1984-10-10457
October 10 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
October 10, 1984, at 9:00 a.m., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia. '
PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H~ Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, C. Timothy
Lindstrom (arrived at 9:04 a.m.), and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr.
OFFICERS PRESENT:
George R. St. John.
Deputy County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. and County Attorney,
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda~'Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Approval of Minutes: April 4 and May 16 (Night), 1984.
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of April 4, 1984, and found them to be satisfactory as
presented.
Mr. Way had read the minutes of May 16, 1984 (night meeting), and noted a missing word
on Page 176, Minute Book 23, under Agenda Item No. 13, third sentence should read: "...num-
ber of Planning Commission members as stated in this section."
Mr. Way offered motion to approve the above noted minutes with the one change. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr.
Bowie, to approve items 1 - 4 on the consent agenda, and to accept the other items as infor-
mation. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs.Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Item 5.1. Statements of Expenses for the State Compensation Board for the month of
September, 1984, for the Director of Finance, Commonwealth's Attorney, and the Sheriff, were
approved as presented.
Item 5.2. Street Sign Request: Marshall Manors Subdivision.
By letter dated September 21, 1984, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, the developer of Marshall
Manors Subdivision has requested street name signs to identify all of the roads in the
subdivision. Mr. Marshall has also agreed to bear the cost of these signs. The following
resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the
following roads:
Forrest Road (State Route 1801) at the northeast corner Of its
intersection with U. S. Route 20.
Forrest Road (State Route 1801) and Lenora Road (State Route
1802) at the northwest corner of its intersection.
Lenora Road (State Route 1802) and David Road (State Route 1803)
at the southeast corner of its intersection.
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the office
of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta-
tion be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above
mentioned street signs.
Item 5.3. Agreement: Appalachian POwer Company. "Virginia Public Authorities-
Agreement for the Purchase of Eleetrioity from Appalachian Power Company" dated October 5,
1984, was approved for signature. Rates in this contract are the result of negotiations
b~tween Appalachian Power Company and the Virginia Association of Counties/Virginia Municipal
League Eleotrio Rate Negotiating COmmittee, and the initial term of this Agreement is for a
periOd of thirty-six months beginning July 1, 1984.
'45'8
October 10, 1984 (Re_~cEular Da-' Meetin. ~ .....
Item 5.4. Take Dunmore Road in Waverly Subdivision into State System.
A resolution to accomplish this request was adopted by the Board on August 8, 1984,
however, an additional drainage easement has been put to record since that time. The Highway
Department is requesting an amended resolution for clarification purposes. 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 Waverly Subdivision:
Beginning at station 10+09 a point common with the centerline
intersection of Dunmore Road and the edge of pavement of Route
614, thence in a southwesterly direction 1348.45 feet to station
23+57.45, a point at the end of the cul-de-sac on Dunmore Road in
Waverly Subdivision.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 60-foot unobstructed right-of-
way and drainage easements along this requested addition as recorded by
plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 697, pages 372 and 383, Deed Book 808, page 730, and Deed Book
815, page 357.
Item 5.5 Notice was received from Central Virginia Electric Cooperative dated September
1984, re: State Corporation Commission public hearing on December 11, 1984, to revise terms
and conditions relating to extension of facilities and meter policy.
Item 5.6. County Executive's Financial Report for the month of June, 1984, was received
along with a memo dated October 4, 1984, entitled "End-of-Year Report for Fiscal Year Ending
June 30, 1984":
GENERAL FUND - Revenues exceeded estimates by $3.6 million and expenditures
were $0.6 million less than projected in the budget.
SCHOOL FUND - Estimated revenues ($27.4 million) and expenditures ($27.2
million) - revised twice during the year - were essentially on target and
within one percent of the last estimates.
REVENUE SHARING FUND - The revenues reflect the receipt of four quarterly
payments due to the extension of the law, whereas only one quarter was
budgeted. Expenditures reflect the revised, increased allocation to the
School Fund of $675,000 from the original budgeted amount of $168,000.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND - Revenues in the CIP Fund do not reflect the
transaction in FY'83-84 that cleared the "School Fund Deficit". The addi-
tional funds made available, when combined with the $1.3 million in current
revenues shown in the report, are adequate to cover the $4.5 million appro-
priation shown under "expenditures".
This report substantiates two facts reported to the Board of Supervisors
earlier:
1) The General Fund balance increased approximately $4 million; and
2) The School Fund ended the year in the "black".
Item 5.7. Memo from Robert W. Tucker, Jr., dated September 27, 1984, re: Proposed
Highway Safety Project Grant, was received:
"From time to time, I have mentioned the need to address road names and
signage of roads throughout the County in order to improve our police, fire
and rescue efforts in responding to emergency calls. We have recently
learned of a planning grant that is available through the State's Division
of Motor Vehicles which would enable us to complete the necessary planning
needed to aid the emergency service providers in improving their response
time. The grant proposed is for $5,000 with only in-kind or staffing match
needed.
For your information, (attached) is a project description for the grant
which defines the problem, states our objectives and recommends a solution.
You will note that this planning grant is the initial phase of this program,
the final phase would involve the actual signage at intersections.
The staff submitted this grant application for review by the County Trans-
portation Safety Commission and they have recommended its submittal to DMV."
"Albemarle County is the fifth largest county in the Commonwealth, covering
some 740 square miles. It has more than 920 miles of roads. Only twenty
percent (177 miles) are primary roads which are marked with route numbers.
The police, rescue squads and fire departments all have a common need for a
comprehensive intersection signing and locator code number system. Presently,
October 10, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
459
emergency service providers rely on having a phone ~number to call the
person[s) back who requested service if theresponder cannot locate the
emergency. Emergency service providers have noted that because there is not
a road name system in the County with associated street addresses and
identifier numbers, it is often difficult to locate emergencies. In the
rural areas, response times are longer than necessary due to time spent
searching for emergencies.
The lack of intersection signing restricts the expeditious response of the
police, rescue squads and fire departments in emergency situations. The
lack of property intersection identification also impairs highway and street
safety by creating a 'search and find' situation which causes motorists to
drive slower than normal speeds and brake unexpectedly with subsequent
collisions.
The objective of this project is to establish a comprehensive name and
locator reference number system for Albemarle County over a three year
period. The initial request is for the hiring and training of part-time
staff to aid in devising a comprehensive County road name list and establish
a reference grid with locator numbers tied to an address system. In subse-
quent years, materials are to be obtained, with installation of intersection
signing with locator codes once an established road name/locator code system
has been devised and adopted by the County."
Mr. Fisher asked what form the signs would take. Mr. Tucker said it is envisioned that
they will be street signs, with some type of locator number also shown. Mr. Fisher asked if
this grant is for signs for the entire County. Mr. Tucker said yes, it is hoped that the
signs can be carried out into the rural areas. Mrs. Cooke said this is a long-range project,
and will take a good deal of time. Mr. Tucker said that some other counties have already
undertaken such projects using these DMV grants. This will help the County to do this
project with only funds needed for staffing. Mr. Fisher said there will be an on-going main-
tenance cost to keep these signs in place. The County cannot assume it will be a one-time
cost. Mr. Tucker said he thinks the Highway Department will take over maintenance once the
signs have been erected. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, said the Highway Department
has a policy to maintain street signs, but he understands the policy is based on a limited
number of such signs being installed in the urban area. This will spread those signs
throughout the County. It will take a lot of time and money to maintain these signs. He
will check with the administration of the Highway Department as to a policy for maintaining
street signs at every intersection in the County.
Mr. Fisher said staff should think about how the signs will be maintained, although he
does feel it is a good idea. Mrs. Cooke said a great deal of citizen concern has been
expressed that emergency vehicles are having a difficult time locating emergencies and that
is what prompted this request, particularly in the rural areas.
Item 5.8. Annual Report of the James River Alcohol Safety Action Program and Financial
Statement for the year ended June 30, 1984, was received from Donald Henck along with letter
dated September 13, 1984.
Item 5.9. Letter from Dr. Richard A. Prindle, Director of the Thomas Jefferson Health
District, dated September 26, 1984, re: Assistance at the Southside Health Center. Dr.
Prindle states that this summer, the Health Department provided dental services from its
dental trailer at the Health Center. The service was carried out during the summer months
while the area schools were closed. However, the staff and trailer were returned to their
normal activities with the reopening of the schools since no budgetary support was provided
to continue the operation during the remainder of the year.
Item 5.10. Audits for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1983, for the General District
Court, and for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court, were received as informa-
tion.
Item 5.11. First Quarter Report for FY 1984-85, for the Emergency Medical Services
Council was received from Brenda T. Barbour, in a memorandum dated October 4, 1984.
Agenda Item No. 6al.
September 12, 1984).
Highway Matters:
Request for Street Name-Route 650 (Deferred from
This request was deferred from the September meeting in order to determine if there is
an historical name connected with this road. In a memo from James R. Donnelly, dated
October 3, 1984 he states that 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. Fisher said he thought the site plan referred to had been withdrawn by the appli-
cant. Mr. Tucker said it was the appeal of the site plan that was withdrawn. Mr. Donnelly
said the staff had found another name for this road on a map and it appeared to be "Michial
Road", but it was hard to determine if that name was for this particular road or another road
in the vicinity. Mrs. Cooke said this area lies in the Charlottesville District, and
although there may be some question about the spelling of the historical name, she feels it
is far more acceptable than the name Gasoline Alley. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to name
Route 650, Michial Road, feeling it to be a proper name for that particular road. There was
no second to the motion.
460
October 10, 1984 (R_~ular Day~_~Meeti~~
Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees that Michial Road may be a more acceptable name, but he
feels the question is not one of what the Board likes, but what the citizens have requested.
Mr. Bowie noted that there were quite a few names on the petition requesting the name Gaso-
line Alley. Mr. Lindstrom then offered a substitute motion to adopt the following resolu-
tion:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that State Route 650 for its entire length
is hereby named Gasoline Alley.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Way and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Fisher.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 6a2.
from September 12, 1984).
Highway Matters:
Request for Street Name-Route 1422 (Deferred
This request was deferred from the September meeting so the staff could investigate to
see if the route has an historical name, and in order to contract the other property owners
on the road as to any objections.
Mr. Donnelly said 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
name and staff recommends approval of the request.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Route 1422 running for approximately one-
quarter of a mile parallel to U. S. Route 20 North be named
Dorrier Drive.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item 6a3. Request for Street Name: Route 678. This request was brought before
the Board by a petition signed by 25 persons reading: "We, the undersigned, landowners of
property fronting on Route 678, a county road extending from Route 601 to Route 614 (Sections
29, 42 and 43, White Hall, Jack Jouett and Samuel Miller Districts) petition the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to assign to Route 678 the name RIDGE ROAD so that permanent
addresses for the residents of this road can be established."
A staff report had been prepared by the Planning Staff, to wit:
"A petition was submitted by residents of State Route 678, extending from
Route 601 to Route 614, requesting a street name designation of Ridge Road.
This request was initiated as a result of the Postal Service's proposed
plan to change the address of the persons listed to a highway commercial
route designation with assigned box number. The proposed change is contem-
plated to occur in mid-October.
State Route 678 is approximately 4.1 miles in length and serves 50 parcels
of land. The proposed street name of Ridge Road is similar to several
street names presently in use in the area, i.e., Ridge Street in the City
of Charlottesville, and the Postal Service has suggested that a different
name be used in order to avoid possible confusion.
A 1932 State Highway map of Albemarle County indicates the road to be named
Harris Mill Road, a name which apparently has not been used since that
time. Harris Mill Road does not duplicate any existing street names in the
County or the City and the staff recommends the use of this historical name
in place of Ridge Road."
Present was Mr. Doug Frame a resident of this road for about eleven years. He did not
know the road was named Ridge Road until talking with an elderly neighbor who said the road
has been called Ridge Road for as long as she can remember. The reason for this is quite
obvious since the road lies on a predominant ridge between the Mechum and the Moormans
Rivers. Mr. Frame said he talked with someone at the Post Office who suggested another name
be used because of the similarity with the name Ridge Street in the City. However, the
numbering of Ridge Street ends at about 1000 and it is suggested that Ridge Road start with
the number 2400. Mr. Frame said he had spoken with Mr. Henley and he voiced no opposition to
this request. The staff report indicated that this road had been called Harris Mill Road at
one time, but he has not been able to find anyone who ever heard the name. Mr. Frame said he
looked at the Peyton map of 1870 at the Albemarle Historical Society, and it shows that
Harris Mill Road was shown near what is the present-day Gallery Restaurant on Route 250 West
at the Mechum River. Mr. Frame asked approval of the original request.
Mr. Fisher said the City already has a Harris Street, a Harris Road and a Hartman Mill
Road, so the name Harris Mill Road would be no less confusing. Mr. Bowie then offered motion
to adopt the following resolution:
Oc~4 (Re~_ular Da_~_Meeting)
461
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Route 678, extending from Route 601
to Route 614, be named Ridge Road.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item 6b. Highway Matters: Request for Abandonment-Portion of State Route 758.
This request was brought to the Board through receipt of the following letter dated
September 13, 1984, from M. Clifton McClure:
"Re:
David Louis Murray and Zahna H. Murray
Mount Armour Farm - Tax Map 69,
Parcel 29 - abandonment of St Rt 758
Dear Board Members:
I write this letter on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Murray. They are the owners
of Mount Armour Farm which fronts on State Route 758. State Route 758 runs
into their farm about one mile and deadends near their residence. This road
does not continue on past their property to serve any other properties. Mr.
and Mrs. Murray request that that portion of State Route 758 which lies
within their property and serves no other property be abandoned.
If I can provide you with any other information, I will be happy to do so.
We would appreciate any consideration you give to this request."
The following Planning Staff report dated September 28, 1984, was received:
"State Route 758 serves as a direct means of access to approximately nine-
teen parcels of land. The owners of Parcel 29 have requested abandonment of
that portion of Route 758 which lies within their property.
State Route 758 terminates at a point approximately one-half mile within the
boundaries of Parcel 29 and serves no additional properties. Staff recom-
mends approval of abandonment of that portion of State Route 758 serving
only Parcel 29."
The following letter dated September 28, 1984, was received from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation:
"Reference is made to your letter dated September 18, 1984, concerning the
request of M. Clifton McClure to abandon a portion of Route 758 in
Albemarle County.
My records indicate that Route 758 was added to the state secondary system
in two separate sections. The first quarter mile was added effective
July 1, 1939. The last mile was added effective July 1, 1943. My records
indicate that this road has a 30' wide 'right of way'. I have not checked
the land records of Albemarle County, but it is my opinion that this right
of way was at best an easement and not a recorded fee simple land transfer.
Sometime prior to 1976, a cattle guard was installed across Route 758 at a
point approximately one-half mile south of Route 637. At the time I
arrived in the residency in 1976, the Department was maintaining Route 758
only to this point. At the request of Dr. John B. Lange, the owner of the
'Murray' property at that time, the Department removed the cattle guard and
extended its maintenance to its current point in December 1976. The
current end of maintenance is approximately 0.9 miles south of Route 637.
It was acknowledged by both the Department and Dr. Lange at the time that
approximately 0.40 miles of Route 758 existed beyond the end of current
maintenance; by mutual agreement this area was not maintained.
Mr. McClure's request on behalf of the Murrays appears to relocate mainte-
nance to the point we stopped prior to 1976. I agree that only the Murray
property would be maintained beyond this point and see only one problem in
ending maintenance at this point. This problem is how to turn vehicles
around at the end of maintenance. I support abandonment of this road at a
point 0.50 miles south of Route 637 provided some 'driveway' type turn
around were provided by the Murrays."
Mr. McClure said he would like to clarify the original request. The Murrays would like
to have about 600 feet of Route 758 abandoned. At the moment, people can drive very near
their residence, and park their cars. The Murrays have had quite a bit of trouble with
trespassers, who have refused to leave the property when requested to do so. About 600 feet
from the present end of the road there is a driveway to the farm manager's house. This would
be a good location for a turnaround as requested by the Highway Department, and would be a
good place to police trespassers. Mr. McClure said he believes this section was made a state
road because it serves one parcel further along the road, but that parcel is now also owned
by the Murrays.
October 10, 1984 (Regu_. %ar Da-- Meetin- ) :~
Mr. Fisher asked if all of the parcels served by this road are under the ownership of
Mr. McClure's clients. Mr. McClure said that is correct. Mr. Fisher said that would
simplify things. He asked Mr. Roosevelt for his comments. Mr. Roosevelt said a turnaround
at the point mentioned could be made as good as the turnaround at the current end of
maintenance. If this roadway is to be advertised for abandonment, he would recommend that it
be for one-half mile instead of the 600 feet because that would be from the current end of
state maintenance. He then requested that some easement for a turnaround be included in that
abandonment.
Mr. Fisher said no legal language is written down on this request, and he would suggest
that Mr. McClure and Mr. Roosevelt agree on the exact wording. At this time, Mr. Lindstrom
offered motion to advertise for a public hearing on this request for November 14. Mr. St.
John asked if a plat or sketch is needed for this abandonment, and suggested that it is the
responsibility of the applicant to furnish this information to the County. Mr. Roosevelt
said a plat is needed for a turnaround, but recognizing that the turnaround is a request, and
not a requirement of the Highway Department, he feels that a plat would assure for years in
the future that there would be a place to turnaround. Mr. Fisher said he felt the recommen-
dation of the Highway Department has been heard and is accepted as a way to deal with this
request.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Way. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr.Henley.
Agenda Item No. 6c. 'Other Highway Matters. Mr. Bowie said he had received a call from
his constituents on Route 777. This road runs one-half mile into Albemarle County from
Orange County and deadends. It seems that the section in Orange County has recently been
hard-surfaced. The people say they were told that the Albemarle County section would be
hard-surfaced, and Mr. Bowie said he understands there has recently been a new traffic count
taken and he would like to be kept informed.
Mr. Bowie said he had received a copy of a letter addressed to Mr. Robert Landon, along
with Senator Michie, and Delegates Allen and Van Yahres. It seems that on September 12 ~here
was a group of guarded prisoners working in Hollymead Subdivision (there was an armed guard
sitting under a tree), when a school bus pulled up, and the children got off of the bus and
started to mingle with the prisoners. The person writing the letter does not object to the
prisoners working, but feels that "guarded" prisoners should not be around school bus stops
or in subdivisions. Mr. Bowie said he has a lot of problems with potential hostage situa-
tions when there are prisoners who must be guarded being near school children. Although he
realizes that Mr. Roosevelt has nothing to do with who is put out to work, he wanted to bring
this to the attention of Mr. Roosevelt, and the other Board members.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned a problem at a curve on Route 676 near the Ivy Creek Methodist
Church. He said that some concrete put in last year is beginning to separate from the main
roadway. It is quite a treacherous spot. Mr. Lindstrom said he would also like to echo Mr.
Bowie's comments about the prison gang. He had written a letter to Mr. Roosevelt in the near
past about a trustee gang that had been objected to.
Mr. Way mentioned calls from people living on Route 622 and Route 713. One concern
seems to be that on dirt roads, as ditches are cleared, rather than removing the dirt it is
placed in the center of the road, and when it rains, the dirt goes right back into the ditch.
Mr. Roosevelt said it has always been the procedure on gravel roads to mix the material from
the ditches with the material from the middle. What happened on the routes mentioned is that
the time picked to do the ditching was too dry to get the materials to mix properly, so there
was a lot of dust, and then the rain turned this into mud. Hopefully work done during the
last week has corrected that problem in that they pushed the material off and added some
stone. They only pick up materials along hard-surfaced roads, but if the problem continues
they may have to pick up materials in other places.
Mr. Fisher said he understands there is to be a deceleration lane built at the entrance
to Route 677 at Route 250 West (Flordon entrance), and he asked if Mr. Roosevelt had a
schedule for this construction. Mr. Roosevelt said he did not, but believes it is to be done
during the next construction season. Mr. Fisher said as the result of an accident at that
location which fortunately was not too serious, he has had several communications from
residents in Flordon asking several things. One was about the deceleration lane, and another
suggestion is that the 45 mph zOne should be extended westward from its present end to just
past Route 677. He asked if it would be possible to have a study of the situation. Mr.
Roosevelt said he would have the Highway Department Traffic Engineer check this section of
Route 250.
Agenda Item No. 7. Report of the Task Force on Drunk Driving.
Present was Mrs. Betty Scott, Executive Director, Charlottesville/Albemarle Area Task
Force to Combat Drunk Driving. Mrs. Scott said this group was formed in the fall of 1983 by
the City Council of Charlottesville and the Boards of Supervisors of Albemarle, Nelson and
Greene Counties to investigate and recommend improvements in local enforcement, adjudication,
rehabilitation and public information concerning the drunken driver in this area. A report
from the Task Force dated June, 1984, was forwarded to the Board earlier. Mrs. Scott said
the Task Force met five or six times. It had information from judges, police officials, the
Alcohol Safety Action Program, school officials, educators, a public information person, the
October l0_~1984R_~gular Day M~
463
State ASAP office, the Charlottesville check-point program, and the Task Force reviewed the
recommendations of the Governor's Task Force to Combat Drunk Driving.
Mrs. Scott noted the major recommendations of the Task Force as being:
"The region needs a public information officer to maintain the current high
level of awareness of the seriousness of the drunken driver problem, and to
develop volunteer community resources for continued public education.
All jurisdictions in the planning district are encouraged to organize
highway safety committees in order that their local law enforcement agencies
will have access to funds for selective enforcement activities aimed at
increasing the arrests of drunken drivers.
Selective enforcement activities in each local jurisdiction should be
coordinated with a media campaign describing the activity and reporting
regularly on its results.
A system of collecting and analyzing local data on drunk driving related
crashes, arrests and convictions should be implemented in the region so that
progress in reducing crashes and increasing arrests and convictions may be
measured promptly with accuracy.
A steering committee composed of task force members should be organized to
monitor the implementation of all the recommendations in this report and to
assist in the coordination of enforcement, adjudication, and rehabilitation
systems and the development of community resources for increased public
information and awareness in the region.
Local elected officials should request their state legislators to support
those state task force recommendations which require legislative change that
are supported by this task force."
Mrs. Scott then summarized some recommendations from the Governor's Task Force which are
supported by the Local Task Force, but which require legislative changes:
1) Passage of legislation which makes it illegal to drive an automobile
with a blood alcohol count of .15% or greater. It is hoped that legislation
can be strengthened to make it an automatic offense to drive with a BAC of
.10% or greater, which is now the law in 26 states.
2) Enact a statute mandating impoundment of the operator license by a
magistrate at the time of arrest for operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of
.15% or above.
3) The restricted operator's license described in Section 18.2-271.1 of the
Code of Virginia should be abolished.
4) Sections 18.2-271 and 18.2-271.1 should be changed to allow temporary,
full privilege permit in lieu of a restricted license. Full driving privi-
leges after judicial impoundment, would be contingent upon successful
enrollment in VASAP and a three-month temporary license would be issued.
The three-month license could be renewed four times, contingent upon suc-
cessful participation in VASAP.
5) Eliminate certain loopholes in the Code of Virginia which impair en-
forcement efficiency and allow some persons to avoid conviction as drunken
drivers, including (a) the requirement that a DUI arrest be made within two
hours of the offense, and (b) the provision in Section 19.2-81 of the Code
of Virginia which prevents a police officer with probable cause from arrest-
ing for DUI except at the scene of an accident or on the highway without a
warrant.
Mrs. Scott said the Task Force also supports other administrative changes. She thanked
the Board for allowing this committee to make this report, and she asked that a Task Force be
allowed to continue in order to oversee some implementation of the report.
Mrs. Cooke said many hours were spent in drafting this report, and she would like to
thank Mrs. Scott for her direction and leadership in getting the report to a successful
conclusion. Mrs. Cooke said the Board needs to support the work that this Task Force has
done, and consider the recommendations to the State, and do what is necessary in the community
to support these efforts. Mrs. Cooke said a drunken person behind the wheel of a car is like
a man standing with a loaded gun in his hand, and his finger on the trigger. That cannot be
~ tolerated in this community, or in this nation, and unless it starts with serious
support at the grass roots right here in Albemarle County, there will be no progress anywhere
in this country. She hopes this Board will take this report seriously, support the Task
Force, and when it comes to financial support, she hopes the Board will commit itself to that
kind of support also.
Mr. Fisher asked what the next step should be. Mrs. Cooke said the Board should have a
work session on the report to see what the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors might be
able to do to implement some of the recommendations. She would like for the Board to support
the requests to the General Assembly. Mrs. Scott said since the County is in the process of
forming a police force, it would be a good time to look at recordkeeping. It appears that a
simple change in recordkeeping in the local area. would lead to a collection of meaningful
statistics.
41,64
October 10 1984 (Re ular Da Meeti~
At this time, Mrs. Cooke offered motion to'accept the report as presented, and to set a
work session for the Board as soon as one can be scheduled. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion:
Chesapeake Bay Initiatives Program.
Additional Engineer for County Engineering Office and
Mr. Tucker presented the following memorandum dated October 4, 1984, on this subject:
"Attached is a brief summary of the State Soil and Water Conservation
Commission's program to improve the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay
through nonpoint source pollution control measures. The program provides
funds for additional manpower and the implementation of demonstration
projects.
Staff proposes that we participate in the demonstration projects. While no
County funding is required, this proposal would include primarily those
projects already planned for stormwater detention or runoff control mea-
sures. The benefits would involve monitoring the effectiveness of the
measures and could aid in the construction costs of the projects.
With regard to the program's provision for additional manpower, staff is
requesting that the Board provide the program's necessary 25% match (approx-
imately $3,250) for a full-time engineer in the Department of Engineering,
beginning in January, 1985. (Attached) please see Mr. Elrod's justification
for additional staffing need. The City's Public Works Department has shown
interest in contributing a portion of the 25% match but to date has not
proposed any amount.
If the Board concurs with the proposed recommendations of the staff, author-
ization to pursue a grant application with the Soil and Water Conservation
Commission would be warranted. Actual appropriation of funds for the 25%
match would be requested should our proposal to the State Soil and Water
Conservation Commission be approved."
STAFF REPORT: CHESAPEAKE BAY INITIATIVES
The 1984 Virginia General Assembly allocated $750,000 to the Soil and Water
Conservation Commission for the 1984-86 Biennium to initiate an Urban
nonpoint source pollution control program in Virginia's portion of the
Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin. The Commission will distribute these funds,
based on need, to localities within the Chesapeake Bay Basin through the
local Soil and Water Conservation Districts. These funds will be available
to employ additional manpower for providing technical assistance toward the
implementation of local urban nonpoint source pollution control programs and
local erosion and sediment control programs and to implement projects to
demonstrate and evaluate the effectiveness of Urban Best Management Prac-
tices for nonpoint source pollution control.
The County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville are eligible for a
portion of these allocated funds through cooperation with the Thomas
Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District.
The Local Chesapeake Bay Initiative Program
Part I. The Hiring of Additional Manpower.
would entail the following:
This part of the local program
a) The determination of need for additional manpower.
b)
A local commitment for 25% of the cost of the employment of an
individual.
c)
Following receipt of a written request for additional manpower from
the County, the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation
District would make an application to the Commission for funding
for the needed position. (The Commission would then, upon approval
of the request, make a lump sum payment for 75% for the cost of the
employee to the District not to exceed $25,000. The District would
then distribute these funds to the locality.)
(NOTE: The total cost figure includes salary, State and Federal with-
holding taxes and the fringe package. Also the District can request up
to $3,000 in additional funds to cover costs of travel, lease of office
space, equipment, communications and supplies.)
The employee hired under this program would be on the County's payroll under
the direction of the County Engineer or other designated official or depart-
ment head. The job responsibilities and details of tasks and supervision
would be as agreed to by the County and the District.
October 10_~1984~1ar Day M~
46,
PART II: The Implementation of Demonstration Projects.
This part of the local Chesapeake Bay Initiative Program involves the
implementation and evaluation of various urban nonpoint source pollution
Control demonstration projects.
The Soil and Water Conservation Commission is also handling the distribution
of these funds. Each request for funding is being evaluated by the Commis-
sion on the basis of cost, public exposure, capability of the applicant to
design, implement, inspect, monitor and evaluate the project, and the
benefits to water quality improvement. (The total amount of cost share
monies is negotiable in the proposals.)
(NOTE: The County's match is proposed to be an in-kind staffing match.)
Contacts have been made and several meetings have been held by representa-
tives of the County Engineer's Office, the University of Virginia Department
of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, the State Highway Research
Council and the Office of the Watershed Management Official to evaluate the
potential for a cooperative proposal submittal.
It is envisioned that this part of the local Chesapeake Bay Program would
involve the following:
a) Phase I of the project would entail the monitoring of existing or
soon to be existing facilities used for on-site pollution/stormwater/rUnoff
control. Project areas being considered for inclusion in this phase of the
project would be: 1) the Four Season's Lake, 2) the Berkmar Basin, and 3)
the River Bend Shopping Center Level Spreaders. (An area designed to
evaluate porous pavement use in the area might also be included.)
b) Phase II of the project, to be scheduled in a future budget cycle,
could evaluate larger regional structures. Sites being considered for this
phase of the project include the Lickinghole Creek Basin and a marshland
area located in the Branchlands area.
Each phase of the project would be scheduled to last initially through one
biennium with the possibility of additional funding being requested to
extend the monitoring and evaluation efforts.
Information gathered from each phase of the project would be used to evalu-
ate the effectiveness of the implemented and monitored management practices
and would ultimately be used to help establish design criteria for these
practices which would be applicable locally.
Funding for this part of the local Chesapeake Bay Initiatives is available
on a first-come, first-served basis. Therefore, a proposal for submission
to the Commission will be developed as soon as the necessary approvals are
granted."
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive
Maynard L. Elrod, County Engineer
New Position for Engineer I
October 4, 1984
The Virginia Chesapeake Bay Initiative Program offers us the opportunity to
further our environmental efforts which benefit the county and the state's
waters. We presently are experiencing difficulty in controlling erosion
from developments and in giving sufficient attention to plan review. The
rate of new construction has been high, however, the factors that influence
the required level of effort have not been so much the number of projects as
the degree of difficulty of those projects.
Most of the projects seem to be either on steep lands, adjacent to flood
plains, and/or are in very dense residential areas. We find that area
contractors and engineers are also having trouble keeping up with the pace.
This condition makes it even more important that we spend sufficient time
planning projects and trying to foresee potential problems since it is very
difficult to get contractors to return to the job site.
Because of the press of our day-to-day work, we have not provided as much
attention as I would like to the following areas:
1) Inspection of grading and drainage facilities other than erosion control
items during construction. This is important to the environment because
often when the approved plan is not followed, slopes that are too steep
occur and the corrections (after homes, buildings, roads, etc., are already
in place) are difficult and erosion and drainage problems continue longer
than they should.
2) Updating County codes and policies.
3) Conducting training and information programs.
4) Special studies on stream erosion and nonpoint pollution causes.
5) Special studies on the effectiveness of our erosion and pollution control
efforts."
468
October_ 10. 1984 (Rear ~
Mr. Tucker reminded the Board that they had recently approved-a part-time engineer for
the engineering staff, and it is the intention that if this position is approved, that
part-time position may be eliminated. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this is a one-year program.
Mr. Tucker said it has been indicated to be a ten-year program, although the allocations will
be on a biennium, so the program will run for at least two years. There has not been much
interest shown in this project throughout the state. The staff thinks it is a good program.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what kind of restrictions will be placed on the use of this person. Mr.
Tucker said he has talked with Mr. Gordon Yager of U. S. Soil Conservation Service about this
position. The State has furnished some typical job descriptions and the staff has picked one
which fits the County's Engineer I range. The Conservation District has indicated that they
would like to use this person to go around to other localities to explain what Albemarle
County is doing.
Mr. Bowie said he understands the County's match can be in-kind staff time, so it may
not require cash. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve the request of the staff to
apply for a grant from the Soil and Water Conservation Commission re: the Chesapeake Bay
Initiatives Program. He said it is a shame there was so little response around the State.
We all contribute to the problem, so it seems appropriate to take this opportunity to deal
with the problem, especially s~nce it seems to be relatively painless.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion, and added that the Chesapeake Bay is a tremendous source
of food supply for this area, and if a good, pollution free source of seafood is to continue,
she feels we have to protect the Bay just as if we lived on the edges of same. Mr. Fisher
asked Mr. Tucker about the second paragraph of Mr. Elrod's letter in which he mentioned that
developers are having a hard time keeping up with the pace. He asked if this person is just
to take care of enforcement procedures. Mr. Tucker said yes. He also noted that the in-kind
match referred to is just for the demonstration projects, there will be 25 percent to be paid
out in cash.
Roll was called on the motion at this point, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 9. Lloyd Jones--Farmers Home Administration.
Mr. Fisher noted that the Board had received a report from staff last month concerning a
newspaper article about the status of Farmers Home Administration funds in Albemarle County.
Mr. Lloyd Jones, Chief of the Rural Housing Branch of FmHA, is present today to discuss the
situation.
Mr. Jones said Mr. Roie Godsey is in St. Louis today for another meeting. At the
present time, they do not know what the funding situation will be for the next fiscal year,
but feel it will be comparable with the present fiscal year. Concern has been expressed
about the situation in Albemarle. The local office of FmHA, at the present, is staffed with
one professional person, and two clerks. If it were possible to add additional personnel,
they would do so, but there is a staffing limitation in the State of Virginia; a limit which
they already exceed. There are other offices in the state which would have priority over the
Charlottesville office if additional personnel were available. The Charlottesville Office,
(based on resource management reports and caseloads) is not considered to hold a priority
staffing position. The local staff people have been working overtime, but are not paid for
this work; a situation which the State office does not like. The local office has loaned
$800,000 this fiscal year for all three counties it services. Of that amount, $167,000 was
loaned in Albemarle County, and it is not a lot of money when loans are between $38,000 and
$40,000 each. Along with other duties, the staff also handles farm loans.
Mr. Jones said that only about $40 million was loaned for FY'84 in the State even though
the State had an allocation of $64 million. The additional money goes back into a national
pool from which all 50 states can draw. This occurs in mid-July. The State of Virginia was
number seventeen in the nation, as far as loans made to low- and moderate-income persons.
Mr. Jones said the State Office is pleased with the tremendous reduction in delinquencies in
Virginia. With only 259 individuals employed in the State, this has been a tremendous
accomplishment in the two and one-half years since Mr. Godsey took over as the State direc-
tor. The delinquency rate has gone down from 36 percent to 14 percent.
Mr. Fisher asked if the amount mentioned for Albemarle County is only for four or five
loans. Mr. Larry Picot, Supervisor of the Charlottesville Office, said the $167,460 is for ~
about six new construction loans. The total dollar amount for loans made in Albemarle County
is $804,220. Mr. Fisher asked if that includes rehabilitations. Mr. Picot said that is for
new constructions, loans for transfers, and loans for repairs. Mr. Fisher asked how much
money could be loaned in Albemarle County if there were enough people to process the loans.
Mr. Pilot said there are about six inquiries per week for new construction loans. Between
1975 and 1979, when there were eight people working in this office, as many as 15 loans were
made each month. Mr. Picot said if he had one assistant, he could make about 10 new con-
struction loans per month.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker for comments. Mr. Tucker said he feels the problem with
staffing has been adequately explained. When the Planning Staff prepared the report, they
felt that some improvement in procedures could be made if there were a fact sheet to hand out
for the person applying for a new loan when no staff person is available to explain all of
the rules. Mr. Picot said there is a cover letter on each application form that explains
what needs to be done prior to the filing of an application. He has been considering holding
group meetings for applicants, contractors and realtors to go over the application package
and eligibility requirements. Mr. Tucker said that would be a good idea, and he suggested
that if there were an additional staff person, this be an outreach worker. Staff felt there
should be some clarification of policy issues, such as the amount which could be loaned for
October 10_qz_~_1984 (Re~ularDay Meeting)
467
rehabilitation work, the definition of "minor" and "dependent" and the loan amount based on
family size. '
Mrs. Cooke asked what criteria is used by the state office to determine staffing needs.
Mr. Jones said it is done from information fed! into a computer by the various office manag-
ers. Mr. Fisher said he would encourage Mr. Picot to report everything done at the local
office in order to get into a better position for staffing. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Gary
Olivera from the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program for comments.
Mr. Olivera said the issues were raised and addressed in the County's staff report of
August 24, 1984. He represents AHIP and the Albemarle County Housing Coalition. He would
like to echo and reiterate their concerns, all of which seem to go back to the understaffing
of the local FmHA office. There seems to be a substantial allocation for the area, including
Albemarle County, and it seems they are sending money back to the pool because of lack of
staff. Another concern is that the allocation for the locality is in some way based on prior
usage. Mr. Jones said that is taken into consideration, plus the delinquency rate for the
county office, the rural area density, population, and past history of the number of loans.
It is a complicated formula, but usually the Charlottesville office is not penalized for
delinquencies. Mr. Olivera said they do not want to send an erroneous message that the money
is being returned because it is not needed, when if there were more staff, the money could be
used. Mr. Jones said he understands the concern and no office wou:ld be penalized for not
using its funds, but the State office has had to shift priorities to servicing existing loans
rather than making new loans, and now priorities have shifted to working with farmers.
Mrs. Rellen Perry, Albemarle Housing Coalition, said they are concerned with increasing
the housing stock in Albemarle County. They are concerned about the homeless, and ill-housed
people in Albemarle County. She asked Mr. Olivera how long it has taken to process a loan
through Farmers Home. Mr. Olivera said that because of the priority given to bringing the
delinquency rate down, processing of new loan applications has been taking months and months.
With the comments made this morning that the push to get the delinquency rate down seems to
be over makes the Coalition optimistic that more time will be freed up to process new
construction loans.
Mrs. Perry asked Mr. Jones if he was aware that the delinquency rate was caused many
times by the fact that the houses were built without overseeing by Farmers Home, by
individual contractors who made poor energy arrangements in the house. Some of the people
paying on these Farmers Home loans were at the same time getting electric bills of fantastic
amounts. Mr. Jones said he is aware of that, and it has been a state-wide problem. The
houses referred to were built at a time when the emphasis was just the opposite. FmHA was
pushed to make loans at that time because it had been accused of impounding funds. That
caused a problem with having time to supervise construction. At the same time, there were
minimum property standards to guide these contractors. Minimum energy standards were also in
effect, but no one thought electric energy would double or triple in cost.
Mrs. Perry said there is a lot of physical energy in the Housing Coalition, and they
would like to know of anyway these people could directly help the local office of FmHA. This
group is organized to increase the housing stock for poor and low-income families in
Albemarle. There are 1458 substandard houses and there were 300 homeless families last year.
She said the Housing Coalition is directed to seeing that citizens of Albemarle County are
warm, safe and dry. Mr. Jones said it is possible the Coalition's program could work in
conjunction with the FmHA 504 program. Mrs. Perry said that new housing stock is essential.
Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. Jones for coming today to address the Board, along with Mr.
Picot. He said there is a concern and the County would like to see more people be able to
get construction loans. He is angry that more Virginians cannot use that money and it goes
back to be used in other states just because the loans cannot be processed. There probably
needs.to be an emphasis shifted from delinquencies to helping people get new loans.
Mr. Olivera said he has talked with Mr. Picot about getting representatives from various
social service agencies into a training program so they could help present a package for
housing loans. Mr. Olivera said he hopes some positive things will come from this meeting
today, and the one that Mr. Godsey had in August in Charlottesville.
Mr. Lindstrom said it is not the County's responsibility to process FmHA loans, and he
does not feel Mr. Picot would want that kind of confusion. If there is money available that
is not being utilized because of a staff shortage, maybe the County's own staff could be
trained to assist Albemarle County citizens with background information. Mr. Tucker said it
is possible some volunteers from the Housing Coalition might be able to help with outreach
work. Mr. Lindstrom asked that within a month, the Board be furnished with a report
suggesting ways to utilize the offer for a seminar and the use of volunteers.
Agenda Item No. 10.
Boards and Commissions.
1984.)
Public Hearing: Ordinance to Amend Equalization of Pay for Certain
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 25 and October 2,
Mr. Fisher said this ordinance amendment will add the Equalization Board and Soil
Erosion Advisory Board to the ordinance provisions, this amendment does not change the amount
any person is paid, but deletes the present section which limits that amount to no more than
$50 per month. The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak either for or
against this amendment, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie said that this ordinance prohibits members of this Board or the County staff
from being paid compensation as members of boards and commissions, however, under Section
15.4, he is not sure the section prohibits those same people from collecting necessary
traveling expenses for attending those meetings. Mr. Fisher asked what is normally done by
employees using personal cars. Mr. Tucker said these employees are reimbursed for mileage
expenses at the normal rate. Mr. Lindstrom said he has never requested reimbursement, but
sees no reason why a board member might not request a mileage reimbursement. Mr. Lindstrom
68
October 10_ 1984 (Re_ular..Da
then offered motion to amend and reenact Sections 15-2 through 15-4, Chapter 15, Article II,
Equalization of Pay of Certain Boards and Commissions of the Albemarle County Code, as
advertised, and as set out below:
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Sections 15-2 through 15-4, Chapter 15,
Article II, Equalization of Pay of
Certain Boards and Commissions
of the Albemarle County Code
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that Sections 15-2 through 15-4 of the Albemarle County Code be amended and
reenacted to read as follows:
Sec. 15-2. Enumerated. Each member of the following boards and
commissions duly appointed by the board of supervisors shall be paid twenty-
five dollars for each and every regularly scheduled meeting of the board or
commission actually attended, as set forth in the rules and regulations of
that board or commission. Board of Zoning Appeals; Monticello Area Community
Action Organization; Piedmont Virginia Community College Board of Directors;
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission; Land Use Tax Advisory Board;
Equalization Board; and Soil Erosion Advisory Board.
Sec. 15-3. Members excluded. Notwithstanding the provisions of
section 15-2, all county employees and members of the board of supervisors,
when serving as members of boards and commissions listed in such section,
shall serve without compensation. The member of the board of supervisors
who serves on the county welfare board shall serve without compensation.
Sec. 15-4. Travel and other expenses. Each member of the boards and
commissions listed in section 15-2 shall be paid his necessary traveling and
other expenses incurred in attendance upon regularly scheduled meetings and
while otherwise engaged in the discharge of his duties as such member.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie.
by the following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. St. John said he does not feel he can write any language that is clearer. This says
that the members of the boards and commissions are compensated, but the members of the Board
of Supervisors do not get paid, but all of these people can collect for out-of-pocket travel
expenses. Even though it may be possible to interpret this in a confusing way, unless the
Board wants to spell it out in much longer terms, it is capable of a rationale interpretation
the way it is worded, and he would leave the language alone. The Board members agreed.
Agenda Item No. 11. Stipend for Chairmen of the School Board and Planning Commission.
Mr. Fisher said it was proposed that the salary of the chairmen of these two commissions
be increased by $100 a month. It has been determined that Section 22.1-32(c) of the Code of
Virginia allows the governing body to supplement the salary of the chairman of the School
Board by a maximum of $500 per year. These is no such stipulation in the planning commission
legislation. Mr. Fisher said he felt the Board should proceed to do whatever is allowed by
law for the School Board and then try to get the law changed; he feels the compensation of
the whole School Board is too low. Mr. Way said he felt the Board should go ahead and
increase the salary of the Planning Commission chairman by $100 a month, and offered motion
to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby request the School Board of
Albemarle County to grant unto its Chairman an additional salary
of $500.00 per year as allowed by Virginia Code Section 22.1-32(C)
effective as of January 1, 1985.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 12. Quarterly Status Report: Police Department.
Chief Frank Johnstone was present to give the first quarterly report (July 1, 1984 and
September 30,1984) of the newly-formed Albemarle County Police Department:
By July 1, 1984 I had developed a number of short- and long-range goals to
establish a direction for the Albemarle County Police Department. The
following is a brief report on our progress toward achieving those goals and
a brief assessment of our relative strengths and weaknesses.
October 10_~_1984 (R_~ular Da~ Meeti~ )~.
Our short-range goals are concentrated in the following areas:
1. RECORD SYSTEM: The old record system had a number of inadequacies which
limited its utility for field operations, made accurate crime reporting
statistics difficult to accumulate and evaluate and did not contribute to a
sound management information system on which to evaluate present programs
and policies and prepare for future planning. Work has begun to restructure
the record system but we are presently behind.
2. PERSONNEL POLICIES: As of July 1 all police department employees are
now covered by the County's personnel policies. We have significantly
stepped up the recruitment for police officers and adopted an open recruit-
ment policy wherein position vacancies are advertised and applications
solicited. We are using a test developed by the Educational Testing Service
in Princeton, New Jersey, which has been validated both for content and
criteria for Albemarle County. All new recruits are given a comprehensive
medical examination when they get to the hiring stage. We had over 100
applicants for the four police positions which were approved for July 1 and
60 took the written exam. We invited 22 of that group to participate in an
oral interview board and, after sole initial background work was done, were
able to come up with a list of 10 individuals who were all highly qualified.
The first four appointments had over twenty years of Police and police-
related experience among them and all were residents or former residents of
the county. We also filled a recent resignation from that same list and
have been very satisfied with the caliber of applicants for the department.
We have adopted an open complaint review policy. Any complaint about an
officer of this department, the department or its operations and policies,
may be made to the Chief or another ranking member of the department. Once
received we have guaranteed that the complaint will be investigated and an
answer given, either orally or in writing, to the complainant. We feel that
this is an important step in strengthening community relations and will make
the department more accountable to the citizenry it serves.
An inherent weakness in the department is the lack of supervisory and
administrative skills possessed by a number of the officers who presently
have rank. These officers need training and additional experience in order
for the Department to operate at optimum capacity. This will be provided in
the immediate future and will continue as a long-range goal of the Depart-
ment. I will shortly be conducting a professional assessment center for our
existing and temporary supervisors. (I had to make three temporary supervi-
sory appointments in order to provide around-the-clock supervision for the
officers in the field.) Once relative strengths and weaknesses have been
assessed, intensive training and work will be provided in those areas.
3. PROCEDURAL MANUAL: Each officer has been issued a notebook with the
written procedures which have been developed to date, as well as other
training materials which the department is providing for roll call and
in-service training. However, we are somewhat behind the schedule which I
initially planned for the development, review and adoption of written
procedures. This should be completed well within the time frame allowed.
4. COMMUNICATIONS: Plans are well under way for the enhancement of the
present mobile radio communication system. Frequency and antenna coordi-
nates have been approved by the State and are presently being reviewed by
the FCC. A consultant's report is expected shortly and the system will go
out for bids in the very new future.
The new system will be a high band system, which will make us more com-
patible with the City and University police departments. It will also
provide an additional antenna site which would eliminate the "dead spots"
which we have experienced in three or four parts of the county. A
preliminary engineer's survey indicated that the repeater sites which we
have chosen should help us achieve our objective of 95% coverage of 95% of
the county 95% of the time. Most importantly, the new system will provide a
means of portable communications for the officer so that when s/he leaves
the vehicle they still have communications with Headquarters. This is a
very important feature for officer safety.
5. DRUG INVESTIGATIONS: In the past no one investigator was assigned
responsibility for coordinating drug intelligence and drug investigative
activity in the County. This resulted in a somewhat spotty approach to drug
control and investigations. As a result, drug investigations sometimes were
being given lower priority than other criminal investigations. I have
assigned an officer to be primarily responsible for drug investigations and
to coordinate all drug intelligence. That officer is working closely with
the City and State drug investigators which should help to improve our
efforts in the future. I have proposed to Chief Bowen that we formalize
this interagency cooperation by having our officers sworn-in in the other
jurisdiction to assure that they and their respective government bodies have
all of the protections that the legal system can afford them.
6. SPECIAL ACTIVITIES: I felt it imperative to broaden the scope of police
department activities, especially as we interact with the community at
large. Over the past few years, there has been a constant demand for
services from law enforcement agencies which was not being met. It has been
apparent for at least a decade now that law enforcement canno~ do "police
work" by itself. We need and depend upon a large volume of citizen inter-
action to provide us with the constant flow of information and help which
will ensure a police depar.tment that is more responsive to citizens' calls
for
4.70
Octob_ er __1%84 (Re ular Da Meetin
service. Our primary efforts in this area are concentrated in the following
programs.
Crime Prevention: The crime prevention program is a broad effort to meet a
number of specific community needs. There has been a great deal of interest
in neighborhood watch (or crime watch) programs. We have been invited to
assist in setting up five programs, and a number of other communities have
made future appointments. Neighborhood watch programs provide a way for
communities to organize their concerns about crime in their neighborhood and
interact with the police department so that we can get information quickly
to a community, as well as receive information in a timely fashion from
them.
Each of these communities also has other interests such as the child finger-
printing program, prevention programs dealing with child sexual exploitation
and abuse, "Operation Identification" type programs, home and business
security surveys, training for retail and other employees in crime preven-
tion programs, etc. For example, we will soon be conducting a training
program for retail employees at one of the County malls in an effort to make
them more familiar with the shoplifting laws. It has been our experience in
the past that often clerks and other employees are not fully aware of their
rights and responsibilities in dealing with shoplifters with the result that
shoplifting is often detected but not deterred.
School Resource Officer: I have one officer working as a school resource
officer in the two high schools and four middle schools. The program is
designed to provide additional resources to teachers so that they can enlist
the support of practitioners in their classes. The officer is also avail-
able for a few hours each week to just "rap" and counsel with interested
students. The program was very well received by school administrators,
teachers, principals and students. We have been trying to coordinate our
efforts with the TIPS Program to ensure that TIPS material provided to the
schools are utilized to their fullest.
Our enthusiasm and commitment to the program seems to be paying dividends.
In the 1983/84 school year the Sheriff's Department was contacted about
giving 23 school presentations for approximately 510 students. In the first
month of the SRO Program the officer has appeared in 25 classes meeting with
1215 students and, he is booked solid through the month of November.
Canine Corps.: Law enforcement is a labor-intensive activity. There are
numerous circumstances where many officers are required to perform certain
tasks in order to perform it efficiently. Our challenge as law enforcement
administrators is to provide opportunities to increase productivity without
adding additional manpower. One such program involves the use of trained
dogs to assist police in performing their tasks. We have a large number of
burglar alarms that terminate in the police department and frequently only
one or two officers can respond to an alarm situation. The use of trained
dogs to assist in securing and searching buildings, sniffing for drugs
(under appropriate legal sanctions) and bombs and locating or tracking
individuals, has been proved to be effective in the past.
We recently acquired three police dogs (two through donations and one
through purchase) which are currently undergoing a fourteen week training
program. Vehicles have been outfitted with canine cages and policies
developed for the appropriate use of canines in different circumstances.
We have also begun to retrain Glaser III as a tracker. He has already
proven his worth in the past but has not been used over the past two years.
He should complete his retraining and exercise program by winter.
Victim/Witness Program: This program has been operating full time since
July 1 and is proving to be a valuable asset for the police department, the
Commonwealth Attorney's office and the courts. There have already been a
number of instances where the coordinating efforts from this office have
contributed directly to the successful prosecution of felony cases and
resulted in strengthening the team approach in dealing with child abuse
cases.
Preliminary goals and objectives have been established and an evaluation
component designed which is presently being reviewed. An initial anonymous
sampling of victims indicates that the program is very well received and
highly thought of by the victims themselves.
911 Support: The process of supporting the transition to a 911 Center is
continuous and somewhat time consuming. The proposal has long had my active
and enthusiastic support and its implementation should result in better
service for the citizens of the total community. The planning for our
Department's transition to that new system is on schedule and we foresee no
difficulty in implementing the changeover.
7. STAFFING': It has long been acknowledged that the Sheriff's Department
was understaffed and this is true of the present Police Department. There
was not a great deal of lead time for me to prepare a comprehensive budget
last February. There was no reliable management information system in place
at the department and the records system was such that it did not contribute
to a meaningful, nor accurate, planning process. Also, I wanted a little
time to evaluate in detail our manpower needs.
October 10, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
For these above stated reasons, I did not ask for additional personnel in
the FY 84/85 budget, other than those four officers for which I had an
immediate program and/or need; crime prevention, juvenile, drug inves-
tigation and administration.
471
Ail of those positions have been filled except for the Commander II in
administration who would head the records and communications section. I
have advertised to fill this position twice. After the first series of
interviews I made offers to two individuals and we were $3,000 to $5,000
apart on salary demands. I advertised a second time and made an offer to a
qualified individual and we are still something less than $1,700 apart.
This particular position requires not only law enforcement background and
supervisory skills, but knowledge of mini or micro computers in order to
facilitate my long-range goal of automating our records system. While there
are any number of individuals who would doubtless take the position at the
advertised salary, none of them have the skills and experience which are
desperately needed to get this program under way. It would take a year or
better to train somebody to do what is needed in the records and communica-
tion area and it would be costly to acquire the computer skills which are
needed. If I am not able to fill this position fairly soon, I will fall
even further behind in implementing the Department's short-range goals and
that will seriously impact the long-range goals. This particular program is
tied into an overall objective of improving police officer productivity in
order to minimize the need for additional officers.
Long-range goals:
1. RECORDS/COMMUNICATION: Our ultimate objective is to automate the
records system to make it more responsive to the provision of information
for field operations, and to begin a management information system for
short- and long-range planning and evaluation. We are falling further
behind our goal because of our inability to fill the administrative com-
mander's position (above). Information and communication are the lifeblood
of any viable police organization, so I would not want to underestimate the
importance of failing to initiate this program in the very near future.
I have received notification of a grant award which will permit me to
purchase a micro processor to initiate a traffic management information
system, I have set aside funds for additional hardware and software to
develop a management information system, an automated records system, a case
management system for investigations, and crime and workload analysis, etc.
When tested and implemented, this would be a solid foundation for increased
productivity throughout our supervisory staff and field operations.
2. TRAINING: As noted earlier there is a dearth of administrative and
supervisory skills in the staff. Training has been planned to remedy the
immediate problem, but it will be one to two years before the skills can be
brought up to an acceptable level. The assessment center approach should
help me to identify various strengths and weaknesses and I will provide
other training and management opportunities to assist each staff officer to
achieve their potential.
While the majority of work done by the majority of officers is acceptable to
exceptional, there is an inconsistency in the Performance of the other
officers which I find unacceptable and am working to remedy. The primary
reason for this inconsistency is lack of continual training and close
supervision of officers and investigators in the field. We will have to
provide a great deal of training opportunities in order to correct this.
Some of the training can be done in-house by utilizing the various talents
within this department and in the general area. However, some of our needs
can only be met through outside training. I have developed long-range plans
to try to provide each officer with the needed basic skills to do the job
and the opportunities to grow and develop in a career path.
3. EQUIPMENT: Plans to standardize the vehicles and equipment for the
officers are proceeding on schedule. All of the patrol vehicles will
ultimately be white and the oars very clearly marked, both with reflective
striping and external lights, etc. In a department this size, high visi-
bility is an asset and we will concentrate on that. We have extensively
tested a number of emergency lights and a purchase will soon be made to
begin the process of standardization. Once this program is completed, the
expenditures for equipment should level off and, indeed, decrease over the
next two years. We will then only have to maintain that level of
standardized equipment.
4. STAFFING: It has become apparent from an analysis of our records for
the last three months that additional manpower is indeed needed and we
should probably have at least two additional people on each of the three
shifts. This would mean an addition of ten officers to the department.
This would permit us to put two additional officers out on patrol seven days
a week, twenty-four hours a day. I will try to prepare a much more detailed
analysis within the next three months regarding this matter. Subjectively,
I think that we have made great strides in improving our response to citi-
zens' calls for service and we have received a great number of compli-
ments on our visibility and responsiveness. However, there are still
questions and minor complaints about our response time in certain parts of
the county.
Ootober 10, 198~ (Re_ ~lar D_a.-. Me~~
We still estimate that approximately 70% of our calls are coming from an
area within two to three miles of the city of Charlottesville and this
requires the greatest concentration of our manpower.. We have made an effort
to equalize the workload in our patrol boundaries but this is not always
possible given the geographic and demographic layout of the county. Quite
frequently the officer assigned to the east end or west end of the county
gets pulled back to the heavily populated urban area around the city to
respond to calls which are being stacked in that area.
We have been forced to adopt a prioritized dispatch system in order to make
a timely response to emergency and serious calls. The dispatcher will try
to explain on a low priority call that an officer may not be available for
an hour or so and try to make an appointment for the officer to refer back
on the call. On some occasions we have taken low priority reports over the
telephone when this has been agreeable to the citizen. On other occasions,
on very low priority calls, we have made an appointment for the following
day for an officer or an investigator to follow up. It should be emphasized
that all emergency and serious calls receive an immediate response and that
the delayed responses are usually done with the agreement of the citizens.
It should also be emphasized that this is not the type of response which I
or most citizens would prefer to have, but they have generally been most
supportive in understanding our situation.
Conclusion: I have (attached) a functional table of organization to
desCribe the reorganization which has taken place to date. It should be
emphasized that the Services Division has some very specific responsibi-
lities which presently are not being carried out or only partially carried
out due to the position not yet being filled.
I have also attached a nine month's comparison of uniformed crime reports
(UCR). It suggests that there has been a .08% increase in reported crimes
over the comparable period for 1983. This may be due, in part, to a change
in the reporting system in an effort to conform to State and Federal crime
reporting guidelines.
This information suggests that the department investigates approximately 110
serious (part I felonies) crimes per month. To this must also be added the
number of investigations involving less serious (at least by reporting
guidelines if not for the citizen complainant) part II crimes per month.
Such crimes are; simple assault, forgery, fraud, vandalism, sex offenses
(other than rape) drug violations, domestic disturbances, driving under the
influence, drunk in public, etc. To this must also be added the investi-
gation of between 1100-1200 traffic accidents per year.
The above is an indication of the reportable work load for the officers but
it should be borne in mind that a large percentage of their time is spent in
order maintenance and service responsibilities. For example, a large per-
centage of the cases involving juveniles and domestic problems are mediated
and often do not result in any arrests or court action.
While there are still come occasional citizens complaints, the vast majority
of calls to this department have been very supportive of our efforts. We
received a great deal of support for our Crime Prevention, School Resource
Officer, Victim/Witness and Selective Enforcement Programs.
We will continue to build upon our strengths and work toward resolving the
minor problems cited above. However we must be patient; the process will
take at least one and a half to three years.
(Note: Mr. St. John left the meeting at 11:25 a.m.)
Mrs. Cooke said she had a letter from the Four Seasons Townhouse Association she would
like to share with Chief Johnstone. They feel there has been a big change in the attitude of
law enforcement personnel toward the citizens of the County and the concerns of those
citizens. The people in Four Seasons feel there has been an increase in frequency of
patrolling in that area, and commend the department on the neighborhood watch program, the
child watch program, child identification program, Halloween safety program, and crime
stoppers program.
Mr. Bowie said he was glad to hear about the training of volunteers to work with the
Victim-Witness Assistance Program, and also the cross-swearing of officers.
l?
O~tob~r ~0~--1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
473
Agenda Item No. 13. Appropriation: After School Enrichment Program.
(Note: Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting at 11:40 a.m.)
Mr. David Papenfuse, Assistant Superintendent, Finance and Administration, School
Division, was present. He noted that the School Board, on September 10, 1984, had voted to
unanimously request an additional appropriation of $95,420 for the self-sustaining
After-School Enrichment Program. This is to expand the program from the original proposal to
serve Yancey, Greer, and Stone-Robinson schools, and was done in response to community
requests. The expanded program is to serve Burley, Jouett, Brownsville and Hollymead. The
program is supported totally by revenues from parents who use the service for their children.
Mr. Way said he has heard favorable things about the program. Although he does not feel
this type of service is a function of the public school system or the local government, he
feels it is good that the program can be done. However,he would not be in favor of
subsidizing the~program from public funds. He feels the program must be self-supporting.
Mr. Bowie asked what would happen if a particular school did not generate the revenues
expected from its program. (Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting.) Mrs. Sarah Radkowsky,
Coordinator of the Program, said a careful comparison is made each month of expenditures and
revenues. The people who work at these centers are hired by a letter of agreement and
understand that there are not enough students to support the program, that they have no job.
Mrs. Radkowsky said the programs have been very successful. They started with five students
at Yancey, and there are now 33. Mrs. Radkowsky said she recently attended a State
Senate/House Subcommittee meeting on child care and explained the programs in Albemarle
County. She was asked how low-income family needs are taken care of. The highest tuition
charged for this program is $17.50 a week for the programs that are open three and one-half
hours per day. It is a very moderate amount to pay for an enrichment program, and a place
where the children have a safe, warm environment. Because there are no subsidizes, they do
not advertise that tuition might be reduced. These cases are decided case-by-case. Mr.
Papenfuse noted that this is an enrichment program, and not just day care. Mrs. Radkowsky
said they have recently received a VPI-SU Excellence in Education award for this program.
Mr. Fisher noted that he had received one rather testy letter from someone who runs a
private day care facility, and who wanted to know why the County is involved in this program.
He had turned the letter over to Mrs. Radkowsky for a reply. The Board can anticipate a
small amount of that type of reaction. Mrs. Radkowsky said the comments have tapered off.
Mr. Papenfuse said the program has not been marketed; the requests came from the parents of
the children.
At this point, Mr. Way offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $95,420 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
School Fund and coded as follows for expenses of the After-School Enrichment
Program.
1-2000-60171-100135
1-2000-60171-100141
1-2000-60171-100142
1-2000-60171-200100
1-2000-60171-200200
1-2000-60171-200500
1-2000-60171-200600
1-2000-60171-540200
1-2000-60171-541200
1-2000-60171-999999
Teachers
Paraprofessional
Custodians
FICA
VSRS
Health
Life Insurance
Food Service Expenses
Instructional Supplies
Contingency Funds
56,980.00
5,174.00
3,700.00
4,642.00
480.00
4,800.00
38.00
8,190.00
10,186.00
lr230.00
95,420.00
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues Section of the Education
budget be adjusted by adding the following codes:
2-2000-16000-161215
2-2000-16000-161216
2-2000-16000-161217
2-2000-16000-161218
Fees-Burley A/S Program $ 23,800.00
Fees-Jouett A/S Program 23,800.00
Fees-Brownsville A/S Program 23,800.00
Fees-Hollymead A/S Program 23,800.00
$ 95,420.00
FURTHER, this appropriation is effective this date.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
(Mr. Bowie left the meeting at 11:43 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 14. School Facilities Plan Steering Committee.
Mr. Tucker said the Committee has met and prepared a charge which reads:
1) Determine whether to use staff or consultant to prepare plan and develop
time frame in which plan is to be completed.
October 10, 1984 (Regular Da~
2)
3)
Develop instructions for the staff or a "Request for Proposal" (RFP) -
if decision is made to use a consultant - which will include the goals
and objectives as set by the committee.
Interview and select consultant - if decision is made to use a
consultant.
4) Review elements of plan as completed and provide direction to the
preparer.
5) Make recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and
School Board on a Preliminary School Facilities Plan by late February,
1985, if possible.
Mr. Tucker also noted that the following people have been recommended to serve on this
Committee: C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way for the Board of Supervisors; John E. Baker
and Charles R. Tolbert for the School Board; Norma J. Diehl and Richard F. Gould from the
Planning Commission, with David P. Bowerman of the Planning Commission acting as Chairman.
Mr. Fisher said it does not appear that the Committee is making a recommendation as to
whether or not to use a consultant for this study. Mr. Lindstrom said the committee felt it
was incumbent upon itself to respond to the request for a charge, and not to prejudice the
charge by such a recommendation. Mr. Fisher said that the words "Preliminary School Facili-
ties Plan" as noted in 95 are still not defined. That issue was discussed with the School
Board. Mr. Tucker said that is to draft an outline of what the plan is to do, and the
committee will be reviewing the scope of the plan, whether or not to use a consultant, and
what any recommendation coming from that plan will address. Mr. Lindstrom said the committee
is being very particular about the nature of the charge. (Mr. Bowie returned to the meeting
at 11:46 a.m.)
Mr. Fisher said it seems that a checkpoint to be included is that all three boards agree
on any RFP before it is issued. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that is the assumption of the
committee.
At this point, Mrs. Cooke offered motion to approve the charge to the Committee as set
out above, and to ratify the membership of the Committee. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Bowie, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None,
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion: Crozet Park Funding Request. Mr. Tucker noted receipt
of the following memorandum dated September 25, 1984 from Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney, Director
of Parks and Recreation:
On June 13th, 1984, Mr. Neil Snyder of the Crozet Park Board submitted the
following three requests to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors:
1. To provide $20,000 annually to the Park for use in operating and main-
taining the pool and in making needed repairs and improvements to the
buildings and grounds.
2. To consider improving the softball/baseball field at the Park.
3. To appoint one County representative to the Claudius Crozet Park Board
of Directors.
I have visited the Park with Mr. Snyder and have given these requests much
consideration. With regard to Mr. Snyder's major request for a $20,000
annual appropriation for use mainly in the operation and maintenance of the
pool, I would like to comment that while I would not want to see the opera-
tion of the pool cease, it is difficult to justify a recommendation for
County support of this facility at this time, due to its proximity to Mint
Springs Park and the lack of public swimming areas elsewhere in the County.
According to the Comprehensive Plan, the 1982 estimated population in the
Crozet growth area was 1950 with a maximum development potential of 13,027.
If the Crozet area grows toward this potential and the swimming needs in the
remainder of the County are met, there may come a time in the future when
the County should reconsider assisting in the operation of the pool.
If for whatever reason the Board of Supervisors decides to agree to this
request, I would recommend that the Board take some action that would give
the County direct control over how these funds are spent annually and some
assurance that the property and its facilities would always remain available
for public recreational use. This could be done by the County taking over
ownership of the property and then leasing it back to the Park Board to be
operated within guidelines set up by the County. An alternative would be
some sort of binding contract that would give the County ownership of the
property if at any time the Park Board would decide it no longer desired to
operate the property for public recreational use.
Because of the strategic location of the Park in the growth area of Crozet,
I am supportive of Mr. Snyder's remaining two requests. I would recommend
that the County help to improve the softball/baseball field for community
October 10, 19~4 (Regular Day Meeting).
475
use and that a member of the County Recreation staff be placed on the Park
Board of Directors. Furthermore, with proper assurance that the Park
grounds will remain available for public recreational use, I would recommend
that our Department assist in the future development and maintenance of the
Park grounds, excluding the swimming facility. Any requests for funding for
major improvements at the Park, including the softball field, would then be
channeled into the Capital Improvements Program and considered annually in
relation to other County priorities for Capital spending. Funding for the
mowing and trimming of the Park grounds would be included in our annual
operating budget.
By following these recommendations we can remove the annual financial burden
of the mowing and trimming of the Park grounds and also take responsibility
for the upgrading of the grounds as the future needs for the Crozet area
dictate. This will leave the Park Board free to focus more of its energies
and resources on the maintenance and operation of the swimming facility. As
the Crozet area continues to grow, the value of Crozet Park as a recreation
area will increase. I feel it would be wise for the County to take some
steps now to insure that this property will be available for public recrea-
tional use in the future.
(Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 11:55 a.m.) Mr. Fisher asked if there were any
specific improvements in mind for this fiscal year, or will Mr. Mullaney work with the Crozet
Park Board to put together a budget for the next fiscal year. Mr. Mullaney said the only
specific thing at this time is the upgrading of the softball field, and he thinks that would
be tied in with some other requests for the next Capital Improvement budget. Mr. Fisher said
he thought the problem the Park was having had to do with operation of the swimming pool, and
this does not address that problem at all. Mrs. Cain from the Park Board said the swimming
pool part of the facility can break even financially each year, although they have depended
on private contributions for any major repairs to the pool. The craft fair brings in enough
revenue to pay the interest and a substantial payment on the mortgage. The Park Board would
be grateful for any help in the other areas of the Park. Mrs. Cain said Mr. Mullaney's memo
has not been brought to the attention of the full Park Board at this time, but the Executive
Committee has met and are pleased with the recommendations.
Mr. Fisher said he understands Mr. Mullaney's thinking. If the taxpayers of the County
put money into those improvements, they should be guaranteed a right to use the improvements.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Park Board is in a position to make a long-term commitment. That
seems to be a potential problem in working out an agreement. Mr. Tucker said he discussed
this with Mr. St. John, and received the following letter dated October 2, 1984 on the
subject:
"This is in response to your inquiry as to whether the County can make
monetary contribution to Crozet Park.
You are referred to Code Sections 15.1-24 and 15.1-25. It appears to me
that under either of these sections, the County could make such appropria-
tions. I base this opinion on the assumption that all three of the entities
which own the park in an undivided interest, meet the definition of
'non-profit recreational associations' not controlled in whole or in part by
any church or sectarian society. I further assume that the park is operated
for this purpose, on a non-profit basis, and is open to the general public.
If that is true, then in my opinion these sections clearly allow such
appropriations by the County, and you will note that the latter section
provides that such appropriations can be used either for construction or
operating expenses.
It will be an administrative decision as to how the appropriations are
budgeted; either in the capital budget or operating budget and under which
category, in each."
Mr. Tucker said the simplest way to accomplish this request is by some agreement. This
property is owned by three entities. It will probably be difficult for all three to ever
agree to get rid of the land, but as the land adjacent to the park is developed, this land
will become more valuable for different uses. Another way to accomplish this request would
be to have something put into a deed.
Mrs. Cain said the Park is not owned by the three entities (Lions Club, Women's Club),
but they both have one member on the Board of Directors. In the event the Park is sold, the
proceeds will be divided to these three entities to then be funnelled back into the com-
munity. The Park has been in operation for 26 years, but no one can guarantee the Park will
remain in operation.
Mr. Way said it makes sense for private and public agencies to join together to be able
to provide services. He asked what type of facilities are available in the vicinity, since
there are three County schools very close to this location. Mrs. Cain said there are some
problems with the Little League Softball facility at Crozet School. Mrs. Snyder said one of
the soccer teams that practices at Henley Middle School has asked to use the grass and flat
area at the park. Mr. Way asked if approval of this request would put the County in the
position of subsidizing other private recreational facilities. Mrs. Cain said the Crozet
Park is not a private recreational facility, it is totally open to the public. No admission
fee is charged to the park, except for exclusive rights to a building or to the grounds.
Mr. Tucker said the staff sees this as ~n excellent site for a community park in future
years. Although there are some County schools in the area that furnish similar type
activities, this will be considered at the time requests are reviewed. Mrs. Cain said they
476
October 10, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
try to keep their fees as low as possible. They try only to break even on funds; they do not
try to make a profit. All work at the park is done on a volunteer basis.
Mr. Fisher said this recommendation is different from what Mr. Snyder asked for, but as
long as the Park Board realizes that there will be no commitment to an annual appropriation,
but only a consideration of capital needs, he is willing to try this to see whether something
can be worked out. Mr. Way asked if a County person will be on the Park Board. Mr. Mullaney
said there will be someone from the recreation staff on that Board. Mr. Bowie said he would
have no objection to having the Crozet Park Board come in each year with requests that would
weighted against other projects.
Mr. Fisher asked what type of response is needed from the Board. Mr. Tucker said
authorization to enter into an agreement that the Park will be open to the public, since the
recommendation from Mr. Snyder has basically changed.
Mr. Way then offered motion to approve recommendations 2 & 3 and other items as outlined
at this meeting today, to-wit:
1. To consider improving the softball/baseball field at the Park. Costs
for this project to be channelled through the Capital Improvements
Program and considered annually in relation to other County priorities
for these funds.
2. That a member of the Parks & Recreation staff become a County represen-
tative to the Claudius Crozet Park Board of Directors.
3. The Parks & Recreation staff be allowed to mow and trim Park grounds.
4. Future development of non-swimming related facilities also be chan-
nelled through the Capital Improvements Program as in No. 1. above.
5. The County enter into some agreement with the Parks Board to guarantee
that this facility will remain open to the general public as long as it
is in operation.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 16. Report: Scope of Study for City/County Athletic Needs.
Mr. Fisher said this item was included on last week's consent agenda. He felt the Board
should discuss this since he feels Part I is quite adequate, but in Part II, it does not seem
to be set out in such a way as to guarantee that the Board will be looking at various alter-
natives and evaluating more than one alternative. He noted that he had asked the staff to
redraft the Scope of Study and brought the Board's attention to the following:
II.
SCOPE OF STUDY FOR CITY/COUNTY ATHLETIC NEEDS
IMMEDIATE SOFTBALL NEEDS - 1985 SEASON
A. Inventory of Fields Available
1. City
2. County
3. University
B. Fields Currently Used
1. Impact of field usage on surrounding environs/neighborhoods
2. Condition of fields
C. Adding New Fields into the Program
1. Selection of new fields and their impact on surrounding area
2. Improvements needed
3. Cost of improvements
D. Program Considerations
1. Maintenance
2. Supervision
3. Scheduling
a. Games
b. Umpires
4.Concession management
5.Games ball results
E. Assess Impact of Tournaments on Local Program
F. Recommendations
LONG RANGE ATHLETIC NEEDS
A. Population Projections
B. Athletic Needs Projections
C. Assess Alternatives for Meeting Athletic Needs
1. Do nothing
2. Upgrading existing fields
3. Centrally located athletic complex
4. Series of smaller complexes
October 10, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
D. Analysis of Alternatives
1. Land acquisition costs (if any)
2. Site development costs
3. Operation and maintenance costs
E. Funding Sources
1. Local
2. State
3. Federal
F. Recommendations
Mr. Bowie requested that the Board be kept apprised of events as they transpire during
the study. He then offered motion to accept the Scope of the Study as set out above, and
included in the mo~ion that the study should not proceed with the thought in mind that this
matter may be handled all on one site. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None. '
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. Resolution: Deputy County Executive Positions.
Mr. Tucker said a resolution has been prepared (wording is set out below) for the
Board's consideration due to questions raised regarding the authority for Ray B. Jones and
himself to participate on various boards and commissions during Mr. Agnor's (County Execu-
tive) absence. While the Board is aware of the divisional responsibilities, the resolution
is written in such a fashion as to give either deputy county executive the authority to
participate and vote for Mr. Agnor at any board or commission to which Mr. Agnor has been
appointed. Another reason for adoption of this resolution is that Mr. Jones will be out of
town for two to three weeks during the month of October.
WHEREAS, action was taken on November 16, 1983, to reorganize the
County Executive's Office by creating two Deputy County Executive positions
to be responsible for two divisions, these being the Administration and
Public Safety Division and the Human and Physical Development Division; and
WHEREAS, the job description of the Deputy County Executive positions
state that they shall serve as acting County Executive in the absence of the
County Executive; and
WHEREAS, question has been raised as to the authority of the Deputy
County Executives to serve on various boards and commissions in the absence
of the County Executive;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Deputy County Executives are hereby
designated Acting County Executive during the absence of the County Execu-
tive and each having full authority to act as County Executive; and all acts
heretofore performed by either Deputy County Executive from November 16
1983, to the present are hereby ratified. '
Mr. Fisher said if there should be disagreement as to who acts on a certain matter, this
ion does not resolve that question. Mr. Tucker said he should have attached a copy of
a memorandum written by Mr. Agnor immediately after the appointments were made specifying
that if there is any question concerning an area or a question concerning something that is
not specifically assigned to one of the divisions, that Mr. Jones is to make those decisions,
or act on those requests. Mr. St. John said he does not think that should be written in this
resolution, or each board would have to look at that to be sure the person sitting on that
board had that authority.
Mr. Bowie said the memo and the resolution all address boards and commission, but the
"Therefore" section mentions a blanket authority for each to act as county executive, even
though both may be in the building. Mr. Tucker said this was written in this manner because
Mr. Jones will be away for the next three weeks. Mr. St. John said it is a valid question,
but the more that is included in the resolution, the cloudier it will be. This language will
solve a problem, and the fact that there is a duplication of command poses no particular
problem and no danger that both will attempt to act in conflicting directions.
Mr. Bowie said that in any well run business, you don't have two people in charge.
There are two different problems here. He felt the Board should pass a resolution to take
care of the problem with boards and commissions, but the Board needs to spell out who is
actually in charge. He suggested that the last paragraph be reworded to read: "THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED that in the absence of the County Executive, either Deputy County Executive
act in his behalf with full authority on any board or commission to which the County
Executive is appointed."
Mr. Bowie then moved to adopt the resolution reading as follows:
WHEREAS, action was taken on November 16, 1983, to reorganize the
County Executive's Office by creating two Deputy County Executive positions
to be responsible for two divisions, these being the Administration and
Public Safety Division and the Human and Physical Development Division; and
478
October 10 1984 (Regular Da- Meetin: ) ~
WHEREAS, the job description of the Deputy County Executive positions
state that they shall serve as acting County Executive in the absence of the
County Executive; and
WHEREAS, question has been raised as to the authority of the Deputy
County Executives to serve on various boards and commissions in the absence
of the County Executive;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in the absence of the County Executive,
either Deputy County Executive may act in his behalf with full authority on
any board or commission to which the County Executive is appointed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 18. Resolution and Agreement to Dissolve Charlottesville/Albemarle
Airport Board.
Mr. Tucker said the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Authority Board formed last week,
and now requests that the two localities sign an agreement to dissolve the Charlottesville/
Albemarle Airport Board. The Airport Authority has taken the necessary action to execute the
airport license transfer application and has assumed all Airport Board obligations contained
in the FAA grant agreements. (A sample resolution and agreement were presented for Board
review; copies on file in the Clerk's office.) Mr. Fisher said it is no secret that he does
not feel this is a good idea. He is not talking about the merits, but the procedure used so
far has astonished him. At the last discussion between the Board and City Council, it was
his understanding from Mrs. Sheila Haughey that the Board would be presented with the
legislation and have an opportunity to either adopt it or not adopt it, to approve the
actions that came out of the General Assembly. He has never seen a copy of the legislation
so does not know what the authority has been empowered to do. The public was not allowed to
have any comment on this change at all, and yet a special purpose government that essentially
can never be changed is being established, and he finds the procedure "weird".
Mr. Lindstrom said if a copy of the legislation was supposed to be sent to the Board for
review, the Board should get that copy now, but he does not remember any discussion about
having a public hearing, or how that would be handled. He felt the Board acted to create the
authority and to hold a public forum at this time would be an empty exercise. Mr. Fisher
said he did not know that the Board's action was to authorize the creation of an authority,
only to authorize the request for special legislation. Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with
that statement. Mr. Fisher said he did not think the Board ever acted on the question of
creating the authority. Mr. Tucker said he did not realize it was the intent of the Board to
review that legislation, and actually enact the legislation prior to an authority being
formed. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board be furnished with a copy of the minutes of
the meeting where this subject was last discussed with City Council. Mr. St. John said he
recalls the legislation was to be similar to that of a housing authority. State Code says
that an authority is "hereby created", but the Board has not appointed any members, so the
Authority cannot do any business until the membership is appointed. Mr. St. John said that
very point was discussed by the Board, it was not to be just enabling legislation, but was to
be created by state legislation. The answer the Board finally settled on for the County's
protection was that the Board would make the appointments to the Airport Authority, and it
could do no business until those appointments were made. Mr. Fisher said he remembers that
point being discussed, but he also remembers the Board asking Mrs. Haughey to add a clause
giving the Board the right to adopt that legislation. Mr. Fisher asked for a copy of those
minutes. Mr. Bowie said his concern was about the power of eminent domain, and he has not
seen the legislation. Mr. Fisher asked that this discussion be deferred until the afternoon
session.
At 12:35 p.m., the Board recessed for lunch. The Board reconvened into session at
1:25 p.m. and skipped agenda items 19 and 20 temporarily.
Agenda Item No. 21.
Service Area.
Request to be Included in Albemarle County Service Authority Water
This matter was brought to the Board by a petition dated September 27, 1984, and signed
by Duey Ann Gibson, Carl L. & Edna Vernell GibsOn, Douglass F. & Olive S. Gibson, James H.
McVay and Drew Boles requesting that certain lots off of Georgetown Road be allowed to hook
to the Albemarle County Service Authority water system.
Mr. James R. Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development, presented the
following staff report on the request:
"Several property owners have filed a petition requesting to amend the
project areas map of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include water
service to Parcels 09-6A, 09-6B, 09-6C, 09-5, 09-6 and 09-7, Tax Map 60A.
The properties in question are currently zoned RA, Rural Areas, and are
located within the South Fork R±vanna River watershed. Lot sizes are:
October 10, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Lot Acreage
09 - 6A 0.25
09 - 6B 0.27
09 - 6C 0.33
09 - 5 1.433
09 - 6 0.40
09 - 7 0.50
Ail lots, with the exception of Lot 09-6, which is vacant, are currently
developed for residential purposes and utilize wells for water supply. Lot
09-6B does not have a well, but uses the well located on the adjacent lot.
Staff recommends the amendment of the Service Authority's water service
boundaries to include the six lots within the 'Water to Existing Structures'
service area."
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the owners are currently having problems with their wells. Mr.
Tucker said he understands that there are several houses on one well. Mr. Donnelly said
there are two houses on the one well. In the absence of the applicants, Mr. Lindstrom said
he would offer motion to set a public hearing for November 14, 1984, to amend the project
areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority water only service areas to include the
requested lots. He would like to have comments from the applicants. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Way and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 22. SP-84-37. Warren Andrews (deferred from October 3, 1984).
Mr. Fisher said at the meeting last week, Mr. Donnelly had presented the staff report,
plus some amended conditions. The Board did not have a copy at the time, but has been
furnished with the following letter since that time:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
James R. Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development
October 5, 1984
SP-84-37 Warren E. Andrews
Outlined below are suggested amendments to the Conditions of Approval
regarding SP-84-37. The amendments are the result of further information
received from the Watershed Management Official and the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation.
1. Both temporary and permanent erosion control and runoff control measures
shall be in place prior to additional earth-disturbing activities in the
site;
2. Temporary erosion and runoff control measures shall be maintained until
it is determined by field inspection that the disturbed areas are stabilized
and the golf course is established;
3. Only a low volume pump be allowed for use in Ivy Creek to withdraw water
from the stream to the holding pond. The lines shall be properly placed and
screened to minimize disturbance to the stream and to aquatic life;
4. State Water Control Board Regulation Number 11 requiring the reporting
of water withdrawal rates shall be adhered to. (The accuracy of the meter-
ing system should be verified on a regular basis);
5. A report of monthly water withdrawals shall be supplied to the County
for computation and confirmation of accurate usage figures for this type of
use;
6. The present and future owners and/or operators of the site shall comply
with the Water Shortage Contingency Plan for the City of Charlottesville and
the County of Albemarle as indicated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority;
Under Plan A - Voluntary Conservation which goes into effect when the
total raw water storage figures drops to 70% of the maximum usable raw
water storage capacity that the present and future owners and/or
operators of the site would be requested to voluntarily minimize their
water use from Ivy Creek.
Under Plan B - Mandatory Conservation (raw water storage drops to 60%)
the present and future owners and/or operators of the site w~-ag~ee
ee shall stop withdrawal of water from Ivy Creek.
%The-ene-exeepe~o~-~e-~h~s-~ega~ae~e~-ee~_Be_ehae_~_ehe_Soueh_pe~k
R~va~a-Rese~e~-we~e-s~-f~-a~-~?e~f~w~_~ha~_~es~e~s
u~e~-P~a~-B-w~u~-~-app~y+7--N~rma~-waee~-usa~e_e~_~e~me_~p~
~he-eanee~a~n-~-~he-Wa~e~-Sh~a~e-S~e~a~eaey_p~a~?__%Th~s_w~
eee~r-whea-raw-wa~e~-seerage-~eve~s-ree~rae~_ee_88%_e~_ehe_ma~m~m
48O
October 10, 1984~1ar Da_y_Meetin__g~)
7. C~unty Engineer approval of two permanent bridges, one of which can
accommodate farm equipment to alleviate the need to use the bridge on Route
637. (In accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of
Zoning Ordinance).
8. County Engia~er and Watershed Official approval of pumping system
including the specific location and size of pump in Ivy Creek, and the use
of a ~po~d as an intermediate step in the pumping system.
9. Approval of appropriate local, State and Federal agencies.
10. No more than 10% of stream flow or 90,000 gallons, whichever is less,
to be pumped from the stream during any 24 hour period.
11. No tree removal alonq Ivy Creek.
12. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
entrance(s) to golf course.
13. Restriction to use of fertilizers with an elemental phosphorous source
in order to provide water supply protection.
14. Compounds containing mercury shall be prohibited from use in the water
supply watershed areas.
Mr. Lindstrom said there are no provisions in these conditions for any testing of
quality of the runoff. Mr. William Norris, Watershed Management Official, said that is
correct. The Planning Commission was more concerned about the amount of water to be used
than they were about quality. Mr. Lindstrom said with the quantity of water to be withdrawn
for this facility, and the use to which it will be put, it might not be unreasonable to
sample the water leaving the site to see if the restriction on different kinds of fertilizers
and chemicals is being complied with. Mr. Norris said that is the reason Conditions 13 and
14 were added. An actual sampling station with an automatic sampler would need to be set up
or it would have to be done with "grab" samples and have a lab make the test. Mr. Lindstrom
said unless that were made a part of the conditions, the property owner could rightfully
object to someone coming on private property to do that kind of test. Mr. Norris said that
is correct.
Mr. Fisher reopened the public hearing at this time. Mr. Rick Richmond, Attorney for
Joseph E. Seagrams & Sons, was present. Mr. Richmond said this is the first time that he has
been able to appear before the Board to explain what has been done at Ivy Creek Farm, and he
showed slides to illustrate his speech. The reason for purchase of the property by Seagrams
was for farming activities, hopefully to grow grapes to be developed into ¥ine production.
The house itself was in run-down condition, so extensive renovations have been made both
internally and externally. A couple live in the house full-time, and the people who use the
bedrooms are people who come to Charlottesville for a few days during the week and stay in
the house. Most of these people are key executives for Seagrams. The golf course is
proposed simply as an ancillary facility to the house, to go along with the tennis courts and
swimming pool which are already in existence. The golf course is not intended to be open to
the public at-large, there will be no admission charge. Mr. Richmond said before the Board
today is a special use permit for construction of two bridges across Ivy Creek, and for a
permit for an irrigation pipe to lead from Ivy Creek to a pump house. Mr. Richmond said the
use was the subject of a law suit which he understands has now been withdrawn, so it is down
to just the water system for the irrigation. Mr. John Hutchinson has looked at what effect
this property would have on other landowners, on the Rivanna watershed, and the community at
large by using Ivy Creek. He then requested that Mr. Hutchinson speak.
Mr. Hutchinson said he can appreciate many of the concerns expressed about erosion
control. He then presented some slides for the Board's review. He said the establishment of
vineyards on this property was done and the soil was not completely broken up. Since the
property will be mostly in vineyards, it will be well-covered with grass at all times. There
is at this time a four-inch pipe going into Ivy Creek for the irrigation system which is
relatively small. The green areas will be the most intensively irrigated areas, as the
fairways are kept in the Scots fashion; rough and not manicured. During the dry periods of
the year, the only concern for the golf course is to maintain the green areas which are about
one-half the size of a residential lot in the rural areas. There are gravel paths for the
golf carts to use in the steeper areas. This will also eliminate erosion. The area in the
floodplain have established grass already. There is a 40 foot wide buffer swale between the
creek and the mowed areas. Any overland flow off the golf course will be filtered through
that swale, and literature on animal feed lots indicates that the swale will remove up to 85
percent of nutrients and larger sediment materials.
Mr. Hutchinson said that much of the problem with Ivy Creek actually pre-exists land
use; there is bank erosion and sluffing off of corners. To fix that would require another
special use permit. One of the issues is nutrient runoff going into the Reservoir itself.
The figures furnished to the Board on nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium being used are
fertilizer figures for establishment of the golf course. Once the golf course is established
(sometime within two'years), the amount of fertilizer will be cut back appreciably. This
will be done in the Spring. Any application in the Fall will have little or no effect on the
Reservoir because the water is too cold at that time at that time of the year.
Mr. Hutchinson said the next issue brought to light in the conditions presented to the
Board today (conditions which the applicant had not seen before today), concerns mercury.
This morning they made a quick review of catalogues showing turf management supplies and
could not find mercury listed. It is not a problem to this operation. There was also
concern expressed about groundwater and what effect irrigation would have on groundwater.
481
October 10. 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Streams are discharge points, and not places where water seeps back into the ground. Heavy
pumping of the stream, even to the point of pumping it dry, would have no effect on ground-
water. Irrigation of the golf course will help stabilize the flows in the streams. There is
no indication of how much water would return to the streams from groundwater flow, because
that is very difficult to model. The figures furnished to the Board on diversion overesti-
mate the effect on the stream, because there are four wells on the property which will
continue to discharge into the stream itself.
Mr. Hutchinson said there is an issue with the bridges. One bridge is larger than
originally anticipated because of problems with the State Highway Department. Also, one
bridge has to be big enough to carry golf course equipment. The second bridge is smaller,
wood constructed, and will allow golf car~s to go back and forth. It should pose no problem.
Mr. Hutchinson said many uses allowed by right would have a much more severe effect on the
environment. Many communities (Madison, Wisconsin; Woodlands, Texas) use golf courses as
recharge areas for their public water supply systems. For that reason, he has little.problem
recommending it. He has worked with the applicant, the turf manager, and others to be sure
that unexpected environmental problems do not crop up.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what other problems there might be with the environment. Mr.
Hutchinson said one of the biggest problems he sees is the fact that there are dead-falls in
the streams, and as water moves around these downed timbers, it is cutting away the banks.
There is some problem in determining the level of the stream so there is some accurate
feeling as to whether there is a low-flow situation. Mr. Fisher said 90,000 gallons of water
per day equates to the minimum needed for 125 houses. He asked if the amount can be less
than that. Mr. Hutchinson said the 90,000 gallon figure represents the pumping capacity for
the worst situation they could imagine. If the stream were running low, and a convection
storm moved down Ivy Creek, it would be nice during that peak flow to be able to pump fast to
fill the pond and then not do any pumping for three to five days. The greens will be watered
about twenty minutes per day. Water usage is highly variable depending on the weather.
There are two concerns about water quality. One is that there should be no loss of water
going into the Reservoir, and second, the protection of fish and aquatic life in Ivy Creek.
Mr. Hutchinson said he is not convinced there is any protection mechanism on either of those
concerns. Mr. Fisher asked if the irrigation system is designed only to irrigate this golf
course. Mr. Hutchinson said yes, there are no plans to water in the vineyard. Mr. Fisher
said he just wanted that statement to be a part of the record.
Mr. Hutchinson said he is concerned with what seems to be a tortuous route in the way of
getting to a regulatory process. He said a close look at Loudoun County and some other
counties who have gone through similar uses of this type might be appropriate. He is con-
cerned about surprises such as the additional two conditions being placed on the special use
permit.
Mr. Fisher asked if there is any justification for two bridges. The staff report
indicates that one would seem to be adequate. Mr. Hutchinson said he could not address the
issue of why the golf course architect designed two bridges.
Mr. Jerry Dixon, Architect, said the golf course is laid out so that the fairways and
greens lie parallel to the stream. Therefore, someone using the golf course would have to
retrace his steps on one complete side of the course in order to get to the other side. Mr.
Bowie asked if one of the bridges is for vehicular traffic, and the other for golf carts.
Mr. Dixon said one bridge will be designed to carry whatever farm equipment is necessary so
the equipment would not have to go around by state roads.
Mr. Richmond said Route 637 would have to be used if the larger of the bridges is
eliminated. That would create an extremely dangerous situation. There are two entrances to
the farm. One on Route 637 and the other on Bloomfield Road. Those roads are not particu-
larly safe. The applicants have worked with the Highway Department and cleared some sight
distances, even to removing, by permission of the adjacent landowner, some trees that did not
rest on the applicant's property. Traffic will not be increased by this facility. The
people coming to the facility will not be driving in, but will be brought in by van. Mr.
Richmond said he is alarmed by what the Highway Department might require.
Mr. Fisher said he can understand that concern. A statement was made earlier today that
no one will use the golf course except the residents of the existing house. He asked if that
is in fact a full and complete statement of use for the golf course. Mr. Richmond said he
did not think it is, and he did not mean to say that. The golf course has been constructed
primarily for the people who will be staying in the house. It will be restricted to employees
and guests of Seagrams. Mr. Fisher asked how many employees Seagrams has. Mr. Richmond said
he does not know, and the only statement he can make at this time is that there will be
between five and seven people who will stay in the house at any one time. No more than three
occasions a year, Seagrams has said they might have people come to Charlottesville and stay
in other locations who might come to that house and play golf. The house is small so will
not be used for meetings. Mr. Richmond said he cannot tell the Board that if Seagrams people
come to Charlottesville, that they will not be invited to use the golf course. The size of
the course is a limiting factor.
Mr. Fisher said this deals with how much traffic might be expected, and whether it would
be reasonable for the Board to say that the Highway Department should approve the entrances.
The number of people who will use the facility has been an issue all along. Saying it is
limited by the number of people who work for Seagrams and their guests is a very large
number. Mr. Richmond said that would be "the number of Seagrams employees who are in
Charlottesville at a given time". Mr. Richmond said for the Board's purposes it can be said
that there will be no more than ten people staying in the house at any one time. On two or
three occasions a year, there may be a larger group who would be using the property for a
temporary period of time.
With no one else present to speak about this application, the public hearing was closed
at 2:18 p.m. Mr. Lindstrom said his concern was with the procedure by which "this didn't
come before the Board". The golf course is still not before the Board. That issue has been
48z
October 10, 1984 (Re ular Da Meetin
determined elsewhere. His concern with the pump station and the two.~bridges has been ade-
quately addressed by ~he conditions recommended. His concern is how the County will deter-
mine whether or not the water being pumped out of the creek is being returned in various ways
with the contaminants that have been restricted in the last two conditions. Without some
method to monitor, there is not any reason to have the conditions. He would suggest that in
addition to the monitoring that has been proposed under condition 5, that it be provided that
the Watershed Management Official or his agent have the right to monitor on a monthly basis
or a more frequent basis. He thinks the Watershed Management Official should be able to deal
with the quality of water runoff from the vineyard and golf course to determine if the
limited substances are in fact being introduced into Ivy Creek, and if so, then the applicant
would immediately discontinue use of such substances as necessary to eliminate that problem.
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Lindstrom was suggesting that the last two conditions be dropped.
Mr. Lindstrom said no, he is suggesting an addition so the county can monitor the runoff.
Mr. Norris said if the monitoring is to be done on a continuous basis, something would have
to be set up in the stream to restrict the flow in order to have a monitoring point. The
best way to do the monitoring, other than working in the stream, is to do a grab sample
downstream from the site, and have those samples analyzed. Mr. Bowie said he would have no
objection to a grab test if that is what it takes to satisfy the public's interest. He could
not support requiring anything like a permanent monitoring station.
At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve SP-84-37 with the fourteen condi-
tions set out in the memorandum of James R. Donnelly dated October 5, 1984, and a fifteenth
condition reading: "On a monthly basis, the Watershed Management Official, or his designee,
shall monitor the runoff from the irrigated areas in order to determine whether the substances
prohibited by condition ~13 and condition ~14 are being introduced into Ivy Creek. If such
substances are found, then the applicant is to modify or eliminate use of such substances so
as to correct the problem." The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie.
Mrs. Cooke asked about the monitoring and asked if this is something the Board is going
to start doing for agricultural lands that are in the Rivanna River watershed. Mr. Lindstrom
said the point of his condition is to monitor the water that is being withdrawn from the
stream and being used for irrigation. The implicit question is why the Board is being so
particular about this application when all kinds of other things are going on in the water-
shed. It is not out of a lack of concern about the other things going on, but the practical
fact that the Board has no way of dealing with things that are not before the Board. Mr.
Lindstrom said he has no particular concern about this petition except for the amount of
water that is being withdrawn from a major tributary to the public water supply and reintro-
duced after it is run through land that will be treated in some fashion. If that water were
not being withdrawn, this issue would not be before the Board, so could not be addressed in
anyway. ~He wishes there were some way to deal with the consequences of agri-
cultural uses of a lot of the land in that area, because he feels that is where the major
problem with the reservoir lies, but he is not aware of anyway to do that.
Mr. Tucker said in regard to the lab work that will be required on the monitoring, is it
the Board's intent that the county bear the expense of that monitoring and lab work? Mr.
Norris has indicated that it will probably cost $60 each time for the testing. Mr. Fisher
said the condition does not require the applicant to do this monitoring. It will be up to
the County to decide how often it should be done. Mr. Bowie said he suspects that after the
monitoring is done for a year, it won't be required in the future and if the County is going
to make this requirement, it should be prepared to underwrite the cost. At this point, roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Both temporary and permanent erosion control and runoff control measures
shall be in place prior to additional earth disturbing activities in the
site;
2. Temporary erosion and runoff control measures shall be maintained until
it is determined by field inspection that the disturbed areas are stabilized
and the golf course is established;
3. Only a low volume pump be allowed for use in Ivy Creek to withdraw water
from the stream to the holding pond. The lines shall be properly placed and
screened to minimize disturbance to the stream and to aquatic life;
4. State Water Control Board Regulation Number 11 requiring the reporting
of water withdrawal rates shall be adhered to. (The accuracy of the meter-
ing system should be verified on a regular basis);
5. A report of monthly water withdrawals shall be supplied to the County
for computation and confirmation of accurate usage figures for this type of
use;
6. The present and future owners and/or operators of the site shall comply
with the Water Shortage Contingency Plan for the City of Charlottesville and
the County of Albemarle as indicated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority;
Under Plan A - Voluntary Conservation which goes into effect when the
total raw water storage figures drops to 70% of the maximum usable raw
water storage capacity that the present and future owners and/or
operators of the site would be requested to voluntarily minimize their
water use from Ivy Creek.
October 1_ _ 9x 1984 (Re_~ular Day Meeting)
483
Under Plan B - Mandatory Conservation (raw water storage drops to 60%)
the present and future owners and/or operators of the site shall stop
withdrawal of water from Ivy Creek;
7. County Engineer approval of two permanent bridges, one of which can
accommodate farm equipment to alleviate the need to use the bridge on Route
637. (In accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of
Zoning Ordinance);
8. County Engineer and Watershed Official approval of pumping system
including the specific location and size of pump in Ivy Creek, and the use
of a pond as an intermediate step in the pumping system;
9. Approval of appropriate local, State and Federal agencies;
10. No more than 10% of stream flow or 90,000 gallons, whichever is less,
to be pumped from the stream during any 24 hour period;
11. No tree removal along Ivy Creek;
12. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
entrance(s) to golf course;
13. Restriction to use of fertilizers with an elemental phosphorous source
in order to provide water supply protection;
14. Compounds containing mercury shall be prohibited from use in the water
supply watershed areas;
15. On a monthly basis, the Watershed Management Official, or his designee,
shall monitor the runoff from the irrigated areas in order to determine
whether the substances prohibited by condition ~13 and condition 014 are
being introduced into Ivy Creek. If such substances are found, then the
applicant is to modify or eliminate use of such substances so as to correct
the problem.
Agenda Item No. 23. Committee Report: McIntire School.
Mr. Bowie said that after two public'hearings, the last of which was in the fall of
1983, the Board of Supervisors requested staff to have the McIntire Building appraised by an
independent appraiser and advertised for sale or lease. In early 1984, after all the County
occupants located at McIntire were moved into Phase II of the Lane Building, the building was
advertised for 90 days. The advertisement resulted in two bids on the building. The Build-
ing Committee was assigned the task of evaluating the building bids. After a thorough
review, the Committee found neither of the bids acceptable as they were offered.
One of the proposals was submitted by the Charlottesville Housing Foundation and in-
volved a long term (30 year) lease of the property. The Foundation's proposal called for the
continued subleasing of a portion of the main building to the YMCA with the remainder of the
building converted into apartments for elderly and moderate income occupants. The ballfield
was also to be developed into residential units.
There was concern on the part of the Building Committee that the Charlottesville Housing
Foundation's plan was subject to a housing loan for renovation of the building but not
inclusive of purchase of the property which was dependent upon a 30 year uncommitted sublease
to the YMCA.
The other proposal was submitted by the Virginia Discovery Museum. It involved a
five-year lease at $1 per year with the County retaining responsibility for insuring and
maintaining the building and grounds. Thus, the County would receive no financial compensa-
tion during the lease but would incur significant costs.
Mr. Bowie said that since May, the Building Committee has met six times to discuss the
sale/lease of the McIntire Building. Most of these meetings were with the Charlottesville
Housing Foundation in attempts to negotiate some type of compensation either in the form of
lease payments or outright sale for their proposed use of the building. The Foundation could
not find a funding source .to cover the cost of the payments or direct sale. Therefore, no
definite commitment on that proposal was achieved.
The Committee has also met with the YMCA to see if that organization had any interest in
purchasing or leasing more space in the Mclntire Building. The YMCA has only expressed an
interest in continuing to lease its existing space in the building.
During the past month there have been requests from other agencies for use of space in
the McIntire Building. On an emergency basis, Head Start was moved into the Second Floor of
the building and Region Ten is using one room for storage while their building on Park Street
is being completed.
Mr. Bowie said an updated estimate of annual costs to operate the McIntire Building
has been prepared for the Board's review. Distributing these costs into the total available
rental space (assuming an 85 percent occupancy rate) the rent would be $3 per square foot.
This fee would only cover operating costs plus a management fee to offset County staff costs.
Based on this information, the Building Committee recommends the following actions be
taken regarding the McIntire Building:
1)
The County officially notify the original bidders that their proposals
for use of the building have been rejected.
48'
October 10z 1984 (Re_~ula~~tinq~
2)
3)
The County staff be allowed to negotiate three to five year leases on
the building to interested organizations.
The County staff prepare cost estimates for the replacement of several
hundred feet of steam pipe and a heating system valve in the building.
MCINTIRE SCHOOL BUILDING
ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Utilities
Custodial
Lawn Work
Miscellaneous Supplies
Insurance (Estimated)
Management Fee
Total (Annually)
40,000
15,000
600
4,000
59,600
800
$ 60,400
6~000
$ 66,400
Mr. Bowie said a list of potential occupants includes: the Y.M.C.A., Offender Aid &
Restoration (OAR), Head Start, Junior Achievement, Region Ten Community Services, the Virgin-
ia Discovery Museum, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission, the Food Bank,
and Corelli Studios.
Mr. Bowie said that recently it has been learned that Sovran Bank may be willing to loan
money to the Charlottesville Housing Foundation, and late yesterday afternoon he learned,
that they may be able to obtain some private funding to go in a partnership arrangement. Mr.
Bowie said the committee would like to change recommendation 91, that is to notify the
Virginia Discovery Museum that their bid has been rejected, and that negotiations be contin-
ued with CHF until they come up with some firm proposal. The Committee does not feel the
County should continue to pay costs at McIntire School, so suggests that space be rented on a
"no cost to the County" basis.
Mr. Fisher said if the County signs leases for three to five years, unless there is an
escape clause, the County's hands will be tied. If the County has been asked the price of
the building, a price should be established, and the building offered for that price if the
building is not needed. Mr. Bowie said there would be an escape clause in any rental agree-
ment. The closest estimate the Committee has is 120 to 150 days to close down the building,
and that does not include any rezoning case with the City.
Mr. Fisher asked how much it will cost to fix the mechanical system. Mr. Bowie said he
does not have a firm figure on that repair at this time. There is no choice. If the build-
ing is to be rented, it must be heated.
Mr. Fisher thanked the Committee for its hard work on this question. He feels the
building should be sold to Charlottesville Housing Foundation for a housing program and he
encourages the Committee to continue working in that direction. Mr. Fisher asked if a policy
has been determined as to the pricing of the building. Mr. Bowie said the Committee has come
up with a method of pricing the building, and now has one appraisal which the Committee has
not yet discussed. Mrs. Cooke asked if there is anybody in the building at this time. Mr.
Bowie said there are several tenants at this time. Mrs. Cooke asked how much more room is
available. Mr. Bowie said the entire second floor is vacant. Mrs. Cooke asked if much
additional activity can be generated and there still be adequate parking. Mr. Bowie said
that ingress and egress is a problem, and that causes a problem in trying to sell the build-
ing. Mr. Lindstrom said someone had contacted him yesterday about the Junior Achievement
program. He asked that some member of Staff follow up on the request.
At this point, Mr. Bowie offered motion to accept the report of the committee as amend-
ed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 24. Work Session: Proposed Changes in Personnel Policies and Merit
Evaluation Procedure - General Government Employees. Mr. Fisher said this came to the Board
last month, but there was not time to discuss the question which is fairly complicated. He
had suggested this work session. He then turned the meeting over to Dr. Carole Hastings,
Director of Personnel.
Dr. Hastings said these revised policies and the evaluation procedure are the result of
several months of work at the department head level, and with a committee composed of depart-
ment heads and classified employees. She said that a lot of work has been done over the past
year on School Board policies and procedures, and a new handbook of these was finally pub-
lished. She said that Mr. Agnor had suggested that whenever possible the policies for the
School Board employees and the General Government employees should have commonality. She
then suggested that the Board discuss the wording for "Vacation Leave" as set out below:
VACATION LEAVE
Ail permanent employees of the County shall be granted vacation leave by the
County as follows:
A. One day per month for each month employed during the first five
years of continuous employment.
48[
October 10_~ 1984R__~/_~ar Da~ Meetinq/)
B. One and one-quarter days for each month employed during the sixth
through the tenth years of continuous employment.
C. One and one-half days for each month employed during the eleventh
and succeeding years of continuous employment.
The maximum accumulation for annual leave is 36 days.
Accumulated paid vacation will be paid to the employee upon termination of
employment.
Employees are required to arrange use of paid vacation in advance with their
department head or designee. In case of a conflict because of the work
schedule in a particular department, leave will be granted on a first-come,
first-served basis at the discretion of the department head or designee.
For employees hired prior to 1978, having leave over and above the Board-
approved maximum of 36 days, two records will be maintained.
For accumulated leave over 36 days, the employee will have until
June 30, 1989 to utilize such leave. This utilization must be
accomplished at the rate of 1/5 of the excess balance per year and
can be either:
(1) Taken as vacation time, or
(2) Paid on the 1984-85 daily rate.
In order to receive payment, the employee shall notify the Direc-
tor of Personnel by December 1 of the year preceding the budget
year in which the payment is due.
For accumulated leave up to the 36-day maximum, the employee may
use such leave and accumulate up to the 36-day maximum without
loss of days.
Dr. Hastings said the difference in this new policy is that the limit on accrual of
vacation leave has been changed. In the past, the amount of accrual was based on the number
of years of service. That has been changed to allow for a maximum 36-day limit. This will
be much easier to administer, particularly now that leave is being show on paychecks run on
the computer. Also, at the present time, an employee can actually accumulate more than the
stated maximum through December 31 and then the record is cleaned. This new system will keep
the record cleaned at the end of each month.
Dr. Hastings said another change is that several employees hired prior to 1978 when the
maximum was set on accumulation of vacation leave had quite a bit of leave accumulated at
that time. This new policy will give these people a chance to use that excess leave over a
five-year period, or be paid for the excess. Mr. Bowie asked if these people will still be
allowed to accumulate up to the 36-day maximum while taking off the excess. Dr. Hastings
said yes. Mr. Lindstrom asked if other people have the option of being compensated for
leave, or if they have to take the time off. Dr. Hastings said, except for this group of
individuals who have excess accumulated leave, the other employees do not have the option of
being paid. If this new policy is instituted, it will give plenty of time between now and
July 1, 1985 for people to use any excess days over 36.
Dr. Hastings then moved the discussion to the "Sick Leave Policy" as set out below:
SICK LEAVE
Ail personnel shall earn sick leave days at the rate of one day per month
(permanent full-time) of employment or major fraction thereof (permanent
part-time) with no maximum on accumulation.
Unused Sick Leave
Upon retirement, full-time employees who are eligible to retire under the
Virginia Supplemental Retirement System shall be paid ten dollars for each
day of accumulated sick leave up to a maximum of 90 days. For permanent
part-time personnel, the criteria for eligibility will be reaching at least
55 years of age and having at least five years of service in the County.
The surviving spouse or the estate of an employee who dies shall receive
payment for the former employee's accumulated days of sick leave at the same
per diem rate, within the 90 day limit.
Dr. Hastings said this policy has been revised to make it common with the School divi-
sion policy. It is proposed that when an employee retires, he/she be paid $10 a day for
accumulated sick leave up to a maximum of 90 days. It is felt that this would be a nice
bonus for people retiring. Mr. Fisher asked if this payment would be made only upon retire-
ment and not just for any termination reason. Dr. Hastings said that is correct. Mr. Fisher
asked what would happen if a person wanted to retire at age 35. Dr. Hastings said they would
not meet the criteria set out in the policy. Mr. Fisher asked why there should be a distinc-
tion between someone retiring, and someone leaving for another reason. Dr. Hastings said it
is basically proposed as a retirement bonus. There is no other incentive behind the idea.
Knowing that there would be payment for 90 days of leave is some incentive to accumulate at
least that number of days.
October ~0_ 198~ (Regular Da~
Mr. Fisher said he is familiar with a different type of policy. Any employee who stops
employment is reimbursed for one-quarter of the hours accumulated, at the employee's hourly
rate, up to a maximum of $2,000. That is an incentive for employees to come to work unless
really sick. Dr. Hastings said she has been looking at a similar program for the School
Division, and may include all employees, but will need to look at statistics to see what such
a program would cost.
Mr. Fisher said he did not like the proposal for a retirement bonus. Dr. Hastings said
the County Executive and his staff had requested that policies be combined as much as possi-
ble, and this is a policy the Schools have had for a long time. Mr. Bowie said he has mixed
feelings about using this as a motivation to get people to come to work. He has seen people
come to work very sick trying to keep that sick leave balance, but he also is not in favor of
the policy as stated just because it is a nice thing to do.
Dr. Hastings then went on to explain the new policy on a "Sick Leave Bank":
Sick Leave Bank
The Board of Supervisors will maintain a sick leave bank to be used when a
member of the bank becomes incapacitated by long-term illness or injury as
long as one-third of the eligible members agree to participate in accordance
with the terms contained herein.
Membership in the sick leave bank shall be voluntary and open to all eligi-
ble personnel who accrue sick leave.
Each employee of the Board who accumulates sick leave is eligible for
membership and may become a member by donating one day of sick leave upon
joining and one day thereafter whenever an assessment is required.
Requests for leave time from the bank must be made in writing by the employ-
ee or his/her representative in advance of the absence for which the extra
days are to be granted. Requests cannot be made retroactively.
Requests must be supported by a medical doctor's certificate.
The Director of Personnel is designated as the administrator of the sick
leave bank.
A. Enrollment Procedures
An eligible employee may enroll within the first thirty (30) days
of employment. An employee who does not enroll when first eligi-
ble may do so between any subsequent September 1 to October 15
period by making application and providing satisfactory evidence
of good health to the Board. Enrollment the first year the bank
is in existence will be for any eligible employee who fills out
the appropriate form and submits this form to the Board within the
initial enrollment period. Membership in the bank may be earned
by contributing one day of sick leave upon joining and one day
thereafter whenever an assessment is required. The donated days
of leave will be deducted from the donor's accumulated days of
sick leave.
B. Rules for Use
The first twenty consecutive contract days of illness, or
disability will not be covered by the bank, but must be
covered by the unit member's own accumulated leave or leave
without pay. This requirement may be met in cases in which
twenty days of absence, although not consecutive for the same
illness/injury, occur within thirty working days.
Requests for use of the sick leave bank must be made in
writing by the employee or designee prior to the absence for
which the leave days are to be used.
A maximum of forty-five working days each year can be drawn
by any one member.
Days drawn from the bank for any one period of eligibility
must be consecutive, except additional periods of disability
resulting from recurrence or relapse of the original illness,
which will be covered fully on a continuing basis up to the
annual maximum of forty-five days. Otherwise, members must
return to work and must meet the requirements of Item B.1
before becoming eligible to utilize sick leave bank benefits
again.
A member of the bank will not be able to use sick leave bank
benefits until the employee's sick leave, annual leave and
compensatory time decline to zero.
Members of the bank will be assessed additional days of sick
leave at such time as the bank is depleted to two hundred
days, unless they choose not to participate further in the
bank. Members who have no sick leave to contribute at the
October 10, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
487
time of assessment will be assessed this day by October 1 of
the following year.
Members utilizing sick leave days from the bank will not have
to replace these days except as a regular contributing member
of the bank.
C. Termination
Upon termination of employment or membership in the sick leave bank, a
participating employee may not withdraw the days he/she has contributed
to the bank.
Dr. Hastings said this Sick Leave Bank will be open to all employees. It Will provide
for long-term disability without the additional expense of an outside insurance policy. If
the policy is adopted, every employee will be given the option to join. It provides that an
employee could begin to draw from the Sick Leave Bank on the twenty-first day of illness, and
be paid his regular salary while drawing an additional 45 days. Section B.5 stipulates that
the employee must first use all of his accumulated leave and compensatory time before drawing
from the Sick Leave Bank. Mr. Fisher asked what percentage of employees participate. Dr.
Hastings said that in the schools this policy has been available only to teachers and she
proposed that it be opened to all employees. About 90 percent of the employees participate.
Mr. Bowie said he has never heard this concept before, but feels it is a good policy.
He asked how the policy is administered. Dr. Hastings said she has an accounting system in
her office showing who is enrolled. Employees who choose not to join when it is first
offered will be allowed to join only during one enrollment period each year, and must present
a doctor's certificate proving good health.
Mr. Way said he agrees with the idea of bringing policies close in line with School
Board policies if possible. He said the teachers may be a different group because they do
not work the full year, but all other personnel should be operating under one system. Dr.
Hastings said that if there is a genuine interest in having joint policies, a formal request
will be needed from this Board. Mr. Way said he feels strongly that this should be the case.
Mr. Fisher agreed. Mr. Bowie asked if Dr. Hastings had a list of just the differences in
policies between the School and General Government. Dr. Hastings said she has done a lot of
work with the School Board during this last year on policies that are not now in effect. One
in particular is a recruitment policy. She has given a draft of that policy to the County
Executive's Office for review.
The next policy to be discussed was that on "Overtime":
OVERTIME POLICY
The authorization and control of all overtime work is the direct responsi-
bility of the department head. Overtime assignments are permitted only when
required by operational necessity, and without which the normal functioning
of the agency concerned would be adversely affected. Employees will normally
be compensated with compensatory time calculated at a time and a half rate for
overtime hours worked.
OVERTIME HOURS DEFINED
Overtime hours are defined as all those hours exceeding the average rate of 40
hours in one week over a fixed work schedule (i.e., seven days, 28 days, etc.)
established by the appointing authority, or on any day observed as a County
holiday.
COMPENSATORY TIME
Compensatory time is defined as leave time granted in lieu of compensation for
time worked over and above the regular work schedule. It is understood that
such additional time is worked at the direction of the department head or
designee. A record of all compensatory time must be kept by the department
head and department heads are responsible for arranging for the use of the
compensatory time by the employees. Compensatory time shall be taken within a
six month period and should be utilized before annual leave is granted. In
circumstances where it is impossible to arrange the use of compensatory time
within the six month period, department heads may request an extension for
additional time from their deputy county executive.
ELIGIBILITY
Compensatory time may be accumulated by all employees. In the case of depart-
ment heads, the accumulation and use of compensatory time must be arranged by
the deputy county executive in conjunction with the county executive.
OVERTIME PAY
Regularly scheduled overtime, funded in the annual budget, and required for the
operation of a department, may be compensated with pay in lieu of compensatory
time. Such pay will be calculated at a rate of one and one-half times the
hourly compensation of the employees involved. Employees separating from
County employment shall use all accumulated compensatory time prior to separa-
tion. Employees earning overtime pay under regularly scheduled overtime shall
be compensated for all accumulated overtime hours in their final pay check.
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE
October 10, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Child protective service workers serving on-call are entitled to compensation
as approved by the County Welfare Board; described as follows:
as
For all workers covering on-call responsibilities, one hour of
compensatory time will be given for each eight hour shift of stand-by
duty.
bt
When a worker is actually called out to provide direct door-to-
door service for more than two hours in any eight hour shift, s/he
will be compensated at one and one-half hours for each hour spent in
the field.
No worker shall receive both stand-by and door-to-door compensation
in any one eight hour shift.
Dr. Hastings said this is a clarification of the policy presently in effect. The'
current policy combined overtime and compensatory time in one paragraph. In most cases, this
is handled as compensatory time, but in some departments there is monetary payment. Also,
the present policy does not mention department heads at all.. It is now noted that arrange-
ments for taking compensatory time by a department head must be arranged with the deputy
county executive in charge of that department. It was also found that quite a few people had
a large amount of compensatory time accumulated. It will now be required that compensatory
time be used within six months. When a person leaves the employ of the County he is not paid
for compensatory time.
Mr. Bowie said some agencies he knows of require that compensatory time be used first.
Dr. Hastings said this policy says "should" because it is possible that some employees would
be getting close to the 36 maximum accumulation on annual leave, and might wish to use that
first. Mr. Fisher asked if department heads are eligible to receive overtime pay. Dr.
Hastings said no, but do in some circumstances receive compensatory time, but not on an
hour-for-hour basis.
Next came a discussion of the policy on "Classified Employee Reduction in Force
Procedure":
CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEE REDUCTION IN FORCE PROCEDURE
1. The Director of Personnel will notify the employee(s) being affected as
soon as a potential reduction is known.
2. The affected employee(s) will be notified of the potential reduction in
writing and will be given the opportunity to discuss the reduction with the
Director of Personnel and Department Head. Such notification will take
place prior to April 15 of a given year whenever possible.
3. The Director of Personnel will make every effort to place an affected
employee in a vacant position for which he is qualified.
4. In any reduction as hereinabove described, the performance, level of
training and experience of the personnel involved compared to other members
of the same position will be considered. The following process will be
utilized:
Initially, a list will be developed by the Director of Personnel according
to the following:
The list will be developed from the most senior down to the least
senior employee within certain classes. Seniority for this
purpose will be defined according to length of continuous service
as an employee in that class in Albemarle County. The list will
be further refined to group employees according to their respec-
tive positions: Secretary, Custodian, Police Officer, etc.
Be
Once the seniority list for each of the respective groups has been
developed, then the evaluations for the past three years will be
reviewed by the County Executive and rank ordered. In the event
that unsatisfactory evaluations or disciplinary actions have
occurred, the County Executive may consider this in making the
decision on who will be affected by the lay off.
5. Displaced employees who have more seniority will be eligible to assume
positions within the same or lower pay classifications provided they hold
appropriate qualifications or have had previous successful experience in the
particular position.
In the event that two employees with the same hiring date, qualifications
and performance record are being considered for a reduction, the County
Executive will apply the following criteria, not necessarily in this order,
to determine which staff to lay off:
B.
C.
D.
E.
Additional training
Written documentation of skills and abilities
Total experience in present position
Total experience in Albemarle County
Recommendations of administrative staff.
6. Recall
October 10, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
489
If an individual's employment is not renewed because of reduction in force,
that employee's name will be placed on a recall list for a period of two
years. If the position becomes available during that period, and the
employee is qualified to fill that position, the employee will be notified
in writing by registered mail, sent to his last known address, at least 30
days prior to the anticipated date of reemployment.
In order to be maintained on the list, the employee must notify the Director
of Personnel annually. This notice should be sent by registered mail and
received not later than March 1 of each year.
In determining whether an employee is qualified for reappointment, the
County Executive will apply in reverse order the same criteria he estab-
lished to determine layoff order. The employee will accept or reject the
appointment in writing within 14 days after receipt of the notification. If
the appointment is accepted, the employee will receive a written confirma-
tion within 20 days of receipt of the employee's reply by the County Execu-
tive. The reemployed individual shall receive a salary equal to his termi-
nation salary and the average percentage change in salary for County classi-
fied personnel not to exceed the maximum for the position accepted. If the
employee does not respond according to procedure within 14 days after
receipt of such notification, the name of employee will be removed from the
recall list.
Dr. Hastings said Mr. Agnor has asked her to develop such a policy. It is not expected
that it will be needed in the foreseeable future, but he felt there should be an operable
plan in effect.
Dr. Hastings said she has worked with a committee of fourteen people for the past
several months on a new evaluation procedure. This procedure has been developed to address
the following objectives:
To provide each employee with a better means of learning what he/she
is doing well and what part of his/her total performance needs
improvement.
To provide a time and means for systematic feedback to each employee
regarding his/her work contributions.
To improve the overall performance throughout the County work force by
every employee knowing and meeting his/her responsibility to the
County.
To improve communication between supervisors and employees, and gener-
ally with the County Administration.
To improve morale and motivation through the genuine expression of
management concern for employee feelings and ideas.
To have a basis for judgment on satisfactory-nonsatisfactory perfor-
mance review, to inform the employee of such and to indicate the areas
of work which need attention.
7. To improve overall County personnel administration.
Dr. Hastings said the major problem with the current evaluation procedure has to do with
the performance characteristics on which every employee is evaluated. This plan will place
fifty percent of the score on the job description for the individual job, and fifty percent
on performance characteristics. It was felt that not enough time was being spent on employee
evaluations, so this procedure sets out the number of conferences required so there are no
surprises for the employee at the end of the evaluation period. Included is an appeals
procedure which the employees felt was needed. There is also a procedure set out for dealing
with unsatisfactory job performance.
Dr. Hastings said that every employee will be given a copy of the Evaluation Plan.
There is included a narrative evaluation which it is hoped will give employees more feedback
on their performance. Mr. Way said it appears that department heads will have to spend more
time on these evaluations then in the past. Dr. Hastings said that is correct, but in some
of the larger departments, evaluations will be done by supervisory staff. Training sessions
on how to use this plan will be scheduled later.
Mr. Tucker said the first time this evaluation is used, it will take some time to
establish the objectives with the employee. Thereafter, that part of the job should be
shortened. The County Executive's staff proposes the continuation of the two-tier merit s
as in the present plan. The Committee looked at this factor and felt it should be continued.
Most felt that there are employees who are above average, although not outstanding, and these
employees deserve something in the way of a merit increase. Mr. Fisher said there have been
more than fifty percent of the employees judged as outstanding, or above average. Dr.
Hastings said it was sixty-six percent last year. Mr. Fisher said there should not be that
number of people judged as "above average".
Mr. Bowie said if two-thirds of the employees are above average, then there cannot be
anyone below average, or there is no average. Evidently some of the average folks are
getting merit pay, and that is the problem with the current system; it is not a merit system,
but a way of informally increasing the pay scale. Mr. Fisher said he is concerned that the
system has been dissipated to the point where so man~ people are getting a mer2Lt increase,
that the employees not receiving merit are actually ~unished.
490
October ~.0_~_ 1984 Re~lar Da-.- Me~t~ ~_
Dr. Hastings said the two and one-half percent step is not just an across-the-board
increase. The present system is somewhat confusing, and it is possible some supervisors gave
a rating they were not truly comfortable with. It is hoped that this system will be more
individualized. Mr. Lindstrom asked the reason for keeping the two and one-half percent
step. Dr. Hastings said it was felt that there are employees in a department who will not
reach beyond what they are supposed to do, but are better than an average employee, and
should get a merit. Dr. Hastings said she had presented the plan drawn for school adminis-
trative staff as a possible plan for department heads. The evaluation in that plan is more
stringent, and Mr. Jones has indicated that the Executive Staff will examine that plan
further. It provides no increase, even the general increase, if an employee is found to be
unsatisfactory.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to discuss the two-tier increase. From the conversa-
tion today, it sounds as though some people are not capable of the five percent merit, no
matter how hard they try. He wonders if that person is in the wrong position, or the evalua-
tion for the position is unrealistic. Dr. Hastings said she feels it is the fault of the
current system. Mr. Lindstrom said he is uneasy with the two and one-half percent step. It
is extremely hard to say that some one doing a half decent job does not deserve this merit
step. If the system were tailored to the individual employee so that he/she knew they. could
get five percent if they really worked, the two and one-half percent step might be needed as
an interim solution sometimes. Mr. Fisher said he is uncomfortable with the two and one-half
percent step. He feels it takes away from the plan. Mr. Lindstrom said if there is no way
that some people can achieve the five percent even if they do their best, then he feels the
evaluation system needs to be changed. He would like to eliminate the two and one-half
percent step. Dr. Hastings said it may be possible at some time in the future. The commit-
tee members wanted to keep this step as a way to give some incentive to the person who just
is not able to reach the top in the department.
Mrs. Cooke asked if this plan will address hiring procedures so that it might be possi-
ble to hire more qualified persons. Dr. Hastings said that will be part of recruitment
procedures which are being drafted.
Mr. Bowie said he just cannot accept that fifty-five percent of the employees are in the
two top brackets. Forty-five percent of the employees must be unsatisfactory in order for
that to be the average. His other problem is with the vesting of merit pay. Vesting does
two things: 1) in ten years it will inflate merit pay by eleven percent, and 2) employees
who no longer deserve merit pay will still be receiving it. If one-half of the work force is
going to receive merit, there must be some way to lose it. An easier way to administer merit
pay would be to pay the merit in one lump sum of cash, instead of giving a few "bucks" each
month. That really bothers him. As long as an employee does not get fired, he will continue
to be paid more than any other employee. Dr. Hastings said the argument for not having a
merit bonus on a yearly basis is that the increase is something people strive for, and then
plan their finances around. Mr. Bowie said if it were not vested, they would just not be
able to plan on receiving it. Dr. Hastings said she might be able to agree if she thought
that all of the employees were being paid on the appropriate range. She is at present
conducting a classification study.
Mr. Lindstrom said that for years when this Board looked at the School Board's budget,
and then when the two boards got into the hassle about merit pay, he felt that the School
Board felt their administrative people should get more money and were proposing to do that by
giving everyone a merit increase; as if they did not feel comfortable with the salaries so
were throwing in a generous merit increase. Mr. Lindstrom said that if the merit increase is
making up for salary in some way, then the salary is the problem. Dr. Hastings said that she
feels that in many cases the vested merit is not paying people more than they should be paid;
maybe not even paying them enough. Mr. Lindstrom asked what happened to all the consultants
that have been paid to look at the County's merit system as an integral part of the pay plan.
Mr. Bowie said if there is going to be a merit plan, people should be encouraged to perform
exceptionally well. If there is a problem with the pay scale, that should be corrected. He
feels that a merit system should be a merit, but not vested. Mrs. Cooke said this is some-
thing that also bothers her. A merit is something that should be given for good performance,
and maybe the employee does not turn in a good performance each year.
Dr. Hastings said if the Board is of a mind to change the two-tier merit concept, she
would prefer to wait until she has had a chance to complete the salary survey. Mr. Bowie
said he has no problem with that as long as it is resolved before the next budget cycle. He
also feels the Board should be allowed some input into the question before the final recom-
mendation is presented to the Board for approval. Dr. Hastings said if the concern is about
vesting merit pay on a yearly basis, she will have to do some work on that concept when the
salary scale is completed. Mr. Lindstrom said that may need to be addressed, but he is not
ready to say that is the problem. It would be a rather abrupt shift for a lot of people.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Board that what has been presented is a new evaluation plan.
Mr. Lindstrom said he likes the idea of the new plan, and would like to see it adopted. Mr.
Bowie said he would like to know what happened with the consultants in the past if all of a
sudden everything is not right. Dr. Hastings said she is not saying it is not right, but
would like to spend some time looking it over again. She is studying putting general govern-
ment employees and the classified school employees under the same system. Teaching staff has
to be kept as a separate group.
October 10, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher said he shares the concern about the two,step merit, no matter what is done
about vesting. He feels he did not study the matter carefully before the two-step merit was
adopted by the Board last year.
Dr. Hastings said there is no particular reason to hold up on adopting the new policies.
Mr. Fisher said he cannot support paying for unused sick leave. Dr. Hastings said that part
of the policy can be deleted. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie,
to adopt the policies as set out above - Overtime Policy covering overtime pay and compensa-
tory time; Vacation Leave Policy; Classified Employee Reduction in Force Policy; Sick Leave
Bank Policy; and Sick Leave Policy as amended (and set out below). Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
SICK LEAVE
Ail personnel shall earn sick leave days at the rate of one day per month
(permanent full-time) of employment or major fraction thereof (permanent
part-time) with no maximum on accumulation. Upon termination of employment,
no compensation is due for accrued sick leave.
Agenda Item No. 24.1. Adopt Emergency Ordinance re: Central Absentee Voter District.
Mr. Fisher said the Board had received a memorandum from the Clerk explaining the history of
this request.
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Members of the Board of Supervisors
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk
October 10, 1984
Central Absentee Voter Precinct
In 1974, the Code of Virginia was amended to allow the locality (governing
body) to establish a central absentee voter district. However, this had to
be done within a restricted time period, and only for one year at a time.
This was done in 1976, but in 1977 the form furnished by the State Board of
Elections was either lost or mismailed, and not received until after the
deadline had lapsed. There was no absentee voter precinct that year. In
1978 the Board again established this district, with same to be located in
the County Executive's Conference Room, County Office Building,
Charlottesville. At that same time, the Electoral Board asked the Board of
Supervisors to sponsor legislation to change this code section (24.1-233.1)
so that once a district was established, it would remain in place until
changed. The Board agreed. The legislation passed the General Assembly.
However, there is a catch. The legislation required that this district be
established by ordinance. No one ever followed up on this procedure. It
was not discovered until Friday of last week when a form was received by
Dick Florence asking the date of the passage of the ordinance. The
Electoralal Board took for granted that the procedure had been completed,
and also had not followed up on its request to the Board in 1978.
Code Section 24.1-233.1 states: "The decision to establish such district
shall be made by the governing body by ordinance. Such ordinance shall
state for which elections such district shall be used."
This situation has been discussed with Jim Bowling and George St. John.
There appears to be no reason that the Board could not adopt an emergency
ordinance today to remedy this situation for the upcoming elections. An
ordinance would need be only in a simple form, such as the following:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that pursuant to authority contained in Virginia Code Section
24.1-233.1, a central absentee voter precinct is hereby established for
Albemarle County, with said precinct being located in the County Executive's
Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia:
FURTHER that this precinct is established for all elections held in
this County; and
AN EMERGENCY being found to exist, this ordinance shall be effective on
and hereafter (date), same to be ratified in accordance with the provisions
of general law.
Mr. Richard Florence, Secretary of the Electoral Board, said he received a sheet from
the State Board of Elections asking about the central absentee voter precinct, and then found
that an ordinance establishing same had no~ been adopted by the Board. Mr. Fisher asked what
deadline there is for establishing this precinct. Mr. Florence said as long as it is estab-
lished by ordinance before election day, he feels it will be all right. The Electoral Board
needs to make plans for counting these ballots either in the County Office Building, or at
the polls. To count them at the polls will add an hour or so to an already long day. Mr.
Fisher said it has been suggested that the ordinance be adopted as an emergency measure
today, but in order to do so, there must be a statement that an emergency exists. Mr.
Lindstrom said in view of Mr. Florence's statements, he feels the ordinance might be adopted
on an emergency basis today. Mr. Florence said one change is needed. Since moving into this
building, the counting has taken place in the Electoral Board Room in the Registrar's Office.
This has proved to be convenient and satisfactory. Mr. Fisher asked if this is a "precinct"
or a "district" since both terms have been used. Mr. Florence said it is a district.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the following
o~dinance:
492
October 10, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
0RDINANCE
ESTABLISHING A CENTRAL ABSENTEE
VOTER ELECTION DISTRICT
IN THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that there is hereby established a central absentee voter election
district in the Electoral Board Room on the First Floor of the Albemarle
County office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, for the purpose
of counting and recording absentee ballots in all elections.
An emergency being found to exist, this ordinance is declared effec-
tive immediately. Public hearing, after proper notice, shall be held within
sixty days of the date of this ordinance. Immediate notification of this
decision shall be sent to the State Board of Elections and the Albemarle
County Electoral Board.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to set a public hearing
for adoption of this ordinance on a permanent basis for November 14, 1984. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Florence said he would like to bring to the Board's attention that the Woodbrook
Precinct is now permanently over the 5000 voter limit. According to law, the precinct must
be split. This is a responsibility of the Board. Mr. Tucker said the staff will need to
look at census data and determine how this split can be made. Mrs. Cooke said a search of
the area for a second facility was made last year, but the one site offered was completely
inappropriate.
Mr. St. John said he would like for the record to show that there has been nothing
illegal about the counting of absentee ballots in the past; these have been counted according
to the law. The fact that this district had not been established, did not mandate that the
ballots not be counted.
The Board returned to agenda items which had been skipped during the morning session.
Agenda Item No. 19. Set Public Hearing to Amend Section 2-26 of the County Code re:
Number of Members on the Service Authority Board of Directors.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to set a public hearing for
November 14, 1984, on an ordinance amending Section 2-26 of the Albemarle County Code,
increasing the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority from five members
to six members with one member being appointed from each of the six magisterial districts in
Albemarle County. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 20. Set Public Hearing to Amend County Code to Reflect "County Police
Force" in place of "Sheriff,s Department".
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to set a public hearing for
November 14, 1984, on an ordinance amending the Albemarle County Code, changing the word
"Sheriff" to the words "Chief of Police" and the words "Sheriff's Department" to the words
"County Police Department" in sections 5.1-2, 5.1-3, 5.1-7, 5.1-9, 5.1-13, 11-66, 12.1-3,
12.1-4, 13-1.1, 13-1.2, 13-1.3, 15-1, and 19-2, as appropriate. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 25a. Appointments: Welfare Board.
following memorandum from the Clerk:
MEMO TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk
DATE: October 4, 1984
SUBJECT: Appointments: Welfare Board
In line with changes made recently in the way appointments will be made to
the Welfare Board, I have drawn up the attached chart to show one method
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the
October 10, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
493
available for getting appointments to the Board in line with magisterial
district representative's term in office. There were two members of the
Welfare Board living in the Rivanna District; Mr. Daniel expired earlier
this year. I arbitrarily assigned his replacement to the White Hall
District, leaving a full-term vacancy in Scottsville District. This could
have just as easily been done the other way around. One thing that might be
mentioned which had not been brought up before is that these terms expire in
June, while the Supervisors' terms expire in December. You might wish to
consider that as an amendment also.
Supervisor Welfare Board
Magisterial Presently Term Member Currently Term
District In Office Expires Serving Expires
Charlottesville Cooke 12-31-85 Clawson 6-30-87
Samuel Miller Fisher 12-31-85 Burton 6-30-86
Jouett Lindstrom 12-31-85 Withers 6-30-85
White Hall Henley 12-31-85 Daniel (Vacant) 6-30-85
Scottsville Way 12-31-87 Vacant ?
Rivanna Bowie 12-31-87 Bates 6-30-87
When Term Expires,
Appoint New Member
For Term Shown
2 yrs to 6-30-89
3 yrs to 6-30-89
4 yrs to 6-30-89
2 yrs to 6-30-87
6-30-87
Expires 6-30-87
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to accept the appointment procedure as set out in the
Clerk's memorandum, but with the termination date of appointments being December 31 instead
of June 30. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vo=e-
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 25b. Appointments: Other. Mr. Fisher said it has been brought to the
Board's attention that the term of Mr. Gene R. Krumnacher on the Community Services Board
expires in December. It has been noted that Mr. Krumnacher will serve until next June as
Chairman of the Virginia Association of Community Service Boards, if he is reappointed. On
motion by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, Mr. Krumnacher was reappointed as a member of
the Community Services Board for a term to expire on June 30, 1987. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Mrs. Cooke said she would like to appoint Mr. Edward H. Deets, Jr. as a member of the
Beautification Committee. He is ably qualified for this appointment. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Mr. Lindstrom then moved to appoint Mrs. Cooke as a member of the Beautification
Committee. The motion was se~nded by Mr. Way and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Fisher said the Clerk has reminded the Board that certain appointments are past due.
He asked what had happened to the idea of combining the membership of the BOCA Code Board of
Appeals with that of the Fire Prevention Code Board of Appeals. Mr. Tucker said staff is
still investigating this idea.
Mr. Fisher asked about the vacancy on the Soil Erosion Advisory Board. Mr. Tucker said
since this is just an advisory board, the County Engineer and staff have discussed
eliminating this board. The work done in reviewing these plans is basically staff work.
There are only two members and recently neither has been able to attend. The staff has been
working on several amendments to the Soil Erosion Ordinance, and would like for the Board to
look at the proposed amendments before appointing a new person to this board.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to reappoint Mr. Walter J. Hurd as a member of the
Jefferson Area Board on Aging with a term to expire on October 20, 1986. The motion was
seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Fisher noted that the terms of Messrs. Calvin V. Moyer, Frank Johnstone', Robert
Thraves, and H. C. Lanahan as members of the Transportation Safety Committee all expire on
December 31. Mrs. Cooke said all of these people do an excellent job, and she offered
4'94
October 10z 1984 (Regular Da~ Meetinq/__
mOtion to reappoint all to a new term which will expire on December 31, 1988.
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
The motion was
Mr. Bowie said the Resource Recovery Committee has five appointees who have been looking
at such problems as what to do when the Keene Landfill is taken out operation. This take a
lot of research time, and the committee has no staff. He had decided to go the University of
Virginia and ask that a graduate student or whoever might be interested, take on the job of
going through reports to give some expertise to the committee on an intern basis. He has not
received any names of people for the task and asked if he is violating any law. Mr. Fisher
asked if Mr. Bowie proposes that this student be compensated for this work. Mr. Bowie said
he had tried to sell the idea as a good basis for a thesis; payment is not contemplated at
this time. Mr. Tucker noted that at times the staff has used volunteers. Mr. St. John said
it might be a good idea to authorize Mr. Bowie to engage this person, since the student may
be able to refer on a future resume that he/she had worked for the County.
At this point, motion was offered by Mr. Bowie that the committee be authorized to get
some University of Virginia assistance in doing research and background investigation of
former investigations of the solid waste disposal problem. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Way and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 26. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres, Piedmont Environment
Council, stating in part: "Vepco is interested in locating a coal-fired steam electric power
plant in Buckingham County. This plant would have an impact on air quality in a 50 kilometer
radius which Would include Charlottesville and southern Albemarle. Vepco is looking at four
sites; two in North Carolina and two in Virginia. Two of the sites would be licensed, but
only one would be built on. Vepco envisions construction of three or four independent 850
megawatt plants on the selected site. Each module would have its own 650 to 700 foot stack.
Except for Bertie County, North Carolina, where a cooling pond would b~ used, Vepco would
construct and use cooling towers. Each boiler would produce 8500 x 10v BTUs/hr. Vepco
proposes to use 2% coal, so with a 90% scrubbing efficiency, they roughly estimate emissions
of approximately 1487 grams per second or 2100 pounds per hour maximum of SO2.
Mr. Fisher said he did not know what impact this proposal might have on this community
from immediate pollution. It is possible that under the Clean Air Act, this could affect the
location of a future industry, and might accelerate the time when auto emission testing will
be needed in this area. He gave the letter to Mr. Tucker and asked for a staff report. He
said that apparently this request will be under some permit procedure, so there will be an
opportunity for the public to make comments.
Mr. Fisher said he had received a letter from Mr. Donald Nobles about the Newtown
Community Action and a water project on which they are requesting help. Mr. Bowie said that
MACAA has been working with this group on other problems, but he does not believe this
particular request has been to the MACAA Board. Mr. Fisher asked the staff to investigate.
Mr. Fisher said he has seen recent correspondence about sewage disposal capacity for
Briarwood. He asked if that question has been resolved. Mr. Tucker said there is a question
about an agreement between the developer, Mr. Wendell Wood, and General Electric. Mr. Wood
is still trying to get the treatment plant in place. The plant was constructed out of state
and will be brought in by truck and assembled in its permanent location. He understands the
plant has been completed for almost a year. Mr. Fisher asked if this problem is between
private parties. Mr. Tucker replied, yes.
Mr. Fisher said at a meeting earlier this year, during a discussion of litter control,
Mr. Lindstrom asked for recommendations on how the Board members could help set a good
example. The matter was referred to staff, but there has been no reply to date. Mr. Tucker
said he would check into this question.
Mr. Fisher said that at last week's Board meeting he was handed a petition containing
486 signatures concerning "Keswick" being in the growth area. The petition states: "We, the
undersigned taxpayers of the Keswick area are not happy about the proposed changes and
petition the Board to deny the current applicants, and request the Board to continue the
present rural zone, and deny any category of zoning that would encourage growth in the
Keswick area."
Mr. Lindstrom said someone told him after last week's meeting that the Dettor, Edwards &
Morris site next to Murray Elementary School and the other land in that area which is zoned
industrial is in very close proximity to the proposed location 'of the Crozet Interceptor.
Mr. Tucker said the line does cross Route 250 at the Exxon Station, runs along Little Ivy
Creek and then crosses back to Route 738, so it is fairly close.
October 10, 1984 (RegDlar Day Meeting)
4 95
Mr. St. John asked if the Board wanted to discuss the Airport legislation this after-
noon. Mr. Fisher said he had planned to do so, but Mr. Tucker has said there is no real
urgency, so he will wait until the Board meets next month.
Mr. Lindstrom noted that on the Seagrams petition discussed earlier today, he shares
some of their consternation in having a condition added relating to Highway Department
approval. He asked why Highway Department approval was not a part of the original set of
conditions and why the new conditions could not have been produced earlier. Mr. Tucker said
a copy of the new conditions was sent to Warren Andrews (applicant for Seagrams), and Mr.
Andrews is in business with Jerry Dixon who appeared at the meeting today. Mr. Tucker said
he also does not know why a standard requirement such as Highway Department approval was not
a part of the original conditions.
Mr. Lindstrom brought the Board's attention to a map which the staff has prepared of the
proposal location of the Piedmont Corridor highway. He feels the Board needs to consider
what steps it should take in notifying the public about the availability of the map. Mrs.
Cooke suggested it be reduced in size and published in the Daily Progress.
Mr. Lindstrom said that apparently most of Route 29 South, south of Charlottesville, has
Peen built to interstate specifications so there is no really significant improvement that
would need to be done. Charlottesville and Albemarle County have need for improvement of
Route 29 in this locality and this is apparently the way it is to be done.
Mr. Fisher asked if the road is proposed to have limited access its entire length. Mr.
Tucker said he did not know. Alt the staff has to date are the aerials furnished by Mr. Ken
Lantz of the Highway Department. Mr. Lindstrom said the highway as presently proposed will
certainly "chop up" a sizeable hunk of Albemarle County. He then offered motion that the
staff be authorized to publish a display ad in the Daily Progress showing a generalized map
of the location of the proposed route and identifying major landmarks along the route; with a
brief description of this Highway Department proposal; and stating that a bigger map and the
aerial photographs are available in the County Planning Department for viewing by the public.
The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 27.
adjourned.
At 4:41 p.m., with no further business to conduct, the meeting was
~_,____.......~