1984-12-12558
D.ecember ', 1,84 '~:L -t/_ ~ ~
On Motion by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, the Board went into executive session
by the'following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15.
adjourned.
The Board reconvened into open session at 9:45 p.m. and immediately
)ecember 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
)ecember 12, 1984, at 9:00 a.m., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley,
Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
County Attorney and Mr. James R. Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1.
9:06 a.m.
Call to Order.
Mr. Fisher, Chairman, called the meeting to order at
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. On motion by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, the
Consent Agenda was approved by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Item No. 4.1. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff and Common-
wealth's Attorney for the month of November 1984, were received, and approved as presented.
Agenda Item No. 5.
1984.
Approval of Minutes:
May 30, June 6 (Afternoon) and June 6 (Night)
Mr. Henley reported a typographical error in the June 6 (Afternoon) minutes where the word
"or" should have been "for".
On motion by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, the minutes for May 30, June 6 (After-
noon) and June 6 (Night), 1984, were approved by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6. Highway Matters.
Item No. 6a. Route 729 Project - Resolution of Support Requested.
Mr. Agnor reported that a letter had been received from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt of the
Department of Highways and Transportation dated December 7, 1984, stating that a public hearing
on the Route 729 project -- replacement of an existing bridge over Buck Island Creek was held
on November 19, 1984. There was some opposition. A location and design placing the new
structure and approach roadways to the east of the existing structures which will allow the
existing structures to be used as a bypass bridge during construction was presented. The
design raises the approach roadways and bridge'to an elevation where flooding (overtopping) can
be expected approximately once every ten years rather than on the six-month cycle now occurring
The new structire will be a two-lane, legal weight limit structure. Mr.~Roosevelt states, in
his letter, that comments were primarily favorable, although he recommends that the location
and design of the bridge remain unchanged, despite some opposition. Both the location and the
design have been approved by the Highways and Transportation Commission. Mr. Agnor said the
Highway Department is asking the Board for a resolution of support for the project.
559
_ De_cember!.~., 1984 (Regular Day MeetinM)
Mr.. Roosevelt was present and showed the Board a plan for the road, indicating that the '-
project is the same one the Commission approved.
Mr. Way said he was the one who suggested that the public hearing be held, because he knew
there was some opposition to the location of the bridge, and he attended the hearing where it
was discussed. He said he felt, after hearing the comments at the public hearing, that Mr.
Roosevelt's proposal is certainly the one the~Bea~d~a~ght to approve. The bridge, he said,
already seems dangerous and school buses must use it. He thanked Mr. Roosevelt for the public
hearing and the manner in which it was conducted.
Mr. Way then made motion to approve the location and design of the Route 729 Project 0729-
002-211, C501, B648, the bridge replacement over Buck Island Creek. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the
motion after asking the nature of the opposition to the location and design. Mr. Way said the
present bridge is scenic and the opposition did not want it changed or repaired in a way that
would lessen the aesthetic appeal. He said the existingdsitea~f~he~DEidge is such that
repairs cannot be done and still protect the bridge from flooding. This repair will correct a
dangerous situation. Mr. David Papenfuse, school division representative, was present during
the discussion and told the Board that the School Board and administration are concerned about
the bridge and the buses that cross it.
Th'e motion approving the design and location of the Route 729 bridge replacement.a~ar~i, ed~_~
;he following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Item No. 6b. Proposed Dedication of Westover Drive.
Mr. Agnor said this matter has been pending for many years. When Westover Drive was taken
into the Highway's Secondary System in 1975, the temporary cul-de-sac provided on the subdi-
'ision plat evidently had not been constructed. The two property owners on whose property the
ul-de-sac was to be placed, did not want same on their property, but complained about school
ouses, Highway Department vehicles, etc. using their driveways to turn around. In April, 1978,
the developer said he would complete the road according to state standards, however, in order
to do so, he filed a new subdivision plat late in 1978, dividing a parcel of land he owned at
the end of Westover Drive into two large parcels so there would be land on which to construct
the cul-de-sac. That subdivision plat was approved in December, 1978, however, the plat was
aever recorded, this that approval has expired. Due to a 1980 change in the zoning on the
property, that plan cannot be reapproved. Mr. Harley C. Easter now proposes to dedicate a 470-
f~ot' [amd segment to public use to complete Westover Drive, but since-no subdivision is pro-
oosed at this time, the County Attorney's office has stated that the Board of Supervisors must
~ccept dedication of the road.
Mr. Agnor said the staff recommends that the dedication be accepted so inspections and
final planning for taking the road into the state system can be completed.
~ M~. ~s~ve.iI(sa~d hhere have been some questions about the drainage easements and that the
~ounty Engineer would explain those problems. He said the Highway Department has no other
~uestions about the dedication. Mr. Agnor said the drainage easements will have to be worked
ou~.but'the dedication should ~ome first.
Mr. Henley then made motion that the Board accept the dedication of Westover Drive as rec-
ommended by the County Executive. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion, which passed by the
~oWing recorded vote:
~YES:~ Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
~AYS: ~Non~.
'Agenda Item No. 22d.
dated November 19, 1984).
Letter - Rt. 29 North improvement at South Fork Rivanna River Bridge
Mr. Agnor said he would like for the Board to consider this item under highway matters
~hile Mr. Roosevelt was present at the meeting to answer questions.
The Clerk to the Board received the following letter from William L. Bower, District
~ngi~eer, dated November 19, 1984:
"Re: Route 29 - Albemarle County Project 6029-002-116, C-501, B-620
Attached for your information is a notice of willingness to hold a public hear~a~.g :.~
ing concerning the proposed improvement of a 0.6 mile section of Route 29 at
the South Fork Rivanna River in Albemarle County.
Written requests for such a hearing should be sent to the Resident Engineer,
Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, on or before December 12, 1984."
Mr. Agnor said a hearing will be held only if the Board of Supervisors or a citizen
~equests one. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department is going to replace the existing south-
~ound lane structures and necessary roadway approches over the South Fork Rivanna River using a
~imilarmet~od to that the Department recently used to repair the bridge over the North Fork on
~oute 29. The Department had to post notices of willingness to hold a public hearing because
~he project can no longer be funded with state money alone and will receive some Federal funds.
'he Federal Highway Administration did not feel the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
.ortation had met the federal requirements for advertising and receiving public comment, so it
~equired further notice of willingness to hold a hearing.
December 12__2~~ (Regular Day Meeting~
Mr. Roosevelt said the plans are, in fact, completed and the right-of-way for the project
has been purchased. He did not think the Highway Department recommendation will change even if
a public hearing is held. The Department, he said, is trying to have the bridge built with
three lanes to avoid creating a bottleneck when Route 29 is eventually widened, as shown in the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the elevation will be raised to mat.ch that
of the northbound lane; some bumps at either end of the bridge will be removed; an improved
sight distance at the entrance of Route 643 to Route 29 will be created, and a crossoverwiil
be placed at that location.
Mr. Agnor asked if the plan includes constructing a crossover at the entrance to Carrs-
brook as well and was told that it did not. Mr. Roosevelt said a crossover at Carrsbrook will
not be built until 1987; probably not until 1993.
Mr. Roosevelt said the change in the elevation of the bridge will not affect any entrances
but a "vertical curve" north of Route 643 will have to be graded down. The northbound lane of
Route 29 will have to be used as a temporary bridge while the southbound bridge ~s being
repaired, for perhaps longer than a year.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Roosevelt if the patching on Carrsbrook Drive is preliminary to
resurfacing and was told that it is. The road will probably be resurfaced in the spring. ~rs.
Cooke also said that a guardrail is settling in the place where the dam broke and flooded-the
road. Mr. Roosevelt said he would have the highway department's engineers look at the problem.
Mr. Fisher asked if. the Board wishes to request a public hearing on the R~a29 North -
project. Mas. Cooke said she had not heard much comment on the issue. Mr. Bowie said he had
not heard anything either. Mr. Roosevelt said any citizen can request a public hearing and a
notice of willingness to hold one has been in the newsBapers several times. So far, no citizen
has made such a request. Signs were posted near the bridge itself, and only one man had ~even
come to look at the plans. Mr. Roosevelt said 2hat one person wanted to be sure he could still
get onto Route 643 from Route 29.
Mrs. Cooke made motion that the Board not request, a public hearing on this project.
Seconded by Mr. Bowie, the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
N~YS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Bowie thanked the Highway Department for its prompt and courteous answers to his'
questions about roads in his district. . .....
Mr. Lindstrom complimented the H~gh~a~t~artment on patching the asphalt and marking th~
dece~aration lane at the entrance to RivenwOodoSubdivision on Route 676.
Mr. Lindstrom told the Board he would like to report on the meeting he and Mr. Fishe:r~had
attended with Highway Commissioner Harold C. King. Mr.. Lindstrom said-he and Mr. Fisher h~d-~'
gone to this meeting with Commissioner King at Mr. King's request, and that the invitat±on had
been issued to only two members of the Board because the Commissioner had wanted, Mr. Lindstrom
suspected, to avoid having what might be construed as a public meeting.
Mr. Lindstrom said his impression of the two and one-half hour meeting was that
came to placate those people who are upset about the proposed Piedmont Corridor that would
bisect western Albemarle County. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the Highway Department is sorry a
line was drawn on a map indicating where the Piedmont Corridor might run. Mr. Fisher inter~
jected that the Highway Department might be sorry only that the County's residents have Seen
the line. Mr. Lindstrom said the substance of the Highway Department's concern..did not seem to
be the content of the Piedmont Corridor proposal but the public relations problem the proposal
had generated. He said most of the rest of the meeting was then spent trying to convince Mr.
King that the County was not only upset with the line, but ~[So ~±th the concept. ~H~saidothe
Albemarle County delegation wanted to impress upon Mr. King the fact that the County does not
want roads of this nature through its watershed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he felt that Mr. King finally understood, in the last ten minutes of
the meeting, that the watershed was not some bogus concept that came up at the last minute, but
is a real concern for the County. He said a letter from the Highway Department w.Ou'id~b ~
~ e~forth,
coming, and that a role for local input would be set out, as well as alternatives to the west-
ern by-pass proposal. Mr. King stated, repeatedly, that it is not the policy of the Highway
Department to impose roads on localities, with the exception of Interstate 66, which had been
partially begun. Mr. Lindstrom said he pointed out some things that had happened at the local
level that he felt Mr. King had not been aware of at the time they happened. Mr. Ei~idstlrom
said the Commissioner refused to eliminate the Piedmont Corridor's western route as a poSsi-
bility, but said a study of the alternatives to such a route would be available in March.
Mr. Bowie said he and Mr. Lindstrom attended a screening of the Channel 29 (WVIR-TV)
documentary on the Somth Fork Rivanna River watershed, which sums up most of the history of the
watershed problem in ten minutes. Unfortunately, he said, the station manager has said bhe
documentary is a news item and therefore not available for release or sale. He said Mr. Agnor
and the staff may have another idea on how a cipy may be obtained. He said the documentary
directly addresses the protection of drinking water for the Charlottesville/AlbemarIe area~, and
the' last segment shows the dramatic impact the highway would have on that water. Mr. Lindstrom
agreed that the documentary is amazingly appropriate. -'-
Mrs. Cooke said she is concerned about the fact that the Highway Commission has not recog-
nized the local concern about the watershed. She said at the meeting of the Metropolitan
Planning Organization where the Piedmont Corridor had first been mentioned, the representative
561
December 12~ 19~ (Regular Day Meeting)
from the Highway Department had been told in no uncertain terms where the watershed was and how
important it was. For Mr. King to find out about the watershed in the last ten minutes of a
recent meeting bothers her a lot. Mrs. Cooke said she felt the County is wasting its time with
the MPO if the lines of communication are no better than that.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is pleased to state that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission has gone on record as opposing the road and supporting the County's position. He
said he understood that the City of Charlottesville is considering a report by Satyendra Huja,
City Planner, that the Board needs to see. He said Mr. King seemed to feel it regrettable that
so many people have become involved because the final decision is remote. Mr. Lindstrom said
he felt that if it had not been for citizen involvement up to this point, the matter would not
have been discussed between Board members and Mr. King at all.
Mr. Lindstrom said the citizens need to be aware that the proposed Piedmont Corridor has
not been laid to rest, and the Highway Department still considers a western Route 29~y~Dassaan
alternative. Citizen interest in the corridor needs to remain active to see that the matter
does not progress without County knowledge and input.
Mr. Bowie said he feels this is one of the most important issues the County will have to
face in the long-term future, and interest in the Piedmont Corridor route should not waver.
Albemarle County should not wait to protest, as Arlington did with Interstate 66, until the
highway is practically built. He said the County is going to have to keep its protests of the
western route alive for years. Mrs. Cooke said Albemarle County is fighting strong political
groups to the south in Lynchburg and Danville who want the ronte and are convinced that they
need a Route 29 by-pass to boost their economies. She said the County cannot let up in its
protests, because the southern groups will not let up in their advocacy of the Piedmont Corri
Mr. Way presented Mr. Roosevelt with a petition concerning road conditions On Route 734,
stating that this highway has deep, dangerous ditches. Mr. Way said he drove ov~rshhe road
yesterday and it appears that the Highwsy Department has Just put down gravel in the ditches.
Mr. Roosevelt said he has ~eeeiVed a petition about three weeks ago and his crew has put gravel
into the ditches along the road.-~He said the depar~tment would try to work within the right-of-
way that currently exists on the road, and has already made the ditches more shallow. Mr.
Roosevelt asked Mr. Way if he would like to know if the petition received by the Highway De
men~ is the same one:'.~Mr.~y~e~eiYed. ~r.~y~.s, aid::~he would, and Mr. Roosevelt said he would
compare the two.
~ YM~oFisher said he would like the minutes to show that he has received a response from
Hr. Roosevelt about extending the 45 mile per hour speed limit to the west. past the Boar's Head
Inn on U, S. 250 West. Mr. Fisher said the Highway Department found that 86 percent of the
drivers on that section of the road drive at 56 miles per hour. Since the Highway Department
oases its posted speed limits on the speed at which 85 percent of the drivers travel, the
2urrent 55 mile per hour limit will remain in force. Mr. Fisher also Said the study has deter~
nined that a number of people exceed the speed limit in that area and the Highway Department
nas notified the State Police of this fact.
Agenda Item No. 7.
~84.
County Executive's Monthly Financial Reports for September and October
AccomD~nying the report was a memorandum from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance,
?equesting comments on the format of the report and recommendations for imD~oFememl~:;4~
Mr. Fisher said the report needs a beginning and an'ending date, rather than the statement
'for the period ending." He also suggested that dates should be added to all the-headings for
ooth receipts and disbursements, etc. -
Mr. Bowie said he did not feel so much detail was necessary on the smaller funds, but
~unds such as "Cafeteria", "Textbook Rental" and "Debt Service" could be covered in a one-line
summary. If an account shows an unusually large expenditure within a particular time period,
~he Board felt that item should be.explained further in a memorandum.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Cover memorandum include the amount of the cash balance
~t the end of each month, if possible.
~r. Way suggested that the report be written in layman's terms instead of financial jargon.
~e suggested that Mr. Breeden assume that none of the Board members know anything about finance
~nd write for them in that manner to simplify the reports. The Board also requested that the
?ina~cial reports be received, if at all possible, the month after the month for which the
~eport is written, rather than having a two or three month delay between the actual financial
;tate and the recording of same.
Board members also requested that the category "From Local Sources" in the School Fund be
~roken down into the individual sources of revenue.
With thoSe suggestions, the reports were received by consensus.
Agenda Item 'No. 8. Land Use Tax Assessments (deferred from December 5,'1984).
This matter was deferred from December 5, 1984, because a memo from Mr. Melvin 'A. Breeden,
)irector of Finance, dated November 28, 1984, was included as an informational item on the
~onsent agenda for that date. Mr. Bowie felt that approval of the consent agenda would in some
~ay be approving a tax increase.
The letter in question reads as follows:
December 12, 198~ (Regular Day Meeting~)
"I have recently received from SLEAC (State Land Evaluation Advisory
Committee) their recommended values for Land Use Tax Assessment. These
values will be effective January 1, 1985, at the same time our 1985-86
'Biennial'Reassessment takes effect.
Under the Code of Virginia, SLEAC is charged with the responsibility for
determining and Publishing recommended use-values for real estate enrol-
led in the Land Use Program. These values are based on productive earn-
ing power studies in each special land use classification. As stated,
these values are recommended values and each taxing Jurisdiction has the
option to set lower or higher values if it so desires.
The recommended values for 1985-86 show a 20 to 25 percent increase for
agricultural land; a 50 to 70 percent increase in horticultural land;
and a 15 to 30 percent decrease for forestry. As you can see, this will
have a substsntial impact on the tax assessments for some property owners,
especially those with horticultural properties. The effect on the net
tax base of the County will be relatively insignificant since approx-
imately 50 percent of qualifying property is in the forestry category
and the decrease in this category will largely offset the increase in
the other categories. Itemized below are the old and new values for the
Land Use Tax Assessments:
AGRICULTURE
CLASS I II III IV V VI VII VIII
Old 570 510 380 300 230 190 110 40
New 680 620 460 360 270 230 140 50
HORTICULTURE - APPLES, GRAPES
CLASS I II III IV V VI VII VIII
Old 840 850 720 640 480 390 250 40
New 1250 1330 1170 1070 800 660 420 50
HORTICULTURE - PEACHES, CHERRY, PEAR, PLUM
CLASS I II III IV V VI VII VIII
Old 800 790 660 580 440 360 220 40
New 1170 1230 1070 970 730 590 380 50
FORESTRY
CLASS
Old
New
EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR NON-PRODUCTIVE
205 140 90 50
170 120 70 50
The County of Albemarle has used SLEAC's recommended values as the basis
for our tax assessment since the implementation of the Land Use Assess-
ment program. Prior to 1983, these values were averaged to relate to the
slope of the land since the Soil Classification Study had not been com-
pleted for Albemarle County. Since 1983 we have used the actual values
recommended by SLEAC for each soil classification~type. The recommended
values are based on extensive studies conducted primarily at the Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, and
unless Albemarle conducted a similar study ~specifically for Albemarle
County, I feel that we should continue to use their recommended values."
Mr. Jones said the Land Use Tax Ordinance was adopted in 1974 to be effective in 1975.
Et has been effective in Albemarle County since 1976. The letter from Mr. Breeden refers to
Talues for property under land use as created by the State Land Evaluation Advisory Committee
SLEAC). SLEAC membership consists of the Dean of Agriculture at Virginia Polytechnic Institute
~nd State University, the State Tax Commissioner, Director of the State Department of For'eStry,
Diector of the State Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Commissioner of AgricuItur~J
SLEAC's values are determined by the V?I Extension Service under contract to SLEAC, which then
sends the recommended values to the localities.
Albemarle County has almost 318,000 acres in the land use program, Mr. Jones said. Thus
land use property comprises nearly 77 percent of the total acreage in the County. In the past
year, the deferred tax on this land, spread over the entire acreage, amounted to $2.1 million.
About one-third of the acreage is in agriculture and two-thirds is in forestry. Horticulture
accounts for less than one tenth of one percent of the 3,900 parcels involved. ~
In past years the County received a document explaining the method used to derive SLEAC
;alues; a copy of that document arrived only yesterday. Prior to that, the staff prepared a
?eport ton the effect of the SLEAC values on the program in Albemarle if the values are imple-
nented as delivered. Mr. Jones said the staff has talked with members of the VPI Extension
Service and with Dr. Paxton Marshall about the new SLEAC values. In addition, the staff dis-
~ussed the matter with the State Department of Taxation and learned that SLEAC is the only
~uthority on land use values that has been recognized by the state, and the only one, so far,
~hat has been upheld in court. Of the 77 localities with acreage in a land use program, alt
~ the SLEAC values. In the past, several localities have deviated from the SLEAC numbers and
December 12, 198~
(Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Jones said the consensus among staff is that the County continue to use the SLEAC
values, even though the new values do not seem to be realistic for Albemarle County. Trade
journals indicate that agriculture is taking a turn downward rather than being on an upsurge as
the SLEAC values seem to indicate. There is also some question as to whether the price of
cattle,'corn and so forth listed in the SLEAC report are realistic. A SLEAC procedures' manual
said the report uses five-year historical data, but Mr. Jones said that would account for only
a twenty percent increase in value at best. He recommended that the staff and Board make an
appointment with Dr. Marshall to discuss the values and try to determine their validity. He
said there are a number of things he does not understand about the SLEAC values, having had
only 24 hours to review the manual.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would feel better not doing anything until the Board feels comfor~
~ab~e¥~ith~the values.
-Mr. Fisher asked the County Attorney for the Board's legal pOsitiOn in this matter. Mr.
St. John said the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-323i6 says that when a land use ordinance has
been adopted, the assessment and apprai.sal process is up to the Commissioner of Revenue or the
duly appointed assessor. The Code also says ~that the criteria the assessor can use are:
1. His own personal judgement, knowledge and experiende; and
2. He shall consider other available evidence as to the use value of land
and the values recommended by the State Land Evaluation Advisory Committee. ~ '
Mr. St. John said the whole appraisal process is the function of the assessor alone. The
Board in this instance is not setting tax rates, but the land is being reappraised, so the
matter is wholly at the discretion of the assessor and not of the Board. When the SLEAC land
use values are published, the assessor can choose to use those values or some other method of
assessment. He mus~, however, be able to document the values he uses, and the SLEAC values are
the only ones recognized by the State for such purposes. Mr. St. John said Mr'. Breeden and Mr.
Jones would have to explain the ramifications of abandoning the SLEAC values. He suspects the
County would have to hire a consultant to develop values for Albemarle County and those values
might not be acceptable to the courts or the State. Mr. St. John said What is before the Board
today is not a decision as to which figures to use (he sees this as being outside of the Board'
function), but the Board could adopt a resolution to give weight to Mr. Jones' suggestion that
they ask the SLEAC committee to take a second look at its recommended figures - that would be
all right.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board could resolve that Mr. Breeden continue using the SLEAC
figures until he can determine whether or not the new SLEAC figures are reliable. Mr. St. John
said there is a problem in that the old figures are no longer supported by either SLEAC or the
State, and if challenged by anybody, the County could have problems and have no expert wi
for the process by which land use value is determined. Mr. Fisher said he thought Mr. Li
meant'~that the SLEAC committee ought to be called to prove that its new values are correct.
Mr. Henley said he feels the Board should not do that. He asked if the decision must be made
right away.
Mr. Breeden said the Finance Department needs to use some values since the 1985 reassess-
ment notices have to be mailed by December 31, 1984. He feels the new SLEAC values should be
used at this point for this reassessment. If the values prove to be inacc.urate, the figures
can be changed later, but the process of reassessment needs to be started. Mr. Henley asked if
the reassessment notice could not show only the fair market value and not the'land use' valUe.
Mr. Breeden said the reassessment notices contain both values, but the tax bills themselves
carry only the land use value.
Mr. St. John said he had perhaps misunderstood Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Lindstrom said no, ~e
would prefer to use the old SLEAC values rather than changing to something the Board and the
Finance Director do not understand. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not feel that missing the reassess
nent date of December 31 wouId not be such a serious thing. If 'the County has to wait' a year
to reassess, at least it will understand the values being using for the reassessment.
Mr. St. John said that WOuld create tWo problems with the Code of Vi'rginia sections.
First, the assessor has the discretion to use his judgement, or SLEAC values in making a .decisio
Second" SLEAC will not support the Old values any longer, so without the new values, the County
aas no~ basis 'for reassessment~.
Mr. Lindstrom said what he heard Mr. Jones tell the Board is that the 50-70 percent
increase in some SLEAC values seems strange, and ~he feels there is some basis' to check these
~alues with SLEAC.. Under those circumstances, Mr. Lindstrom said he feels it would be proper
F° say that the old SLEAC values are ones that the County has investigated and understands, so
~herefore they ShoUld be the valueS the County USes.
Mr. St. JOhn said that would put the assessor in the position of having to say that based
~n his personal judgement and other evidence he would have to document, the old numbers are
~till valid and the new numbers are not, Before he does that, he should be able to say the
~umbers are sound.
Mr, Bowie said since he brought uP the original objection to the memo, he was not bothered
~y the.SLEAC values or the calculation by ¥~I, but bY the appearance of the automatic tax
Lncrease~ ~He asked if the BOard is~.not, in fact, raising taXes by approving these values.
Mr. Fisher pointed out that the Board is not being asked to approval anything. The Board
~s not in a legal position to approve the SLEAC values since the Code of Virginia gives that
~uthority to the assessor. Another'Point Mr. Fisher made Was that all prPper~y in the County
~s being reassessed at the same time, and most'taxes will increase. He said all the Board can
~o is recommend something to Mr. Breeden. Mr. Breeden will have to do what he thinks is right
~n his own judgement.
Mr. Lindstrom said he sees a. growing unrest in his district because D$op&e there see a
iock-ste~ ~ncrease in property values every time Someone sells a lot, whether at a reasonable
564
December 12, 1984
(Regular Day ~eeting
)rice or not, and he feels the increases do not always make sense. Until such increases~do
sense, he does not feel the Board should endorse them. He feels that if there are reser~
.tions about the numbers (and Mr. Lindstrom-said he disagreed with Mr. St. John), he believes
County should defer implementation of the new SLEAC values until it undertands what ~hey
Mr. Lindstrom said he realizes that the Board is not in a legal position to dictate to
~one what the reassessment numbers will be, but believes the Board has a responsibility to go
record as to its feeling about the numbers.
Mr. Henley asked if the Finance Department has to send the reassessment notices for Zand
properties at the same time as it sends other reassessment notices. Mr. Breeden said it
· If these values are not used, it will be another two years, he said, before any changes
be made. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is any legal reason the County cannot reassess
year for land ~se properties only. He requested that the staff address that question and
[ecide if the County would have to postpone land ~se reassessments for two years if these values
not used at3this time. Mr. Henley said he would like for the Board to postpone this~dis-
~ussion for at least one week to give staff and Board time to study the issue.
Mr. Breeden remarked that, for horticulture values at least, the study is based on data
'eleased only every five years, so when ~he values are upgraded, the orchard trees that come
this category are five years older and felt to be more productive. Mr. Lindstrom said
assessment issue is tricky enough without having land use values based on figures produced
some State:'Committee that may not be using published ~a~u~s and not fie~d studies.
The Board requested the staff to prepare another report on this issue for the DecemSer !~,
4 ~eeting.
Agenda Item No. 9. Appropriation: Project Excellence
Mr. Agnor said this appropriation involve~ state funds that are being used for a joint
'ect between Albemarle County Schools and the University of Virginia to encourage Olassroom
to develop challenging and innovative classroom projects. The money will come from
Curry Memorial School of Education at UVa in the amount of $1,500 for the project. TeaChers
then apply for funds to carry out their projects. The School Board approved this concept~
its meeting on October 8, 1984, and requested action by this board.
Mr. Way said he was very much encouraged by projects such as this one that help to stimu-
teachers to teach effectively.
Mr. Lindstrom made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the addition of $1,500 in
s and its appropriation to the instructional supplies and miscellaneous expense funds-of
School Board. (Resolution set out below.) The motion carried by the following recorded
: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke~ Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
: None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $1,500 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Fund
for and coded to the Instructional Supplies fund 1-2000-'60141-541200 and
the Miscellaneous Expense fund 1-2000-60141-580900;
AND FURTHER, that the revenue section of the Albemarle County Budget be
amended by the addition of the Project Excellence Fund 2-2000-16000-161219;
AND FURTHER, that these appropriations are effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 10. Appropriation Transfer: Stone Robinson Well Project.
Mr. Agnor said the construction of a new well at Stone Robinson school, required after
!e old well was judged by the Virginia Health Department to be contaminated by fuel oil, cost
,200. He said the Board needed to transfer the money ~ithin the Capital Improvements budget~'
the Stone Robinson well account.
Mr. Lindstrom asked why a report had not yet been made on the water problem at Stone
{obinson. He had asked on November 7 that the staff check to see why the water had been appro~
zed by the local health department and then much later been judged to be contaminated by the
~tate Health Department. Mr. Agnor said the memorandum concerning the contamination had "fallen
;hrough the cma~s~z'an~s~adm~oh~e~n~delivered to Mr. Tucker until recently, so an answer
~hould be forthcoming.
Mr. Fisher asked if the health department does testing for biological and nonbiological'
~ontamination at all county schools using well water systems on a regular basis. Mr. Bowie
~aid h~o~eels there is an excellent chance that some schools' drainfields are poisoning their
~ater supply and the County will wind up.paying for those problems as well as the problem~ at
~tone Robinson. He feet~ the same contamination could be creeping out of the drainfields fifty
?eet from wells at every school in the County.
Mr. Papenfuse said the school system is not in the business of testing water. The Health
)epartment does that through the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. He said regular testing is'
lone quarterly. Mr. Agnor pointed out that the testing done by Rivanna Water and Sewer is ·
)iological. The fuel oil in Stone Robinson's water was discovered by a chemical test that is
~ot done as a matter of course.
December 12~ 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
The revised site plan, Mr. Bain said, shows a proposal for an entrance that would be less
expensive and will comply with the staff conditions. He said the developer is willing to have
a temporary ingress and egress to Route 29 if it can have a permanent exit when the service
road is actually constructed.
He said the developer is asking the Board to approve the site plan and overturn the deci~2
sion~of~th~kRtanning Commission.
Mr. Roosevelt, asked to comment on the temporary solution by Mr. Fisher, said that from
his personal point of view, an entrance that allows both ingress and egress could be built in
this location or be moved slightly toward the river to the north. He said he believed a temp-
orary entrance to be closed when the service road is extended would be something the Highway
Department would approve.
Mr. Fisher asked if such an ingress/egress would be safe. Mr. Roosevelt said he thinks it
can be built in accordance with the safety standards of the Department of Highways and Trans?
portation and the county's standards. Mr. Fisher asked if financial provisions could be
required to pay for the eventual closing of the exit. Mr. Roosevelt said that the entrance
would be safe only for this property. If other properties develop and want to use this entrance
the entrance will no longer be safe and will have to be modified. Some funds probably should
be set asked for closing or modifying the entrance.
Mr. Tucker said he thought it would be advisable to have some way to provide a slip-ramp
as the exit afterfthe service road is constructed rather than an exit-only adaptation of the
entrance. Mr. Tucker said he feels the applicant is willing to close the entrance when the
property has access to the service road, so a slip-ramp will not cause a problem'for them. He
said Mr. St. John could probably work out how the requirement should be worded and whether or
not some financial measure, such as bonding, could be required.
Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing and brought the matter before the Board. He ~um-
marized the various reports, saying it seems to be the consensus of the staff that the ingre
egress be closed after the service road is built. He asked Mr. Bain how the developer could
orovide a safe exit after the road construction.
Mr. Bain said he does not anticipate the entrance being used for any other business. He
~aid he did not know what the Board would do as far as financial requirements, or what it can
do. Mr. Tucker said he wanted Mr. Bain to understand that the County is not going to require
ust a sign that says "No Entrance" but a more expensive slip-ramp, because entrance cannot be
lontrolled with a sign. Mr. Bain said he understands that.
Mr. St. John said he thought the Board would have to content itself with an unsecured
condition on the approval of the site plan because a financial requirement cannot legally be
~laced on the list of conditions. No cash deposit can be required.
Mr. Fisher said it sounds to him as if there is a basic agreement as to what the developer
.nd the Board want, but he does not want the discussion to turn into a committee meeting,
trying to decide how to require-the exit. He directed the staff to write the conditions to
satisfy the County and the Highway Department for the December 19, 1984 meeting, if the ~ther
Board members agree.
Mrs. Cooke said she would make a motion to provide a mechanism for requiring the closing
of the entrance. Mr. St. John said the Board cannot require the developer to tie up any cash
in the approval. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board can use a condition on the site plan and was
told that it can.
Mrs. Cooke then made motion that the appeal be deferred to December 19:when-the staff and
applicant can bring back changes in the language Off?~the~'conditions for Board approval. Mr.
Bowie seconded the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
~BSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 11:08 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 12. Community Development Block Grant.
Mr. Agnor reminded the Board that the County has received a grant from the Virginia De
nent of Housing and Community Development in the amount' of $500,000 for a housing project to be
2arried out by the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program. The staff is in the process of
naking preparations to receive the grant and need to have several items approved before January
~0, 1985. Mr. Agnor said the Board needs to designate the Section III project area, adopt a
olan and approve a Section III (affirmative action) fair.housing statement.
Mr. Agnor said the Section III project area is within the bounds of Albemarle County and
;he plan requires that local businesses and contractors be notified of the proposed project and
the opportunities it presents, seeking:~minority and low-income contractors and employees.
~ The ~a~r housing statement, Mr. Agnor said, is rather open-ended, requiring only that'the
county take at least one action per year to affirm its support for fair housing for all county
residents. He said one example of such an action would be declaring a "Fair Housing Week in
the County"
Mr. Agnor said the Board also needs to designate someone to sign the grant documents, and
he suggested that this be the County Executive.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Tucker how much of the grant money will be paid to contractors and
~ow much will be used to buy materials. Mr. Tucker said the vast majority of the funds will be
~sed by volunteer~labor working for A~H.I.P. The only time outside help will be called in is
if eXtremely difficult plumbing work or chimney work is required.
568
December 12, 1984
(Regular Day Meeting)
f/
Mrl Lindstrom made motion that Albemarle County be designated as a Section III project
area and that the staff b~ authorized to develop such items as are necessary to comply with
IIfair housing standards required in order to receive the grant. Mr. Way amended the motion to
Ilinclude that the County Executive be authorized to sign the grant documents and then seconded
lithe motion, which carried by the following recorded vote:
~AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE SECTION III PLAN
1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
designates as its Section III covered project area the boundaries of
Albemarle County.
2. The County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors, its contractors and
designated third parties, shall in utilizing Community Improvement Grant
funds-utilize businesses and lower income residents of the Section III
covered Project Area in carrying out all activities, to the greatest
extent feasible.
3. In awarding contracts for work and for procurement of materials,
equipment or services the Board of Supervisors, its contractors, and
designated third parties shall take the following steps to utilize businesses
which are located in or owned in substantial part by persons residing in
the Section III covered area:
a. The Board of Supervisors shall ascertain what work and
procurements are likely to take place through the Community
Improvement Grant funds.
~. The Board of Supervisors shall ascertain through various
and appropriate sources, including the Charlottesville Daily Progress
the business concerns covered by Section III which are likely to
provide materials, equipment and services which will be utilized
in the activities funded through Community Improvement Grant.
c. The identified business concerns shall be apprised of the
opportunities to submit bids, quotes or proposals for work or pro-
curement contract's which utilize Community Improvement Grant funds.
d. To the greatest extent feasible the identified businesses and
any other project area business concerns shall be utilized in
activities which are funded with Community Improvement Grants.
4.LL In the utilization of trainees or employees for activities funded
through Community Improvement Grants, the Board of Supervisors, its con-
tractors, and designated third parties shall take the following steps to
utilize lower income persons residing in the Section III covered project
area:
The BOard~o~-~uper~i~ors in consultation with its contractors
~including design professionals) shall ascertain the types and
number of positions for both trainees and employees which are
likely to be utilized during the project funded by 6he Commu-
nity Improvement Grants.
b.b
The Board of Supervisors shall advertise through the following
sources the availability of such positions: The Sharlottesville
Daily Progre. ss~ith~hhe information on how to apply.
The Board of ~erviSors, its contractors, and designated third
parties shall be required to maintain a record of inquiries and
applications by project area of residents who respond to advertise-~.~b~
ments~.and shall maintain a record of the status of such inquiries
and applications. =
d. To the greatest extent feasible, the Board of Supervisors, its
contractors and designated third parties shall utilize lower
income project area residents in filling training and employment
positions necessary for implementing activities funded by Commun-i(f'
ity Improvement ~rants.
5. In order to ascertain substantial compliance with the above affirm-
ative actions and Section III of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1968, the Board of Supervisors shall keep, and require to be kept by
contractors and designated third parties, listings of all persons employed
and all procurements made through implementation of activities funded by
Community Improvement Grants· Such listings shall be complete and
shall be verified by site visits and interviews, crosschecking of payroll
-reports and invoices, and through audits, if necessary·
December 12, 1984
(.Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the fund transfer for Stone
lobinso~ (resolution follows), and also to ask the staff to determine if there is a compre-
hensive kind of test the County can use to determine the safety and composition of water and
drainfields on County property. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None-.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $9,216.50 be, and the same hereby is, transferred within2the.~Captial
Improvements BUdget as follows: from Maintenance Roof coded 1-9000-60632-
300404 to Stone Robinson - Well, coded 1-9000-60632-702008;
FURTHER, that this transfer is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 11. Site Plan Appeal - Federal Express. (Site Plan showing Federal Expres
and retail office building, Charlottesville Magisterial District, drawingbby B. ~ubrey Huffman
~ Associates, Ltd., dated September 17, 1984, with several revision dates.) Property located
on the east side of Route 29 North, on the south side of the South Fork of the Rivanna River.
Proposal to locate a one-story, 24,500 Square foot building comprised of 14,000 square foot
~arehouse area; 7,500 square foot retail area; and 3,000 square foot office area, all served by
169 parking spaces on a 9.934 acre parcel. Zoned Highway Commercial~ Tax Map 45 (B1)-6,
Parcel lB. Charlottesville District. (Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting at l~i39~a;m';)
The Chairman of the Board received the following letter from Mr. Arthur F. Edwards
.rig that the Board hear an appeal of the decision by the Planning Commission not to approve the
ite plan:
"November 21, 1984
Mr. Gerald Fisher
Chairman
Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
RE: Federal Express Site Plan
Dear Mr. Fisher:
Our firm, acting on the behalf of Mr. Wendell Wood, Wishes to appeal
the decision of the Albemarle County Planning Commission given on
November 20, 1984 concerning the above referenced project.
If you need any further information concerning this please contact
our office at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully,
(S~NE~)
Arthur F. Edwards
(B. Aubrey Huffman & Associates, Ltd.)"
Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report:
"Acreage: 9.934 acres.
Zoning: HC, Highway Commercial.
History: March 8, 1984 - The Board of Supervisors approved design for
service road along Route 29 North along eastern side from Real
Estate III, Parcel 5-A-11 to Parcel 6-1-B.
June 20, 1984 - Planning Commission approved Floor Fashions of
Virginia with conditions that they construct and provide land-
scaping between Route 29 North and the service road.
October 20, 1984 - Planning COmmission deferred Federal Express
until extensive list of items missing from the' site plan were
addressed, and instructed applicant to conform to service raad
design as approved by Board of Supervisors.
Proposal: To locate a 7,500 square foot one story retail office, a
14,000 square foot Federal Express warehouse, and a 3,000 square
foot office with a total of 168 parking spaces.
Reason for Planning Commission Review: The future of the service road
and its connections should be clarified.
Topograph~ qf the Area: Gently rolling, adjoining parcels more steeply
sloped.
Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: From Route 631 (Rio Road) to Route 33
'(Ruckersville) this section of Route 29 North currently carries
18,105 vehicle trips per day.
Watershed Impoundment: Not within the watershed management area.
Soils: The soils consist of cut and fill. Hard rock should be at or
near the surface in some areas. Slopes on this site will be
difficult to stabilize because these soils are very erosive.
CompreHensive Plan Recommendation: Commercial. In Urban Area 2.
December 12, 198~
(Regular Day Meeting)
School Impact: Not applicable.
T~pe Utilities: This area has connections available for public water
and sewer.
Stormwater Detention: Not applicable. The applicant is not bound to
stormwa~er detention policies because of the proximity of the parcel
to the river. The runoff is allowed to flow into the river.
V~rginia Department of Highways and Transportation: The Highway Depart-
ment sees no problems in modifying the end of the service road to
allow for a permanent ingress and egress entrance to serve this site.
The Highway Department had provided the applicant with a design
acceptable to their standards. They will accept this design
(using 40-foot radii) or the cul-de-sac design approved by the Board
of Supervisors.
Fire Officer: Fireflow requirement is 3,000 gallons per minute at 20
PSI from nearest public hydrant, Fireflow is 2,000 GPM at 20 PSI
residual. Buildings will be served with an internal sprinkler
system.
STAFF COMMENT: Applicant has redesigned the entry with a cul-de-sac to
conform to~h~oB.~ard of Supervisors' approved design for service
road parallel to Route 29 North. However, final approval of this
design must be received from Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation and the County Engineer.
The applicant has proposed to grade areas for fill. Staff objects to
this unnecessary grading. It will denude wooded areas and temporarily
increase the siltation within the South Fork of the Rivanna River.
Staff requests that a landscape plan be submitted that replaces the
vegetation removed when regrading occurs, said plan to show land-
scaping to Route 29 North.
Because this land's soil is composed of fill, and depth to bedrock in
areas is slight, staff recommends that a certified engineer's report
be obtained before a building permit is issued. This will attest to
the soil's buildability.
The applicant is requesting a waiver from Planning Commission review
of a site plan, and thereby requesting that the Planning Commission
grant staff authority to approve the final plat.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A building permit will not be issued until
the following conditions have been met:
1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
cul-de-sac and temporary ingress/egress.
b. Staff approval of landscape plan.
c. County Engineer approval of drainage plans and computations.
d. County Engineer approval of design for turning lane and frontage
road.
e. Fire Official approval of fireflow and hydrant location.
f. Certified engineer's report confirming the buildability of the
soil (structural integrity);
g. Recordation of sewer line deed of easement."
Mr. Donnelly said that the PlanningOCommission at its meeting on No~ember 20, 1984, denied
the plan because it does not adhere to the service road design approved by the Board~Sf Super-
visors. The Planning Commission contended that if the roadwork contained ingress midway along
the service road and use of a cul-de-sac?as a means of egress, the site plan would conform to
the approved service road design.
Mr. Edward Bain told the Board that as an abutting property owner, Federal Express
aas a right to an entrance onto Route 29 North. He cited as his authority for this claim
~ection 33.1-198, which guarantees each abutting property one access point unless a highway has
0een designated to be limited access. In the case of State Highway Commissioner vs. Linsley
(223 Va.) page 437, the court ruled that a landowner along Route 17 was allowed additional
damages because the process of making that highway into a limited access route would deny the
landowner access. The court indicated that highway access is a matter of right for adjoining
~roperty owners. While the property owner in the Federal Express case is not pressing the
~atter, Mr. Bain said the entrance road required by the Planning Commission could be considered
~ takeing of property without compensation.
He said the Planning Commission had not found that the uses proposed for the Federal
Express property would require any additional turn lanes or special provisions as set out in
Section 33.1-58 of the Code. He said traffic in this location is in excess of 18,000 vehicle
trips per day and a generous estimate of the vehicle traffic for the six parcels nearest Federal
Express would be only 3,000 vehicle trips per day.
Mr. B~in.¥told the Board that in the H~lton vs. Prince William County case, the county
tried to force the developer to construct roads .outside of his subdivision and the Virginia
Supreme Court ruled that counties do not have that power. In the Thoreau vs. James City
County case, the plaintiff was not required to construct a service road.
Mr. Bain said the traffic is already on Route 29 North, yet the Planning Commission is
still insisting that the developer construct a road across adjacent property at a very large
expense, since the developer would have to purchase 'land and has no power of condemnation. He
said the Planning Commission required a 600 foot turn lane.
December 12~ 1984
(Regular Day Meeting)
569
CERTIFICATION
Compliance with Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has been offered and intends to accept
federal funds authorized under the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974; and
WHEREAS, recipients of funding under the Act are required to take
action to affirmatively further fair housing,
THEREFORE, the County of Albemarle agrees to take at least one action
to affirmatively further fair housing each calendar year, during the
life of its project funded with Community Development Block Grant funds.
The action taken will be selected from a list provided by the Virginia
Department of Housing and Community Development.
At 11:13 a.m., Mr. Fisher called a recess. The Board reconvened at 11:20 a.m. Since the
Bma~d"~as running behind scheduled times for public hearings, Item No. 13, a~status report on
Parks and Recreation was deferred until later in the meeting.
Agenda Item No. 14a. Public Hearing: Budget Amendments - Western Albemarle Rescue Squad.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 4, 1984.)
Mr. Agnor told the Board that the appropriation of $130,000 for the Western Albemarle
Rescue Squad has already been discussed, but a public hearing is required before the money can
actually be advanced to the squad for the purchase of a squad building from the Crozet Volun-
teer Fire Company. Mr. Agnor said the rescue squad would like to receive one-haif of the money
$65,000) in February of 1985 and the other half in July of 1985.
Mr. Fisher asked if any board members had questions about this appropriation. Hearing
Lone, he opened the public hearing. Mrs. Martha Amato, President of the Rescue Squad, said she
~as present to answer questions, if any were asked. The Board had none, and there being no one
alse present to speak on the issue, the hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie made motion to adopt the following resolution.
notion carried by the following recorded vote:
Seconded by Mrs. Cooke, the
~YES:
~AYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $130,000 be, and the same hereby is~ appropriated from the Capital
Improvements Fund for an advance to the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad
code 1-9000-05503-701000;
AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 14b. Public Hearing: Budget Amendment - Grant -- Nonpoint Source Pollu-
tion Control Program. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 4, 1984.)
Mr. Agnor told the Board members that this grant project had been discussed and approved
at an earlier meeting. The Board now needs to recognize the grant revenues in the amount of
$16,420 and the need for additional funds to be transferred from the Engineering Department in
the General Fund to make up a total of $22,.600 to provide an engineering position on the staff
to work with the Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program.
Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing, having no questions from the Board. There being no
one present to speak for or against the grant appropriation, the hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom made motion, seconded by Mr. Way, that the following resolution be adopted.
~he motion carried by the following recorded vote:
&YES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke. Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $22,600 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Grant Fund
for the Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, and coded
as follows:
1-1222.-82030-100.100 .Salaries $16,470
1-1222.-82030-200100 FICA 1,153
1-1222-82030-200200 ~SRS 1,886
1-1222-82030-200500 Health Insurance 435
1-1222,82030-200600 Life Insurance 166
1-1222'82030-201100 ~orkman's Compensation 40
1-122.2.-.82030-.540800 .Operation of Vehict'e' '2,'450
$"2'2',600
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Revenues section of the 1984-85
County budget be amended by the addition of code 2-1222-24000-240500
entitled "Grant Proceeds - Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Con-
trol ProgramU in the amount of $16,420; and
570
December 12:1984 (Re~utar Day Meeting)
FURTHER RESOLVED that $6,180 be, and the same hereby is, transferred
within the General Fund as follows:
From Code 1-1000-41000-100100 - Salaries, Engineering
To Code 1-1000-93010-591005 - Grant Fund;
AND FURTHER, that this appropriation and transfers are effective this
date.
Agenda Item No. 15. SP-84-69. Jesse W. Btoodworth (deferred from~December 5, 1984).
Mr. Fisher reminded the Board and others present that the public hearing on this petition
has been continued from December 5, 1984 at the request of adjoining property owners who were
unable to b.e present at the December 5 meeting due to inclement weather.
Mr. Donnelly presented a brief synopsis of the staff report delivered at the December 5
meeting. He told the Board that the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions,
one of which would be the confirmation of an alternate site for the mobile home. Mr. Fisher
the map furnished to the Board shows several "x" marks for alternate sites. If this
petition is approved, the Board will need to know which site is which and he suggested the
place a limitation on the duration of the mobile home permit to the lifetimes of Mr. and
Mrs. Bloodworth's parents.
Mr. John Wolfe told the Board he lives about half a mile from the intersection at Midway
na~the proposed mobile home site. He said he has a petition with the names of 75 homeowners
in the district who are opposed to the mobile home. About 98 percent of that 75, he said, live
within three quarters of a mile of the sit.e. He said the petitioners respectfully request that
the Board deny the special use permit for the mobile home. The landowners are afraid that
property in the area, including Several homes valued in excess of $100,000 will be devalued.
Mr. Wolfe said the infiltration of mobile homes should be discouraged and relegated to mobile
home parks. The petition, dated November 29, 1984, was~offered for the record.
Mr. Gordon Burton told the board that he owns land on the Miller School Road (Route 635)
and has five houses there, remodeled two more, and has two lots on which he plans to build. H~
objects to the mobile homes bec'ause he feels they will lower property values. He said allowing
the mobile home to be placed on the property will hUrt hi'm more than anyone.
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Burton could see the trailer from his house, even set as far back
as the proposed site. Mr. Gordon said he could. He asked if the trailer could be turned, if
it is approved, to face east and west instead of north and south, so he could see only the
small side.
Mr. Roger Rogers told the Board he lives one-half mile from the trailer site and fears the
devaluation of property in the' neighborhood. He said this issue tears apart a community,
emotionally. He would like'to see mobile hOmes' in parks. A mobile home was located next door
to his property for six years andLdur~ng~that time he was unable to sell his land~ He smg~eZh~
~eoBio~orth.~Fami~.l~yfind some other way to meet the needs of its aging parents.
Mr. John Burton said he had lived next door to a trailer for a while and he asked that the
Board look at the petition and note all the names of taxpayers. Those who signed Mr. Wolfe's
petition fear they might not be heard, he said, and he hopes the Board will keep in mind that
they also paid their taxes.
Mrs. Minda Borden spoke next, telling the Board that she lives directly in front of the
property on which the mobile hOme would be loaat.e~. She said she finds it sad that the whole
issue hare is the value of property. She said she herself comes from a culture where families
are taken care of. She said she and her husband did not oppose the petition because they
believe it is honorable for the Bloodworth's to want to care for aged parents who can no .longer
alone.
Mrs. Borden said the trailer site is directly across from her back porch, and she can bare]
see the mobile home site through the trees. She said that when she moved to the area, a mobile
home was already located nearbY. There is a .building down the road that is d~lapldated. The
Bloodworths have over 12 .acres 'and there are many bui. ldinEs.mnn~B, hat acreage. The Bloodworths
have assured them that when the' parents 'are gone,'bhhe mobile home will be moved, and she will
just have to trust them on the 'issue. Mrs. Borden said she is the p:~operty owner most affected
by the mobile home, but she does not believe the trailer will devalue property,~aince it cannot
be seen from the road.
Mr. Alfred Dollins s~id hewlive~ on the west side Of Route 635. He feels that regardless
of where a mobile home is located, it will affect the entire community and leaves the area more
open to other mobile homes. He said he owns 't~enty .acres in the neighborhood and he and his
neighbors do not want mobile hOmes:on any land in Midw~F.
Mr. Wilfred Siffordson, Mrs. Bloodworth's father, told the Board that he is 80 years old
and neither he nor his wife, aged 76, can care for themselves. Their family doctor in Ports-
mouth told them i~ ~o~ld~he ~ef~elal for them to moreland live near their daughter so they
could be cared for, since neither is in good healt.h.
Mr. Siffordson said he and his Wife are crowding the Bloodworth home because they must
live in the living room. The house has only three bedrooms for Mr. and Mrs. Bloodworth and
their three children, ages 17, 13 and eight. The delay in obtaining a permit for the mobile
home is exacerbating the problem and causing a certain amount of stress in the family. He said
he was sorry the Board had seen fit to defer the matter from December 5, because the notice
stated that interested parties must be present at this meeting and he and his family had come
out in the bad weather to present their case. .Now it seemed that the notice in the paper was
not strictly accurate.
December 12, 198~
(Regular Day Meeting)
571
Mr. Siffordson, referring to the plat of the proposed location of the mobile home, said it
is 650 feet from Route 635, 575 feet from the Gordon property, 625 feet from the Burton pro-
perty and 700 feet from the Perry property, shielded by woods and buildings. He said there is
another, much more debilitated property on Route 635, and with this picture in mind, he cannot
imagine denial of the permit.
Mr. Benjam2n Dick, attorney for the applicants was present to answer questions on the
matter.
Mr. Aubrey James told the Board he had lived in the neighborhood for ten years and that he
objects to the mobile home. Even though there are woods, one could see the trailer through the
trees in winter when the leaves are gone.
There being no one else present to speak on this matter, Mr. Fisher closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Fisher addressed the group and said some politicians would count noses and vote With
the majority of people. He said he has struggled with the issue of mobile homes for a number
of years, .and it is never easy..One always assumes the worst of mobile homes. He said, how-
ever, that he has listened to the .comments at the hearing and cannot find it in his heart to
deny the permit to the Bloodworths, for their parents~ benefit. He said he would vote for
the special use permit if the location is fixed, if the permit is limited _to tha lifetimes of
the parents and not rented, later. Mr. Fisher said he realized this is a lot to ask of the
Bloodworths, since removal of the mobile home is going to be expensive, but he does not want a
permanent mobile home on that site.
Mr. Bowie said he can understand the comments referring to property values. He would
suggest the permit be limited to use by the parents or until the property is sold, whichever
would occur first, and that the mobile home will be removed if the Bloodworth's parents no
longer live there. Mr. Bowie siad he agrees that consideration should be given to people
taking care of their own.
Mrs. Cooke said she is inclined to support this request because she feels the Board should
be a part of the solution to the problem of providing care for elderly parents. With the
conditions suggested by Mr. Fisher and Mr. Bowie, she can support approval of the permit.
Mr. Way and Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Donnelly to pinpoint the-exact location of the mobile
home on a plat, (plat showing 11.8 acres on State Route 635, Tax Map 71, Parcel 45A), which he
did. Mr. Fisher asked if the mobile home could be rotated to set in an east-west direction as
Mr. Gordon Burton had requested. Mr. Donnelly said this would be impossible due to the slope
of the site.
Mr. Lindstrom said this is an unusual request for a mobile home, and more justifiable than
those the Board often sees. He then made'motion to approve SP-84-69 subject to the following
conditions:
1 - Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2 - Location and screening of mobile home to the reasonable satis-
faction of the Zoning Administrator;
3 - Approval is limited to the lifetimes of the two sets of parents
of Mr. and Mrs. BloodwOrth, or, if the property is sold sooner,
the permit is terminated;
4 - The site for location of the mobile home must be as recommended
by the Planning Commission and noted as Alternate I on the plat
showing the physical survey of 11.88 acres on State Route 635,
designated Tax Map 71 - Parcel 45A, Samuel Miller Magisterial
District, by William Morris Foster, land surveyor, Charlottesville,
Virginia, dated April 30, 1984.
Way seconded the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Because of the time crunch, Mr. Fisher deferred Agenda Item No. 16, "Local Options for
Administering Industrial Development Authority Bonds", and the Board move to Item No. 17.
Agenda Item No. 17. School Facilities Plan Committee -- Draft RFP.
The following draft of a Request for Proposal (RFP) adopted by the School Facilities Plan
Committee had been furnished to the Board in advance of this meeting:
"SCHOOL FACILITIES EVALUATION
PROJECT TASKS
i. POPULATION/ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS
Ae
Development of Population/School Enrollment Projections
Based upon past trends, current estimates and anticipated future
directions, develop detailed mid-range (five'year) and long-
range (twenty-year) population projections and school
enrollment trends by-grade level and school district.
As part of these projections, analyze and evaluate the enroll-
ment trends of kindergarten and special education students.
Develop procedures designed to assist in projections of future
enrollment trends for these groups.
December 12, 198.4
(Re~utar Day Meeti.ng)
II.
Be
Development of Options/Solutions to School Capacity Problems
1,
.Analyze~ and evaluate the current and potential (based
upon ~he~ab~ve projections) problem of capacity in
~h~l~.en~o~tm~ts. Develop options/solutions to address
capacity problems.
2. Evaluation of the current capacity problems being
eXperienced at Scottsville/yanceY and Meriwether Lewis/
Murray must be completed and options outlined in the
project's first quarterly report (Or within the first three
months of the study from the date of the contract).
FACILITY PLANNING
Ae
Inventory
Inventory existing facilities as follows:
Develop floor plans to uniform scale for all facilities
to show square footage a~~u~ization.
Compare structural integrity of existing facilities
based upon visual examination to current applicable
standards.
Based upon the foregoing inventory, develop a facil-
ities plan consistent with the land use component of~
the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Based upon the foregoing inventory, develop a facilities
plan utilizing the following criteria:
a. Size/Capacity Standards
1. Elementary School
Where possible, based upon population
density factors, each elementary school
should have two sections per grade level.
This implies a minimum of twelve (12)
teaching stations (or 300 student capa-
city, assuming 25 students per teacher).
No elementary school should have more than
24 teaching stations (or approximately 600
students).
Middle School
a. Where possible (based upon population
density face,rs) each middle school should
be designed for a capacity of not less than
600 students.
Each middle school should be designed to
incorporate the continued use of team
teaching.
3. High School
Design' facility at sufficient capacity to
support county educational programs effi-
ciently.
b. Locational Standards
Elementary School
a. One-way bus trips to and from school should
not exceed one hour in duration.
Where possible, based upon population density
factors, schools should be located in recog-
nized or existing communities or neighborhoods.
2. Middle SchooZ
One-way bus trips to and from school should
not exceed one hour and fi'fteen minutes in
duration.
3. Hi'gh School
One-way bus trips to and from school should
not exceed one 'hour and fifteen minutes in
duration.
December 12, 1984
(Regular Day Meeting)
c. New Facility Standards
Develop new facility standards for each school facility
by type (elementary, middle, high school). New standards
should address, but not be limited to, the following:
3.
4.
5.
Air conditioning
Physical education facility
Fine arts
Administrative and support facilities
Community oriented outdoor facilities for
new school buildings
Science lab facilities.
Prepare a detailed justification and cost estimate
for each new facility standard recommended.
B. Recommended Improvements
Based upon the inventory analysis performed in Section A,
identify the school facilities requiring:
Minor repairs
Substantial rehabilitation
Replacement of existing facility
Consolidation of existing facilities
Construction of new facility
Priority should be given in this analysis to: maintaining the
neighborhood/community school concept, continuing the use of
existing facilities (example, Burtey Middle School), and
relieving overcrowded facilities.
Long-range (20 years) and mid-range (five years) recommen-
dations should be addressed.
III. EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS
Ae
Analyze and evaluate the efficiency of the operation of exist-
ing facilities exclusive of curriculum and personnel management,
etc.
Be
Analyze and evaluate the usefulness/cost-effectiveness of
contracting for such services as power plants, bus garages,
cafeterias, etc. Recommend options, prepare a detailed
justification and cost estimate for each recommendation
addressed.
IV. FINANCIAL PLANNING
Based upon foregoing facility plan and inventory, develop
a detailed financial estimate for all recommended improvements.
In preparing the financial statement, consideration must be
given to the use of State Literary Loan funds; current bonded
indebtedness of the school system; and phasing in of projects
to minimize the impact on the County's capital budget."
Mr. Lindstrom said the committee came up with this RFP by starting out with the premise
hat none of the members knew, from an expert's standpoint, what should go into the study, but
zll had concerns that needed to be addressed. A number of meetings were spent discussing the
~oals and areas that committee members thought should be addressed in this type of study. The
~FP, then, is the result of several weeks of hard work.
He saEd ~h~dreport does not suggest that the County tear down buildings that do not
to the standards set out in the RFP, but that the standards be a guideline when the County is
required to build a new building or renovate an old one. The study will also deal with the
efficiency of operation in existing physical plants, without duplicating the previous energy
study.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Committee requested that any consultants interested in the job list
costs and time estimates for each category of the study separately, so that if the job proves
expensive, as he fears it will, the County can choose the options it feels a consultant best
suited to and can do the rest with its own staff. He told the Board that the Committee has
reviewed the proposal with Werner Sensbach, planner for the University of Virginia, and incor-
)orated his suggestions into the RFP.
Mr. Way, who also serves on the committee, said he would like to reemphasize_wha~,~.
~indstrom said about looking at each area of the study in terms of cosT. ~nc ~guro ~na~
.- -~[ ~ . t for the study ~$35,000. Mr. Way said that if the consultant does everything,
it may cost considerably more than that· Mr.. Fisher asked how Mr. Way and Mr. Lindstrom
determined that~igurc, and Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Sensbach had given them rough estimates
based on his exp~ence~ ~k~ ~6~c_~_~e_6~ ~S~_~
December 12,1984
(Regul&rDay Mee~.~ng)
Mr. ~a~ said he feels it is important for the Board of Supervisors to continue to give the
Smhool Facilities Plan Committee serious guidelines sa it can decide which areas of the study
are important.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels this study represents the most comprehensive study that is
reasonable for the County, and the information will be valuable in planning for the next twenty
or thirty years. He said he feels the study is necessary, but the Committee needs direction
from the Board of Supervisors. The Committee does not intend to make a committment to a consul-
tant, but will use the information it gets from the consultants and return to the Board for
comments.
Mr. Fisher said the primary interest in schools right now seems to be in the Meriwether
Lewis/Murray and Scotts¥ille/Yancey situations, and he wonders if those schools should be
immersed in the overall plan. Mr. Lindstrom said the intent of the School Board and the Com-
mittee is that the study be comprehensive. It has, however, been designed to address the needs
of those schools first. The Committee did not, however, think it fair to limit the study to
those schools.
Mr. Fisher asked if there is any way to reduce the one hour travel time for elementary
school children to and from school. He said he has heard complaints from parents and he thinks
an hour may still be too long. He asked if the hour had anything to do with larger schools.
Mr. Way said the one hour limit is current schoot poticy. Mr. Papenfuse-said he did not want
the consultant coming back and saying the county can educate all its children in four buildings
By limiting the bus ride to one hour or less, the consultant.cannot recommend that the County
reduce the number of schools. In some of the more remote areas of the County, he added, it is
not possible to reduce the bus ride further. Mr. Fisher accepted this, but said the one-hour
statement in the RFP appears to be approving the travel time, whereas ideally, a one-hour bus
ride would be a worst-case time and most children would not be on the bus that long.
Mr. Bowie said more emphasis should be given in the plan to neighborhood schools. The
first mention of them comes on the third page of the RFP under item II.B. He feels this should
be moved and be made point 3 under "I. Population/enrollment analysi.s. B. Development of
Options/Solutions to School Capacity Problems."- Mr. L~ndstrom said he has no problems with
making the neighborhood school policy more prominent, in the RFP.
Mr. Fisher asked if the procedure involved is now to send the RFP to a number of con-
sultantsfor pricing and then to make a recommendation to the~ Board before it goes to contract.
Mr. Way said the Board must approve the plan and~the hiring of a consultant.
Mrs. Cooke made motion to approve the RFP and to give a charge to the Committee to take
the necessary steps to implement the study. Seconded by Bowie, the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke. Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher said, before the vote was taken, that Mr. Jerry Donowitz had requested to speak
to the Board on the RFP.
Mr. Donowitz introduced himself and Mr. Clifford Haury as presidents of the Murray and
ther Lewis schools' Parent-Teacher Associations, respectively. They presented the Board
petitions from parents of children in these schools urging the Board to support the study
of school facilities. The groups also want the Meriwether Lewis/Murray situation reviewed
the first months of the study, as proposed. As importantly, he said, the Board and
School Board need to act on the recommendations from the consultant.
Mr. Haury said the Comprehensive School Plan lists the Meriwether-Le.wis/Murray situation
as its first priority. If the Board finds it must decide how to spend the $35,000 for a con-
sultant, Mr. Haury said the Board should at least cover this project.
Mr. Lindstrom said he, along with the rest of the Board, had delayed in making a planning
sion on Meriwether Lewis/Murray until census information and new zoning were in place.
those items were finally obtained, the money was not available for the project. He said
felt embarrassed over this, because he had-supported the delay. Now, however, the money
situation is better. He supports the communities who have said "we want a building together'~
and is in favor of dealing with this project as soon as possible.
Agenda Item No. 18. Executive Session: Personnel.
On motion by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, the Board agreed to go into executive session
for the discussion of personnel, 12:20 p.m. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Local Options for Administering Industrial Development Bonds.
Mr. Tucker presented and summarized a memorandum he had written on the subject of adminis-
Industrial Development Bonds under the new guidelines:
"(Attached) for your review and comment is a copy of a staff report
prepared at your request on the status of local government adminis-
tration of Industrial Development Bonds. The report provides back-
ground information on the recen~ legislation, which capped the
amount of Private Activity Bonds states and subsequently localities
could allocate in 1984; an overview of policy options other localities
December 12~ 1984
(Regular Day Meeting)
throughout the state are considering to assist them in administering
their bond allocation; and, a legislative update on possible future
restrictions to local government bond allocations in 1985 and 1986.
Staff Recommendations
Based upon the policy options outlined in the report and given mn the
County's character and limited bond allocation ($4,312,000 in 1984),
staff is recommending that the following policies relating to the admin-
istration of Private Activity Bonds be adopted.
Restrictions on Applicants
The Industrial Development Authority should continue .to allocate bond
funds on a first-come, first-served basis. However, the following new
restrictions on bond financing should be applied.
Bond financing requests must be in excess of .$500,000. Projects
under $500,000 will be referred to the State Small Business Finan-
cing Authority.
Signed letters of committment from lending institution must be
received prior to bond application.
Inducement letters from the Industrial Development Authority will
be limited to a six month validity period with no extensions.
Application Review Criteria
As an internal management tool to assist the Industrial Development
Authority and County in determining the cost/benefit of projects, all
applicants will be required to submit detailed documentation of the
amount of taxes generated and jobs created per bond dollar.
The (attached) report and comments have been sent to the Industrial
Development Authority for their comment and recommendation."
(Note: Report referred to is on file in the Clerk's Office.)
Mr. Tucker said that in addition to these guidelines, the Board and Authority might also
want to establish some internal criteria. He said the Board might want to specify some types
of industry to be encouraged in the area, as Norfolk is doing with its bonds. One disadvantage
to this is that it might discourage developers with other ideas.
Another option, one used in Portsmouth, is allocating funds based on the percentage of
return to the community in the form of tax dollars and employment opportunities. A disadvantage
to this, Mr. Tucker said, is that it looks only at the economic benefit of an industry and not
~t environmental or other concerns. Arlington County divides its portion of funds into quart-
srs. Albemarle C~unty might have a problem with this since the amount of allocation is so
small, it would be allocating only a little over a million dollars per quarter. Most of the
oond issues in the past have averaged $3 million.
Mr. Tucker said a fourth option would be to allocate funds only twice a year, but the $2
uillion would still be below the average amount of money the county has allocated per issue in
the past. The fifth option is reviewing all requests on an annual basis, although most firms
~r developers would not be able to wait that long. The Board would, hoWever, have the advantage
of choosing the best projects this way.
A final option, used in Fairfax County, is to allocate bond funds on a first-come, first-
~erved basis. Mr. Tucker said this would be the staff's recommendation. He said the staff
feels that most projects would take all of the allocation for a single year, so this will mean
that some worthy projects cannot be funded.
The Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority, Mr. Tucker said., will meet on
December 19 and may possibly make a recommendation to the Board on that evening.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Tucker if it would be possible to have a quarterly review of projects
saying she liked the review process but feels six months to a year would be too long to wait.
Mr. Fisher said the problem with that is lack of money. He added that the Board could have a
quarterly review and could deny all applications if none seemed suitable. Mr. Tucker said .if it
did not allocate the money at all, the funds would go into the state reserve, and application
could be made for those funds at the end of the year if what appeared to be a good project was
presented f.or funding.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the criteria for a quarterly review process would be the same
criteria as that listed in the staff'.s memorandum. Mr. Tucker said a quarterly review process
would require the establishment of some criteria; the items listed in the staff's report are
only some preliminary ideas for criteria. He said the State is considering giving priority to
projects that provide basic employment, bring new revenue into the local economy, are of
regional benefit, stimulate employment and economic growth, and to projects exempt from the $10
million small-issue regulation, such as projects to provide housing for low-income families.
He said the Board does not have to follow these guidelines, but can develop its own criteria.
Mr. Lindstrom said the County has been presented with some good projects for expansion of
local industries and employment of local people. He said that industrial development has
focused on research and development industries -- new industries that do not really provide for
the marginally employed of Albemarle County. Industries that meet a local need, he feels, are
the ones that should be encouraged by this type of bond. Mr. Tucker said the cost-benefit
clause in the memorandum could be used as part of the criteria if the Board so desires.
57'8
December t2, 1984
(Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Bowie said he had attended an economic development seminar where he learned that so-
called "Fortune 500" companies do not generate new jobs in the areas where they locate. Instead,
he said eighty percent of all new jobs come by supporting local industry in the community.
Existing businesses have their management in place and the money for expansion can be used to
create jobs for local residents.
Mr. Fisher said many so-called new jobs created by an industry are actually just transfer
jobs and do not employ local people, but bring in company personnel from other places. He
feels the Board should distinguish between new and transfer jobs in any policy. Transfer jobs
amount to taking a job from one person and giving it to another.. The Board's goal should be
basic employment by existing manufacturers.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has recently looked at the Virginia Employment Commission statistics~
and it seems that Albemarle County is currently experiencing a higher unemployment rate than
historically it has had. He feels some of this is due to large, nationally-based industries
whose payrolls fluctuate with the stock market, and who lay off workers and then hesit.ate about
rehiring them. He feels that the county has a number of very stable local companies, but the
county's economic base was more stable when the majority of its employment was provided by the
government than now, when large companies persistently lay off employees. He said priority
should perhaps be given to the local employer because the stability is there, and the local
businesses may serve a pre-existing need.
Mr. Bowie said another advantage to giving local businesses priority is that these busi-
nesses usually require less money, so the County's $4.3 million would go, further.
-Agenda Item No. 19. Work Session on Fee Schedules.
This item was rescheduled from the November 14 meeting in order to allow the Board members
time to think about the amount of recovery the County should get from fees charged for all
types of building/construction activities. On November 14, the staff had presented information
showing the amount of revenues which might be expected based on four different percentages of
recovery; 25, 50, 75 and 100 percent. Mr. Fisher said he felt the Board needed to decide
first whether the citizen applying for a permit should bear the entire cost of same, or whether
the County and the citizen should share the costs equally. Mr. Lindstrom immediately made
motion to eliminate from discussion the possibility of using either a 25 percent or a 75 percent
recovery. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS.
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker about fees for approval of plats under subdivision ordinance
regulations. Mr. Tucker said he understood Mr. Lindstrom to say previously that in the areas
of planning and engineering there are indications for shared costs, since both the County and
the consumer receive some benefit from these regulations. Building permit fees, however,
should probably be borne totally by the developer, (consumer), because the County is not
directly benefitted. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Tucker is saying that subdivision costs should be
split 50-50, with both County and consumer bearing half the cost. Mr. Lindstrom said the~costs
of building inspections should be a 100 percent recovery and for engineering the costs should
be shared 50-50. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that planning
benefits both the county and the citizen, while the inspections department really only serves
the consumer.
Mr. Tucker added that the County ms limited to charging $300 in fees for soil erosion
permits. Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, has said that, the State Code mandates a ceiling
on such fees, and the County might stipulate in its ordinance that the applicant will pay fifty
percent of the fee for a soil erosion permit up to $300. The County's expenses are higher than
that, and Mr. Tucker said the Board might want to consider raising this to 100 percent because
the County is never going to recoup all its costs for~inspections on soil erosion permits.
Mr. Fisher asked the Board members their opinions on the proposal. Mr. Bowie said he
feels the Board may have acted too hastily in removing the 25 percent fee from consideration.
He has no problem with passing costs to developers, but he is concerned for homeowners who-may
want to make some minor repairs or renovations and will have to pay a-substantial amount of
money just to be allowed to do the work. Mr. Bowie said he feels the effect of a higher fee
for these people will be noncompliance with the ordinances.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that as a public official, he is not really concerned with how
a certain citizen wires a house. Up to now,.taxes from.all county residents have subsidized
the inspections needed by a few county residents. Now,,~however,~with a new fee schedule, only
those who need inspections will pay for them, and county residents will not be spending tax
money to pay for inspections they themselves do not benefit from. Mr. Lindstrom said he did
not know how to address the problem of noncompliance, but it is a valid concern. Even if the
Board lowered the fees, however, there might still be people who do not comply with the inspec;
tions ordinances. Mr.. Bowie said he could see. some amelioration of this problem if-the
in fees reduced the amount of money the'average citizen pays in taxes, but he said he does not
see this happening. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board should ask the staff to tell it how the
increase in fees will affect the County's need for revenue and what the effect .on the County
budget will be. Mr. Bowie said he still sees everybody paying for services, whether they use
Ithem or not, and then the departments garnering still more money by charging the increased
fees. Mr. Lindstrom said the real reason to do this is to allocate costs more fairly. If
costs are not allocated more fairly, then the increase in fees becomes an academic exercise
with no purpoSe. Mr. Fisher said he feels an-increase in fees is appropriate whether or not it
provides a reduction in taxes; It is equally important,-he said, t0:.-be able to hire new tea ke
Ilor new police officers. Mr. Lindstrom said those would be..appropriate us~s, since the amount'
tlthatwould have had to be allocated to for to' another of
pay
inspections
can
nOW
be
moved
area
tthe budget and one that is getting no revenue increase from another source. Mr. Fisher said
Ithe Board should ask the staff to look at this, after it directs them as to which percentage of
tcosts each department should be trying to recover.
5?7
December 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that planning fees be split 50-50, (subdivision plats, site plans,
special permits, zoning changes, etc.), charge t00 percent for inspections, (building, plumb-
lng, electrical, mechanical permits, etc.), and split 50-50 the engineering fees (soil erosion
permits). Mr. Tucker asked if the Board wanted comparisons of amounts with the fees being
charged now, and Mr. Lindstrom said that is correct.
Mr. Fisher said he was shocked at how little the consumer is paying for these services,
and the fees probably should be increased somehow, to more accurately reflect what some of
these procedures cosy. He said the question is how much more revenue would be generated for
the County. Mr. Fisher said the best procedure at this point would be to adopt a resolution
naming the tentative rates and have the staff work out comparisons.
Mr. Lindstrom made motion that the Board adopt the rates as suggested for the purpose of
determining what the effect these rates would have on revenues and expenditures. Mrs. Cooke
seconded the motion.
Mr. Way said he had no real objection, but had some reservations about charging 100
of the costs of building inspections to the consumer. He said he is not convinced that the
cost should all be borne by the individual because he feels the inspections are not always
conducted fairly and equally. Mr. Lindstrom agreed, saying it is important for County citizens
to get what they pay for. He said Mr. St. John might want to address the question of liability
in case the County is ever at fault because of some mistake in an inspection.
Mr. Tucker said the building fees were adopted in 1973, and the idea at that time was that
the department would be self-supporting. Unfortunately, the fees have not .been increased since
that time.
Mr. Bowie said he is concerned because the Board has no control over how many times the
Inspections Department sends someo..ne out to look at a building, and this could cause a hardship
for an individual if he had to pay $75 each time someone inspected his building. It is espe-
cially bad because this person is being punished for complying with the law. Mr. Tucker said
the $75 is not a charge made for every inspection. That amount covers the initial reviews.
After those reviews, the applicant pays a reduced fee for reinspection. The first reinspection,
for instance, will cost nothing. Subsequent reinspections cost $20. Mr. Bowie said homeowners
and builders do nov always get advance notice when inspectors are. due, and so the inspector
shows up, and leaves, finding no one to show the property, so the first free inspection is gone
~nd now the applicant will have to start paying for them. He suggested that the system could
use some improvement.
Agenda Item No. 20.
Study.
Discussion of Planning Commission Memorandum on Land Use Procedures
Mr. Fisher said the Board had received the following communication concerning Mr.
proposal for a committee to study the County's land use procedures:
"November 28, 1984
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
RE: Mr. Lindstrom's letter of October 29, 1984.
.Dear Members of the Board:
Since our joint meeting of November 7, 1984, we have reviewed and dis-
cussed Mr. Lindstrom's letter of October 29, 1984, We share many of
the concerns that were mentioned and, in fact, had addressed some of
them in our ongoing attempts at streamlining the operation of the
Planning Commission.
Because the letter is fairly broad in its overall scope, we have
elected to concentrate, at least as a beginning, on those issues which
deal with the submission and processing of the various and sundry permits
that are required under the County's ordinances. We do not interpret the
letter as an indication that any of our ordinances should be relaxed or
modified in any way that would jeopardize the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan or our recently enacted Zoning Ordinance. Rather, we will direct
our attention to modifying the procedures used in the permit process in
an effort to alleviate confusion, redundency, and unnecessary expenses
incurred as a result of wasted time.
We have already requested staff to submit development process flow
charts illustrating step-by-step procedures now in use when any form
of permit, site plan, or subdivision is requested. Staff will present
this information to us on December 11, 1984. At the same time, staff
will advise us of their progress in implementing the, new Development
Tracking System which will become a part of our study to determine its
potential value in the overall streamlining system.
In addition to examining the procedures of the permit process, the
Planning Commission feels this is an appropriate time to review the
way the planning process works, and the role of the various committees,
commissions, boards and other organizations who have a part in the
planning process of Albemarle County. In particular, the Planning
Commission feels it must review its own priorities and workload, and
that this review would be more meaningful if conducted within the frame-
work of an overall review of the role which other organizations play
in the planning process.
578
December 12~ 1984
~Regular Day Meeting]
In regard to establishing a committee, we agree that it should be
done but only after we have had time to develop specific objectives
and provide input to give a committee something to start with. Other-
wise, we fear that the committee could be divided in too many direc-
tions which would inhibit its value. Our timetable for establishing
a committee would be around the first of the year. This would also
alleviate the problem of meeting dates around the holidays.
We invite your comments and suggestions both now and as we proceed
with this project. We shall keep you advised as we go along, and hope
that our interpretation of Mr; Lindstrom's letter meets with your
aPproval and the best interests of the citizens of Albemarle County.
Very truly yours,
David P. Bowerman, Chairman
Albemarle County Planning Commission"
Mr. Lindstrom said that when he read this letter the first time, several different inter-
~retations suggested themselves. He does not have a strong reaction one way or the other, but
~he Board should perhaps draft an answer to the Planning Commission. The one thing about the
letter that bothered him, he said, is that it seems a little confused. A letter from the Board
~ould perhaps sharpen the focus and present a stronger position to the Commission.
Mr. Lindstrom presented the Board with a letter he had drafted, suggesting that it be used
as a starting point for the Board's letter to the Planning Commission. In the letter, Mr.
Lindstrom said he had set forth a charge to the committee that might clarify things for the
Planning Commission. He said the charge parallels what the Commission had suggested, but
places more emphasis on a study of the permitting procedures, including a review of hearing and
"intake" procedures in current County ordinances. He would also have the committee review
interactions with other agencies, such as the health department, the Albemarle County Service
Authority, and the like. By including other agencies in the study, the committee has the best
perspective from which to identify duplication and unnecessary steps. Mr. Lindstrom said the
committee could recommend changes in county ordinances and changes in the way the County works
with other groups. The Committee's first task would be to prepare a statement of its work and
a timetable for the study. This would be reviewed and approved by the Board of Supervisors and
the Planning Commission before t~he committee began its work.
Mr. Lindstrom said he felt it is very important for the County to get a viewpoint from
someone outside of the County structure. How the committee goes about this will be its own
decision, but it should bring a fresh perspective to Albemarle County ordinances and proce-
dures. He said the committee should be established and allowed to present its own ideas about
such a study. If there are parts the Board feels will be unnecessary, these parts can be removed
from consideration.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is afraid the Planning Commission has so much work going on already
that this committee might be forgotten for a couple of months while the Commission does other
things. He said he would like to see the committee get underway in January.
Mrs. Cooke, the Board's liason to the Planning Commission, said the Commission felt it
should not set policies for the committee, but needed more specific directions. She said the
Planning Commission feared it might undertake a'study that might not be what the Board has in
mind.
Mr. Lindstrom said another concern he developed after reading the letter is that the
Planning Commission might oversee the entire study~ Their particiPation is assured by having
two of their number on the study committee. It was not his intent, he said, that the Planning
Commission be the managers or overseers of the project. He said this study should not inter-
fere with the Planning Commission's work load, or even overlap any of their studies. Mr.
Lindstrom said a recent set of Planning Commission minutes contained a sentence on this subject
that distressed him. It stated that the Planning Commission members felt, to paraphrase, that.
it might be a long time before the land use procedures~committee actually did anything. Mr.
Lindstrom said he feels the Board should do something to move this idea along.
Mr. Bowie said he is worried about having two.Planning Commission members tied up with
this committee in addition to all the other services they perform for the County. Mr. Bowie
suggested the Planning Commission be allowed to appoint two committee members who are not
necessarily members of the Commission. Mr. Lindstrom said he has talked with the two people
who have been chosen to serve~ and~they both seem very anxious to do so.
Mr. Bowie said that in the light of changing the various fee schedules, it is appropriate
for the County to get on with this study so it can learn how it does things and so procedures
can be streamlined. It might help to obtain compliance with County Ordinances if people knew
that they can come to the County offices and get reasonable~solutions to their problems.
Mr. Fisher told the Board he feeZs that this study-committee should proceed. He said he
had been told by Mr. Richard Collins at the University of Virginia, that two other Virginia
localities are doing the same type of study. Mr, Fisher said he feels Mr. Collins might under-
take the study, for a fairly low fee. This wou!d free up the staff, but Mr. Collins would need
a definate charge.
Mr. Way agreed with what had been said, and said he very much approves of the study. He
said he feels the Board should, get the study started as soon'as possible. Mr. Lindstrom's
second letter (a draft shown to Board members earlier), seems fairly clear as to what the
Planning Commission is supposed to do. 'He said he cannot remember the composition of the
committee. Mr. Lindstrom said the original indication was for two members of the Planning
Commission, two members appointed by the Board of Supervisors, two representatives of private
industry who come into contact with County laws, and a person to serve as chairman who is
selected by the committee itself.
December 12, 1984
(Regular Day Meeting)
Mrs. Cooke asked who should start the study committee, and was told by Mr. Lindstrom that
the Board should provide the first nudge. If the Board is agreeable to his letter to the
Planning Commission, Mrs. Cooke could deliver the letter and say "hurry".
Mr. Lindstrom made motion to send the letter (following), with Mr. Fisher's signature, to
the Planning Commission, with a charge to the committee and a request for the names of the
Planning Commission's appointees. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion, which carried by the followin
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
"December 14, 1984
Mr. David P. Bowerman, Chairman
Albemarle County Planning Commission
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
RE: Lindstrom letter of October 29, 1984
Dear David:
The Board has received and reviewed your letter of November 28th.
The Board has asked me to express to you its appreciation for the
time which you have spent in connection with the matters discussed
in Mr. Lindstrom's letter as well as the significant time which has
been spent by the Commission in recent months concerning the entire
planning process as it exists in Albemarle County.
In connection with the suggestions contained in Mr. Lindstrom's
letter, the Board would suggest that the following be considered as
a charge to the committee which his letter recommends creating:
Review of all permitting procedures required by any
ordinance adopted by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors. Such review should include the following:
ae
Review of all hearing procedures required as a
part of the permitting process.
Review of all "intake" procedures for all permit
applicants under County ordinances.
Review of current policies, procedures or other
requirements regarding the interaction of other
agencies with the County permitting process includ-
ing, but not limited to, the Albemarle County SerV-
ice Authority, Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, Thomas Jefferson Regional Health
Department, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, etc.
Based upon the foregoing review, recommend changes, if any,
which the committee believes would facilitate the inter-
action of citizens and local government and the review and
approval of permits required under ordinances established by
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. The committee may
also recommend such changes it believes would facilitate
the foregoing in the procedures of those agencies whose
approval is a necessary part of the permitting process under
County ordinances.
The committee should, as its first task, prepare a state-
ment regarding the scope of the work it will undertake in
the accomplishment of its charge as well as a timetable therefor.
Such scope of work and timetable shall be presented to the Board
of Supervisors by March 1, 1985 for its review and approval.
Upon receiving such approval, the committee shall proceed
to discharge its duties. In its statement of scope o~ work the
committee shall state whether or not it will require the assis-
tance of a consultant, and if so it shall recommend to the
Board that a consultant be hired and the committee shall set
forth the specific scope of work to be undertaken~by the consultant.
The Board believes that this study should be undertaken independently
from itself and the Planning Commission and staff. It recognizes that
staff assistance may be necessary from time to time, but believes that
there is substantial benefit to be derived by an "outside" study of the
topic. Subject to the approval by the Planning Commission of the
foregoing charge, the Board is hopeful that a committee can be appointed
in early January.
The Board looks forward to the Commission's comments and suggestions ~ith
respect to the foregoing charge and also to receiving the names of those
members of the Commission who have been selected to serve on the committee.
Sincerely,
(S~GN~D)
Gerald E. Fisher
Chairman"
December 12, 1989 (R~gular Day MeetingJ
Agenda Item No. 21. Appointments.
Item No. 2la. Constitution Highway Committee.
Mr. Agnor said the Board had received a request from Mr. Pete Joyner, president of the
Consititution Highway Association to reactivate the Association~. Mr. Joyner notes in his lette
of November 2, 1984, that the primary goal of this association was to secure designation of
Route 20 as the "Constitution Route" and this was done in 1976. Thereafter, brochures
ilpublicizing the scenic and historic nature of the highway were distributed'to visitor centers
lthroughout the nation in 1977. The association has been inactive during the past several years
but with recent developments concerning the opening of Montpelier in Orange County to the publi
Mr. Joyner is asking that Albemarle County appoint a representative to the association for a
meeting in the future. Mr. Agnor said that no request for funds accompanied this request.
Mr. Way said Route 20 bisects his district (Scottsville) and he does not want anything to
happen to it without Albemarle County having a voice in the proceedings. Mr. Way said he would
serve on the Association.
Mr. Bowie made motion to appoint Mr. Way to the Constitution Highway Association. Mr.
Lindstrom seconded the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Item No. ~lb. Combining the BOCA Board and the Fire Prevention Code Board of Appeals,
The Board received the following memorandum from Mr. Robert Tucker dated December 3, 1984,
on the combining of the two boards:
"In connection with your attempt to standardize the appointment process
for the many boards and commissions that you appoint, staff has requested
comments or suggestions from the Jefferson Country Firefighters' Association
concerning the Fire Prevention Appeals Board.
Mr. Richard B. Martin, president of the Jefferson Country Firefi~hters Assoc-
iation, has contacted me with regard to ~this matter and indicates that his
association supports the combining of the two appeals boards into one
board. In supporting this approach, however, they are requesting that
the Board give consideration to appointing, as vacancies arise, a qual-
ified member(s) from their volunteer firemen membership.
In order to avoid any possible legal question of combining the two
Boards and avoid any change of ordinance, the easiest alternative would
be to maintain the two separate Boards by ordinance and appoint five
members each. The BOCA Board of Appeals has four members with unex-
pired terms and the Fire Prevention Board of Appeals has three members
with unexpired terms. Staff notes that this approach can be resolved by
appointing the current members of each Board to existing vacancies. By
August 21, 1986, which is the next date for a term to expire, both Boards
could have identical membership.
If you wish to go forward with this proposal, staff would suggest that
Roger L. Baber (volunteer fireman) be appointed to the vacancy on the
BOCA Board and that L. A. Lacy and Kenneth O. Smith be appointed to
the vacancies on the Fire Prevention B~ard.
I am attaching the membership rosters of both Boards for your
information and should you have any questions concerning this matter,
prior to your meeting, please do not hesitate to contact me."
Mr. Agnor said the recommendation from Mr, Tucker is that the Board go ahead and appoint
Mr. Lacy and Mr. Smith to the Fire Prevention Board and Mr. Baber to the BOCA Board.
Mr. Lindstrom made motion to appoint Mr. Baber to the BOCA Board with a term to expire on
August 21, 1989, and to appoint Mr. Lacy and Mr. Smith to the Fire Prevention Appeals Board
with terms to expire on November 21, 1989. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion, which carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Item No. 21c. Welfare Board - Tie Breaker. This item was deferred from November 14,
1984. Mrs. Karen Morris had requested that the Board appoint a tie-breaker for the Welfare
Board since recent action to make appointments from each magisterial district changes the
composition of this board from five to six.
Mr. Fisher said the Code of Virginia requires that if there are an even number of appoin-
tees on the Welfare Board, a tie-break.er must be appointed to serve in case of a tie vote.
Staff was requested to see if theWW~l~re~Baard could operate as the Board does, where a tie
vote automatically defeats the motion. It was determined that Virginia Code Sec. 63.1-40
requires appointment of a tie-breaker. Mr. Fisher said it might be possible for a staff person
to fill this position, but it would put them in a crossfire between fellow employees if the
tie-breaking power had to be exercised. Mr. Agnor said he did not think a staff person would
suit in this case. Mr. Fisher asked if appointing a tie-breaker would require any changes in a
local ordinance and was told that the State Code covers the Welfare Board.
December 12, 1984
(Regular Day Meeting)
Mrs. Cooke asked if this vacancy has been advertised, and Mr. Agnor said it has not been.
Mrs. Cooke said she cannot imagine anyone applying for a posi~i~n~hatmm~ght~mot be used. She
asked if it would be appropriate to appoint a staff member not connected with the Welfare
Board. Mr. Agnor said he could see a potential problem if~someone outside~ of the Social
Services Department had to break a tie.
Mr. Fisher said he has no problem with appointing a tie-breaker, but cannot see advertis-
ing for the position. Mr. Henley asked if there are any restrictions on who may be appointed;
Mr. Agnor said there are none the staff is aware of. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the police
chief be appointed. Mr. Agnor said he would rather see a member of his staff appointed to the
position, because there might be problems if one department head is called on to settle a
dispute in another department. Mrs. Cooke suggested the appointment of the Deputy County
ExeCutive for Development as the tie-breaker. She then made motion to appoint the Deputy
County Executive for Development as the tie-breaker to the Welfare Board. Seconded by Mr. Way,.
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Item No. 21d. Albemarle County Service Authority - (Public Hearing on Ordinance. Amendment
(Sec. 2-26) continued from November 14, 1984.)
Mr. Agnor said the Board had voted to increase the number of members of the Albemarle
County Service Authority from five to six, in order to have one member from each magisterial
district, and with the terms of the members running concurrently with that of the supervisor
making the appointment. However, staff had failed to include a chart with the amendment show-
ing how this change would be made when the public hearing was held on November 14, 1984. Mr.
Agnor said the staff supports that appointments continue to be made in April because Board
members taking office on January 1st need some time to get oriented before they are called upon
to make appointments. A chart showing a method for conversion of appointments to a new ~
schedule was given to the Board members.
Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing again. There being no one present to speak for or
against the ordinance, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom made motion to adopt the following ordinance amending Section 2-26 of the
Albemarle County Code. Seconded by Mrs. Cooke, the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
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
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that Section 2-26 of the Albemarle County Code is hereby amended and re-
enacted as follows;
Section 2-26.
Membership; appointment and term of office of members;
filling of vacancies.
(a) The Albemarle County Service Authority shall consist of six
members, to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors, with one member
being appointed from each of the six Magisterial Districts in Albe-
marle County. Upon expiration of the original terms of-office, of pre-
sent board members and the new board member, as shown on the attached
chart made a part of this ordinance, successors shall be appointed for
the terms shown on the chart. Threrafter, successors shall serve a
term concurrent with the term of office of the Supervisor appointing
that member. Each such person appointed shall serve until the expir-
ation of his term or until his successor shall have been duly appointed
and qualified.
(b) Any vacancy in the member's of the Authority, other than
by expiration of such member's term of office, shall be filled by
the appointment of a member to fill such vacancy for the unexpired
term only.
Magisterial
District
Albemarle County
Supervisor S~rvice Authority
Presently Supervisor's Member Currently Term
In Office Term Expires Serving Expires
When Term Expires,
Appoint New Member
For Term Shown
Charlottesville
Jouett
Samuel Miller
White Hall
Scottsville
Rivanna
Cooke 12-31-85 Don Wagner 4-16-88
Lindstrom 12-31-85 Robert Humphris 4-16-86
Fisher 12-31-85 Elizabeth Tewksbury 4-16-86
Henley 12-31-87 Norman Gillum 4-16-85
Way 12-31-87 Thomas E. Bruce, Jr. 4-16-87
Bowie 12-31-87 (new vacancy) ....
4-16-90
4-16-90
4-16-90
4-16-88
4-16-88
4-16-88
582
December 12~ 1984
(Regular Day Meeting~)
Mr. Lindstrom made motion to accept the appointment calendar shown above.
Mrs. Cooke, the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Seconded by
Non-Agenda Item. Appointment to Visitors' Bureau.
Mr. Agnor said that since advertising vacancies for the county's ~boards and commissions_,
the staff has been advertised that there are two vacancies on the Visitors' Bureau. According
to Board policy, if those serving in office are eligible to be reappointed to their respective
board or commission, and if they wish to serve, they may be reappointed without advertising .the
vacancies. Mr. Charles Grandquist and Mrs. Evelyn Turnbuil have indicated that they are willin
to serve again on this bureau. Mr. Grandquist represents the local tourist attractions and
works for the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation. Mrs. Turnbull represents the University of
Virginia.
Mr. Way made motion that Mr. Grandquist and Mrs. Turnbull be reappointed to the Visitors'
Bureau with terms to expire on February 28, 1987. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion, which passed
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 22.
Receive and Order Filed the Following Letters, Memoranda and Reports:
Item No. 22a. Spring Trash Cleanup. Memo from Patrick K. Mullaney, Director of Parks and
Recreation, stating that the Clean Community Commission is planning a spring cleanup and the
Parks Department will assist them.
Mr. Fisher asked if the other items b - d are for information only and was told that they
are. The Clerk moved the items away from the consent agenda to focus attention on what they
are, i.e., items nat requiring Board action or approval. After this meeting, he said, he would
recommend that similar items be returned to the consent agenda with the notation "receive and
order filed."
Item No. 22b. Letter:
(dated November 14, 1984).
Crossroads Tavern entered on National Register of Historic Places
On November 20, 1984, the Board received a copy of a letter from State Historic Preser-
vation Officer H. Bryan Mitchell to Mr. Stephen E. Ramsey of North Garden dated November 14,
1984. Mr. Mitchell told Mr. Ramsey that Crossroads Tavern was entered into the National Regis-
ter of Historic Places on August 16, 1984.
Item No. 22c. Memo concerning FmHA Outreach Meetings, Community Centers located in the
County and Petty Cash Funds (from Mr. Tucker, dated November 30, 1984).
In answer to some questions raised by Board members at the October meeting, Mr. Tucker
reported in the following memorandum:
"1. Status of FMHA Outreach Meetings
The local Farmer's Home Administration (FmHA) Office will be participating in
a housing symposium sp~s~ by the Albemarle County Housing Coalition
early next year. The symposium participants will include staff of the
Jefferson Area Board on Aging, Albemarle County Housing Improvement Program,
County Social Services and Planning and Community
and other interested individuals. Topics of discussion will-include the
FmHA 504 and 502 as well as other housing programs. (This is not exactly
what I understood FmHA was going to provide, however, this is the program
being organized to date.)
2. Community Centers Located in the County
According to Ken Ackerman, Executive Director of the Monticello Area Community
Action Agency, formal and informal community centers are believed to exist at
the following sites:
Esmont, Rosehitl/Woodridge, Cismont, Shadwell, White Hall
Brown's Cove, North Garden and Newtown.
With the exception of Esmont, Newtown and White Hall (there is a question as
to whether this site is still operating), all of the remaining community centers
are operated through local churches. In this instance, the church facility
can only be used for community activities approved by the churchs' pastor and/or
council.
The formality or informality of the community senters operations vary
over time depending upon interest and level of community participation.
Dec_ember 12, 1984
(Regular Day Meeting)
583
3. Petty Cash Funds
The County currently operates the following petty cash funds:
Finance Department
-$1,400 petty cash fund to operate payment windows
-$4,500 revolving fund to be used for emergency checks, travel
expenses
Education Department
$25 miscellaneous
Social Services Department
$25 miscellaneous
Zoning Department
$25 miscellaneous
Inspections Department
$25 miscellaneous
Planning Department
$10 miscellaneous
Police Department
$500 informant payment fund
County Executives Office
$20 stamp fund"
Item No. 22d. Letter - Route 29 North improvement at the South Fork Rivanna River Bridge
(dated November 19, 1984). ~ '
This item was considered Under highway matters.
Agenda Item No. 13. Status Report - Parks and Recreation Projects.
Mr. Agnor said there are three projects the Parks and Recreation Department is currently
working on, and these are addressed in a memorandum from Mr. Tucker, dat~ November 28, 1984,
to wit:
"I have asked Mr. Patrick K. Mutlaney, Director of Parks and Recreation,
to provide me with a status report of the three major studies that his
department is undertaking at this time. These projects include a study
on the City/County Athletic Needs, the Southern Regional Park project,
and the Hardware Rapids Park project. The City/County Athletic Needs
Study is progressing on schedule having been divided between the staffs
of the City and County parks and recreation departments. We are hopeful
to have the report completed or at least a draft completed by February,
1985.
The Southern Regional Park project is also proceeding on schedule with
ten prospective sites being studied at this time. These ten sites will
be further reduced to two or three prime sites which will be studied in
more detail. Once our preliminary analysis has been completed, we will
present these various sites to you for your consideration. We are hoping
to make that presentation to you in late February or March, 1985.
The Hardware Rapids Park (Pancake Falls) proposal has generated a considerable
amount of public opposition to date. Since the location of this site was known
from the beginning, Mr. Mullaney has contacted adjacent property owners
to this site and requested their input concerning the location of a park
in their area. In addition, Mr. Mullaney and Reverend Way have attended
public meetings in the area and Pat has met with individuals at the site.
The majority of those people that Pat has contacted are opposed to the
location of the Park along the Hardware River. Many are concerned that
the present problems that they are experiencing along the river, such as
trespassing and littering of the property, will unfortunately increase if
public access is made available to the Hardware River. Since there has
been a substantial amount of public opposition generated thus far, it is
staff's opinion that the Board should consider holding a public meeting
on the matter and solicit input from property owners in the area prior to
staff doing any further work on the proposal.
Should you have any questions concerning these projects prior to next
Wednesday's meeting, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Mullaney or me."
(Attached to Mr. Tucker's memo was certain information pertinent to the discussion of a
~ark on the Hardware River at a point commonly known as Pancake Falls. This is proposed for
~roperty known as Parcels 11, 13 and 12 (A) (part), on Tax Map 1-10. The County would want to
acquire about 15 acres of property on both sides of the river downstream from a small bridge on
Route 631 just off Route 712.)
Mr. Fisher said a Hardware Rapids Park is like any other public project, and it is going
to draw opposition from the people who live nearest it. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Way if the estab-
lishment of a public park would not give the County more control over activities on the propert
He asked if that idea was addressed at the meeting. M~. Way said the point came up, but most of
the property owners feel that making the area public would encourage more and more people to
come and the County would have to have a part-time employee on the spot.
Mr. Fisher said opposition is normal, but he is looking for ways to appease the landowners.
and at the same time trying to decide if the park will serve enough people to make it worth
the necessary political costs. Mr. Way said he feels the Board should hold a public hearing on
the park proposal. He said he has received comments from a couple of people who do not live in
the area, who think the park would be a great idea.
-5-84
Deaember 12: ~98~4- (,Re,~?] ~:r D~y Meet-i'm?,) .. .
Mr. Fisher asked Where a public hearing should be held. Mr. Henley remarked that he feels
holding public hearings all over the County would set a bad precedent. Mr. Way said if the
hearing was to be held in the area,~the place'should-be Walton Middle School.-Mr.~Lindstrom
said. that since the public is involved, the hearing should be held in a central location, in
this Board Room.
Mrs. Cooke remarked that the Hardware Rapids property, which the County would need to
acquire, is owned by three separate landowners, two of whom do not want to sell and the third
has died and left no clear title to the property. Mr. Way said the County can exercise its
right of eminent domain, condemn the property and then acquire it.
Mr. Fisher suggested.that Board members who have not been to the area should go see it
before a hearing. Mr. Fisher added that Mr. Tucker has said the Hardware River rapids (at the
proposed park site) are the only class five rapids east of the Mississippi. The area surround-
ing the rapids is an unusual and scenic area. It has been used by the public for years even
though it is privately oWned.
Mr. Bowie remarked that he would like to look at the property before the idea goes to
public hearing. He would prefer that he be given a tour with the permission of the property
owners. Mr. Agnor said he does not feel this will be difficult to arrange.
Mr. Way made motion to hold a public hearing during a regularly scheduled night meeting on
the idea of acquiring property and constructing a small park on the Hardware River at the
location known as Pancake Falls. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion, which carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 23. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher said he had received a letter requesting the Board to designate December 21-
23, 1984 as Ethiopian Relief Weekend in Albemarle County. The request was made by the Rev.
William Davis, Jr., and the Rev. LaVert H. Taylor of the Alliance for Interfaith Ministries.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that~ in the last "WHEREAS" of the-draft proclamation, the phrase
"The Alliance for Interfaith Ministries" be changed to "numerous churches and other charitable
organizations have". He also suggested that the phrase "and urge citizens of the County of
Albemarle to contribute generously to alleviate the urgent needs of that nation," be added to
the last sentence of the proclamation.
Mr. Lindstrom then made motion to approve the'proclamation, which was seconded by Mr. Way,
which then passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the nation of Ethiopia has experienced ten years of drought
and civil war;
~ WHEREAS, twelve of the country's fourteen provinces have been laid
waste by severe famine;
WHEREAS, more than forty percent of the country's forty-two million
people are malnourished;
WHEREAS, more than six million-people in this nation now face star-
vation;
WHEREAS, if all food needs were met, more than twenty percent could
not be reached before they starved; and,
WHEREAS, numerous churches and other charitable organizations have
agreed to serve as channels for funds from our community to the nation
of Ethiopia;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the members of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors, do hereby designate December 21-23, 1984, as
Ethiopian Relief Weekend in the County of Albemarle and urge citizens
of the county of Albemarle to contribute generously to alleviate the
urgent needs of that nation.
Mr. A~nor told the Board that t, he motion made eariler in the day to set aside funds for
the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad did not really make clear that the money was being appro-
priated. The Clerk has requested a clarification of the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom then made motion to appropriate $130,000 to the Western Albemarle Rescue
Squad as shown in the morning session of the meeting.: Mr. Bowie seconded the motion, which
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
December 12, 1984
[Regular Day Meeting)
585
L~ Mr. Agnor told the Board that some County employees have asked whether NeW Year's Eve will
be granted to them as a holiday., falling as it does on a Monday this year. Mr. Agnor said he
hated to bring this up because the Board, after years of granting whole days and half-days .for
Christmas Eve, finally gave general government employees that day as a permanent holiday and
thus brought the number of County holidays up to the number granted by the state. Mr. Agnor
said he recommends that County offices be open on New Year's Eve and those employees who wish
can take a day of vacation on that day. Mr. Bowie supported this position. Mr. Fisher said he
would feel differently if the Christmas Eve holiday had not been granted permanently. ~ .....
Agenda Item No. 24. Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned by. the Chairman at 4:25 p,m.
December 19, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on December 19, 1984, at 7:30 p.m., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building,
401 McIntire Road~ Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley,
Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
Ab sent: None.
Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr,
0eputy County Executive; Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive; Mr. James R. Donnelly,
0irector of Planning and Community Development; and Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Not Docketed. Piedmont Corridor.
Mr. Fisher told the Board members that he had received a telephone call from Vi'rginia
)epartment of Highways and Transportation Commissioner Harold C. King. Mr. King read a letter
addressed to the Albemarle County Planning Commission over the phone. Mr. Fisher said his
understanding is that Mr. King and the Department of Highways and Transportation W±ll proceed
sith a study of alternatives to the western Albemarle County route of the proposed Piedmont
]orridor Highway. While this study progresses, no further work will be done on the western
route. If, however, no reasonable alternative presents itself by the time the study is com-
oleted, Mr. Fisher said he feels Mr. King will return to the western route as a viable alter-
~ative. He added that he does not think this means that the matter has been laid to rest, or
that the County should relax its stance as regards the Piedmont Corridor.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda.
On motion by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, the Consent Agenda was approved as
~resented by the following recorded vote:
kYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
~AYS: None.
Item No. 4.1. Memo dated December 7, 1984, from James R. Donnelly regarding Coal-Fired
~team Electric Power Plant - Buckingham County.
Mr. Donnelly noted by memorandum that he had received the following letters in answer to
f uestions the Board had directed him to ask concerning the effect a new coal-fired power plant
ould have on the air quality in Albemarle County-
''December 5, 1984
Mr. James R. Donnelly
Director of Planning and Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Mr. Donneliy: