1983-03-09~Amjourne~ ~'rom March
Board members had no objections to the changes as described by Mr. Agnor, and agreed
to go to public hearing with the recommended amount of $205,500.
Forest Fire Extinction. Mr. Agnor said there has been no change in this request for
the past few years, and he would recommend the amount requested of $3,020. There was no
discussion by the Board or change in the recommendation of the County Executive.
Agenda Item No. 2z. Rescue Squads. Representatives of the Scottsvi!le and Western
Albemarle Rescue Squads were present. Mr. Agnor stated that the total amount requested by
the three rescue squad companies is $36,450 and that he would recommend approval of that
amount by the Board of Supervisors.~ ~ cd~'~c 6¢~ ~ ~~~~J'~ ¢4¥~
Mr. Fisher asked about the ~/g~/~~
s~ and stated his concern about the lengthy training requirements.
At the conclusion of the discussion regarding Certification of technicians, the Board
reached a concensus to accept the recommendation of the County Executive and go to public
hearing with the suggested funding in the amount of $36,450.
Agenda Item No. 3.
discussed.
Other Matters Not listed on the agenda.
There no other matters
Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn. At 5:17 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the meeting adjourned.
Chairman
March 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of. the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, was held on March 9,
1983, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room #7 of the Albemarle County Office Building, Charlot-
tesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Frederick W. Payne, Deputy
County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order.
the Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 9:04 A.M., by
Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by
Mr. Henley, to approve the consent agenda consisting of one item for approval and seven
items as information. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs~ Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Item No. 2.1. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Common-
wealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of February, 1983, were presented; said
statements were approved as presented.
Item No. 2.2. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of January,
1983, was presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
Item No. 2.3. Report of the County Executive for the month of February, 1983, was
presented as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602.
Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment
by the Director of Finance, and charged to the following funds for the month of February,
1983, were also presented as information:
Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Fund
Cafeteria Fund
Textbook Fund
McIntire Trust Fund
Join~ Security Complex Fund
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
Grant Project Fund
Capital Improvements Fund
Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
Mental Health Fund
$ 224.94
8,903.58
5,953.51
8~,62
,86~'9856
382[08
3.03
299~856.78
$3,581,ooo.44
March 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Item No. 2.4 Letter dated February 24, 1983, from Mr. Frederick H. Hassett, Consul
General of the United States in Florence, Ztaly, was received regarding the Student
Exchange Program between the citizens of Charlottesville/Albemarle and the Italian cities
of Prato and Poggio a Caiano.
Item No. 2.5 Annual Report of the Albemarle County Planning Commission for the Year
1982, dated February 15, 1983, from Mr. David P. Bowerman, Chairman of the Commission, was
received.
Item No. 2.6, Annual Report for the Year 1982, from the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority, was received.
Item No. 2.7. Letter dated February 14, 1983, from the Virginia Electric and Power
Company-to Mr. William C. Young of the State Corporation Commission, regarding Application
No. 126 (dated December 27, 1982) for approval and certification to rebuild the Charlot-
tesville-Gordonsville 230 KV transmission line.
Item No. 2.8 Letter dated February 8, 1983, from the Virginia Electric and Power
Company regarding its request to the Virginia State Corporation Commission to make available
an experimental dual fuel rate for residential customers. Public hearing on Case No. P~E
820080 is scheduled to be heard on May 5, 1983 in Richmond, Virginia.
Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes of September 1 (Afternoon), September 2,
November 10, November 17, December 15 (Night), 1982 and January 12 and February 9, 1983.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he had not read the minutes of September 1 and September 2,
1982. -
Mr. Fisher said he had read the minutes of November 10, 1982. Mr. Fisher requested
that under agenda item #4B the motion to readvertise should be clarified to read "and that
this request be readvertised when ready for action."
Mr. Butler reported no errors or changes for the minutes of November 17, 1982.
Mr. Henley reported no errors or changes for the minutes of December 15, 1982 (Night).
Miss Nash said she had not read the minutes of January 12, 1983.
Mrs..Cooke said she had read the minutes of February 9, 1983, and would like to make
one minor change under agenda item #4D, the last paragraph to read as follows: "Mr.
Henley said his concern with the motion is that other improvements could not be considered ....
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to approve the
minutes of November 10, November 17, and December 15, 1982 (Night) and February 9, 1983
with the corrections as noted. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4A. Highway Matters; Hatton Ferry Report. Mr. Agnor summarized a
memorandum from Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, dated February
10, 1983. Mr. Mullaney said on December 8, 1982, the Board of Supervisors requested the
following information:
"1.
What will be the expenses for operating the Ferry on the reduced schedule
recommended by the Hatton Ferry Committee.
Opinion of the Hatton Ferry Committee's recommendations for Capital Outlay
funding.
e
Options available to make use of funds which remain of the $20,000 al-
located for the Hatton Ferry when the fiscal year ends in June, 1983.
Comments on the Hatton Ferry being placed under supervision of County Parks
and Recreation Department as of July 1, 1983."
Mr. Mullaney stated in his memorandum that annual operating costs for the Ferry
should be increased from the recommended $6,500 to $7,500, because of the unusual and
costly forms of maintenance required. Mr. Mullaney recommended a one year observation
period before investing Capital Improvement money into the ferry and a building at the
site, to see if the area is prone to vandalism. Mr. Mullaney recommended modest improve-
ments and department made signs on an interim basis. Lastly, Mr. Mullaney recommended
continued funding by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation from secondary
road funds through June 30, 1984.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation was
present and stated that he has recently received a ruling from the State Attorney General's
office stating that secondary road improvement funds cannot be used for the maintenance of
the Hatton Ferry, because it is an existing facility. Mr. Roosevelt said he has not
received the opinion in writing as of this date, but that what this opinion means is that
Albemarle County will receive a $20,000 credit to the Seccondary Road Improvement Funds
and that the Highway Department would transfer from its Maintenance Funds those costs to
maintain the ferry for this year, in the approximate amount of $10,000. Mr. Roosevelt
added that the Highway Department will not continue to use those maintenance funds for the
upkeep of the Hatton Ferry beyond June 30, 1983.
March 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Joe Jenkins, former member of the Hatton Ferry Committee, said the local historical
society is attempting to publish a history of the Hatton Ferry and then obtain designation
as a State Historic Landmark. Mr. Jenkins urged the County to continue funding the ferry
either with Highway Maintenance Funds or directly through the Parks and Recreation Depart-
ment budget.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that he felt this historic landmark was important to Albemarle
County and should be preserved. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he felt the Board should con-
sider adding $7,500 to the Parks and Recreation budget for the maintenance Of the ferry.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested this be discussed further during the next budget work session on
March 16, 1983.
Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to consider on March
16, 1983, adding $7,500 for maintenance of the Hatton Ferry to the Parks and Recreation
budget for the next fiscal year beginning July 1, 1983.
Mr. Fisher said if the County intends to take over the operation of this ferry, some
sort of fee should be considered to offset operation and maintenance costs.
Mr. Henley said he would vote to discuss this matter on March 16th, but that he would
prefer to see this money go to more needy programs. Mrs. Cooke felt the Committee or
Parks Department should look into other methods of offsetting operational costs for the
Ferry.
Roll was called at this time and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4B. Highway Matters; Report on the Traffic Study at the Intersection
of Route 250/29 By-Pass with Route 250 West. Mr. Daniel Roosevelt and Mr. Jon C. DuFresne
of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation were present. Mr. Roosevelt
said the Board of Supervisors requested this traffic study in November, 1982, and that Mr.
DuFresne, the District Traffic Engineer from the Culpeper Office, actually made the study
and would present the report.
Mr. DuFresne presented maps to the Board with accident/collision data gathered over
the past two years and seven months. Mr. DuFresne's comments were summarized to the Board
in his letter dated February 22, 1983 as follows:
"I am writing this letter to summarize the Department',s investigation of acci-
dents and traffic patterns on the roadways in the Ivy Interchange area. This
analysis included not only Route 601 (Old Ivy Road) and Route 855, but also
Route 250, Route 250 Business, and the interchange ramps themselves. I have
attached for easy reference a rough sketch which shows the existing permissible
traffic patterns and for clarification I have shown one-way roadways with red
arrows and two-way roadways with blue arrows. (NOTE: Copy of these maps are on
file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.)
An accident collision diagram was prepared for the roadways serving the Ivy
interchange area mentioned above for the two year and seven month period January
1, 1980 through July 31, 1982. As can be noted from the attached copy of this
accident collision diagram, there really is no accident problem in this area.
Consider for example, t..hat the Virginia State Police will designate a location
as accident prone if there are five or more accidents within a six month period.
It must be emphasized once again that the attached accident collision diagram is
for a thirty-one month period of time and the only concentration of accidents is
at the location where the ramp for westbound Route 250 traffic intersects Route
250 just east of the entrance to the Bellaire Subdivision. As you are aware,
the Department over the past several years has made many attempts to improve
safety at this intersection through revised signing and pavement markings, and
it is interesting to note that the number of accidents has been declining at
this intersection. There were nine in 1980, six in 1981, and only four in the
first seven months of 1982. It would appear that the measures that have been
applied are having their effect and it is reasonable to state that this location
can no longer be considered as 'accident prone'. Therefore, the first con-
clusion that can be drawn from the accident collision diagram is that there
really is no accident problem within the roadways serving the Ivy interchange
area.
Although there is no accident problem, this does not mean that the roadway
configuration and the existing traffic patterns are not confusing or at times do
not create congestion. This is especially true when one considers the volume of
eastbound Route 250 traffic that turns left at what is essentially the off-ramp
from Route 250 to turn right onto Route 601 and then turn left onto the Route
601 on-ramp to the Route 29/250 bypass. Without considering the major expendi-
ture of funds that would be required to completely rebuild the roadways in this
area, there are only two inexpensive alternatives which could alter existing
traffic patterns and possibly reduce some of the congestion. One is shown as
Alternate 'A' and would establish the off-ramp from westbound Route 250 as a
one-way roadway for its entire length. The drawback to the alternative is that
it requires all traffic to enter the interchange area from the Route 601 inter-
section at Business Route 250 within the City of Charlottesville.
Another alternative is shown as Alternative 'B and makes small section of
Route 601 between the off-ramp and Route 855 one-way in a esterly direction.
The purpose of this alternative would be to discourage eastbound Route 250
traffic from utilizing the Route 601 on-ramp, but it has the major drawback of
placing more traffic at the Route 855 intersection with the off-ramp from the
bypass (i.e., the St. Anne's Belfield School intersection).
March 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
At this time, the Department must question whether or not the problems which are
being experienced in the Ivy interchange area are of a significant magnitude to
require the changes as outlined as Alternate 'A' or Alternate 'B'. The draw~
backs outlined could create problems worse than those being experienced right
now and this must be considered in the light of the fact that there is just not
a proven accident problem within the Ivy interchange area. Another viable
alternative is to do nothing at the present time, but to monitor this area to
observe future traffic problems as land within the interchange area becomes
developed. It is the opinion of the Traffic and Safety Section and the Culpeper
District that we would be premature to make any changes at this time and that a
wiser course of action would be to constantly survey problems and review accident
data so that we are prepared to act on problems as they develop rather than
after they have occurred."
Following Mr. DuFresne's presentation, Mr. Fisher opened the discussion to the public
and first to speak was Mrs. Wangensteen of West Leigh. Mrs. Wangensteen suggested that
the intersection of Route 855 and the exit ramp of Route 29/250 be given four-way stop
signs or possibly a blinking caution light. Mrs. Wangensteen said any measure to slow
down the traffic and warn of the one-way direction would make this area safer for the
public.
Mr. George Conway, Headmaster of St. Anne's Belfield School spoke next. Mr. Conway
said he feels the problem is not due to traffic flow, but the speed with which people
travel the exit ramp while approaching Route 855. Mr. Conway said there are two very
critical times when traffic is at its peak at this intersection, mornings when school is
opening and afternoons when school is closing. Mr. Conway said the blinking light idea is
very good but suggested the Highway Department also consider a blinking school signal for
those two very critical times of day.
Mr. Agnor noted that while this traffic survey was underway, a letter was received
from Mr. Daniel Lowe requesting a four-way stop sign at the intersection of Route 855 and
the exit ramp of Route 29/250. Mr. Agnor said he forwarded this letter to Mr. Roosevelt
for possible consideration during the traffic survey. Mr. DuFresne said he received the
letter mentioned by Mr. Agnor and studied the request. Mr. DuFresne said this particular
intersection does not meet any of the State requirements for a four-way stop sign, but he
would investigate the possibility of implementing the suggestions of Mrs. Wangensteen and
Mr. Conway and report back to the Board.
Mr. Fisher said he disagreed with the theory that no accident problem exists unless
there is at least one accident per month. Mr. Fisher said he felt the changes outlined in
Alternate 'B' should be implemented because it would reduce the existing traffic problems
without creating too many new problems.
Mr. Lindstrom said clearly this area of the County is developing very quickly and he
is frustrated because the Board of Supervisors has no control over the Highway Department
to implement a solution. Mr. Fisher said because of imminent development in this area, he
would like to see 01d Ivy Road considered for major improvements with secondary road
money.
Miss Nash said she felt that the suggested Alternate "B" was only a stop-gap but that
Alternate "A" would more effectively solve the problems.
Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. DuFresne for the presentation and requested
them to continue monitoring the area for additional accident data and traffic problems.
Agenda Item No. 4C. Highway Matters: Discussion of a request to vacate the right-
of-way on Chestnut Ridge Road. Mr. Fisher stated that a request to vacate the right-of-
way on Chestnut Ridge Road has been received from Mrs. Kinzie de Launay and the purpose of
this discussion is to determine whether or not to set a public hearing on the request.
Mrs. de Launay was present and stated the reason she wishes this right-of-way vacated
is to allow her to build a home closer than fifty feet to the presently existing roadway.
Mrs. de Launay said she wishes to build a solar home and in order to obtain maximum
exposure to the sun the prime location on the lot is within the fifty foot setback area of
the right-of-way on Chestnut Ridge Road. Mrs. de Launay said she would gladly exchange a
right-of-way on the west side of her property for the existing right-of-way located on the
east side of her property.
Next to speak was Mr. Thomas Blue, who presented a plat showing two parcels of land
owned by he and his wife; as well as showing Section K of Key West Subdivision and the lot
owned by Mrs. de Launay. Mr. Blue summarized his letter to the Board of Supervisors dated
February 19, 1983 (NOTE: Copy of this letter is on file in the office of the Clerk to the
Board of Supervisors.) Mr. Blue said he is the owner of two parcels of land directly
adjacent to Mrs. de Launay's lot; one parcel of 57.27 acres relies solely on Chestnut
Ridge Road for access, the smaller 22 acre parcel has access to Route 20. Mr. Blue said
he currently uses Chestnut Ridge Road as a farm entrance to the 57+ acre wooded lot, and
added that it would be impossible to relocate that entrance to the west side of Mrs. de
Launay's lot as she has offered. Mr. Blue requested the Board to preserve this existing
right-of-way as it represents the only practical, as well as legal, access to his property.
Mrs. Marjorie Kidd said she lives near Key West, and although her property does not
actually abut Chestnut Ridge Road, her children use this right-of-way as an access route
to the nearest school bus stop. Mrs. Kidd said if this right-of-way were closed, her
children would have a great distance to travel to the next nearest bus stop, as well as
the danger of crossing a very busy street. Mrs. Kidd requested the Board to deny this
request.
March 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, stated that it was his opinion that
Chestnut Ridge Road is the only form of legal access to the 57+ acre parcel owned by Mr.
and Mrs. Blue. Mr. Tucker said he knew of no legal means to force Mr. Blue to seek
another access location to that piece of propertY, Mr. Tucker suggested that possibly
Mrs. de Launay seek a variance from the present zoning laws to allow her to construct her
home closer to the existing right-of-way.
Mr. Lindstrom said although he is sympathetic to Mrs. de Launay's situation, he could
not remember ever abandoning a right-of-way unless all adjoining property owners were in
agreement with the action. Mr. Lindstrom said he could not see vacating the right-of,way
which directly serves the 57+ acre parcel of land owned by Mr. Blue, and felt to do so
would be contrary to all past actions taken by the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he could see
no point in setting a public hearing on this matter, as he would not vote favorably on the
request.
MisS Nash asked the Deputy County Attorney for his opinion on the legal rights of Mr.
Blue to this right-of'way as access to his parcel. Mr. Payne stated that it is questionable
in his opinion, whether or not you can remove the sole access to a piece of property and
make that Parcel landlocked.
Mr. Fisher said he understands Mrs. de Launay's problem, and feels the question of
solar rights is also of importance here, but he could not support an action to cause a
parcel of property to become landlocked. Mr. Fisher said he also was not in favor of
setting a public hearing on this request. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Butler said they also
concurred with the opinions of other Board members.
Mr. Fisher said since it was the concensus of the Board not to set a public hearing,
no action would be taken on this request.
Agenda Item No. 4D.
easement on Ashmere Drive.
1983.)
Public Hearing: Ordinance to vacate a portion of fifty foot
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 23 and March 2,
Mr. Fisher said that although the public hearing on this ordinance was scheduled to
be heard at this time, a letter has been received dated March 7, 1983, from Mr. Frederick
W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, as follows:
"Enclosed please find a copy of an order of the bankruptcy court entered this
day. In light of this order, and the settlement embodied in it, it appears that
Ashmere Drive can now be completed over its entire length. Assuming this will
be done, there will be no need for the vacation of a portion of the subdivision.
It is my understanding that the work is under way and will be completed in due
course in the near future.
Accordingly~ I would request that the Board defer consideration of the proposed
ordinance for a period of approximately sixty days to allow the construction to
be monitored. If the road is completed satisfactorily during that period, it
will be my recommendation that the Board withdraw the ordinance from consideration."
Mr. Payne was present and stated that this subdivision consists of a private road
with a cul-de-sac. Most of the lots at the entrance to the road have been sold to private
parties, but the innermost lots are still owned by the developer. Mr. Payne said during
bankruptcy proceedings~ road and soil erosion bonds held by the County were liquidated for
use in completing the road. When it was determined that the bond money ($12,500) would
not be sufficient to complete the entire length of road to the cul-de-sac, it was decided
to seek a vacation of the road and the subdivision itself past the point where road
improvements could be completed. Mr. Payne said since the time when the request for the
vacation of the plat was before the Board, negotiations between the bankrupt developer and
a property owner have resulted in the sale of one lot, proceeds of the sale are to be used
for completion of the road to the cul-de-sac. Mr. Payne said if road construction goes as
planned, vacation of the road will not be necessary; thus the request for deferral of the
public hearing on this ordinance.
Mr. Fisher expressed concern that other lots involved in the bankruptcy proceedings
might also be sold and complicate the procedure. Mr. Payne said any potential lot sales
would be studied by the bankruptcy court, and the County Attorney would be notified.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mr. Keith Smith
a property owner in Ashmere. Mr. Smith said he supported the agreement as described by
Mr. Payne, but felt this matter should be deferred for ninety days to allow the road
contractor ample time to complete the road.
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer said he was also in agreement with the plan for
completion of the road and had no objection to deferring action to vacate the road for
ninety days. Mr. Payne said he also did not have any objection to waiting ninety days
rather than the sixty days as originally requested.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash,
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer this public hearing to June 8, 1983. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
March 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 4E. Highway Matters: Street Sign Request for William Court. Mr.
Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated February 1, 1983, from Evelyn M. Mater, requesting
a street sign for William Court in Zvy Woods, Section II. (NOTE: Copy of this letter is
on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) A recommendation from
the County Engineer's office was received asking for approval of Ms. Mater's request.
Motion was offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the following
resolution:
WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify the
following road:
WILLIAM COURT (State Route 869) at the northeast corner
of its intersection with State Route 682.
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the office
of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State
Department of Highways and Transportation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albe-
marle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain
the above mentioned street sign.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4F. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter
dated March 4, 1983, from Mr. William L. Bower, District Engineer for the Virginia Depart-
ment of Highways and Transportation, concerning the Preallocation Hearing to take place at
9:00 A.M., on March 30, 1983, in the auditorium of the Culpeper District Office. (NOTE:
Copy of this letter is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.)
Mr. Fisher noted that highway funds available are substantially greater this year
because of additional taxes designated for highway funding. Mr. Fisher said a certain
percentage of these funds will go toward mass transportation, and asked Mr. Agnor if there
were any chance of the Route 29 North bus line being eligible for those funds. Mr. Agnor
said he would check on this matter. Mr. Fisher then asked Board members for a volunteer
to represent the County at this hearing. Mr. Butler said he would attend on behalf of the
County. Mr. Fisher then instructed the Clerk to provide Mr. Butler with correspondence
from previous years indicating Albemarle County's priorities for primary road improvements.
Mrs. Cooke said she has received complaint calls regarding a tree obstructing sight
distance on Indian Spring Road. Mr. Roosevelt said he would check into this matter.
Mr. Lindstrom said Highway Department crews have been clearing brush along Barracks
Road near Ivy Creek, and although they remove the underbrush, they are leaving behind
large amounts of litter which was formerly hidden by that growth. Mr. Lindstrom suggested
the work crews' pick up the trash as well as the brush.
Miss Nash said she received a complaint from a Mr. Cash, a resident on Route 708,
about possible completion of paving that road. Miss Nash instructed Mr. Cash to get in
touch with the Highway Department. Mr. Roosevelt said he has spoken to Mr. Cash and
requested that Mr. Cash contact other residents of that road and attempt to obtain the
necessary right-of-way.
Mr. Butler asked about possible road improvements to Route 609 near Gordonsville.
Mr. Roosevelt said he would be submitting his budget for road improvements shortly but has
not recommended funding of that road. Mr. Roosevelt said although this road was widened a
number of years ago, it was not completely paved. Mr. Roosevelt said he would not recom-
mend funding for this project, but would place it in the budget for the Board of Super-
visors to decide.
Mr. Fisher complimented Mr. Roosevelt on the excellent snow removal job done by the
Highway Department during the February snow storm.
Agenda Item No. 5. Entrance Fees at the County Parks. Mr. Agnor stated he received
a memorandum from Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, dated March
3, 1983 (NOTE: Copy of this memorandum is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board
of Supervisors). Mr. Agnor said Mr. Mullaney requests in his memorandum that rates for
non-county residents be increased to create a greater differential from resident rates.
Mr. Agnor reported that statistics indicate as much as 53 percent of all daily admissions
are for non-county residents, and it is his feeling that an increase in non-resident fees
would offset amounts which County residents contribute through County taxes.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to set a public hearing
for the regular day meeting in April, 1983 to amend the Albemarle County Code Section 14-11.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
March 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
$!
Agenda Item No. 6. Agreement: Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad. Mr. Agnor noted
receipt of a letter dated February 9, 1983, from Mr. Tharrell W. Davis, President of the
Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad, Inc. (NOTE: Copy of this letter is on file in the
office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors). In his letter, Mr. Davis states that
the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad has received a grant in the amount of $20,000 for
the purchase of an Advanced Life Support Ambulance and this grant requires matching funds.
The Rescue Squad has raised $4,500, thus leaving a balance of $15,500 in order to secure
the grant. Mr. Agnor noted that an agreement between the County of Albemarle and the
Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad was drawn up by the County Attorney for the advancement
of those funds as follows:
THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT made this 9th day of March, 1983, by and between
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE and SCOTTSVILLE VOLUNTEER RESCUE SQUAD, INC.
("Scottsville");
W I T N E S S E T H:
That for and in consideration of the operation by Scottsville of a
volunteer rescue squad in the Scottsville area during the period of this
agreement which is three years, the County will pay to Scottsville the sum
of Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred ($15,500.00) Dollars out of the County's
unallocated Capital Improvement Fund during fiscal year 1982-83 for the
purpose of the purchase by Scottsville of an advanced life support ambulance
to be owned and operated by Scottsville, the total cost of which is to be
approximately $40,000.00.
Thenceforth the sum of Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars per year
shall be withheld by the County from the County's annual grant to Scotts-
ville in fiscal years 1983-84 and 1984-85 and the sum of Five Thousand Five
Hundred ($5,500.00) Dollars shall be withheld from the annual grant in
fiscal year 1985-86 so that at the end of fiscal year 1985-86 a total of
$15,500.00 shall have been withheld.
The sums withheld under the above provisions shall be applied to
replenish the unallocated balance of the Capital Improvement Fund.
Mr. Agnor noted that the Board must authorize the Chairman to sign this agreement on
behalf of Albemarle County.
Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Butler, to authorize the Chairman to
sign the agreement as presented. Mr. Agnor said in a memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones,
Director of Finance, dated February 17, 1983, that Item #23 in the 1982-87 Capital Improve-
ment Program was for a $40,000 allocation for this piece of equipment. Mr. Agnor said he
knows this project was approved as part of the Capital Improvements Program, but that
funds were not appropriated. Mr. Agnor requested an amendment to the motion appropriating
$15,500.00 for this project. Miss Nash said she would agree to incorporate the appro-
priation in her motion. Mr. Butler agreed to second the revised motion. ~Roll was then
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
(CLERK'S NOTE: Regarding the appropriation of funds incorporated in the above motion, in
order to meet requirements set by the State Auditor of Public Accounts, this appropriation
must be advertised for public hearing. Public Hearing has been advertised for April 6,
1983 at 7:30 P.M..)
Agenda Item No. 7. Statement regarding April 13, 1983 Meeting. Mr. Fisher reported
that because the regular day meeting in April falls on a legal holiday (Thomas Jefferson's
Birthday), Code of Virginia Section 15.1-536 states that said meeting must be moved to the
following day or a day as determined by the Board of Supervisors. Although Mr. Agnor
assured the Board that it was possible for the staff involved in the Board's meeting to
work, Mr. Payne recommended against the Board conducting the meeting on that day.
After checking various appointment calendars, Board members agreed that the meeting
should be held on April 14, 1983 at 9:00 A.M. Mr. Lindstrom noted that because of a
class, he would not be able to attend the meeting until after 11:00 A.M.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Butler, to change the meeting
date of the April 13, 1983, regular day meeting to April 14, 1983, at 9:00 A.M., in
Meeting Room #7 of the Albemarle County Office Building, and that the public be notified
of this change in date. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Disbursement: Forfeited Gold and Silver Bond. Mr. Agnor sum-
marized a memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, dated March 4, 1983, which reads as follows:
"A fidelity bond in the amount of $5040.50 was redeemed through Court action
by the County Attorney's office as a result of unlawful activities of Elben
T. Myers as a gold and silver dealer. Pursuant to the recommendation of
the County Attorney's office, the $5,000 was plac~d in the Revolving Fund
for disposition to the victims of the crime on a pro-rata basis. The
remaining $40.50 went into the General Fund to compensate for court costs
incurred in the case.
March 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Attached is a schedule of the seven victims supplied by the Sheriff in the
case showing the total losses and adjusted losses on a pro-rata basis.
Respectfully I request your official action to disburse the $5,000 in the
amounts set forth in the last column of the schedule.
The difference between the Total Loss and the Adjusted amount is a reduction
in the losses for non-precious metal items such as televisions, bicycles,
rugs, etc."
Mr. Payne noted that the bond involved is a penal bond and not for the primary purpose
of insuring the citizens. However, it is the recommendation of the County Attorney's
office that the money from this bond be disbursed to the citizens involved.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to authorize the
Director of Finance to disburse the Gold and Silver Fidelity Bond money as follows:
Court Costs
Mr. and Mrs. Pat Del Greco
Mr. Richard Anderson
Mr. Thomas E. Spicer
Mr. L. Gordon Leake, Jr.
Ms. Estelle Worthington
Mr. Richard Callaghan
Mr. Donald F. Hunt
$ 40.50
372.53
1,241.33
1,015.96
324.60
8O9.72
558.53
677.33
$5,040.50
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher noted that
on April 21, 1983, at 10:30 A.M., dedication ceremonies will be held at the Moores Creek
Treatment Plant. Lunch will be served by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
Mr. Agnor said subsequent to the Board authorizing funds for design work for holding
ponds on Lickinghole Creek, notice was received from the State Water Control Board that
Federal Funds were available for such work but that application had to be received in
Richmond within seven days. Mr. Agnor noted that application was quickly assembled by the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority with the help of Messrs. William Norris and Maynard
Elrod of the County Staff. Mr. Agnor said if this grant is awarded, it will save the
County spending funds for the design work, as well as enable the County to become eligible
for construction grant money in the future.
Mr. Agnor said he has been asked to attend the Chamber of Commerce Board meetings as
a representative of Albemarle County. Mr. Agnor said this stems from his representatio~
on the Greater Charlottesville-Albemarle Development Corporation Board, and has to do with
economic development in the community.
Mr. Agnor said that in Fiscal Year 1980-81, Albemarle County was the fiscal agent for
JAUNT regarding a State grant for JAUNT's operation. Since completion of that project, an
audit was completed and the fee charged for the audit was $260. Mr. Agnor said that fee
has been paid by the State through the grant and the funds passed through Albemarle County
as JAUNT's agent. There is no appropriation involved in this matter, only an amendment in
the total grant handled by Albemarle County as agent for JAUNT; that total has changed
from $8~231 to $8,580.
Mr. Fisher said that on March 7, 1983, he telephoned the Virginia Association of
Counties and was informed that a bill to increase the rollback penalty of land use taxes
was killed by the General Assembly.
Agenda Item No. 9. Executive Session. Mr. Payne said he wished to discuss with the
Board the following cases of litigation: a) United States Fidelity and Guarantee Insurance
Corporation vs. Albemarle County; b) Vaughn vs. Sweeney; c) Robinson vs. Georgetown Limited
Partnership, et al; d) Albemarle County vs. Lange, et al.; e) the potential appeal involving
Mr. George Cason and its potential for litigation. Miss Nash said she would also like to
discuss the potential litigation regarding the Planning Commission's decision on River
Heights.
At 11:36 A.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to adjourn
into executive session for the discussion of legal matters as listed above. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
The meeting reconvened back into open session at 1:30 P.M.
March 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: Resolution to approve Industrial Development
Bonding for Hydraulic Road Apartments. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 22,
1983)
Mr. James Murray, Jr., Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority, was present
and said the request is from the applicant, Realty Industries, Incorporated and, not the
Authority. The Authority has not reviewed the request since he became a member and he
is therefore, unfamiliar with the request.
Mr. James Knicely from the firm of Hutton and Williams, bond counsel for the applicant,
was present. He reviewed the history of this project saying that the project was approved
in 1979 for another developer, with the project to be known as Hydraulic Road Apartments.
That developer had received approval from the Authority in May 1979. However, the
developer at that time had some problems and it became necessary for him to assign the
project to another developer. Therefore, Realty Industries, Incorporated, is the applicant
and due to the new federal regulations recently passed by Congress known as the Tax
Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act, the Board must hold a public hearing on the issuance
of the bonds. Mr. Knicely said the applicant went to the Industrial Development Authority
on March 11, 1981 and the Authority approved a resolution for change of sponsor for the
project. Mr. Knicely said the project is insured by the Federal Housing Administration
and the amount of the bonds has changed from $1,750,000 to $2,500,000 and the number of
units noted on the resolution which was prepared for the Board should be "66" and not
"68". Mr. Knicely said there are several persons present who are associated with this
project who will comment on same.
First to speak was Mr. Donald Ward, mortgage banker from the firm of ABG Associates
in Richmond. Mr. Ward said he has been involved in this project since its inception.
This project meets a public purpose because there is a lack of housing for the elderly
in this area. There will be 66 two-bedroom units for the middle income elderly. The
size of the units will be approximately 800 square feet. Mr. Ward said as well as
meeting the needs for elderly housing, jobs and tax revenue will be created. Mr. Ward
said industrial revenue bonds are needed in order to obtain tax free interest which will
translate into better rents for the elderly tenants. The rents are actually set by HUD
based on market studies. Mr. Ward said along with the HUD involvement, there is a
regulatory agreement that is recorded with the mortgage documents and the deed of trust.
Therefore, in a manner of speaking, that agreement controls the rents that the developer
can charge and the developer cannot increase the rents without HUD's permission, the
increase could then only be to offset inflation and operating expenses. There are two
levels of rents. Eighty percent of the units will be $424.00 per month for the two-
bedroom units; this rent is based on what rents will be in 1985 when it is contemplated
that this project will be completed. Twenty percent, or fourteen of the units, will be
rented at a rate a little below the market rate, or $365.00 per month. Mr. Ward said
the HUD loan is insured under Section 221(d)(4) of'the National Housing Act for a forty
year mortgage. Mr. Ward also noted that with HUD insurance, there are construction
inspections and monitoring to determine if the proper standards are being met. Mr.
Lindstrom asked if there is a limit on the amount of profit that the developer can
receive. Mr. Ward said there is no limit or formula but rather a test of reasonableness;
the developer is entitled to a reasonable return and nothing more.
Mrs. Cooke asked the definition of "elderly". Mr. Ward said for this project,
"elderly" means a person or persons 62 years of age or older and the "persons" have to
be a family unit. Mr. Ward again noted that the HUD regulatory agreement enforces
renting to the elderly and the developer would have to obtain permission from HUD to
rent otherwise. However, under the guidelines for elderly, a 40 year old handicapped
person can be treated and considered elderly. Mr. Lindstrom asked who enforces the
guidelines of the regulatory agreement. Mr. Ward said if the guidelines are not met,
default could be considered. Mr. Ward then explained that the three persons involved in
monitoring the financing of this type of project are HUD, a trustee bank, and a mortgage
banker. Mr. Lindstrom asked for an explanation of what happens if the people~living in
the apartment are not those defined as elderly. Mr. Ward said the mortgage servicer
makes annual inspections for the benefit of HUD and is required to submit an audit'of
operating statements; the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority will also
receive a copy. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if the recourse would be to foreclose the loan
if the procedures are not followed. Mr. Ward said not actually a foreclosure but rather
assigning the matter to HUD who pay off the bondholders at 995 on the dollar in cash
with HUD then taking over the project.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there was any licensing required such as from the State
Health Department. Mr. Ward said there is no nursing care involved in this project.
The project is a self-contained apartment unit for persons who do not need neither
nursing care nor custodial service. Mrs. Cooke asked what types of jobs would be created.
Mr. Ward said construction, and then management and maintenance of the project.
Mr. Fisher noted that in the papers f~rwarded with the Board's information, a
certification from Ms. Margaret White with the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
shows the endorsement of the mortgage note for $1,812,600 and the request before the
Board today is for $2.5 million. Mr. Ward said the request could read "up to" $2.5 million.
Mr. Fisher then asked what equity is being placed into the project by the developer.
Mr. Ward said the owner acts as his own general contractor and is not entitled to a
builder's profit. Therefore, the owner is contributing the builder's profit as equity.
Due to the interest rate, this is not a full ninety percent loan so more equity is
involved. Mr. Ward said when the loan is closed at the HUD offices in Richmond, the
developer has to submit his funds before the mortgage proceeds are received, and that
submission is for $361,000. Mr. Ward also noted that these figures are just projections
and can change.
March 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Miss Nash asked the difference in the two rent levels. Mr. Ward said this was
brought about by federal law which states that twenty percent of the units have to be
set aside for persons with less than the median income. Mr. Henley asked if the units
are different in any way. Mr. Ward said the units are basically the same; the only
difference might be the location of the unit within the project. Water and sewerage
services are included in the rent, but not electricity.
Mr. Fisher said several apartment owners have mentioned to him that these proposed
rents are higher than those rents charged today by owners of properties not using subsidized
interest rates. He asked on what assumption the rents are based. Mr. Ward said the
annual median income for this area has been determined by HUD to be $17,200. Eighty
percent of $17,200 is considered to be medium income and since thirty percent of income
can be used for housing, $365.00 was the rent level resulting from that calculation.
Mr. Butler expressed concern about the level of rents and felt a percentage of the units
should be set aside for lower income persons. He felt a lot of people on Social Security
do not receive that much income.
Speaking next was Mr. Larry Horton from Realty Industries, Incorporated. He said
the Company will be the owners, developers and property managers for the prgJect. There
will be six apartment buildings with one office maintenance building, and a recreational
area. There will be some recreational activities including shuffle board, picnic tables,
and hiking trails, but no swimming pool. Basically all the engineering and site plan
work has been approved and a building permit applied for. The structures will be brick
with wood siding and the area will be heavily landscaped. Mr. Fisher asked if there are
any provisions being made for elderly persons who may have hearing or visual problems.
Mr. Horton said the buildings will be about two and one-half stories high and some of
the units will be in the ground for those needing units without stairs. There will be
smoke detectors in all units, and eight of the units will be designed for handicapped
with features such as wider door openings and grab bars on the bathtubs. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if there would be elevators. Mr. Horton said no. Miss Nash asked if any one knew
what the monthly electrical bill would be. Mr. Horton said the building plans have been
sent to VEPCO for an estimate, and he also noted that the buildings will use heat pumps
and there will be double pane windows installed.
Mr. Knicely said he could respond to some of the questions concerning the percentage
of the units being set aside for low income persons. The Federal financing statute
requires that the developer, for a period of at least ten years, set aside twenty percent
of the units for what the Federal law calls lower moderate income persons. This means
people making eighty percent or lower of the median income of the area. If the developer
does not have that type of occupant for the units, then a unit must be held vacant. Mr.
Knicely also emphasized that there are restrictive covenants which run with the land
which require the owner of the project to adhere to this regulation. Federal regulations
require that the project be held available for rental only during the period of time
during which the bonds are in force; the units cannot be converted to condominiums
during that time.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the rent figures were based on the use of the industrial
revenue bonds. Mr. Knicely said the bonds will have to be sold at or below the interest
rate on the mortgage itself. Mr. Lindstrom asked if HUD had taken into consideration
that this project would be using tax exempt bonds. Mr. Knicely said yes with respect to
the twenty percent of the units set aside for persons with lower than the median income.
Mr. Knicely said the underwriters will not sell the bonds unless the interest rate on
the bonds is at or below the interest rate on the mortgage. Mr. Knicely said it is
assumed that this bond issue will be sold to the Municipal Bond Insurance Association
which is a private insurer of the bonds, and because of that fact the bonds will have a
AAA rating.
Miss Nash asked what happens if the revenue bonds are not approved. Mr. Knicely
said the developer will probably not proceed with the project. Mr. Lindstrom asked if
the rent is affected by the interest rate on the bonds. Mr. Knicely said not as long as
HUD is underwriting the project. Mr. Fisher said this response is somewhat different
from that he heard when asking Mr. Ward if the cost of the interest passes directly
through into the actual rent that the tenants will pay. Mr. Ward said all of this is
related. He explained that there has to be a somewhat greater mortgage interest rate
than bond interest rate, but since the applicant contemplated, and HUD also took into
account, that this would be a AAA tax bond issue, an interest rate was used on the
mortgage that was compatible with the bonds. Mr. Ward said the mortgage interest rate
and the bond interest rate are related, and the interest rates and construction costs
actually determine what rents will be charged. Mr. Lindstrom asked why the developer
could not borrow the money from a bank. Mr. Ward said a bank would want endorsements
and would not make a credit loan or a long-term real estate loan. Mr. Ward said if it
were not for the use of revenue bonds, the interest rate on other monies would be 13%
and would make the economics of the project not work and the rents would be ridiculously
high.
The public hearing being open, next to speak was Mr. Sanford Wilcox, vice-president
of United Service Industries. Mr. Wilcox did not feel the project merits special tax
free inducement to proceed. He did not feel new jobs will be created on an on-going
basis for the community, there is no health care involved, and he did not feel the
projected rent of $424.00 meets any housing needs for the elderly. Mr. Wilcox did not
feel a need has been adequately demonstrated to warrant tax free inducement into a
market that is essentially already served by rental apartments. In conclusion, Mr.
Wilcox asked that the Board reserve their support for industrial revenue bonds for
projects that are needed more for the community.
March 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Speaking next was Mr. Ronald Morris, previous developer for the project. He assured
the Board that there is a need for this project in the community and that he had to give
up the project for financial reasons. In conclusion, Mr. Morris recommended approval of
the request.
With no one else to speak for or against the resolution, the public hearing was
closed.
At 2:32 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 2:40 P.M.
Mr. Henley said he had voted for this project in 1979 and still supports the project.
He felt there is a need for the middle income elderly to live with persons in the same
income category. He was aware that this project will compete with other housing facilities
in the area but the request has already been approved once.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels there needs to be a direct benefit to the public from
the use of the industrial revenue bonds. He feels that these bonds are subsidized by
all taxpayers in that there is less money going to the United States Treasury. He does
not feel that the rents charged will be affected by the bond interest rate. At the same
time, he feels that in a small way the project will provide a benefit to the moderate
income people of the County. He did not feel the Board is in a position to question the
regulatory agreement that will be put to record. Mr. Lindstrom said although he is not
convinced that without using these tax exempt bonds the project will not be built, he
will support the resolution.
Mrs. Cooke said she is aware that housing for the elderly in this area is almost
nonexistent. Having heard the explanation of what the bonds will be used for and what
the bonds are intended to do, she also supports the resolution.
Mr. Fisher asked if this project meets all County land use regulations. Mr. Tucker
said as far as he knew, the project does. The site plan was approved several years ago
and has received subsequent approvals since that time; the site plan being kept up to
date. Miss Nash asked the needs for apartments in the subject area. Mr. Tucker said
within one-quarter of a mile of this project it is mostly developed in apartment units,
and the area is planned for high-density development.
Mr. Fisher said the rents proposed for 1985 are based on HUD rules and regulations
and as he understood, the industrial revenue bonds will be controlled by HUD. Mr.
Knicely said that is correct. Mr. Fisher said there are very few projects for the
elderly being built for moderate income persons, but rather most are contemplated for
the luxury class. Since this project will be controlled by HUD without any large and
undue windfalls inuring to the developers or others involved in the project, he would
support the request. He also noted that he felt this project meets the same basic needs
that it met when the Board approved the project in 1979.
Mr. Fisher said a question still remains about the difference of $700,000 between
HUD's approval and the amount of $2,500,000 stated in the resolution. Mr. Murray said
past resolutions approving bond issuances have stated "up to" a certain amount. A
position has been taken that neither the regulatory agencies nor the commercial bankers
will allow more to be spent on a project than can be carried in debt service or that
which is financially feasible. Mr. Fisher asked if the cash equity investment of $361,000
mentioned earlier is based on the value of the land or the actual cash. Mr. Ward said
that amount is based on construction figures and other items. He said that at the end
of the project, an audit will be made of the real cost, but the developer has to put in
his $361,000 before HUD will release any of the funds. Mr. Fisher asked that a copy of
the audit report be submitted to the County staff when the project is completed.
Mr. Butler said he will support the resolution but has seriou~ concerns about the
economic spread of the occupants. He felt this.is a time when all the poor people
cannot be congregated in one area. He felt Albemarle County has been doing a good job
of not isolating people of one financing background in a single area.
Miss Nash supported the resolution because of the need for the elderly housing.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the
following resolution approving industrial revenue bonds for the Hydraulic Road Apartments.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia
(the "Authority") has considered the application of Realty Industries, Incorporated
(the "Company") (or any ownership entity it may subsequently form) requesting the
Industrial Development Authority to issue up to $2,500,000 of its elderly
residential facility revenue bonds (the "Bonds") to assist in the financing
of the Company's acquisition, construction and equipping of a 66-unit elderly
residential facility to be located on Hydraulic Road across from Albemarle
High School in Albemarle County, Virginia, and to be known as the Hydraulic
Road Apartments; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 9, 1983, as required by
Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the "Code");
and
March ~9, 1983 (Re~gular Da~ Meetin~g)
WHEREAS, Sections 2-50 and 2-51, Chapter 2, Article IX of the Albemarle
County Code (the "Ordinance") require the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia (the "Board") to approve the proposed financing and location
of any facility to be financed by the Authority; and
WHEREAS, Section 103(k) of the Code provides that the governmental unit
having jurisdiction over the issuer of industrial development bonds and over
the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of industrial
development bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of
Albemarle (the "County"), the Project is to be located in the County and
the Board constitutes the highest elected governmental officials of the
County; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance
of the bonds; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of
the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, has been filed with the
Board;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for
the benefit of the Company and the location of the Project, as required by
Sections 2-50 and 2-51 of the Ordinance and Section i03(k) of the Code,
to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by the
Ordinance and the Code, does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective
purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or the Company,
and, as required by Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended, the Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority
shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other
costs incident thereto except from the revenues and monies pledged therefor
and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth,
the County nor the Authority shall be pledged thereto.
3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: Amendment to Industrial Development Authority
Ordinance re: Financing Certain Shopping or Service Facilities and Increased Number of
Bond Issuances. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 23 and March 2, 1983.)
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: Resolution to Approve Industrial Bonding for
Riverbend Limited Partnership. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 22, 1983.)
These two agenda items are related and the discussion will concern both but with
separate actions.
Mr. Jim Murray, Jr., said the requested amendments to the Industrial Development
Ordinance are to authorize an increase in the number of bond issuances and to amend the
list of permitted uses which may be financed to include shopping and service facilities.
Mr. Murray said the Authority is also requesting approval of a specific inducement
resolution for a project to be known as Riverbend Limited Partnership under the terms of
the new Federal Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. The U. S. Congress
enacted this legislation last October, same became effective January 1, and the legislation
requires that local governing bodies hold public hearings before approving industrial
revenue bond financing. It was felt that the public had not been able to comment on
these bonds in the past. Mr. Murray said the Albemarle County Industrial Development
Authority held a hearing on this project a month ago, heard evidence, and felt that the
conclusions reached by the applicants were supported by good evidence. Mr. Murray said
this project will create jobs, increase property tax revenues, and sales tax revenues.
The project is in compliance with the County Zoning Ordinance and the County's Comprehensive
Plan. The Authority also concluded that the project meets the definitions set out in
the Internal Revenue Code and the Virginia Industrial Revenue Bond Financing Act. Mr.
Murray said the Authority members were also convinced that based on prior opinions of
the Board of Supervisors, this project would not have been approved except for these
policy changes on the issuance of bonds. Mr. Murray said the same concerns that this
Board has expressed about industrial revenue bond financing in the past, have also been
expressed by many people to the U.S. Congress and the Virginia General AssemblY. Mr.
Murray said the Authority has been operating under an old section of the Internal Revenue
Code. The Virginia act dated back to 1966. Neither of these acts had ever been interpreted
legislatively. There had been lawsuits about how broad a definition could be applied to
facilities, but the legislature had never acted. In October, Congress acted and in
February, the General Assembly did likewise. A list of facilities prohibited from
obtaining industrial revenue bonding was complied. The list includes such projects as
golf courses and massage parlors. Congress was asked about whether retail facilities
such as shopping centers should be included and replied that shopping centers are intended
to be financed with these bonds. At the same time, the Virginia General Assembly appointed
March 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
5¸7
a Study Commission which reported in February and the General Assembly acted. The
General Assembly went further than Congress and added still further facilities prohibited
from such financing. Back in March of 1981, the Virginia Supreme Court heard the case
of Farmers Food, Incorporated, versus the Industrial Development Authority. The Court
was asked to rule on whether a shopping center is a proper use of industrial financing
and ruled in the affirmative, that the use is allowed by statute, and that the use is
part of the intent, and a legal use of the bonds. With this background, Mr. Murray said
the Albemarle Authority reviewed the project and concluded that this project is what the
General Assembly and Congress intends to be financed with these bonds. Mr. Murray said
the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority members did not feel they had the
right to deny the project and not afford the Board of Supervisors the right to speak for
the public.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the County is required to issue bonds for this type of
facility based on these recent actions. Mr. Murray said he thinks the Board's power in
this matter is discretionary.
Next to speak was Mrs. Peggy Hancock, Vice-Chairman of the Industrial Development
Authority Board of Directors. She presented a general statement about the philosophy of
industrial bonding. (A copy is on file in the Clerk's Office).
Next to speak was Mr. George Gilliam, attorney, representing Riverbend Limited
Partnership. He introduced persons either associated directly with the project or
responsible for examination of the project. Mr. J. Cameron Hoggan, Jr., Senior Vice
President of Wheat First Securities in Richmond, which is generally regarded as the
preeminent mortgage banking investment firm in the southeast. Mr. Gilliam said Wheat
First is very active in underwriting municipal bonds all over the region. Mr. Gilliam
noted letter dated February 25, 1983, from Mr. Hoggan concerning the proposed project
and giving his comments regarding the effect of the bond issuance on Albemarle County's
credit rating, the interest rate on Albemarle County's general obligation bonds, as well
as methods of financing being employed elsewhere in the State (copy on file in the
Clerk's Office). Next, Mr. Gilliam introduced Mr. John Knapp who is affiliated with the
Tayloe Murphy Institute, but who through private work, prepared an economic impact study
of the project (copy on file in the Clerk's Office); Also present was Mr. Robert Stroud,
partner in the Charlottesville office of the law firm of McGuire, Woods and Battle which
has been appointed as bond counsel by the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority.
Mr. Gilliam said he became aware yesterday of a letter dated March 2, 1983, from Mr.
Frank McCulloch, member of the Industrial Development Authority, who abstained on the
vote for this project. Mr. Gilliam said he regretted to state that the letter contains
very substantial factual inaccuracies. One particular item is the assessed value of the
land which is stated by Mr. McCulloch to be $376,000. This was checked today and the
thirty-one acre site of the Riverbend development is assessed for $903,000. The 15.6
acre portion of the property which is the most developable is assessed for $777,000,
which is more than $50,000 per acre.
Mr. Gilliam then continued his presentation concerning the details of the project.
The proposed shopping center is comparable in size to that of Albemarle Square. The
shopping center is to be located just across Free Bridge on the southern side of Route
250 East. The land is presently owned by Dr. Charles Hurt and a limited partnership has
been formed and the background information on the principals involved in the partnership
has been submitted to the Board (copy on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. Gilliam said
the purpose in being before the Board today is to request that a resolution be approved
which in essence allows the Partnership to go out and look for financing. Many questions
and concerns of the Board will not be fully addressed at this time but when the Industrial
Development Authority reviews the project in its final form, that information will be
available. Mr. Gilliam said the maximum being requested is an amount up to 8.7 million
dollars. Mr. Gilliam said that amount is an approximate figure because the project will
be phased over a period of time. Allowances have been made for increases in construction
costs and materials. A maximum amount has been requested knowing that the lender will
actually set the maximum which the applicants anticipate will be somewhat less than the
request. Mr. Gilliam said the site plan is still in the review process but the land is
properly zoned and this type of facility is shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gilliam
said with the population growth to the east and south of the City limits, he felt it is
time that this type of development is located in the subject area. He felt the project
will have a beneficial impact on the County.
Mr. Gilliam said that during the construction of the project, the County will
receive revenues of over $77,000. Once completed, revenues are estimated to be over
$400,000 from all sources. One hundred and thirty construction related jobs will be
created and upon completion, it is expected that about 380 persons will be on the payrol'l.
Therefore, a substantial benefit will inure to the County. Mr. Gilliam said th'e critical
question to the Board today is whether tax exempt bond financing should be made available
for this project. He then described the procedure by which the project was initiated.
He also noted that two grocery stores in the City have recently been financed with
industrial revenue bonds. He said that persons desiring to locate in the County, because
the amount of rent they must pay dictates the price on items being sold, are in competition
with such facilities in the City. Mr. Gilliam said the indstrial revenue bonds are
popular not only with borrowers but also with lenders, and from a practical point of
view, in today's market a project of this nature cannot be financed without using industrial
revenue bonds and still be competitive. He also noted that there are not a significant
number of projects being financed today using conventional methods. Mr. Gilliam said
large companies such as General Motors and General Electric can obtain conventional
loans because these companies can borrow money at well below the so-called prime rate
and the small businessman cannot do that. He noted that the industrial revenue bonds
are targeted basically for the small businesses as an equalizer. The limit on industrial
bonds is ten million dollars.
March 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Giltiam said it has been suggested in the past that the industrial revenue
bonds impair the ability of the County itself to raise money and he disagrees with that
suggestion. He explained how bond rating agencies review the municipalities in the
country and examine what types of commercial expansion is occuring in those municipalities.
In Albemarle County, with the exception of the General Electric plant, there has been
very little commercial expansion for years. Therefore, Mr. Gilliam suggested that
instead of impairing the ability of Albemarle County to sell its bonds on the public
market, this project will actually enhance the County's credit rating by demonstrating
the vitality of the County's economy. He then asked that Mr. Bob Stroud be allowed to
speak about the legal issues involved under the new Federal procedures for industrial
revenue bonds.
Mr. Stroud noted that the Industrial Development Authority borrows money in name
only using the developer's credit and collateral as security for the money. The money
is made available to the developer, and the developer in turn agrees to repay the borrowing.
Because the money is borrowed in the Authority's name, the lender will receive tax-
favored interest treatment on the interest income and therefore is willing to give a
lower rate of interest. This lower rate of interest will pass to the developer, then
into the cost of the project, and ultimately into the sale of goods. Mr. Stroud said
this works by combining two laws. The first is the Federal tax law which provides a
fundamental exemption from taxation of interest on obligations issued by a state or
local government. The second is the State law and local ordinances which create the
Authority and regulate the issuance of bonds. He then referred to the Federal Tax
Equity and Responsibility Act adopted in October 1982, which became effective January 1,
1983, and House Bill 730 adopted by the General Assembly which will become effective
July 1, 1983. The State law incorporates the same type of provisions built into the
federal tax act. He then gave some facts relating to industrial bond issuances since
the State law was created. Mr. Stroud pointed out that these bond issues are available
for commercial uses despite the misnomer of the word industrial in the title. He said
that shopping centers are quite frequently approved. Mr. Stroud said the phrase "tax-
favored" has been used for a particular purpose. The interest income on industrial
revenue bonds is not subject to direct taxation but there are some consequences which
help offset or help mollify the impact of not being taxable. First, it is an item of
tax preference which, if you are the holder of a lot of them, you would have to pay at
least a minimum amount of tax so Federal income taxes are not totally avoided by deriving
all of your income from these types of items. The rate currently is fifteen percent.
Second, financial institution lenders, after 1982, will be limited in the amount by
which they can increase their portfolios of these without forfeiting some of the interest
deduction that they otherwise claim on the sources of money they use to buy these
bonds. Third, the accelerated depreciation deduction is limited to the straight line
method so you give up the advantages of accelerated depreciation. Mr. Stroud concluded
by stating that both Congress and the General Assembly have reexamined industrial revenue
bonds recently and have acted to curb perceived abuses, but both have retained them for
most of the projects that have previously been financed in the State, as well as retaining
the bonds for the type of project which is being presented for Riverbend Limited Partnership.
Therefore, Mr. Stroud said the issue before the Board is legal according to state and
Federal laws.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to stipulate that he agrees that the funding of a
shopping center in the general location shown is within the general guidelines of the
County's Comprehensive Plan. He also agrees that there will be some new jobs created.
However, to him the question is, why should the public subsidize this project and how
much equity is going into the project? Also, he questions whether the value of the land
is reasonable. His concern about the value of the land is due to a staff report received
today showing the value of the land at $12,000 per acre and the applicant states a
different amount. Mr. Chuck Rotgin, member of the Riverbend Limited Partnership, was
present and said that sixteen acres, the main portion of the property, is assessed for
$777,000. Mr. Don Wagner, also a member of the Riverbend Limited Partnership, said
Parcel 15C(1) was recently combined with a number of other parcels and he felt the
information Mr. Fisher had was for Parcel 15C(1) when it was a smaller parcel. Mr.
Fisher suggested that this difference be clarified.
Mr. Fisher asked what the equity investment will be in the project. Mr. Gilliam
said the equity will be whatever the lenders require. Generally, the lenders will not
permit a loan to value ratio of greater than about seventy-five percent. Therefore,
about twenty-five precent of the total appraised value of the project will be equity and
will not be financed by the bond. Mr. Fisher then questioned why the amount of the bond
request is for $8.7 million when the project is estimated to cost $8.7 million. Mr.
Gilliam said as previously stated, the $8.7 million is believed to be the maximum figure
allowing for increases in the actual cost of the construction.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin said he would like to comment. In the material submitted to the
Board, there was information attesting to the financial ability of the principals
involved in this project. Whatever equity is required for the project can be posted by
the principals and it will probably have to be posted before the bond money is released.
When the Riverbend application was reduced from $10 million to $8.7 million at the
Industrial Development Authority hearing, $8.7 million was discussed as opposed to the
$7.5 million which was the original figure for the shopping center. Mr. Rotgin said the
Partnership felt the funding level should remain at $8.7 million for several reasons.
One, this project will be built over several years and the partnership did not want to
have to come back to the Industrial Development Authority at a later date. The Partnership
wanted to protect itself in the event that the site is as good as it is felt to be, and
March 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
should the demand increase significantly, additional stores could be added without
having to return for additional approvals. Mr. Rotgin said the amount of money borrowed
on the project will not be determined by bond authorization but rather the lenders will
conduct a detailed appraisal of the property, determine the economic value of same, and
the amount of the loan will not exceed seventy-five to eighty percent of that value.
Mr. Rotgin said if the Board is concerned about the amount of the authorization, he
would not object to the amount being reduced to $7.5 million, .provided it is understood
that the Partnership may have to return for additional funds later. Mr. Fisher asked in
what form the equity will be. Mr. Rotgin said cash. He said the Partnership would not
expect to take a cash profit on any work it might do on the project. The partnership
would rather leave the equity in the project so that it would not be taxed. Mr. Lindstrom
said that his concerns are more philosophical and he is not really in a position to
second guess the applicants.
Mr. Fisher said according to newspaper reports, mortgage rates dropped four points
from June through December, 1982. If this project was viable using industrial revenue
bonds last fall when the applicants first began the process, why could the applicants
not apply for conventional financing at this time. Why use this distortion of the
market to finance the project? Mr. Rotgin said the rates have not decreased significantly
since plans for the project began in October. The slide in the interest rates occurred
between August and October. He noted that the rate today for a project such as this
would be about thirteen percent, however, there are some fundamental problems involved
with conventional financing. Conventional money can be borrowed at thirteen percent but it
cannot be borrowed long term. Five years is about the longest period of time for which
money can be borrowed. The Partnership will be required to sign twenty year leases with
the tenants of this project and give guaranteed renewals on those leases. In conclusion,
Mr. Rotgin said the Partnership cannot borrow conventionally because the interest rates
are too high to accommodate the major tenants who have stated that they can pay only a
certain amount of rent per square foot, the leases are for twenty years with guaranteed
renewals, and there is the five year limit on the conventional market.
Speaking next was Mr. Donal DaY, representing the Citizens Party. Mr. Day said the
editorial in the Daily Progress yesterday was about industrial bonding and the editorial
considered this issue today as a debate over growth or no growth in the County. He said
Albemarle County is in a period of growth. The debate should not be over what other
localities have stimulated by issuing industrial revenue bonds. He pointed out that
other Jurisdictions have their needs and have survived economic conditions different
from those in Albemarle County. He felt the debate should be about what is best for
Albemarle County and how the use of industrial r~venm~abonds could create a better place
to work and live. It has been said that the industrial revenue bonds require no direct
expenditures by the locality when issuing the bonds, but the issuance of industrial
revenue bonds does have a direct affect on tax revenues of the state. Taxes that would
be paid on the income derived from interest on loans made on other than industrial
revenue bonds is lost. These lost tax revenues must be made up by increased taxes on
businesses that have established themselves without using industrial revenue bonds, and
also by the average citizen. It is the position of the Citizens Party on this question
that the issuance of industrial revenue bonds be done Judiciously in keeping with the
goal of providing meaningful work for the citizens and the real economic growth for the
community. Mr. Day said he is not convinced that a shopping center on Pantops Mountain
will do more than divert sales and jobs from other retail ventures that have established
themselves without using revenue bonds. He felt it is foolish to think that another
shopping center will attract real industry to this area. He said Albemarle County is
providing a pleasant climate which is attractive to investors and entrepreneurs The
property tax, availability of G~u~lified work force, a solid market and a growing population
all contribute to this climate. Therefore, Mr. Day did not feel it is necessary to
issue industrial revenue bonds without any restrictions. Mr. Day said the Citizens
Party hopes that all economic activity in Albemarle County, especially that stimulated bY
public action, will benefit not only developers and investors, but all county citizens.
Mr. Day said that industrial revenue bonds provide developers with quite a percentage of
savings on the interest paid on the bonds. Therefore, the Citizens Party proposes that
the County enter into a contract with any developer seeking industrial revenue bonds,
whereby the developer would return some negotiated percentage of the interest saved into
a housing fund. This fund could be administered by the County to repair and upgrade
existing housing and the fund could serve as an interest subsidy on first-time, low-
income home purchasers. Mr. Day said this could provide an opportunity for the County
and the developers to work together, and could provide a specific way to meet the needs
of the disadvantaged.
Speaking next in support of the resolution was Mr. Haynes Dominick, businessman on
Pantops Mountain for twenty years. He noted that he was speaking for the four automobile
dealers on the Mountain. He said he established his business on Pantops Mountain and
never regrett~d~se&ecting that location. He felt a shopping center is needed in the
area and the $12,000 per acre figure stated was definitely incorrect. In conclusion,
Mr. Dominick urged approval of the project.
Next to speak was Mr. A1 Dwyer, a previoUs landowner in the subject area, who noted
that the appraised figure per acre of the property was surely incorrect.
Mr. George Cason spoke next. He noted that he is not concerned about the project
itself because he feels the location is good for a shopping center and he is not concerned
about industrial revenue bonds being used for the project. However, he expressed concern
about the people behind the project. He wanted to put the Board on notice that the lead
man in the project has for three years been under ~a very intense criminal investigation.
The man he referred to is Dr. Hurt. Mr. Cason said he feels that in the next few months
the investigation will be completed and he feels that Dr. Hurt will be indicted. Mr.
Cason said he feels the public needs to be protected. He felt the'other persons involved
Ma~ch 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
in the project are honorable. One member of the law firm representing the partnership
here today is also involved in. the investigation. Mr. Cason said he is not picking on
Mr. Lindstrom (whom he feels is an honorable man), but he thinks Mr. Lindstrom's firm
represents the firm involved in the swindle. Mr. Cason said he is going to ask the
Justice Department to make an investigation of the possible criminal element involved in
this project.
Figures were then submitted by Mr. Gilliam for the assessment of the property
involved. Mr. Fisher said the information submitted to him computes the value per acre to be
about $48,000. He noted that he just wanted the record clarified on the question he had
raised.
Dr. Charles Hurt said he had been asked not to come to the meeting today because
some people feel the supervisors do not like him. He noted that George Cason had taken
a case all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. Dr. Hurt said he had decided to
attend the meeting because he felt the Board members are fair-minded and are not influenced
by whether or not they personally like a person. Dr. Hurt said he could have sold the
property to an out-of-town developer, but felt the local developers would do a better
job. Dr. Hurt said he feels the people on the eastern side of the County are entitled
to convenience shopping such as the proposed project.
M~ Murray then requested an opportunity to speak as an individual on this issue.
He said that he is personally opposed to the Federal government subsidizing any private
industry. However, every economically significant jurisdiction around Albemarle County
uses industrial revenue bond financing to attract businesses and industries. In the
City of Charlottesville, just one hundred yards across the River, an applicant can
obtain industrial bond financing. On the adjacent parcel, development has occurred
using industrial bond financing obtained in another county. Mr. Murray said that philosophica
he agrees with the Board members, but until the Federal Government and the General
Assembly agree with this philosophy, it is like "burying our heads in the sand" and
risking eventual economic decline for the County if industrial revenue bonds are not
used at some point for some project so the County can compete for some retail and commercial
growth.
Speaking next was Mr. Chuck Rotgin who thanked the Board members for their time,
patience and attention. Mr. Rotgin said it is a difficult decision, a complex matter
and the philosophical differences make it even more difficult. It has been difficult
for the persons involved because of the amount of time consumed as well as the expense.
He felt the effort and expense confirms the Partnership's commitment to development of a
much needed shopping facility on Pantops Mountain. Mr. Rotgin said he did not understand
revenue bonding when the plans for the development first began, so the best professional
people were sought in order to make the best possible presentation to the Board. Mr.
Rotgin said he feels it is time for the Board to take a fresh look at industrial revenue
bond financing. Subsidizes have been mentioned. Mr. Rotgin said it is important to
mention that Albemarle County provides a big subsidy to its rural landowners in the form
of land use taxation which costs the County about two million dollars a year. Mr.
Rotgin said the most important factor about industrial revenue bonds relates to jobs and
this proposed project will provide almost 400 jobs with about $400,000 in revenue to the
County each year. In conclusion, Mr. Rotgin said he had the utmost confidence in the
Board's ability to weigh the merits of the project and he noted appreciation for the
Board's indulgence in this presentation. He also noted willingness to have the amount
of the bond request reduced to 7.5 million dollars if the Board so desired.
With no one else from the public to speak for or against the resolution or the
amendment to the Industrial Development Authority ordinance, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would have to admit that the comments made today have been
very persuasive, but the Board is being asked to make a major shift in policy on industrial
revenue bonds. Therefore, he would like these items deferred to March 16, 1983, in
order that he might have time to think about the concepts and responses made by Mr.
Stroud and Mr. Gilliam today. He then offered motion to defer to March 16, 1983, the
amendment to the Industrial Development Authority Ordinance and the resolution to approve
Industrial Development Authority bonds for Riverbend Limited Partnership. Mrs. Cooke
seconded the motion and noted her delight in hearing the details about bond issuances,
but felt that in all fairness to the developers of the project that the matter should be
delayed a week.
Miss Nash asked Mr. Lindstrom why he needed a week to think about the request. Mr.
Lindstrom said that right now it is his feeling that if he has to make a major change he
is not going to make that change. He would like a week to think about the request and
maybe he will find some basis on which to make that change; maybe he won't.
Miss Nash said she could not understand his reason for deferring and noted that her
mind is made up because she feels this proposal is good for the southeastern part of the
County.
Mr. Butler was not opposed to the deferral and he agreed with Miss Nash that this
project is good for the Southeastern part of the County. He also does not have any
problems with subsidizes because everyone from the poor to the rich are subsidized in
one way or another.
Roll was then called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
.ly
March 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 13. Request from the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department.
Dr. F. Anthony Iachetta, President of the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department,
was present. Dr. Iachetta said bingo games are a big generator of revenues for the fire
department and for six years these games have been played at the Woodbrook School. The
school personnel are becoming unhappy with the fire department using their facility and
the fire department members are unhappy with having to be there. However, the community
room at the fire station is being operated under a temporary certificate of occupancy
permit until all of the items on the site plan have been finished. The Rescue Squad,
which is on property adjacent to the fire department, is also encumbered by the same
conditions that are causing the fire department problems; Condition #3 of S?-78-70
reads: "Access from Berkmar Drive to Commonwealth Drive will be only for emergency use
until such time that public access is deemed necessary by the Board of Supervisors."
Condition #13 of the site plan reads: "Alignment of futhre road from Commonwealth Drive
to Berkmar Drive for public access to be approved by the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation." Dr. Iachetta said the flood last spring caused problems at the
intersection of Commonwealth and Dominion Drives and created some interest on the part
of the community to have this emergency access as a permanent access. Dr. Iachetta said
the emergency access road would cost about $10,000 and the fire department cannot afford
to construct same. Also, construction of the road would reduce by about one-third the
parking area north of the fire station. The bingo operations would then be jeopardized
because of inadequate parking space for the community room. Dr. Iachetta said the
questions to the Board are: is the public road still desired? If not, delete that
condition in order that a permanent certificate of occupancy Can be obtained. If the
condition is viable, will the County help build the emergency access?
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker for comments. Mr. Tucker said representatives of the
fire department came before the Planning Commission on July 27, 1982, and asked for
some relief from condition #13 relating to the emergency access. The relief was granted
and the following language substituted "The construction of the 14 foot emergency access
outlined in yellow on the site plan shall be completed by the time a certificate of
occupancy for the training room at the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department is
issued in conjunction with the parking lot, and required curbing, subject to the following
conditions: a) County engineer approval of the roadway specifications; b) The proper
curb cut at the fire department's parking lot shall be made."
Mr. Fisher then asked Dr. Iachetta what the specific request is to the Board. Dr.
Iachetta then repeated that a decision needs to be made by the Board about the emergency
access being built as a public road.
Mr. Fisher said it has been a while since this matter was reviewed and he was not
familiar with same. Mr. Tucker said the original special permit for the volunteer fire
department indicated that the access between Commonwealth and Berkmar Drives would be
only for emergency use until such time as public access was deemed necessary by the
Board. The Board then took action to show the connector between Berkmar and Commonwealth
Drives in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher felt more background information was
necessary. Mr. Tucker said the special permit was approved with a condition relating to
the emergency access and that condition would still be a problem. Discussion then
followed on whether the Board could adopt a resolution of intent to amend the special
use permit. Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney, said ordinarily an applicant
would file for another special use permit. There being no consensus on how to handle
this request, the matter was deferred to March 14, 1983, awaiting a report on procedures
from the staff.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Frederick Payne requested that the Board authorize him to enter into a se~ttlement
proposed by the defendant in the case of County of Albemarle versus Lange, et al.
Motion to that effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. At 4:55 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by
Miss Nash, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
(Mr. Henley left the meeting at this time.)
The Board reconvened into open session at 6:20 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 17. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bm~l~,
to adjourn to March 14, 1983, at 1:00 P.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None. ~~ ~~~
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
CHAIRMAN