority ~s governed by Code Section 15.1-1249,
and the procedure by 15.1-1245-46. The charter would have to be amended by
the insertion of a simple sentence stating that the membership shall consist
of six members, with their terms set out. I would not list the names, as was
done in the original charter, nor do I recommend a statement that there shall
be one member from each magisterial district. The Board can appoint them on
that basis, if it wishes, without putting that requirement in the charter. We
would also have to amend Section 2-26 of the County Code accordingly.
2. We have no ordinance on the Equalization Board, which is controlled in
the County Executive form by State Code Section 58-897 (supplement). This
State Code provision says the Supervisors appoint the Board, it gives no
number, and it says their term expires each year so they must be reappointed
for every year in which they sit. This can be done either by resolution or
by ordinance and I recommend we do it by resolution wherever possible.
3. The Welfare Board is controlled by Section 15.1-607, which refers back
to Section 63.1-41. The Code is very confusing here, because the latter
section simply refers again to the former. I think the legislature meant
63.1-40, which provides that the Board may, by resolution, appoint either
three members or one member from each magisterial district. We have no
ordinance on this Board.
4. As to the Transportation and Safety ComMittee, I see neither a State
Code section nor an ordinance addressing this committee and will appreciate
it if you can refer me to the authority cited by the Board in establishing it.
The County Code does establish a Highway Safety Commission at Section 2-37,
which cites State Code Section 2.1-64.19 as authority. That section has been
repealed without any replacement that I can find. If there is no specific
authority for this committee, then its composition, terms, and compensation
can be set by the Board any way it chooses. If you find any controlling
authority cited, please inform me.
Sincerely yours,
George R. St. John (signed)
County Attorney"
In relation to item #1, Mr. Fisher asked how the Service Authority's charter would be '~
amended. Mr. St. John said if the Board agrees that this should be done, his office would
submit the amendment request to the State Corporation Commission for its approval. Although
the statute does not say so, he feels the present Board of Directors of the Authority should
unite in the request. (Mr. Bowie returned to the meeting at 4:32 p.m.) Mr. Lindstrom then
offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia~
does hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority
charter by increasing the membership on its Board of Directors to six with one
member being appointed from each of the six magisterial districts in said
County; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby directs the County Attorney to
file papers to effectuate this change with the State Corporation Commission
and obtain approval of same.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. COoke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Fisher said it appears that in relation t.O the Equalization Board, the Board would
need only to state that the membership on this board will be six persons, one appointed from
each magisterial district, effective with the appointments for January 1, 1985. Mr. St. John
said that is correct. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstorm, seconded by
Mr. Bowie, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr..Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
September 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
419
For the Welfare Board, Mr. Lindstrom moved that the membership on this board be six
persons, one appointed from each magisterial district. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way.
Mr. Fisher said that on some boards, the appointments are made after elections, and the
terms have been staggered, so that the terms of all members do not expire at the same time.
He said that would be a good model to use if some way can be figured to phase that in for the
Welfare Board. Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher asked if anybody had found any authority for the Transportation Safety
Committee. No one answered in the affirmative. Mr. Fisher asked the recommendation of the
staff. Mr. Jones said it has been suggested that appointments be made by magisterial district
mn order to avoid the confusion usually attached to making appointments. Mr. Fisher asked if
the purposes of this committee are set out anywhere. Mrs. Cooke said they review alml kinds
of grants related to transportation. It was the consensus to leave this committee as presently
constituted.
Agenda Item No. 22. Discussion: Synopsis of Farmers Home Administration Report.
Mr. Tucker mentioned memos as follow. He said this came about when the Board members
found that FmHA was returning a fairly large sum of money allocated for housing in Albemarle
County to the Federal government.
"TO:
Board of Supervisors
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive (by Robert W. Tucker, Jr.)
Synopsis of Farmers Home Administration Report
September 6, 198~
Attached for your review and aciton, please find a report prepared by the
Department of Planning and Community Development staff which summarizes, the
local Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) programs and outlines suggestions for
increasing and improving the FmHA loan application process.
The local FmHA office received $1.5 million in farm and housing loan monies in
fiscal year 1983-84 (September through September). As of August, only
$500,000 in loan funds had been expended.
The following staff recommendations address identified problems which impact
the effectiveness of the local FmHA office, the number of loan applications
processed and, ultimately, the amount of local FmHA funds received.
1. InCrease Community Awareness and Outreach Efforts
FmHA applicants have often expressed frustration at the lack of information
and staff time available to assist them in completing.the loan application
process. To address this problem, staff recommends that the local FmHA
office develop a locally-tailored fact sheet which would clearly outline
eligibility guidelines, maximum loan amounts, interest credit formulas and
administrative requirements.
In addition, it is recommended that the FmHA office increase the amount of
staff time allocated to counseling applicants through the loan application
process.
2. 'Cl'a'r'i'fy''Policy Issues
Several questions relating to FmHA loan policies have been raised by
applicants which have a direct impact on the loan application process.
Among those issues raised are: the percentage of rehabilitation costs
covered by FmHA loans for substandard houses, definition of "minor" and
"dependent", and loan amounts based on family size.
Staff recommends that the local FmHA office work through its regional and
central office to resolve these improtant issues.
3. ''I'~c'r'e'aSe 'Size of FmHA Staff
The local three and one-half person FmHA office appears to be understaffed
and, as a result, unable to adequately deal with the high volume of loan
applications, inspections, housing appraisals and other associated work
required of it.
Staff recommends that an additional staff person be provided for the local
FmHA office to assist in processing application's, facilitating loans and
community outreach.
For your information, Mr. Roie M. Godsey who is the State Director of
Farmers Home Administration had planned to attend your meeting on September 12.
He unfortunately will be unable to attend-this meeting but has rescheduled to
meet with you on October 10."
420
September 12, 1984 (Regular Day=Meeting)
"TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development
DATE:
August 24, 1984
RE: Report on Farmers Home Administration
Mr. Keith Mabe and Ms. Katherine Imhoff of Albemarle County Department of
Planning and Community Development met on June 28, 1984 with Mr. Larry Picot,
County Supervisor for Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) pursuant to your
directive. This report is a brief summary of information exchanged during
that meeting.
The service area for the local FmHA office includes Albemarle, Greene and
Nelson Counties. A staff of three full-time persons~and one part-time summer
employee administer three FmHA loan programs. These programs are as follows:
FARM PROGRAMS
Emergency Loans: Loans made to help farmers recover from natural disasters.
During the 1930-1940 period, FmHA's original mission was that of a farm loan
agency; however, as the make-up of the rural population shifted, FmHA expanded
.both its farm loan and rural housing loan programs. 'In recent years, the
emergency loan program expanded to include financing the recovery process
following adverse economic conditions. Applicants for emergency loans must
be unable to obtain credit elsewhere at reasonable rates and terms. Last
year, this area's FmHA office made 20-30 emergency loans which, according to
Mr. Picot, is an unusually low number of loans.
HOUSING PROGRAMS
Several types of FmHA loans and grants are available to residents of rural
areas which provide the residents with an opportunity to live in "decent,
safe and sanitary homes." As noted previously, the change in the rural
population has resulted in a broader focus for FmHA. Since farm families
now comprise only 15 percent of the rural population,'FmHA has become involved
in rural and small town community development. Specifically, FmHA provides
financial supervision and counseling services'to families of limited resources.
Counseling centers on remediation of home management problems so that the
original intention of securing the loan is actualized.
There are two broad categories of FmHA Housing Programs: the first category,
Section 502 and 504 Programs which assist persons of low or moderate income
purchase or improve their single-family dwellings; and the second category
assists both owners and tenants in rehabilitating multi-family housing
facilities. The local FmHA for this area administers only 502 and 504
Programs which are described below:
504 Housing Program:
Homeowner occupied housing loans are made only to very low income homeowners
whose houses are severely deficient, in need of repair, and present a health
hazard. The goal in rehabilitating these homes is to make the structure safe
and adequate for habitation. Eligible incomes are approximately $5,000/year
or less (some variation depending on family size). The maximum amount that
can be loaned, according to Mr. Picot, is $10,000 at a one to three percent
interest rate. Under the 504 Program very low income elderly homeowners
(62 years of age or older) can also receive up to $5,000 in a grant. Grants
are made for the portion of the 502 loan that the elderly applicant cannot
repay.
The 504 Program is the housing loan program that AHIP often encourages its
applicants to apply for due to the low-interest loan monies available for
rehabilitation. According to Mr. Picot, a 504 HoUsing Loan should take
approximately 45 days to process. Within 30 days, the applicant is notified
if any information is lacking from the loan application packet. As of June 24,
1984, the local FmHA office has no 504 loans pending.
502 Housing Program:
Home ownership loans are made to families with low and moderate incomes who:
o are without decent, safe, and sanitary housing;
o are unable to obtain loans from private lenders at reasonable rates;
o have sufficient income to meet loan payments;
o possess character, ability and experience to meet loan obligations.
Such loans may be used to buy, build, improve, repair or rehabilitate rural
homes as well as provide water and waste disposal facilities for the homes.
Under the 502 Loan Program, there is no requirement for a down payment with the
housing purchase because FmHA can lend up to 100 percent of appraised value.
Interest rates are based on the cost of money to the government. Since May,
1982, the rate has been 13 3/4 percent. In addition to the lower interest rates,
income may qualify for "interest credits" which may reduce the interest rate to
as low as one percent. Interest credits are determined by a standardized
formula.
September 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
One important condition to 502 home improvement loans is that the house, once
repairs are completed, must be up to minimum property standards set by the
Federal government. For home repair loans, it appears that the maximum 'amount
that can be loaned is $7,000.
The maximum obtainable loan for eligible individuals purchasing homes is
$10,000 - $25,000 or $10,000 - $15,000 for low income home buyers who are
receiving "interest credits". FmHA can also assist families who may fall into
moderate income brackets if such families are purchasing FmHA government homes.
According to Mr. Picot, it takes the local FmHA office approximately five to
six months to process a 502 loan request for new construction. Other 5~02 loans,
such as credit sales of property owned by the government, may take 60 to 90 days.
DESCRIPTION OF LOCAL PROGRAM AND COMMENTS
The above paragraphs provide a general overview of the loan programs administered
by the local FmHA office. The amount of money the local office receives is
based on the number of loans made by the local office in the past and the historic
allocation. In the 1983-84 Fiscal Year (September - September), the FmHA office
was allocated $1.5 million to distribute in loans. In the previous fiscal year,
this local office had to return unused moneys to the state. Between 1970 - 1978,
according to Mr. Picot, there was no limit on the money that FmHA could obtain.
A limit, however, was established when it was recognized that the State of Virginia
had a very high loan delinquency rate. As a result, a state mandate was set to
reduce the delinquency rate to 14 percent or less. One result of this mandate
was that fewer loans were made.
Presently, the local FmHA's loan delinquency rate is 11.4 percent. Given-this
low rate, the local office should be making more loans and pursuing increased
funding support from the state. To date, the local office has made 865 rural
housing loans, with the majority of these being, according to Mr. Picot, in
Albemarle County. Since October, 1983, the local FmHA office has approved approxi-
mately 24 housing loans, which Mr. Picot states is greater than the state average.
Mr. Picot noted that presently FmHA receives 20 - 25 requests per week for 502
loans with the heaviest period being April - August.
Of the $1.5 million appropriated for Fiscal Year 1983-84, approximately $500,000
has been expended and Mr. Picot does not anticipate turning back any moneys by the
end of this fiscal year (September 1). Due to the state mandate and the emphasis
placed on reducing the loan delinquency rate, FmHA's focus has been on processing
loans versus community outreach and awareness.
FmHA Loan requests are prioritized. The farm program emergency loans, of which
20 - 30 are received each year by this office, have first priority. 504 Housing
Loans, particularly those to the elderly, have second priority. Lastly, are the
five categories of 502 Housing Loans. These categories are also ranked according
to priority:
First Priority is given to credit sales loans. Within this category
individuals who need emergency housing would qualify or individuals who
are purchasing property owned by the government.
2. Transfer loans:
sell.
homes presently under the loan program but owner(s) must
Subsequent loans: loans to homeowners with existing loans who would like
to do home improvements.
Refinancing loans:
unless refinanced.
loans to homeowners who are threatened with foreclosure
New construction loans or purchase loans for existing houses in the FmHA
program.
Currently, the local FmHA office handles approximately 50-lOan renewals a month.
In addition, loan applications previously taken must be processed. The office
also receives approximately one hundred 502 Loan requests a month. To complete the
cycle, the local office is responsible for performing functions such as footing
and final inspections for 502 construction loans, housing appraisals, chattel
checks for approximately 100 farmers per month, interest-credit renewals, etc.
It is apparent from reviewing the mandates that 502 loans are placed at the
bottom of all other loans being processed. This has resulted in long waiting
periods for applicants and has discouraged follow-through on existing applications
as well as interest in initially completing an application.
It appears that the existing staff has difficulty in dealing'with the volume of
applications and associated work. Due to the demand for both loan assistance
and care in maintaining a low loan delinquency rate, applicants often times
express frustration at the lack of staff time available for counseling and help
in completing the application process.
However, despite the disproportionate amount of time available to the public
and the time required to process loans, it is essential that the office continue
receiving applications in order to continue receiving funds. Funding is 'based
on historic allocation and volume of loans. According to Mr. Picot, there is
no ceiling on the amount of FmHA monies a locality can receive, therefore,
Jurisdictions depend on the diligence of local staff in processing area loans
so that increased FmHA funding allocations are received.
September 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
In reviewing the operating procedures of the local FmHA office, some basic
questions arose which should~ be clarified and the answers made available to
all loan applicants. The local office currently utilizes a brochure prepared
in 1980 by the federal government. It is recommended that a local fact sheet
be prepared to aid applicants through the loan application. This data sheet/
brochure should include the following information:
o clear income eligibility guidelines for moderate, low and very low income
families;
o clear maximum loan amount guidelines (presently it is unclear whether the
loan ceiling for the 504 program is $1,000 or $7,500);
O
O
the formula for interest credits eligibility;
how loans are administered should be clearly stated including time limits,
information required, follow-up procedures, etc.
The local office needs to answer these questions and have this information
readily available to the applicants and public. Emphasis should be placed on
helping applicants through the process as well as servicing the loans.
Several policy issues have also been raised and should be explored. Presently,
the 502 home loan program requires that homes be rehabilitated to federal
minimum standards. However, the maximum loan allowed often times will not
cover the amount of work needed to bring very substandard homes to standard
measure. Because of the program's rigidity, low and very low income homeowners
often cannot be served by this loan program. Another policy issue has been
the definition of dependents and minors. It should be clarified whether adults
can be classified as a "dependent~ as well as' "minor" such as the case of a
young adult attending college. Once clear income guidelines have been established,
the issuance of loans based on family size should be examined.
Based on the interview with Mr. Picot, it appears that the County should request
that the state office provide additional local staff. Similar offices in the
state do have larger staff than this local office. An additional staff position
could aid in processing applications, facilitating loans, and perhaps assist
in community outreach. It also appears that FmHA staff could provide loan
applicants with much needed information during the application process which may
encourage versus discourage follow-through with the application. The Board of
Supervisors could be instrumental in making such a request.
Some issue, such as priorities set for loans, are subject to federal mandate
and probably cannot be effectively changed at the local level. However,
improvements in dispensing information and loan processing would help all FmHA
loan applicants. The ~Board could also encourage the local FmHA office to
continue to allocate funds and to increase the number of loans made and monies
expended as future allocations depend on present actions."
Mr. Fisher said he has heard that it is very difficult to get a loan application processe~
Mr. Tucker said his staff noted this in its report. Mr. Fisher asked if only one-third of
the local share of money is being used for farm and housing, if the staff has a breakdown on
that amount of funds. Mr. Tucker said no. Mr. Way asked if the office staff visits the
different localities. Mr. Tucker said he does not think so. Mr. Bowie said it appears that
the office is not processing the loan applications they have. When two-thirds of the money
is being returned to the State, he feels that the problem is greater than Just staffing. Mr.
Fisher said he would like to wait and discuss this in detail when Mr. Godsey is present.
Agenda Item No. 14. Renew Lease: Offender Aid and Restoration-Old County Jail Building.
Mr. Jones presented the following memorandum dated September 5, 1984:
"The County has leased the Old County Jail located off High Street and behind
the Juvenile Court to Offender Aid and Restoration (O.A.R.) since September, 1980.
Attached is a proposed lease for extension of this lease for one year or through
September 30, 1985. The terms of the attached lease are identical to the terms
of the original lease.
The reason for requesting only a one-year lease is to allow the Building
Committee to take a look at the possibility of relocating some joint operations
of the City and County to the McIntire Building. Recently, there has been
discussions of leasing the McIntire facility to the Y.M.C.A. and allow the "Y"
to sublease to organizations supported by the County and City, such as Emergency
Medical Services (EMS), Head Start, Region Ten, O.A.R., etc. It appears that
full occupancy of the McIntire facility which would allow for a greater distri-
bution of the utility costs to several organizations may solve the problem of
use of the McIntire facility for the next five years or so. I have had four
inquires in the past ten days along these lines.
Your requested official action at this time is only to authorize the County
Executive or his designee to sign the one-year lease with O.A.R."
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the lease as presented, and to authorize
Mr. Jones to execute same on behalf of the County. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
September 12a_1984 (RegUlar Day Meeting)
422
This lease, made and entered into this (14th) day of (September), 1984,
by and between the County of Albemarle, hereinafter referred to as "County"
lessor, and the Offender Aid and Restoration of the United States, Inc., herein-
after referred to as "OAR/USA" lessee.'
WITNESSETH
(1) For and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the
County hereby leases and demises to OAR/USA the building, located on High Street
in the City of Charlottesville, formerly used as the Albemarle County Jail, for
use as a prison museum open to the public, offices for OAR/USA and for display
of prisoners' arts and crafts.
(2) The term of such lease shall be for a period of three years beginning
October l, 1984, and ending September 30, 1985.
(3) The building shall be leased to OAR/USA rent free; however, OAR/USA
will pay the County for heating, lighting and water costs.
(4) The County agrees to be responsible for the operation, maintenance and
repair of the utility systems, and to perform all maintenance of the exterior
of the leased premises.
(5) OAR/USA agrees to perform normal custodial and janitorial functions
and interior maintenance of the leased premises, and to maintain the premises
in a clean, safe presentable condition at all times.
(6) OAR/USA or its subtenants shall be responsible for insuring the contents
of the building against fire, theft or other peril, and the County expressly
disclaims any liability for damages or loss of any nature whatsoever which may
occur to the property of OAR/USA, its members, or others while such property is
located on the leased premises. The County will maintain fire and extended
coverage insurance on the leased premises in an amount it deems adequate.
(7) OAR/DSA agrees to indemnify the County, its officers, agents and
employees and hold them harmless from any loss of any nature whatsoever, which
may occur by reason of OAR/USA's use of the leased premises. OAR/USA shall
maintain in force comprehensive public liability insurance coverage with an
insurer authorized to do business in Virginia. Such policy shall not be cancelled
without thirty days written notice to the County. OAR/USA shall submit evidence
of such insurance coverage to the County Executive for approval prior to opening
the premises to the public.
(8) The County retains the right to approve sublease of space within the
leased premises by OAR/USA to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Historical Society
or any other organization. All subleases shall expire concurrently on the 30th
day of September next following their execution, and no such sublease shall extend
beyond the term of this lease.
(9) OAR/USA agrees to submit any rules-and regulations pertaining to the
operation of the building to the County Board of Supervisors for review and
comment, and to use its best efforts to operate the building in accordance with
the purposes for nsc as stated previously. In this regard OAR/USA will solicit
the assistance of the local historical society in establishing the prison museum.
(10) OAR/USA shall not undertake, or permit its subtenants to .undertake any
structural modifications of the leased premises without the prior consent in
writing of the County.
(11) The lease may be terminated by either party for breach of any covenant
hereof by the other party provided such breach has not been remedied after
thirty days written notice.
(12) This lease may be amended or modified at any time by written agreement
of both parties.
(13) OAR/USA agrees to surrender the leased premises, upon termination or
expiration of this lease, in as good condition as when they were initially
occupied, normal wear and tear excepted."
-Mr. ~Bowie said the County Buildings and Properties Committee has not met for a long
t~ime.' He does not have any objections, but asked if paragraph No. 12 is the only way out of
the lease if they decide to move in the middle of the year. Mr. Jones said OAR has indicated
that they may wish to move before the end of 1984
Agenda Item No. 15A. Draft Resolution: House Joint Resolution llg~eE~ads.
Mr. Tucker noted the copy of the resolution which had been forwarded to the Board earlier.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that language reading "and/or that localities be authorized to create a
fund for improvement of such roads to which fund developers may be required to contribute an
amount equal to the estimated cost as reasonably determined by the locality, of improvement
to such work directly necessitated from their development, such contribution to be a preconditi~
to the approval of the development" be added to the next to last paragraph. Mr. Fisher
suggested that in the first line of that same paragraph, the language "when there is no
feasible alternative" be stricken and the word "enact" be inserted. Mr. Lindstrom then
offered motion to adopt the following resolution, as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Bowie and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way
NAYS: None. ·
424
Se temb~ 1~. 1984 (Re_~ular Day___Meetin~
WHEREAS, having been furnished a copy of House Joint Resolution 119, the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, respectfully wishes to make
its position regarding the issue of requirements for off-site road improvements
by private developers known to the respective Committes of'the Virginia General
Assembly studying this subject under the provisions of the above Joint Resolution;
and
WHEREAS, this County, and others as well, have experienced severe problems
resulting in intolerable conditions of traffic safety and congestion, caused by
new developments on roads incapable of carrying the additional traffic generated
by these developments~. In some cases these roads were already onlymarginally
tolerable to carry the existing traffic prior to these new developments; and
WHEREAS, under present Virginia law, the State Department of Highways and
Transportation has responsibility for maintaining and improving both primary
and secondary highways but in recent years its budget has been barely sufficient
to maintain our roads, much less improve them to accommodate the traffic generated
by new development; and
WHEREAS, the result under present law is that either the roads become
and remain intolerable, or they must be improved by use of general County
funds from the local treasury. The latter alternative will produce an
unbearable burden on local taxpayers, particularly in view of the fact
that property taxes are the major source of ail locally-generated revenues; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors respectfully
submit that the time has come to enact legilsation which would allow localities
to provide standards and criteria for the reqUirement, as condition to approval
of new development, that developers provide such reasonable and necessary
improvements to public roads both on and off the sites of their developments
as may be clearly and specifically necessitated by the particular development
in question and/or that localities be authorized to create a fund for improve-
ment of such roads to which fUnd developers may be required to contribute an
amount equal to the estimated cost as reasonably determined by the locality,
of improvements to such work directly necessitated from their development, such
contribution to be a precondition to the approval of the development.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk is directed to forward a certified copy
of this resolution to the Chairman of each Committee named in House Joint
Resolution No. 119.
Agenda Item No. 15b. Draft Resolution: HoUse Joint Resolution 146-Manufactured Housing.
Mr. Tucker presented the proposed resolution. Motion was offered by Mr. Way to adopt same.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie., Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
WHEREAS, having been furnished a copy of House Joint Resolution 146, the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, virginia, respectfully wishes to
make its position regarding local regulation of mobile homes known to the
Joint Subcommittee for Study of Manufactured Housing, established by that Joint
Resolution; and
WHEREAS, this County has recognized in its enactment of and application of
local land-use regulations, that manufactured housing, including mobile homes,
is an important resource for provision of affordable housing for our citizens.
Consequently, we have not adopted a policy to discourage the option of mobile
homes as housing in this County, nor have we restricted them to mobile home
parks. We have provided for mobile home parks,~but additionally we have a
provision in our zoning ordinance for mobile home subdivisions and individual
mobile homes by special permit in several of our residnetial districts. Mobile
homes are classed as real estate for tax purposes; and
WHEREAS, while other types of housing are not subject to the special use
permit procedure and to that extent mobile homes are treated specially, we feel
strongly that this special treatment is justified and that the power which
localities presently have, under our court decisions, to treat mobile homes
specially, is necessary to the public health, safety and welfare. This power
should be used judiciously and fairly but it should not be abolished by legis-
lation because of the distinctions, which the courts have recognized and which
we feel are valid, between mobile homes and other types of manufactured and
conventional housing; and
WHEREAS, these distinctions include the rapid depreciation of mobile homes;
the greater susceptibility of mobile homes to fire and wind damage; the fact that
the statewide building code does not apply to them; and their adverse effect on
adjacent property values. The first three of these concern only the occupants,
but the last item concerns other citizens whose property may diminish in value
upon an influx of adjacent mobile homes. This element of property value is
controlled by the impulses of the real estate market, whether well founded or
not, and is a fact beyond the control of government but which local government
must consider in fairness to all our citizens; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that for the above reasons, we respectfully
recommend that the General Assembly take no action which would remove the power
of local government to exercise some degree of judicious control over the location
of mobile homes within Virginia localities.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk is directed to forward a certified copy of
this resolution to the Chairman and each member of the above-named joint committee.
September 12~ 1984 (Re_g_ular Da~ Meeti__n~)
Agenda Item No. 24b. Appointments: Question Related to JAUNT Membership. A memorandum
dated September 5, 1984, from Linda A. Wilson, Executive Director, JAUNT, was received.
"Thank you for your memo of August 30, 1984 containing the County's policy
regarding boards and commissions. As we had discussed earlier this summer,
the five members appointed to the JAUNT Board in January, 1984 were appointed
for one year because there Was not a staggered term system. Since those
appointments were made, the JAUNT By-laws were amended allowing Board
members to serve staggered terms.
JAUNT's Board year - and the term of Board members - is the period from
October 1 - September 30 of a given fiscal year. Thus terms of all five Board
members appointed by the County last year are due to expire September 30, 1984.
It would appear that, based on B.11 in the new policy, these persons could be
reappointed for terms to fit the staggered system. That system is as follows:
The present system places Board members in terms with one year, two year and
three year durations. Thereafter, all appointments will be for three year
durations
1 year term
Year ending
Sept. 30, 1985
Charlottesville
Charlottesville
Albemarle
Albemarle
2 year term
Year Ending
Sept. 30, 1986
Nelson
Charlottesville
Charlottesville
Albemarle
3 year term
Year Ending
Sept. 30, 1987
Charlottesville
Albemarle
Albemarle
Nelson
Therefore, you will need to appoint two persons for a one-year term, one person
for a two-year term and two persons for a three-year term. I have spoken with
the at-large (citizen) Board members and they have agreed to serve (if reappointed)
for the following additional periods:
Mrs. Carol Hollenshead: one year
Mrs. John Carter: up to three years
Mr. Connie Cochran: two years
Because Mr. Tucker and Mr. Way were app~ointed at the pleasUre of the Board of
Supervisors it would be up to the Board to determine if they should be reappointed.
Based on the information given above we would recommend the following appointments:
One year term (expires 9-30-85): Mrs. Carol Hollenshead Board or staff member
Two year term (expires 9-30-86):
Three year term (expires 9-30-87):
Mr. Connie Cochran
Mr. John Carter
Board or staff member
An additional related matter needs your attention. The new policy calls for
the JAUNT Board position to be advertised in November. This timing could leave
the Board position vacant for up to four months. We would like to request that
our Board position(s) be advertised in April with appointment to be effective
the following October 1. '
Thank you for your attention to these matters. Since we will be electing
officers in October, Board members need to be in place by then."
Mr. Fisher asked if the Board members concurred in the recommendation for staggered
terms of members. Mr. Way said he had no objection. (Mr. St. John left at 4:58 p.m.) Mr. Way
then offered motion to adopt the procedure as outlined. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS.
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
vote:
Mr. Way then offered motion to make reappointments as follows:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr. or his designee, September 30, 1985
Carol K. Hollenshead - September 30, 1985
Connie Lee Cochran - September 30, 1986
John R. Carter - September 30, 1987
Peter T. Way - September 30, 1987
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 24c. Appointments: Question Related to Combining BOCA Code of Appeals
and ~ire Prevention Board of Appeals. Mr. Tucker asked that this item be deferred for a
month. The request was granted.
426
September 12~lar Da~ Meetin_n_g0_
Agenda Item No. 24d. Appointment: Membership on M.P.O. Technical Committee. Mr.
Tucker said that last year the Board had appointed himand Mr. Maynard Elrod to this committee.
He would like to request that the Board change these appointees to be by position, Director
of Planning and County Engineer so that if the people in these positions Change in the future,
there will be no need to bring this back before the Board - it would be an automatic appointmen
of the person holding that position. Motion to authorize this change was offered by Mr.
Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 24e. Appointments - Other Matters. Mr. Bowie said that for the. Albemarle
County Solid Waste Management Committee, Mrs. Treva Cromwell has offered to serve. He then
offered motion to appoint Mrs. Cromwell. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom-and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 23. Set Public Hearing to Amend Sections 15-2 through i'5-4 of the
County Code - Pay of Certain Boards and Commissions. Mr. Fisher said a recommendation has
been made to lift the limit from this section so that members serving can be paid $25[00 for
each meeting attended in a month. Motion to set this amendment on the agenda for a public
hearing on October 10, 1984, was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, a.nd carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the Board was going to consider adding an additional
amount to the salary of the Chairman of the School Board and the Planning Commission because
these two boards do a considerable amount of work. After discussion it was decided that
staff should prepare an amendment to the County Code-to accomplish this in the amount of
$100.00 a month. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke,
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 25. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public and Board
Members.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of letter from the family of Forrest E. Paulett for sending
flowers, to the funeral. He asked that the staff consider sending flowers to Mr. Agnor, who
is ill.
Mr. Fisher said he had a note from Sara Radkowsky regarding a public forum to be held on
September 19 concerning UNOGEN, Inc. at Murray School from 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. Unogen will make
a public presentation on their project and.why they want to move to the Ivy area.
Mr. Fisher said the Board had received a letter from Jan diSeymond thanking the Board
for allowing the 1984 Lady Enterprise Race to be held at Foxfield, and thanking Mrs. Cooke
for beginning the race. Mrs. Cooke said there were a great number of enthusiastic people
present, the race was extremely well-organized, and it went smoothly. She hopes the Board
will continue to support the race.
Mr. Fisher said he had a letter from the Chairman of the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission saying that they wish to thank the Board for approving the requested
local contribution for FY 1985. The letter also states that they are interested in determining
an appropriate contribution to regional agencies from each local government. They have been
asked by several regional agencies to address this question this fall.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John for a report on AP-84-3, Joseph E.. Seagram & Sons, Inc.
Mr. St. John said the Board of Zoning Appeals heard this appeal yesterday, and found in favor
of the Zoning Administrator and his original opinion. Mr. Fisher asked if Seagrams has filed
for a special permit for the recreat'ional facilities. Mr. Tucker said they have. Mr. Fisher
said he had a copy of a letter from Seagrams attorney to the Zoning Administration in which
it is stated that the special application may be withdrawn pending the outcome of the appeal.
Mr. Fisher said he feels strongly that if the ruling of the zoning administrator is allowed
to stand, it may cause other problems throughout the County by continuing to broaden adjunct
uses for what are considered farm homes. Mr. Fisher said he thinks the Board should pursue
the appeal to the Circuit Court.
Mr. Lindstrom said he originally raised this question. He feels there are likely to be
more corporate recreational facilities in the County of a similar nature and he cannot determi
where this interpretation of the language of accessory uses leaves the County. "Customarily
incidental" is the language in the statute, and he does not consider what Seagrams is building-
(a golf course) to be customarily incidental. He also felt the appeal should go to the
Circuit Court. If the Board is not willing to do that, he would recommend amendments to the
September 12~ular Da~
text of the ordinance to better define what he feels is perfectly clear to begin with. In
this way, the Board might anticipate the kinds of problems that will come in the future. Mr.
Lindstrom then offered motion to appeal to the Circuit Court the decision made on September
ll, 1984, by the Board of Zoning Appeals, regarding AP-84-3, Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Way and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
Mr. Bowie and Mr. Henley.
Mr. Fisher then asked about the pending suit of Virginia Federal Savings & Loan. Mr.
St. John said he had taken depositions of Virginia Federal witnesses; people who were respon-
sible for processing and mailing the check in payment of 1983 real estate taxes. These
people came under oath, produced documents under oath, and as far as he is concerned these
constitute clear, irrefutable, uncontradicted proof that the check was mailed on December 5,
1983. He feels this evidence would be conclusive in any court proceedings, and he has recom-
mended to the Director of Finance that he refund this tax penalty and if that requires an
appropriation by the Board, he recommends that the Board appropriate the money as soon as
possible.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following resolution, funds to be di~mrsed
upon the signing of whatever document is required to bring this matter to a conclusion:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $92,941.85 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund
and coded to 1-1000-92010-580301 entitled Tax Refunds;
AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Mr. St. John said the Director of
Finance does concur with the recommendation. 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 noted receipt of the following letter from Paul Trible regarding the Piedmont
Corridor Highway:
"August 13, 1984
Miss Lettie E. Neher
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Miss Neher:
I understand that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has
not yet determined if new construction in the South Fork Rivanna River water-
shed will be necessary. I emphasized the concerns of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors with Cormnissioner King and trust that he will contact
you before making any final recommendations.
Please keep me informed on the progress of the ~tudy, and do not hesitate to
contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
Paul Trible"
Agenda Item No. 26. Mr. Fisher noted that no items have been scheduled for the regular
night meeting of September 19, but the Board does have a meeting scheduled to begin at
2:30 p.m. to meet first with the Industrial Development Authority, and then the School Board.
Motion to adjourn this meeting until September 19 at 2:30 p.m. was offered by Mrs. Cooke,
seconded by Mr. Bowie, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
L~hairman