Loading...
1983-05-11May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) May 4, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 7. Adjourn. At 11:05 P.M., there was no further business before the Board, and Mr. Fisher declared the meeting adjourned. Chairman May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on May 11, 1983, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room #7 of the Albemarle County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler (Arrived at 9:11 A.M.), Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr., Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom-(Arrived at 9:08 A.M.), and Miss Ellen V. Nash. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:09 A.M., by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher noted that today is Youth In Government Day and that several students from Albemarle High School will be attending today's meeting. Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Mr. Fisher said he wished to discuss Item No. 6a., the April 20, 1983, application for approval and certification for rebuilding the Charlottesville-Gordonsville Transmission Line by Vepco in greater detail, and asked for approval of the consent agenda with this item removed. Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept and approve the consent agenda with item 6a removed. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Item No. 2.1 Statement o£ Expenses for the State Compensation Board for the month of April, 1983, for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail, were approved as presented. Item No. 2.2. Resolution to take Deepwoods Road in Loftlands Wood Subdivision into the State Secondary System requested by Kenneth Youel, President of Loftlands, Inc., on April 18, 1983, was adopted as follows: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Loftlands Wood Subdivision: Beginning at station 0+11, a point common to the centerline intersection of Deepwoods Road and edge of pavement of Loftlands Drive; thence in a southerly direction 1,239 feet .... to station 12+50, the end of the cul-de-sac of Deepwoods Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 658, page 181. Item No. 2.3. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of March, 1983, was presented in accordance with Section 63.1-52 of the Code of Virginia. Item No. 2.4. Report of the County Executive for the month of April, 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 April, 1983, were also presented as information: May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account General Fund School Fund Cafeteria Fund Textbook Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Grant Project Fund Capital Improvements Fund Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax Mental Health Fund 147,370.77 828,799.92 2,294,438.93 25,614.06 2,046.11 78,697.95 700.00 332,099.85 318.92 242~.798.50 $3,952,885.01 Item No~ 2.5. Letter dated April 14, 1983, from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, signed by Oscar Mabry, Deputy Commissioner, was received as follows: "As requested in your resolution dated February 9, 1983, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective April 14, 1983. ADDITION LENGTH WYNRIDGE~ PHASE II~ SUBDIVISION Westfield Road--From end of Maintenance on Route 1452 westerly 0.i1 Mi." Item No. 2.5. Letter dated April 26, 1983, from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, signed by Oscar Mabry, Deputy Commissioner, was received as follows: "As requested in your resolution dated January 12, 1983, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective April 26, 1983. ADDITION LENGTH WINDRIFT SUBDIVISION Spring Lake Drive--From Route 664 West to Cul-de-sac 0.41 Mi." Item No. 2.6. Letter dated April 25, 1983, from H. Byran Mitchell, Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission, stating that "Spring Hill" has been placed on the Virginia Landmarks R~gister. Item No. 2.7. Notice from the State Corporation Commission dated March 22, 1983, regarding a public hearing to be held on May 12, 1983, regarding an application for Richmond- on-the-James, Inc., for a license to broker the transportation of passengers by motor vehicle. Item No. 2.9. Notice from Virginia Electric and Power Company dated April 28, 1983, regarding a public hearing to be held on July 19, 1983, before the State Corporation for an increase in:~tactricl:rat~s Item No. 2.10. Memorandum dated May 4, 1983, from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, regarding FY 82'83 third quarter projections of revenues and expenditures, noting that the General Fund Carry-Over balance is estimated to be $179,522 at the end of the fiscal year. Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes. Mr. Lindstrom said he was not ready to approve the minutes of September 2, 1982. Mr. Henley said he was not prepared to approve the minutes of March 9, 1983. (NOTE: At 9:11 A.M., Mr. Butler arrived.) Mrs. Cooke said she had read the minutes of March 16, 1983, afternoon, and found no errors. Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash said they were not prepared to approve the minutes of March April 6 (Afternoon) and April 14, 1983. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve the minutes of March 16, (afternoon) 1983, as presented. 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, Discussion of Twin Trailers on Albemarle County roads. Mr. Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation was present. ~r. Roosevelt referred to his memorandum to Mr. J. C. DuFresne, dated April 22, 1983 (NOTE: Copy of this memorandum is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) .44 May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) "It appears that the routes being considered for use by twin trailers fall into two categories. The first category are certain designated routes of which only Route 29 through Albemarle and Greene counties fall within my residency. The second category includes all federal aid primary routes not included in the first list. I have, therefore, attached two lists to this letter indicating geometric features which I feel will preclude safe operation of twin trailers on Route 29 and other federal aid primary routes in Albemarle/Greene and the City of Charlottesville. It is my feeling that because of these various restrictive geometric features twin trailers should not be allowed on any federal aid primary routes except the following: l) Route 29 from Route 64 to Route 692, Albemarle County Route 29 from Route 64 to the intersection with Route 250 bypass in the City of Charlottesville Route 250 bypass within the City of Charlottesville from Route 29 to the intersection with McIntire Road." Mr. Roosevelt said Virginia law, prior to passage of the new law, allowed trailers 45 feet long and 96 inches wide. Mr. Roosevelt said the new law will allow trailers 48 feet long, twin trailers each 28 feet long for a total of 56 feet, and a maximum width of 102 inches. Mr. Roosevelt said that buses have been allowed the 102 inch width for many years. Mr. Henley commented that the twin trailers are supposed to be more maneuverable. Mr. Roosevelt said that is correct, twin trailers have proven more maneuverable in turning in close areas, but that they are more difficult to back up than conventional trailers. Mr. Lindstrom asked which roads were made accessible to twin trailers by the new federal law. Mr. Roosevelt said the federal action covers Route 64 and all of Route 29 through Albemarle County. Mr. Roosevelt said sections of Route 250 have been designated, but those sections are still subject to interpretation. Mr. Roosevelt said that any road within one-hal~ mile of a designated route is also accessible by twin trailers. Mr. Fisher noted that this matter has been reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission endOrsed Mr. Roosevelt's letter to Mr. DuFreSne (as written above) and expressed concern and opposition over allowing twin trailers anywhere within the County's urbanized area as well as on U.S. Route 29 because of existing roadway alignment and geometric problems. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission expressed concern that because of the lack of a by-pass route around the Albemarle/Charlottesville urban area (Route 29 North), twin trailers would further complicate the level of service problems already existing on Route 29 North. The Planning Commission addressed the possible pressures on localities to provide truck terminals along the present roads being considered for twin trailers, and how such would be in conflict with the County's Comprehensive Plan and present growth patterns. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission expressed concern that designated Scenic Highways (Route 250 West, Route 6 and Route 20 South) which are federal aid primary routes, might be considered for twin trailers also, and that the Planning Commission would be adamantly opposed to their use on these routes. Lastly, Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission's unanimous opinion was that twin trailers should be confined to interstates. Mr. Roosevelt said he attended a public hearing held by the Highway Department in Culpeper on May 3, 1983, and stated that the truckers wished for a better definition of the term "reasonable access". Mr. Roosevelt said that the interprelation is presently that reasonable access is one-half mile from the designated route, but that the truckers are requesting a better definition of reasonable access and the word "terminal". Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department will hold another hearing in June, prior to which a definitive listing of the routes, and definitions of reasonable access and terminals will be formulated. Mr. Roosevelt said it was his opinion that the one-half mile access would not stand very long, and that the Highway Department will extend that distance, possibly to terminals presently existing near designated routes. Mr. Roosevelt gave the example of the Wilson Trucking firm located on Route 20 which has access of about one and one-half miles from Route 64. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to support the Planning Commission's recommendation and endorse the Planning Commission's comments as stated in a letter from Mr. David P. Bowerman Chairman of the Albemarle County PZanning Commission, dated May 6, 1983, (NOTE: Copy on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors). Mr. Tucker said he wished to remove the word "currently" from the Planning Commission's recommendation number five referring to designated Scenic Highways. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Mr. Fisher asked if any study has been done of benefit to local industries. Mr. Tucker said no indepth study has been conducted because of the lack of time. Mr. Henley commented that he could not see how the State would allow twin. trai~ers on interstate routes and then not allow terminals nearby. Mr. Henley stated his concern about the Planning Commission's fourth statement regarding possible conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Henley said he couldn't comprehend how twin trailers could be kept out of the urban area of Albemarle County and still allowed on Route 29. Mr. Henley said he would prefer to rely on the Highway Department's expertise in such matters. Roll was then called and the motion endorsing the Planning Commission's May 6, 1983, letter carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Mr. Henley. Ma~y_ 11~_1_98~3 (Regular Day Meeting) 145 In response to this vote, the following letter was written: "May 12, 1983 Mr. Harold C. King, Commissioner Virginia Department~ of Highways and Transportation 1221 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Re: Surface Transportation Assistance Act Twin Trailer Trucks Dear Mr. King: At its meeting of May 11, 1983, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors voted to support the Albemarle County Planning Commission's recommendation, and endorse the following comments concerning the issue of allowing twin trailer trucks on certain Virginia highways. Endorsement of the memorandum of April 22, 1983, addressed to Mr. J. C. DuFresne from Mr. Daniel S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation in Albemarle County; e Definite concern and opposition over allowing twin trailers anywhere within the County's urbanized area as well as on U. S. Route 29 because of existing roadway alignment and geometric problems; Because of the lack of a by-pass route around the Albemarle/Charlottesville urban area (i.e., Route 29 North), twin trailers would further complicate the level of service (congestion) problems already existing on Route 29 North; If portions of our highways were opened to twin trailers, pressure on localities to provide truck terminals along the present roads being considered for twin trailers would be apparent. In Albemarle County, the location of truck terminals would be in conflict with the County's Comprehensive Plan and present growth patterns; e Several of the proposed routes are designated Scenic Highways, e.g., Route 250 West, Route 6 and Route 20 South; the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is adamantly opposed to their use for twin trailers; Based upon all of the above reasons and comments, it was the Board's opinion that twin trailers should be confined to interstates." Agenda Item No. 4b. Highway Matters: Request from Charlottesville Track Club. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated April 29, 1983, from Mark and Cynthia Lorenzoni (NOTE: Copy of this letter is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Lorenzoni was present and asked him to summarize his request. Mr. Lorenzoni said is is requesting permission to close a portion of Garth Road on September 3, 1983, in order for the Charlottesville Track Club to hold the First Annual Lady Enterprise Four Mile Road Race. Mr. Lorenzoni said this race is to have from 500 to 1,000 participants from around the nation and that proceeds will be donated to a local charity. Mr. Lorenzoni noted that he felt such a race would bring extra revenue to local businesses due to the influx of visitors, and that details have been worked out with regard to detours, signs, communications to the public, volunteers, etc. Mr. Lorenzoni said the race is to start at Foxfield at 8:15 a.m. and last approximately one hour over a four mile course. He ended by asking that the Board grant permission for the road closing. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Lorenzoni had checked for possible conflicts in the area, such as horse shows at Foxfield or other stables on Garth Road.. Mr. Lorenzoni said he first wanted the Board's react-ion to the idea of closing the road, and would work further from this point. Mr. Lindstrom asked how Mr. Lorenzoni planned to notify residents along the race course area about the road closing. Mr. Lorenzoni said he could either have a public hearing, or a general mailing of information to inform the public and alert them of the race date, time and course. Mr. Fisher asked why Mr. Roosevelt did not just approve this request administratively. F~. Roosevelt said he regularly issues permits for long standing events such as the Crozet parade, but he wished the Board's reaction on this matter before a permit is issued. Mr. Roosevelt said he felt confident that traffic could be handled, but would not issue the permit until he had assurance from local authorities that they would assist in handling the traffic. Mr. Lindstrom said he had no problem with the request. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not feel a public hearing was necessary because there were only eight or ten residents on that section of Garth Road. Mr. Lindstrom did feel that some notification was necessary however, whether that be through door-to-door communication or a general mailing. (NOTE: Mr. St. John left the meeting at 9:45 A.M.) Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to concur with the Resident Highway Engineer in granting permission for the closing of Garth Road in order for the Charlottesville Track Club to conduct a foot race, and that proper notification of all property owners directly affected along the route of the race be given. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. · 146 May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 4c. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Lindstrom said there was an accident on Route 676 near Ivy Creek Methodist Church, and he felt the major cause of that accident was that there is no shoulder at the curve. Mr. Roosevelt said he would check on the area. (NOTE: Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 9:50 A.M.) Mrs. Cooke said as a member of the Transportation Safety Commission she wished to read to the Board a news release regarding "Project Safe". Mrs. Cooke said that Project Safe has been organized because of awareness of the problems of driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs. Mrs. Cooke said the project will be conducted on prom and graduation nights of local high schools, and will provide free, no questions asked, rides for students under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Mrs. Cooke said this is an effort to prevent possible tragedies and to make the community more aware of the dangers of driving under the influence. Mrs. Cooke said by dialing 979-SAFE, a ride will be arranged by a deacon of one of several local churches participating in this project, to pick up the student and other members of his party and drive them home. Agenda Item No. 5. Request, Ashcroft Well. Mr. Agnor said a request has been received from Mr. Gary D. Cooper, President of Liberty Land Limited, dated May 3, 1983, as follows: "We hereby request a temp. orary change in our Central Well Operating Permit approved on May 14, 1980, and clarified on October 14, 1981, for Ashcroft. We are asking that the limit of 26 hook-ups be removed and that the control be the well design capacity of 10,400 gallons per day. The present daily demand on the well is less than 1800 gallons per day or 17 percent of approved capacity. We have had a surge in construction activity this spring and will exceed the 26 hook-ups approved shortly. The lag time between commitment and usage demand is 120 to 180 days. It would be close to year end if all the houses were sold and occupied before we would reach the design capacity of the well. The public facility is due to become operational about July 1, and engineering studies are in progress as to how we can tie into this system and utilize the public source rather than drill additional wells. If the engineering problems can't be solved by June 15, we will request expansion of our present central well system." Mr. Agnor added that the storage tank being installed by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority on Pantops Mountain will be completed about June 30 and that Mr. Cooper will have 120 days from that point to hook his water system to the public system and dedicate the system to the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Agnor said engineering problems with Mr. Cooper's water system have caused the project to become more extensive than originally anticipated and will most likely delay connecting with the storage tank beyond the 120 day period. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Cooper when he would be ready to connect to the public system. Mr. Cooper said engineering problems have shown the need for an additional storage tank at a higher elevation than the tank under construction by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Cooper said water pressure problems are the difficulty now trying to be resolved by his engineers, the Service Authority and the State Health Department. Mr. Cooper said engineers are presently working on a plan to put in a pumping station at the Rivanna Storage tank which hopefully will balance the pressure difficulties and only until the additional storage tank is constructed. Mr. Fisher asked how long such a design would take to work up and construct. Mr. Cooper said optimistically he could have it fully installed and operational before the end of the year. Mr. Fisher suggested the possibility of changing the condition on the central well permit restricting the well to 26 building permits, to 26 certificates of occupancy. Mr. Fisher said people cannot move in until water is supplied. Mr. Fisher he would not consider lifting the hook-up limit for a well on which the County has not supervised the testing. Mr. Agnor expressed concern with tying water hook-ups to the certificate of occupancy. Mr. Agnor said it could happen that a person would be ready to move in and the builder would be unable to get a certificate of occupancy because there was insufficient water. Mr. Fisher said provided that Mr. Cooper could guarantee the engineering and construction of the new line, he would feel comfortable with changing the condition from building permit to certificate of occupancy. Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer said he would caution the Board in changing the condition from building permit to certificate of occupancy, because many times a person will sign final papers on a home and expect to move in by a certain date or move in without the certificate of occupancy, and that there would be a very definite health problem if a family moved into a dwelling which had no water hook-up available. Mr. Fisher said he would like to rethink his offer to change to certificae of occupancy because of this potential problem. Mr. Moore of the Virginia State Department of Health spoke next. Mr. Moore said the present well permit is based on thirteen gallons per minute, during a 48 hour pump test conducted by the well driller for a total of 10,400 gallons per day. Mr. Moore said based on present meter readings, the subdivision is using 2,500 gallons per day or about 25 percent capacity. Mr. Moore said there is a minor problem with manganese in the water, but Mr. Cooper has been flushing the system to control the problem. Mr. Fisher said he is certain now that the water must be tied with the building permit and no~ ~he certificate of occupancy. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Cooper had control of the sale of lots for home construction. Mr. Cooper said he is not in the business of building homes, only preparing the lots. Mr. Lindstrom said he was also concerned with the problem of occupancy as described by Mr. Elrod. Mr. Elrod said the Board may wish to consider bonding the system, whereby if the system does not work or is not completed on time, the County could call in the bond and correct or complete the system. 147 Mr. St, Joh~ commented that he felt the bonding idea was far better than not requiring water until the certificate of occupancy is requested. Mr. St. John said if water were tied to the certificate of occupancy, a person could purchase a lot, build a home and have no way of knowing that there will be water supplied to the dwelling. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Cooper if he would be interested in a bond to help with this problem. Mr. Cooper said even with a bond, it will still be several weeks before the engineering plans are prepared and a bond can be purchased and he could be out of business by that time. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt that if a mechanism satisfactory to all involved should be worked out, that will insure enough bond money to build the water system to connect with public water. Mr. St. John said the plans must have enough finality to know how much the cost will be and also enough finality to know when the conditions of the bond have been breached. ~. Lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor if he could foresee any administrative problems with bonding this water system. Mr. Agnor said once the amount of the bond is set and the bond issued, the only administrative function will be to monitor the progress of the water system construction to determine if the bond has been breached. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to defer this item for one week, during which time a meeting should take place between Mr. Cooper, the Albemarle County Service Authority, and the County Engineer, to design a bond to cover this water system. Mr. Fisher said he will support such action if there is a certain date established for the completion of the Water system or the calling of the bond. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: Ordinance to amend Section ll-13(b) of the Business License OrdinanCe on a p8rmanent basis. This ordinance to extend the application filing date for business licenses was extended from March 31 to April 30 as an emergency measure for the 1983 license year. (Advertised on April 26 and May 3, 1983, in the Dai!y Progress.) Mr. Agnor said this action is to adopt on a permanent basis, the ordinance amending the filing date for business license applications, which was taken on April 14, 1983. Miss Nash asked when the notices for business license filings are mailed. Mr. Agnor said notices are mailed in May. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. There was no one present wishing to speak either for or against this proposed ordinance, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. (Mr. Henley left the meeting at 10:45 A.M.) Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following ordinance: BE iT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Article I, Section ll-13(b) of the Albemarle County Code is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: Section 11-13. Same -- Persons liable to keep records~ report of gross receipts. (a) Same. (b) Each licensee whose license is measured by gross receipts or gross expenditures shall submit to the director of finance, not later than April 30 of each year, a report of his gross receipts or gross expenditures for the preceding year. (c) Same. (d) Same. (e) Same. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lincstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: Albemarle County Service Authority service areas regarding Mormon Church. (NOTE: Mr. Henley returned to the meeting at 10:47 A.M.) Mr. J. W. Brent summarized his memorandum to the County Executive dated May 2, 1983, which read as follows: "In 1980 when the Board of Supervisors was amending the jurisdictional boundaries of the Service Authority there was considerable discussion of the boundary along Hydraulic Road. It was pointed out in these discussions that the widening of Hydraulic Road would destroy the septic drainfields of the Mormon Church at the intersection of Hydraulic Road and Rio Road and it would be desirable for this church to be able to have public sewer. In the drawing of the jurisdictional boundary at this point the ridge line of the reservoir drainage basin was used which permitted the church to remain in our water and sewer service area. When our jurisdictional boundaries were again amended in 1982 this church property was designated for water service only to structures existing as of October 1, 1982. I do not recall any discussions at that time of the drainfield problem being created by the highway improvements. May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) Now, with the road work underway, the church desires to connect to public sewer but they are not in our sewer service area. I understand it is possible to install a new drainfield at the rear of their property but sewage would have to be pumped to this drainfield. This is not a request from the Service Authority to have the church property included in our sewer service area. However, I feel the Board of Supervisors should be informed of this problem since this was considered in their 1980 decision making but was not brought to their attention last year. The church must make a decision on how to handle their sewer system very soon. In the event the Board may want to reconsider this matter I would appreciate your bringing this to their attention at an early date." Mr. Fisher asked if the public sewer service were extended back to the ridgeline, would the problems of the Mormon Church be solved. Mr. Brent said he believed such an extension would solve the problem. Mr. Tucker agreed with Mr. Brent, adding that the official location of that ridge line is awaiting official survey data. Mr. Lindstrom asked if granting sewer service in this area would be consistent with the Board's previous action. Mr. Tucker said he felt such a change would be consistent. Mr. Fisher asked what the smallest change would be to solve the Mormon Church problem. Mr. Tucker said that would be to designate the Mormon Church property in a water and sewer area. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if he was certain that all the church's property falls outside the watershed of the South Rivanna Reservoir. Mr. Tucker said he was absolutely certain of that fact. Miss Nash asked if there were any adjoining properties which could come under the same category as the church. Mr. Tucker said there could be, but those properties would have to come before the Board before such property could be included in the service area. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to extend water and sewer service to the property of the Mormon Church on Hydraulic Road. Mr. Lindstrom said as a clarification of that motion he wished to note that this motion is based on the Board's previous action relating to the ridge line. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Brent asked if the Board intended to advertise this matter for a public hearing. Mr. Lindstrom said it was his feeling that that area is already within the service area and that due to the lack of a proper survey map, the area had not been included. Mr. St. John said it should be considered a clarification of the service area, and would therefore not require a public hearing. Agenda Item No. 9. Proposed Hollymead Square II Housing Development. Mr. David Goodman of Concord Mortgage Company, Silver Springs, Maryland, was present along with Mr. John B. Ashto of Hunton and Williams. Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia. ~P~. Goodman said he was present on behalf of Cavalier Associates to request the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to adopt the necessary resolutions to allow a redevelopment and housing authority from some area in Virginia other than Albemarle Counnty, issue tax exempt bonds for the financing of this project. Summarizing a memorandum dated May 18, 1983, Mr. Goodman described the project as a 120 unit project to be constructed as the second phase of Hollymead Square. (NOTE: Copy of this memorandum is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Hollymead Square II will consist of 100 two-bedroom townhouses and 20 three-bedroom townhouses. Mr. Goodman said the developer of the project, Cavalier Associates, consists of Mid-City Financial Corporation, a Maryland corporation; Allan S. Birndorf, President of Concord Mortgage Corporation, Silver Springs, Maryland; and Thomas D. Farrell, Executive Vice-President of Concord. Continuing to quote the.May 18, 1983, memorandum, Mr. Goodman said "Hollymead Square II will provide additional housing opportunities for lower income persons since twenty percent of the units will be Section 8 subsidized. Hollymead Square II is expected to rent at projected rates of approximately $450 for two-bedroom units and $530 for three-bedroom units, exclusive of utilities. The rent structure assumes tax-exempt financing because market rental rates are not sufficient to meet the costs of conventional financing and construction. Hollymead Square I was made possible by 7.5 percent financing from HUD, but that program has now been discontinued. The developers expect to obtain FHA mortgage insurance that will allow tax-exempt financing to be rated AAA by Standard & Poor's Corporation and sold at an effective interest rate of less than 10 percent. This relatively low interest cost would permit the quality of Hollymead Square I to be duplicated with rental rates currently affordabl by the rental market. Without such financing, a project of this quality is not feasible. Twenty percent of the units in Hollymead Square II will be subsidized under the HUD Section 8 rental assistance program. These units can be rented only to persons who earn less than 80 percent of the median income of Albemarle County ($20,560 for a family of four). This subsidy will be available to qualifying project occupants for a period of at least twenty years. Lastly, Mr. Goodman said since this is not a project intended for use by the elderly, the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority cannot undertake this project. Mr. Goodman described the Virginia Housing Authorities Law (Chapter 1, Title 36 of the Code of Virginia) which permits redevelopment and housing authorities to finance projects such as the proposed Hollymead Square II project. Mr. Goodman said such authorities from other areas in Virginia can finance projects in Albemarle County if the Board of Supervisors determines that there is a need for the housing authority to do so in accordance with Section 36-23 of the Act. May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher asked which redevelopment and housing authority Mr. Goodman had in mind to finance this project. Mr. Goodman said no specific authority has yet been approached, but that he wished to see if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors would be receptive to the idea before approaching an authority for possible financing. Miss Nash asked what the present rents are at Hollymead Square I apartments. Mr. Goodman said approximately $380 for a one bedroom and $405 for a two bedroom, and that those rents were trended for a two year period to come up with the anticipated rents for Hollymead Square II. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this proposed project is cOnsistent with the approved PUD plan for Hollymead. Mr. Goodman said it is consistent. Next to speak was Mr. John Ashton of Hunton and Williams. Mr. Ashton said if the Board approved of the concept of this project, redevelopment and housing authorities in neighboring localities could be contacted to see if they were interested in financing this project in Albemarle County. Mr. Fisher asked if Albemarle County should consider establishing its own redevelopment and housing authority. ~. Ashton said he was not very familiar with Albemarle County's housing problems, but felt since this county was still rather rural, that there is not really a need for a redevelopment authority at this time. Mr. Agnor said when a developer obtains funding under Section 8 from HUD, that developer administers the program himself. Mr. Agnor noted that currently the County Housing Office has a significant list of applicants waiting for Section 8 rental subsidies. Mr. Russell Otis, Director of Housing, was present. Mr. Otis said there are currently 77 people waiting for Section 8 housing to become available. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Otis could foresee any difficulties by having a redevelopment authority from another locality finance such a project. Mr. Otis said he could not think of any difficulties which would arise. Mr. Fisher asked if this project were built, who would be allocated the Section 8 funds. Mr. Otis said it would not be Albemarle County's allocation, but would be credited directly to the developer. Mr. Oti~ compared this allocation procedure to that being used at the Meadows where Section 8 subsidies are allocated to the developer but administered through the Jordan Development Corporation. Mr. St. John said prior to 1982, Albemarle County could not have participated in redevelop- ment and housing authority activities because such areas of Jurisdiction were only authorized for municipalities under Virginia law, and Albemarle County is not considered a municipality. Mr. St. John said a revision of that law in 1982 redifined the word "municipality" to include counties. Mr. St. John added that if Albemarle County wished to establish its own redevelopmeni and housing authority, a referendum would have to be held on the question. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be willing to consider a public hearing on this request if the developer brings to this Board the name of a redevelopment and housing authority willing to finance the project. Mr. St. John expressed concern that if an authority from another commUnity should finance this project and the loan should default for some reason, that the loan would then be held by that other locality. Mr. Ashton Said the loan would be insured by HUD and if any default should occur, HUD would take title to the project. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, that it is the consensus of the Board of Supervisors that the Board is interested in pursuing this matter further, and hereby requests the name of the redevelopment and housing authority interested in issuing the tax-exempt bonds to be presented to this Board for consideration to set a public hearing. Mr. Henley said he was concerned about some outside housing agency doing business in Albemarle County, and also that he was not very supportive of public housing in general. Mr. Henley said. he would not support the motion. Mr. Butler said he felt the concept was important and that he would be willing to support the motion in order to learn more about the procedures involved. Mrs. Cooke said she woUld support the motion in order to be able to furth~r study the concept and learn more about public housing needs in Albemarle County. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded Votl : AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: Mr. Henley. ! (NOTE: Mr. Fisher left the meeting at 11:45 A.M.) Agenda Item No. i0. Extension Service Agreement. Mr. Agnor summarized h s memorandum dated May 6, 1983, regarding a Memorandum of Understanding between Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Extension Division and the County of Albemarle,las follows: "The following agreement is an effort by the Extension Service to standard!ze throughout the State the responslbmimtles of the Extension Servmce and the local governments, the employment of personnel, the processing of the payrolls, and the division of costs between the Service and the locality. Currently there is a wide disparity in different localities in the division of costs. Albemarle presently funds entirely the salary and fringe benefits of one ?mployee, a secretarial position. We share in varying amounts in the salaries of five extension agents. The County payroll office distributes the County share of salaries. The State handles the fringe benefits costs along with the Sta'~e share of salaries. Additionally the County shares in the costs of office suppliLes and telephone expense. May 1t, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) The proposal is to divide the salaries and fringe benefits on a 2/3--1/3 basis, the State paying the 2/3 share. The State would assume the full responsibility of payroll distribution for the jointly funded employees. The result of such a division of costs would reduce the 83-84 budget by $4,917, from $69,410 to ~64,493. A benefit to the Extension Service employees is that their retirement and life insurance program will be calculated on the basis of their total salary and not on the State share only. The other items in the agreement are similar to the current operations. The agreement simply reduces it to writing. It is recommended that the agreement be approved effective July 1, 1983." II. III. IV. VI. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION DIVISION AND ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Purpose of Memorandum To set forth a mutually agreed on departmental structure and administrative program and financial arrangements. Department Structure The extension program in Albemarle County shall be conducted within a department or office known as the "Cooperative Extension Service". Other county programs may be added to the department as consistent with the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Extension Division and mutually agreed on by both the Extension Division and the County. Administrative Responsibility Ail extension personnel will report administratively to the Dean of the Extension Division through the District Extension Director. A unit director for the office will be appointed by the Dean of the Extension Division. The unit director shall be responsible to the District Director and shall also be responsible to the local government for those responsibilities assigned as unit director for county coordinative purposes. The local government may appoint the unit director as department director in accordance with the provisions of county policies. The appointment of an extension agent to fulfill this responsibility must have the concurrence of the Dean of the Extension Division. There may be three types of staff employees within the department, i.e., employees of Cooperative Extension Service (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and/or Virginia State University), employees of Albemarle County, and the employees funded both by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and Albemarle County. Protram Responsibility Programs will be developed in accordance with the Extension Division's process of program development which involves the affected audience in the determination of these programs. The supervision of the total program will be under the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Extension Division with close program coordination with the Albemarle County government. Special program responsibilities may be assigned to extension as mutually agreed on by both parties. Employment of Personnel Extension personnel, regardless of sourceof funds, assigned to this unit will be employed through the prescribed procedures by the State and applicable EEO Affirmative Action Program for selection and employment of staff members. Personnel employed by the county and assigned to the Cooperative Extension Service will be employed by Albemarle County in accordance with its established hiring procedures. Financial Arrangement Ail permanent extension employees are members of the State Personnel Classification System, and therefore, are subject to guidelines of the act, including salaries and fringe benefits. The following guidelines will pertain to the financial agreement between the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and state University and Albemarle County. A. Salaries Employees jointly funded by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and the county will be paid 1/3 by Albemarle County and 2/3 by VPI&SU. This same ratio applies to joint payment for unused accumulated annual and sick leave upon termination of the employee. May 11,1983 (Regular Day Meeting) VII. VIII. 2. Employees who are appointed by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University will be paid 100% of their salary/wages from extension funds. 3. Employees who are appointed by Albemarle County will be paid 100% of their salary/wages from county funds. 4. Extension agents may be paid above the top of respective state scale by the county provided that adequate local funds are available, they are at the top of their scale, their performance merits it, and approval is granted by the State Personnel Office and the Dean of the Extension Division. Extension agents supplemented above the state salary scale will be compensated in conformance with the local personnel policy. 5. Any personnel who are paid 100% by Albemarle County will be hired and receive compensation in conformance with the local personnel policy and classification system. B. Operations Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Extension Division agrees to provide the following: 1. Faculty specialist assistance of the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; 2. Current secretarial assistance (minimum of one full-time secretary); 3. Office equipment; 4. Office furniture; 5. Publications (user fees may be charged); 6. Travel expenses for staff members; 7. Office supplies; 8. Postage; 9. Soil analysis service (user fees may be charged); 10. Plant disease diagnostic services (user fees may be charged); 11. Virginia Extension Magazine; 12. Telephone service - state SCATS line; 13. Fringe benefits for appropriate personnel, including VSRS costs (employer and employee), Workmen's Compensation, Unemployment Insurance, and VSRS Life Insurance on the state portion of salaries for jointly funded employees; 14. Periodic billing of the county for its share of costs to include salaries, fringe benefits, and any other appropriate items. Albemarle County agrees to provide the following: 1. Office space and appropriate insurances; 2. Additional secretarial assistance - currently one position including salary and fringe benefits; 3. Telephone service - local; 4. Fringe benefits for appropriate personnel including VSRS costs (employer and employee), Workmen's Compensation, Unemployment Insurance, and VSRS Life Insurance on the county portion of salaries for jointly funded employees; 5. Support for county employees assigned to the department; 6. Printing and duplicating; and, 7. Office supplies not furnished by VPI&SU Extension Division not to exceed annual budgeted amount. Amendment This Memorandum may be amended upon consent of both parties. However, before the program can be terminated by either party, a three-month notice must be given in writing to the appropriate party. Signatures The appropriate representatives of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Extension Division and Albemarle County agree to the above. May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom said he could definitely support a change which would give better employee benefits and cost the County less money. Mr. Butler said as former unit chairman of the local Extension Service, he often wondered when VPI&SU would make this change. Mr. Butler said he totally supported the agreement, and offered motion that the agreement as presented be approved and that Mr. Agnor be authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of Albemarle County. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 11. Victim-Witness Program; Recommendation for Funding. Mr. Agnor read the Budget Committee's report on the Victim-Witness Program, which was requested by the Board at the April 14, 1983, meeting. That report reads as follows: "PROGRAM SYNOPSIS The Board of Supervisors is being requested to fund the proposed Albemarle Victim-Witness Program. The main function of this program is to act on behalf of victims and witnesses in fulfilling the various needs which may arise as the result of the crime incident. Proponents of such programs contend that in the past, the rights of crime victims and witnesses have been forgotten or ignored by the criminal justice system. Besides meeting the needs of victim-witnesses, the program is also aimed at increasing witness cooperation and saving time for system personnel. This is accomplished through the program by improving the amount of information received by witnesses about the processing and outcome of cases, by orienting victims and witnesses to the criminal justice system and courtroom procedure and by providing services to assure the presence of the witnesses in court. There are presently victim or victim-witness programs in ten different localities in Virginia. Most of these programs were established with federal grants but are now locally funded. The program being proposed for Albemarle County follows the victim-witness model which places a greater emphasis on increasing witness cooperation and on the criminal justice payoff rather than reducing the trauma of victimization. The program for Albemarle will be located in the Commonwealth Attorney's office. The funding requested from Albemarle County would be used to hire a part-time volunteer coordinator who would then be responsible for organizing ten to twenty volunteers. The volunteer's tasks and program objectives would be aimed at reducing the amount of time witnesses must spend in court, helping to reduce apprehension and fear of reprisal that victim-witnesses might feel, assisting victims in applying for compensation and aiding victims in seeking restitution. The Albemarle Victim-Witness Program contends that these activities will not only meet the needs of victim-witnesses but will also result in savings to County taxpayers. It has been estimated that the program could serve 1,500 direct victims of crime, and 3,000 indirect victims in the next year in Albemarle County. Since there are presently no federal funds available to establish new victim-witness programs, the County programs will be relying one hundred percent on local support. If the State law changes in the future, there may be some prospects for State funding with reimbursement to the State and locality from convicted criminal defendants. If the County does not fund the program at the requested level of -$8,000 for FY 83-84, it has been noted that the part-time coordinator's salary will be reduced accordingly. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Protram Review. While this program/budget request was not received and reviewed concurrent with all other FY 83-84 budgetary reviews, it was reviewed under the same guidelines. After reviewing the program report for the Albemarle Victim-Witness Program, the Committee noted that it would have, according to the total points accumulated, recommended funding for the program along with the programs in Group Two, i.e., in the mid-range of budget requests and allocations. 2. Establishing Priorities. The Staff agrees that victim-witnesses have needs that are currently unmet and commends the concept behind the program. However, the Staff committee noted that the scope of the activities and tasks proposed by the program and the volume of persons to be served appears unrealistic for an agency which is just establishing itself. The Staff strongly recommends that the volunteer coordinator establish attainable priorities for~the program. Staff recommends establishing aid to the victim-witnesses of violent crime as the first priority of service. With regard to the tasks undertaken by the volunteer coordinator, establishing and training a quality volunteer pool should also be a high priority. In addition, the Staff would recommend that explanation of the court process to victim-witnesses, coordination between the victim-witnesses and police, prosecutor, court, etc. and the notification of the outcome of court cases should be top priority services. 3. Coordination. The review form indicated that the Albemarle Victim-Witness Program would be coordinated with the Sheriff/Police Departments, Commonwealth Attorney's Office, the various courts, Probation Office and Clerk of the Court's Officer. The Staff also recommends that coordination with the Rape Crisis Group and Offender Aid and Restoration be explored when establishing the program. May 11, 1983 (Regular Bay Meeting) The program should also consider future coordination with the City of Charlottesville criminal justice system. Perhaps next year the agency could approach City Council to establish joint funding of this program. Since it appears that this program will continue to require long term local suPport, significant efforts should be made to locate other sources of funding and to utilize all cost saving measures. 4. Victim-Witness Contact. (NOTE: Mr. Agnor noted that this portion of the report was inaccurate as to time of contract.) The program proposes that victim- witnesses will be contacted one day prior to their court appearance. The Staff Committee recommends that such contact be established earlier in order to serve the victim-witnesses more effectively and to reduce any apprehension of the procedure that these persons may have. 5. Records. The program envisions that keeping of records regarding the number of victim-witnesses served, number of persons contacted by telephone, amount of restitution paid, and activity reports on apprehension suffered by the victim before, during and after trial. The Staff supports the keeping of good, quantifiable records of activities. Recordation of such information is extremely important for the future funding support of the program. 6. Recommendation. The Staff commends this program, not only for the victim- witnesses needs that it will meet but also because it potentially serves all persons ~ince anyone can become a victim or witness of crime at any time.. As part of the Committee's support, the Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors take action to support House Bill No. 277 which allows the Commonwealth to collect funds from convicted criminal defendants for victim compensation.~ Based upon the above comments and recommendations, Staff recommends funding the Albemarle Victim-Witness Program at the requested level of $8,000 for FY 83-84 and that the volunteer coordinator be requested to provide a mid-year report/presentation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the program's progress and activities." Miss Nash asked if there was any such program in the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Dorrier said if the program is successful in Albemarle County, the City's Commonwealth Attorney will~ try and obtain approval of a similar program in the City. Mrs. Cooke asked what services are presently being provided victim/witnesses. Mr. Dorrier said it is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Attorney's office, but that time for such counseling is very limited. Miss Nash asked if this counseling is similar to the Service provided by the Rape Crisis Center. Mr. Dorrier said a representative of the Rape Crisis Center was present today, but he felt the counseling provided by that organization occurrs mainly at the hospital, rather than before, during and after the trial. Mr. Dorrier then described the counseling procedure used by Ms. Alison Grob during a sodomy trial, and the fact that Ms. Grob's testimony concernin a witness impact statement was very well received by the Judge. Next to speak was Ms. Gretchen Wylegala of the Rape Crisis Center. Ms. Wylegala said her organization supports this program and feels that it could become a very valuable program for victims and witnesses. Ms. Wylegala said counselor training courses given by the Rape Crisis Center, could be made available to the Victim-Witness Program if Mr. Dorrier wished. Mr. Butler said he has received phone calls and has been stopped on the street by people requesting him to support this program. Mr. Butler said people who undergo such traumas deserve the assistance offered, and stated he would support the funding of this program. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve the funding of the Albemarle County Victim-Witness Program in the amount of $8,000 for Fiscal Year 1983-84; of which $7,500 is for the salary of one part-time program coordinator and $500 is for a telephone extension. 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. 12. Parks Ordinances. Set public hearing to amend re: Water Supply Reservoirs Utilized by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of the following memorandum from Mr. William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official, dated May 6, 1983: "Section 14, Article III of the County Code was adopted as a County ordinance on December 9, 1981. This ordinance established and identified the limited recreational uses which are allowed within the boundaries of the water supply reservoirs utilized by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Two matters concerning this ordinance need your consideration, as follows: The first is a basic housekeeping chore. Section 14-13 of the ordinance references maps attached to the ordinance and on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Due to an unintentional error, the original map is incorrect; the Ivy Creek area and the upper reaches of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir were omitted from the reservoir area on the map. In order to correct the references and to provide for an ordinance which is defensible in court, it is recommended that the existing map be replaced by a new set of five maps based on tax map property lines and identified as Sugar Hollow Reservoir, County Code Section 14-14, Tax Maps 24, 25, 38; Ragged Mountain Reservoir, County Code Section 14-15, Tax Maps 59, 74, 75; South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, County Code Section 14-16, Tax Maps 30, 44, 45; Beaver Creek Reservoir, County Code Section 14-17, Tax Maps 41, 56, 57; and Totier Creek Reservoir, County Code Section 14-18, Tax Maps 130, 136. These maps will be on display at your meeting. May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) The second deals with a proposed change to the text of the ordinance. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors in actions taken on December 20, 1982, and February 28, 1983, voted to propose a relaxation of the ordinance which, instead of prohibiting boats equipped with combustion engines within the boundaries of the water supply reservoirs, would permit them under the following conditions: a) that the use of any internal combustion engine be prohibited, b) That the engines be tilted to provide visual evidence of compliance, and c) That engines equipped with or utilizing removable gas tanks shall have the gas tanks removed prior to entering reservoir waters." Mr. Agnor said he would recommend the public hearings be set for June 8, 1983. Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to set public hearings on the above ordinance revisions for 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. Agenda Item No. 13. Trust Agreement: Region Ten .Community Services Board (Deferred from April 14, 1983). Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney, said this matter was deferred because the Board wished his opinion on the ramifications of the trust agreement and conveyance of property at 503 - 16th Street, N.W., to this charitable trust. Mr. St. John then summarized his letter of April 18, 1983, to Mr. John V. Little, attorney for the Region Ten Community Services Board, as well as Mr. Little's response. (NOTE: Mr. St. John's letter dated April 18 1983, and Mr. Little's letter dated May 10, 1983, are on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Mr. St. John said one question in his letter to Mr. Little, was whether or not the Community Services Board was empowered by State Law to convey this property to the Trustees, and whether the Trustees have the power to dispose of this property in any fashion so long as the proceeds are recorded in the Region Ten Community Services Board's books. Mr. St. John said Mr. Little's letter presents a rationale of State Law which documents the legality of the proposed Trust to make a conveyance of property, and Mr. St. John said he agreed with Mr. Little's opinion. Mr. St. John said he felt this matter was a legislative decision of the Board of Supervisors as to whether or not to authorize the property to be conveyed to a Board of Trustees who may use the property or the proceeds from the property for any purpose related to the area of mental health, retardation or substance abuse. Mr. Fisher said he felt this request was most unusual, and felt there may be a better way of accomplishing the goal desired by the Region Ten Community Services Board. Mr. James Peterson, Director of the Region Ten Community Services organization, said resolutions have been adopted by the other five localities involved in Region Ten. Mr. Peterson said basically the Trust has been established to accept cash and stock donations from the public and retain these assets for the long term needs of those served. Mr. Lindstron asked what would happen to the property if it becomes unoccupied by the Region Ten Community Services organization. Mr. St. John said he felt the property would be deeded to the Trustees and if it were ever declared surplus property, it would be up to the counties involved to ~ either hold or sell the property. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Trustees sold the property, could the proceeds be added to the trust. Mr. St. John said that could be done with the approval of the localities. Mr. St. John described the concept as being "once removed from the Region Ten Board's control and twice removed from the control of the localities". Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. St. John had reviewed the Trust Agreement. Mr. St. John said he had several problems with the original Trust Agreement, but amendments have been made and he no longer has any concerns about the Trust. Mr. Lindstrom asked what control the Board of Supervisors will lose if the Board agrees to this Trust. Mr. St. John read from Virginia Code 37.1-197, which describes the powers authorized to the Region Ten Community Services Board in accepting donations and use of public properties. Mr. St. John added that it was his opinion that any change in use of this property would have to be authorized by the localities. Mr. Fisher said he considers this property capital funding because it was financed by all the localities specifically for the use of the Region Ten Board. Mr. Fisher said if that real estate is no longer needed, it should be sold and have those funds revert back to the original localities. Mr. Fisher said establishment of th-is trust would create a precedent in that any other agency which owns real estate could also sell that property and use the proceeds for other purposes. Mr. Fisher said he felt this might create an excess of public property in an untaxed situation, being used for non-public purposes. Mr. St. John quoted from Mr. Little's letter "If a private trustee, rather than a public official has control over how these monies will be spent, the Board feels that this would encourage more generosity from the private sector". Mr. Fisher said he did not feel this was the proper way to handle receipt of donations. Miss Nash said she felt this trust would create a bureaucracy. Mr. Henley said he felt the property purchased by the member localities should be returned to those localities if no longer needed. Mr. Peterson said that if the trust is terminated all assets would be returned to the Region Ten Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt that as long as the governing bodies remain in the position of being able to decide the disposition of properties given to various public agencies, he would not feel very threatened; but in this situation the Trust seems to have the powers of disposition. Miss Nash said she felt approval of this request would set a precedent of how surplus property could be handled. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to deny the request. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. ___~. i1_~ 1983 (Re~ular Day Meeting) At 12:43 P.M., Mr. Agnor introduced the five Youth-In-Government students from Albemarle High School. Mr. Fisher invited the s~udents to have lunch with the Board. The meeting reconvened at 1:30 P.M. Agenda Item No. 16. AHIP Quarterly Report. Mr. Gary Olivera, Director of the Albemarle Hbusing Improvement Program, was present and noted that this report is for the third quarter of Fiscal Year 1982-83. He then presented a slide presentation for the eight jobs performed during the third quarter; two minor and one major rehabilitation, plus five repair jobs. Mr. Fisher asked if any other major rehabilitations are underway. Mr. Olivera said during this quarter, AHIP started Charlottesville Housing Foundation loan-funded projects in the Chestnut Grove area consisting of a complete plumbing, bathroom, well and septic field Job. Mr. Fisher extended appreciation for the presentation. Agenda Item No. 17. Selection of 1982-83 Auditors for County Audit. Mr. Agnor said Section 11-35 of the Virginia Public Procurement Act which went into effect on January l, 1983, requires that accountants be selected through the sealed bid process. Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, explained the procedure followed by his staff for soliciting proposals for the annual audit as set out in his memo dated May 5, 1983 (Memorandum is on file in the Clerk's Office). Requests for proposals designed from the 1983 State Auditor of Public Accounts Audit Specifications were sent to nine auditing firms on April 15, 1983. The specifications were designed to provide more program compliance, fraud detection, more confirmations, sampling, and overall application of-accepted principles of governmental accounting. In addition, the specifications included requirements of the Federal Office of Management and Budget for grants. The bid specifications also included an option to extend the agreement with the firm selected for a period of three years. Mr. Agnor then commented that the State Auditor had called and said the County's specifications were the most extensive used by any local government in the State and is the process the State Auditor is encouraging localities to follow; in particular, to analyze-proposals from various points of view and not just of cost of service. Mr. Agnor said the staff is recommend~ ing that the firm of Robinson, Farmer and Cox be employed as the Auditors for the 1982-83 Fiscal Year report. Mr. Fisher said the firm of Robinson, Farmer and Cox has been the auditing firm for the County for a number of years. Even though he finds no fault with the firm or its work, he has felt that perhaps the County should consider a change. He also feels the staff would probably favor a firm with which they have been working for a period of time. Mr. Fisher said a new firm could be beneficial in analyzing the County's accounting procedures and asked Mr. Agnor if he had considered a change. Mr. Agnor said yes; this is one of the reasons for obtaining proposals from other firms. However, he personally did not feel changing auditors would be of any particular benefit to the County other than to have a firm with a different point of view. He emphasized that the State Auditor of Public Accounts controls and regulates accounting and auditing procedures. Therefore, the staff does not have the latitude to change any procedures. Mr. Agnor said in discussions with other localities that have changed auditing firms, some feel the change was beneficial and others do not. Mr. Agnor said the firm recommended by the staff has more experience and .background in local government financing in the State of Virginia than the other firms who bid on the audit. Mr. Fisher said his concern is based on comments made to him by County citizens. Mr.~ Lindstrom agreed and felt that a new firm might shed a different light on the County's financial operation. Mr. Agnor said the auditing firm works for the Board of Supervisors and the selection of the auditors is the responsibility of the Board. Mr. Fisher asked when a decision is needed on the selection. Mr. Agnor said some preliminary work must be performed prior to the end of the current fiscal year so the appointment needs to be made as soon as possible. Mrs. Cooke said she would prefer more time to study this matter. Mr. Fisher suggested that any interested Board member should review the actual bid proposals to determine if the staff's recommendation is correct. Even though 'he is not advocating that a firm other than the staff's recommendation be chosen, he did feel the Board should be certain that the firm selected is the best available. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the audit will include the School system. Mr. Agnor said yes; the audit covers all funds under the control of the Director of Finance. Mr. Lindstrom said the deficit situation of the Schools is one reason he feels a different auditing firm should be chosen for at least a year even if the audit takes more time and costs more money. Mr. Lindstrom concluded by stating that he is not criticizing the staff, but some citizens have expressed concerns to him that this should be considered. Mrs. Cooke then asked if the proposals were a direct result of advertisements or if the staff personally contacted these firms. Mr. Agnor said the staff developed the specifications and distributed same to the State Auditor and nine other firms. .Mrs. Judy Gough from the Department of Finance was present. She said this audit was not advertised. Mr. Jones was a member of the committee that reviewed the specifications of the new auditing system for the entire State and nine out of the top firms were picked; firms that were felt to be the most knowledgable in governmental accounting. Out of the nine firms, seven had representatives present at the prebid conference to discuss the specifications. Five of the firms submitted proposals. Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom each said they were interested in reviewing the actual bid documents. Therefore, this item'was deferred to May 18, 1983, in order to allow time for the proposals to be reviewed. M~ ll, 1983 ~Begular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 18. May 4, 1983). Ordinance: Establishment of County Police Force (Deferred from Adoption of this ordinance was deferred from May 4, 198B, with a request for the compilation' of a full information packet on the establishment of a police force to be made available to the public through the news media. Mr. Agnor said the report~was compiled and distributed to the press. Only three citizen requests were received for the information during the last week. Mr. Agnor said the report was compiled with the assistance of Mrs. Opal David who offered her services to write the report in "plain English". The report consists of relevant facts about the county's form of government, the office of the sheriff, financial, legal and political considerations, referendum issue, and the transitional arrangements proposed (Copy of the report is on-file in the Clerk's Office). Acknowledgments of appreciation for the report were extended to Mrs. David. Since Mrs. Cooke had requested this information in her motion for deferral, Mr. Fisher asked if she was satisfied with the report. Mrs. Cooke said the availability of the report was mentioned in the Daily Progress and she had advised her constituents that the report was available in the County Executive's office. Mr. Fisher said there have been mixed feelings about this whole issue~andhe is not sure he understands the depth of feeling.- The second paragraph of the proposed ordinance states that the police force shall consist of a chief of police and five full-time police officers. He asked if the number of police officers has to be included in the ordinance. Mr. St. John said the State Code states that the police force shall cOnsist of a chief of police and related personnel as the ordinance shall prescribe. Further, the~Code states that the force shal~ consist of a full-time officer on duty at all times. According to logistics, five people are needed to have an officer on duty twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week~ Mr; Fisher said according to that language the number of officers cannot be increased or decreased withoUt changing the ordinance. Mr. Fisher then. asked if the three deputies who are presently paid entirely from County funds, and the two'new deputies to be employed effective July l, comprise the five officers. He asked what is to be done between June i and July l, 198B, since this ordinance is effective June l, 198~. Mr. Agnor said he has recommended that the two new deputies be hired before July l, 198B, if~'the ordinance is adopted. The funds needed to pay them for the month of June are available~in the Fiscal Year 1982-8B balance of the Sheriff's Department budget. Another reason the officers should be hired before July l, 198B, is that to be eligible for House Bill 599 funds in July, 1984 a police force must be in operation for twelve months prior to'the distribution of those funds. Miss Nash questioned the phrase in the ordinance saying the present authority or responsibility of the Sheriff will not be diminished by the adoption of this ordinance. Mr. St. John said the Sheriff will still be the Sheriff during Fiscal Year 198B-84. The wording is included so the State Compensation Board will understand that the Sheriff will continue in his present position for Fiscal Year 198B-84. At the end of Fiscal Year 198B-8~, the police force will be separated into a separate division and the Sheriff relieved of his responsibility as chief of police. During this year, it is intended that the Sheriff will also serve as chief of police. Mr. Lindstrom said for the all reasons stated today and previously stated', he would offer motion to adopt the ordinance which is before the Board today as prepared by the County Attorney. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Mr. Henley said he would support adopting the ordinance if it had been the subject of a referendum. Adopting the ordinance without a referendum and making it effective on June l, 198B, he will not support the motion. As previously stated, he feels~the'citizens in the County should have an opportunity to vote on a change of this magnitude. Mr. Henley said he was somewhat disturbed that Mrs. David had participated in the preparation of the report since she is a member of the Five C's Committee that had supported~the establishment of a police force. Mr. Henley said the report listed a number of factors for having a police force such as the deputies not having job security in the existing Sheriff's Department He felt the items of concern could be solved if the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors worked together. He also said the deputies are covered by the County's Pay%Classification Plan and that is not a requirement of the State Code for the Sheriff's Department. In conclusiOn, Mr. Henley said his major concern is the indefinite status of~-the funding for the police department. In particular, the amount of funding obtained from House Bill 599 could be between $100,000 and $200,000 less than the amount currently received from the State Compensation Board for the Sheriff's Department. This uncertainty disturbed him a great deal. He had questioned a member of the County staff on how much funding the City receives from House Bill 599 and requested a response on the feelings of other localities who have established a police force. Mr. Henley said he had never received a response to these.questions. Mr. Fisher said if this ordinance is adopted, there will not be any immediate change in law enforcement services for the County citizens. He is concerned about what will happen after July l, 198~. FUnding from House Bill 599 is not based on population, but rather factors such as the crime rate. There has not been any incentive for the Sheriff's Department personnel to maximize reporting crimes. The reason for this is that a higher crime rate makes the Sheriff's operation look bad and creates a problem during his reelection On the other hand, the City realizes that there will be more funds based on the number of crimes. Therefore, there is a different motivation. He also noted that-the~General Assembly appears to be moving in the direction of equalize funding between a Sheriff's Department and a police department but it will be at least two years before any legislation is finalized May ll, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) If this process is successful, then there will not be any' difference in the way State funds are disbursed after such a law is effective. Mr. Fisher said the real question in his mind is not whether a police force should be established, but whether this is the right time to make the change. He then noted that the people speaking in favor of the change feel now is the time. A reasonable demonstration of need has been shown. The Sheriff is supporting the change and the transition can be accomplished now with a minimum amount of disruption to the present Sheriff's Department and the entire County.. Mr. Fisher said in consideration of these items, he feels it is time to "bite the bullet'T and establish a police force. In conclusion, Mr. Fisher said for the reasons he has stated, and against the wishes of some of his constitutents, he will support adoption of the ordinance. Miss Nash congratulated Mr. Fisher on his statements and noted support of the ordinance. She has also received many comments from constitutents both for and against the ordinance. She said she feels the establishment of a police force will be good for the entire County and she supported the motion. Mrs. Cooke said in the interest of time and in light of all the .previous comments, she. would not get into a lengthy discussion of her support for the ordinance. Mrs. Cooke said her constituents are in the urban area of the County which is highly populated, and the persons supporting the police force outnumber those opposing same. Mrs. Cooke felt this action is in the best interest of the people in her district and she did not feel there was any reason to continue prolonging the vote and supported the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said at the public hearing last week, a person who has quite often disagreed with his actiOns approached him and asked if he would support the ordinance if he were running for election this year. Mr. Lindstrom said he was as honest as possible and said he hoped he would support the ordinance under these circumstances. He did not feel people forget what an elected person does during his term in office. In conclusion, Mr. Lindstrom said he felt adoption of the ordinance is the best thing to do. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded~vote (Note: When the Clerk began the roll call, Mr. Butler asked that she skip his name and come back to him at the end of the roll call.): AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Messrs. Henley and Butler. (Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out below.) BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia: A police force as defined in Virginia Code Section 14.1,84.2(L) is hereby established which shall be responsible on and after June l, 1983, for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of criminals, the safe- guard of life and property, the preservation of peace and the enforcement of state and local laws, regulations and ordinances. This police force shall be and hereby is designated the Albemarle County Police Force and shall consist of a chief of police and five full-time police officers. The chief of police and all other personnel of the Albemarle County Police Force shall be appointed pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-598 and shall constitute a division of the County's Department of Law Enforcement under Virginia Code Section 15ol-608. All initial appointments to the positions established hereby shall take effect on June l, 1983. The salary scale for members of the Albemarle County Police Force shall be prescribed from time to time by the County Board of Supervisors within the regular budgetary and appropriation process. It is the intent of this ordinance that the Albemarle County Police Force shall be jointly responsible with the Sheriff's Department for Law Enforcement in the County, and this ordinance is not intended to diminish thee present authority or responsibility of the Sheriff. Mr; Fisher asked what action is now necessary based on this adoption. Mr. Agnor said the revised Pay and Classification Plan will be presented to the Board for approval in June. A new job description in the plan for the Sheriff includes his duties'as the Chief of Police. Mr. Agnor said that now that the ordinance has beenadopted, he will proceed With the letter of intent to the State Office of Planning and Budget applying for HoUse Bill~599 funding~in July, 1984. Mr. Fisher approved of that procedure and the Board members concurred. .t-58 May ll~ 198E (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 19. Discussion of Ordinances for establishment of Agricultural/Forestal Districts (Deferred from April 20, 198B)'. This item was deferred from April 20, 1983, in order that the County-'Attorney could prepare the actual ordinances to be advertised for adoption before the establishment of an Agricultural/Forestal District. Mr. Fisher asked if this is on the agenda for the purpose of setting a public hearing or if some other action is required. Mr. St. John said there are two ordinances, one is'.the parent ordinance and the other is to establi'sh the actual district which have been aPplied for (Hatton and Totier Creek) and both~ordinances are on the agenda for the purpose of setting public hearings on same. Mr. St. John said section 6 in the parent ordinance needs to be amended to read as follows: "As a condition for approval of any proposed agricultural and forestal district pursuant to this ordinance,, any parcel in the proposed district-shall not be develOped to a more intensive_ use during the period which said parcel remains within the proposed district without the prior apprOval of the Board." Mr. Lindstrom questioned the following wording in the second paragraph of section 6, "the term 'more intensive use' shall include any use which is not permitted'by right in the RA zoning district". He asked if that language will prohibit by-right divisions except for family divisions. Mr. St. John said no, that wording prohibits all uses which are not allowed by-right in the RA district. Uses'allowed by right in the Rurally'Areas District will also be allowed by right in any Agricultural/Forestal District. Mr. St. John suggested rewording the sentence to read: "the term 'more intensive use' shall include any use which is not permitted by right in the RA zoning district and shall also include any subdivision of land," to alleviate Mr. Lindstrom's concern. Mr. Lindstrom said at the meeting on April 20, ~1983, he had expressed concern that under the Rural Areas District, five, two'acre lots are permitted by-right if a parcel was in existence at the time the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1980. He does not feel that subdivisions should be allowed in agricultural areas except for family divisions. Mr. Lindstrom said he discussed this concern with the Deputy County Attorney, Mr. Frederick Payne, and was told that the language would be specific in the definition--of' "more intensive use" in order that a subdivision composed of by-right parcels other than famiIy divisions could~ not take place without Board approval. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel this language is specific enough. Mr. St. John said the propOSed language exempts family divisions which are not subject to review under the Subdivision Ordinance. Certain uses, buildings and occupations allowed by-right in the Rural Areas District are not affected by the proposed language. Mr. St. John then read the uses permitted by right under Section 10.2.1 in the Rural Areas District of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom expressed concern that the by- right use in the Rural Areas District regarding utilities, Section 10.2;1.6, was to have been prohibited in this ordinance or at least some control given owners over a transmission line going through their property. (Mr. Fisher left the meeting at 2:46 P.M.). Mr. St. John agreed and suggested inserting language to prohibit the utilities as listed in Section 10.2.1.6. Mr. Lindstrom asked if an owner had twenty acres of land, did not want to subdivide, but did want to build rental units, if the owner would be permitted to do t~hat by right in the Rural Areas district providing the requirements of the Site Plan section are compiled with. Mr. Tucker said the Site Plan section relates to three or more dwel'lings on a single parcel. The Zoning Ordinance allows five development rights but that does nob mean that the land has to be divided to build five units. Mr. Henley asked if.the development rights in the Rural Areas District means five dwelling units by right or five lots by right. Mr. St. John said the intent is a division into lots. Mr. Lindstrom~suggested including a limitation on dWelling units because small lot subdivisions are something that the Board is trying to prohibit in the RUral Areas District. If there were three or four separate parcels comprising a farm, fifteen or twenty rental units could'be built and that type of development concerns him. Mr. Lindstrom said he would not object if the units were for bona fide farm tenants, but would have a problem if the units were to be rented to University students. Mr. Tucker said he had told Mr. Payne that the manner in which this ordinance is worded does not address the number of units allowed on a parcel, but does pro.hibit the actual division of land by right. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the concerns expressed today be incorporated into the ordinance. In other words, prohibit in an Agricultural/Forestal District;~the utilities permitted under Section 10.2.1.6 and single-family or duplex dwelling units except those used in connection with the employment for a farming operation. He then'offered motion to advertise the parent ordinance for public hearing with the above amendments. Mr. Henley said the ordinance shoUld be redrafted first for the Board t° review before-the public hearing date is set. The motiOn was then withdrawn.- Mr. Henley asked~the deadline~for the adoption of this ordinance. Mr. Agnor said the ordinance should be adopted by the end of June. The consensus of the Board was to have the ordinance redrafted by t~he County Attorney including the revisions suggested today and to review these ordinances at the May 18, 1983 meeting for the purpose of setting a public hearing. Agenda Item No. 14. 'Resolution: Buck Mountain Reservoir, Clarifying Intent of. Mr. Agnor said bond counsel for the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority have expressed concern about paragraph ~b of the Buck Mountain Reservoir resolution adopted by the Board in January. The paragraph states that the yearly debt service on the reservoir project will be paid through Rivanna's urban water rate with the exception of revenue derived from the surcharges outlined in the resolution. Mr. Agnor said the bond counsel feels that the language is too restrictive and have requested that the four signatories to the resolution amend same to allow the Rivanna Authority to use funds other than the water rate surcharge for payment of the debt service. Mr. Agnor said this action also bears on other outstanding bond issues of the Rivanna Authority and he recommended approval of this new resolution and noted that the other three parties; the City, Rivanna and the Albemarle County Service ALLthority have already approved~the resolutio~ May ll, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) 159 Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to adopt the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. B~T RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that paragraph 4B of the Joint Resolution authorizing the purchase of the property for Buck Mountain Reservoir has been considered, and the Board of Supervisors intends that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority adjust its urban water rate to provide revenues sufficient to carry the debt service that might'be reasonably attributed to site acquisition, but that it is not and was not intended to preclude the use of other funds including interest on invested funds or the general revenues of the Authority to provide necessary coverage for present or future debt service. Agenda Item No. 15. Set public hearing to amend Section 4-3 of the County Code re: Disposal of dead animals and fowl. Mr. Agnor said Section ~-B of the Albemarle County Code concerning the disposal of dead animals and fowl has been rewritten to increase the fee if a person has to be employed to dispose of dead animals and fowl. The current charge for the cremationor burial'of animals is five dollars and the proposed charge is not to exceed seventy-five dollars. The current charge for the cremation or burial of fowl is one dollar and the proposal is not to exceed five dollars. Mr. Agnor said recently there have been problems with dead animals not being properly disposed of and the County cannot afford to employ someone to do this for only five dollars. Therefore, this amendment is presented in order that a public hearing can be scheduled on same. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to advertise an ordinance to amend Section q-B of the Albemarle County Code concerning the disposal of dead animals and fowl for public hearing on June 8, 198B. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 20. Appointments. Mrs. Cooke noted receipt of an application from a person interested in serving on the Library Board. She suggested that an interview be scheduled since she did not know the applicant. Mr. Henley asked the Clerk to schedule the interview for the June 8, 1983 meeting. Mr. Butler said he had received an application from Dr. Richard Lindsay regarding appointment to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging. Mr. Henley said he has attempted to contact Mrs. Adelaide Spainhour whose term has expired on the JABA Board but has not been successful. He noted that she is eligible for reappointment. Miss Nash said Mrs. Spainhour had indicated to her that she was interested in being reappointed. After a brief discussion, the Board decided to defer this appointment until Mrs. Spainhour can be contacted. Mr. Lindstrom noted that Lt. Col. Dirk Van Der Voet has informed him that he does not desire to be reappointed to the Soil Erosion Advisory Board whenhis term expires on June 30, 1983. Miss Nash then asked about the appointment for the MPO technical committee. Mr. Agno'r said he was requested to recommend a staff person for this committee. Miss Nash said there are already two members of the staff on the committee_an~ she felt this appointee should be a citizen. Mrs, Cooke said the MPO Advisory ~,~ .... ~~s ~av~ng meeting tomorrow and perhaps the confusion can be clarified then. This appointment was deferred pending the clarification of same. Agenda Item No. 21. .Claims AgAinSt Dog Fund. 'Claim against the Dog Fund from Mr. Marvin Gibson of North Garden, Virginia, for six Holstein steers killed during the period of February to March, 1983, was received. (Mr. Fisher returned to the meeting at 3:17 P.M.) The amount recommended by the Dog Warden for settlement of the claim is $975.00. Claim against the Dog Fund from Mr. James A. Williams of Barboursville, for two heifers and four steers killed on March q, 198~,. was received. The total recommended by the Dog Warden for settlement of this claim is $1,602.00. Mr. Henley said he felt the amounts were reasonable. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the claims as presented~ Mr. Fisher asked if there were sufficient funds in the budget for these claims. Mr. Agnor said there are not sufficient funds in this particular line item, and would have to request the Board to approve a transfer of funds at a later date. 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. May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 22. Resolution: Clean COmmunity Commission. Mr. Agnor said this resolution is needed to apply for State Litter Control funds for the Clean Community Commission. The resolution contains one change regar'ding the funds being sent either directly to the Planning District Commission in the locality or to the Clean Community Commission if same is responsible for the program. Since the Charlottesville- Albemarle Clean Community Commission is the coordinator of the program, the language does not pertain to Albemarle County. Mr. Agnor recommended adoption of the resolution. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following resolution for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission: WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, recognizes the existence of a litter problem within the boundaries of Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Litter Control Act of 1976 provides, thro-U-gh~the Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Litter Control, for the allocation of public funds inthe form of grants for the purpose of enhancing local litter control programs; and WHEREAS, having reviewed and considered the regulations and the application covering administration and use of said funds, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of~ Supervisors of Albemarle County; Hereby endorses and supports such a program for Albemarle CoUnty'; and Hereby expresses the intent to combine with the City of CharlOttesville in a mUtually agreed upon and cooperative program contingent on approval of the application by the Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Litter Control, and contingent on receipt of funds; and Hereby authorizes the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission to plan and budget for a cooperative litter control program, which shall represent said program for all localities named in this resolution; and Further authorizes the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission to apply on behalf of all the above named localities for a grant, and to be responsible for the administration, implementation, and completion of the program as it is described in the attached Application Form LC-G-l; and Further accepts responsibility jointly with Charlottesville~Albemarle Clean Community Commission and the City of Charlottesville for all phases of the program; and Further accepts liability for its pro rata share of any funds not properly used or accounted for pursuant to the regdlations and the application; and That said funds, when received, will be transferred immediately' to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission or if coordinated by the Planning District Commission, said funds will be sent directly to the Planning District Commission by the Department.. All funds will be used in the. Cooperative Program to which we give our endorsement and support,~ Hereby requests the Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Divisio~ of Litter Control, to consider and approve the application and program, said p~gram being in accord with regulations governing use and expenditure of said funds.~ Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher,'Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda~Item No. 23. Construction Change Orders -- ?'hase II County Office Building. Mr. Agnor said the approval of constrUct'ion change orders is on the Board's agenda due to a recommendation in the 1981-82 audit report that this type of approval be recorded in the Board's minutes. However, any future change orders will be placed on the Board's consent agenda. The four change orders being presented bring Phase II of the County Office Building up to date. The total of the four orders is $9,849 and the amount budgeted for change orders during construction was $120,370. Therefore, the requested~-amount does not create~-any problem in the budget. (The change orders which were attached'to a memorandum dated May 9, 1983, from Mr. Agnor are on file in the-Clerk's Office.) Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Butler, to approve the four constructionch~nge orders for Phase II of the County Office Building in the amount of $9,849 as presented by Mr. Agnor. 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. May 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 6. Report: Stormwater Drainage Plan. Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, was present and said during his one year employment with the County he has been reViewing the County's drainage problems. A report from him entitled "Status Report on Drainage Studies in Urban Areas" dated May ll, 1983, has been distributed ~'~he Board members and is divided into three parts; general discussion of drainage problems, activities of the Engineering Department to solve the problems, and preliminary report on the two drainage areas of Meadow Creek and Crozet with recommendations on how to correct the problems in same. Mr. Elrod said the terrain is steep in Albemarle County and therefore more severe erosion problems occur. He did not feel any major changes are necessary in any of the County's ordinances or existing policies to correct the problems but rather a better means of coordinating work and a good drainage design at the beginning of a project. He then summarized his report as follows: GE~ERAL~DISCUSSION OF DRAINAGE PROBLEMS A. Classification of most prevalent problems. 1) Erosion - Ditches too steep (too much reliance on rip-rap instead of paved ditches). Mr. Elrod said rip-rap works well in large channels if same is away from development but using rip-rap as a ditch lining alongsubdivision roads is not satisfactory. Grassgrows through the rip-rap and there is no way to mow this and over a period of years this creates more problems than can be solved. Therefore, he favored paved ditches which are not that much more expensive and in a lot of cases less work is required because rip-rap has to be done.by hand. - Drainage allowed to flow from lot to lot.- Mr. Elrod said this problem is particularly evident in small lot subdivisions. - Steep yards and driveways~ Mr. Elrod said this is a minor problem but in a lot of cases this could have been handled by taking the water from the lot into the street rather than allowing the water to drain into the second lot. This is a difficult problem to solve once yards have been Seeded and other landscaping done. - Roof drains~not planned for. This problem exists in Four Seasons where many homes were built without gutters. The initial concept was to have -the water come off the roof and be carried away without ever being concentrated. Some of the homeowners installed gutters and converted the water over to the their neighbors and the yards were not graded to handle this flow. - Steep cut slopes and groundwater problems. Mr. Elrod said due to the County's steep terrain, many places, particularly commercial sites, have deep cuts and steep slopes behind structures in order to have a flat level area for a parking lot. This can be stabilized if one does not get into a situation of cutting into an aquifer and getting into the groundwater. Grass will grow but the soil will slide down the slopes during wet seasons and there will be constant erosion problems. - Development too close to streams. 2) - Attempt to leave streams in natural conditions. Mr. Elrod said these two items are related. A lot of large tracts and .property lines slope toward creeks. Developers build toward'the creeks but the creek is never improved. It is almost impossible in the urban areas to have a natural watercourse because when the amount of runoff is increased the stream will meander~ Bennington Terrace is a prime example of this. Mr. ElrOd said this problem can be corrected if homes are built far enough back from the street and there is no clearing within fifty feet on each side of the street. Homes built only twenty to twenty-five feet from the street, as in Bennington Terrace, create the problem. Flooding -- Mr. Elrod said he thought of flooding as two types. One from a major watercourse such as Meadow Creek or from a roadside ditch overflowing into someone's basement. a) Major drainage areas - Inadequate~pipes and channels. - On-site detention facilities not designed to meet the needs of a given situation. Mr. Elrod felt the ~County has relied too much on these facilities to'solve the .flood problems. Meadow Creek has a lot of area that is developed and the problem will not get any better with on-site facilities. - Flood plains not mapped for urban areas. Mr. Elrod said this is one case Where an ordinance change may be necessary. The Zoning Ordinance, Site Plan section, speaks of flood plains as being shown on the Federal Flood Insurance Administration maps. The problem is that there are large areas in the County which were not mapped and a prime example of that is along Meadow Creek. Ma_~ 1983 (Regular Daff Meeting). The area mapped and studied stopped just_downstream on Route 29 where Branchlands is proposed. A lot of areas around the County have a flood plain shown but it is'not based on any computation. -Mr. Elrod said he has not had any problems in dealing withdevelopers. This has been~pointed out to the engineers who ~have agreed to study the matter. He then~noted that at ~the Safari Campgrounds on Route 250 West, there was a proposal to develop an area which-appeared to be in the flood plain. The area was surveyed and this was sent to the Corps of Engineers who then computed the information. Mr. Elrod said a permit is not issued when there is a possibility of this problem. ' ~ b) Small drainage areas - No coordination between design of drainage for roads, and drainage of lots. Mr. Elrod said he has tried to persuade engineers and developers to coordinate the design of. lots in subdivisions withthe design of the road and not to be so concerned with the road designs only. The plans for the North Pines SubdiviSion' showed drainage comingdown a steep hill to a cul-de-sac and there were no plans for where the drainage was to go. He examined the site yesterday and there are two lots with drainage going through~and eroding those lots. In some cases, the developer has tried to take care of this problem'. Many times pipes or concrete channets are installed to take'the drainage away, 'but the pipes are not sized properly. If there is not some relief, the drainage builds and the house floods. He has received about thirty complaints aboUt this during the past year. The homeowners are then faced With the cost of correcting~the problem. Mr. Elrod said a problem with drainage in subdivisions is correcting the situation in a timely manner. There are bonds posted for certain improvements to subdivisions, but the ordinance does not specifically state.~t what point all of the items have to be completed. Mr. Elrod said his office is not ~set up to call bonds on projects at this time. Mr. Elrod then summarized the activities of the Engineering Department since the Board requested a drainage study. A complaint form was developed to record location and types of drainage problems. This continuing program has been very useful. The second activity was the employment of Mr. Tom Muncaster who specializes in'hydrology. Mr. Muncaster has worked 'with the Army Corps of Engineers because~it is interested in assisting the County with a drainage study. The only problem with using the Army Corps of Engineers arises because the standards used by the Corps are not designed for urban area drainage such' as culverts, paved ditches and different cross-sections. ~The information gathered did provide the location of total flows but did not identify flood limits. Mr. Elrod said it was then decided to have a hydrologic model of basins for use in his office in order to study effects of proposed~detention-basins rather than hiring a consultant to do preliminary plans. Mr. Elrod said Mr. Muncaster attended an Environmental Protection Agency sponsored seminar on computer software known as the "Stormwater~ Management Model (SWNM)". This model provides drainage as well as water quality information. A computer was purchased~_for the office. The computer interacts, at no charge, with a computer at,the University of Virginia. This computer has been used~ to set up a status report on all subdivision and site development plans. This will hopefully be more efficient in providing answers for problem areas. Preliminary studies have been made on Meadow Creak~, Lickinghole Creek and the area at Windham in Crozet, and the results are as follows. Mr. Elrod said Meadow Creek has three major flooding areas. Oneis west of Berkmar Drive (off of Route 29 North) behind the Pampered Pet Shop. Mr. Elrod said the shop is built directly overtop of this drainage area. There is no place for the water to go except through an inadequate pipe of a twenty-four inch diameter which is buriedlunder two commercial buildings in this location. Mr. Elrod said the drainage area begins near the'Rescue Squad building and the problem is created because the pipe should be about six times its present size. Mr. Elrod said this Problem would not be'solved~by, having-an upstream detention basin and the Only solution would be to enlarge the pipe'which is very expensive in relation to the benefits which would be derived from same. The next area in the Meadow Creek drainage area is east of Berkmar Drive near the Wayside Press building. Mr. Elrod said this area also has an inadequate pipe of thirty-six inches diameter which allows the water to flow around the Wayside Press building, across Berkma~ Dr'i~e, and then between Route 29 ahd~opper's World-to the a~'~hind the Pizza Inn at Dominion Drive. Mr. Elrod said the. preliminary study has indicated that a regional detention basin upstream from Wayside Press woUld help abate this flOoding problem. This recommendation should be studied further to de$1ermine what size basin is necessary to make the existing pipe system adequate. He alsO.~noted, that ~er~. is a site for~the basin in the area and developers upstream from this subject~area have noted their interest in contributing to the cost-of such a basin in lieu of constructing individual on-site detention basins. The next problem area in the Meadow Creek drainage area is at Commonwealth. Drive, Four Seasons Drive and Dominion Drive. Mr. Elrod said the developments of Birnam Wood and Townwood both have small detention basins, and both are upstream from the area mentioned. However, there is an ideal location downstream from these two' developments for a regional detention basin and most of the property is owned by the County School Board. Mr. Elrod said the two basins mentioned have been filling up with silt and conversations have been held with the developer to eliminate the basins and the developer instead contribute his proportionate share to a larger regional basin. A larger basin, along with the storage available in the Four Seasons lake, Will lessen the frequency of flooding at Commonwealth Drive and the home at the intersection~of.Dominion Drive. Mr~-.Elrod said one of the developer May I1, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) has agreed to release his basin to the County. Mr. Elrod said with the quantity of development in this area, he felt it is time to attempt getting contributions from the developers for the regional basin. Mr. Elrod also noted that if development continues without requiring detention structures, the flooding will increase in to an already critical problem area. (Mr. Henley left the meeting at' 4:10 P.M.) Mr. Elrod said the the second problem area studied is the drainage area below Windham on Jarman's Gap Road in Crozet. Mr. Elrod said the runoff control devices installed in the first phase of Windham were ~not constructed according to the plan. Therefore, residents in the subject area have complained about drainage across their properties. Mr. Elrod said the problem with this area is that the drainage occurs in front of houses and there is not a channel-to take the drainage off of those properties. Mr. Elrod said a possible solution to this prOblem is a pipe and ditch combin&tion. However, this depehd~on the preference of the homeowners. In his discussions with the developer of Windham, offers were made to contribute to off-site improvements in lieu of on-site detention basins as required by the County ordinance. However, Mr. Elrod said there is erosion and flooding of yards downstream from Windham that would not be helped by on,site detention basins. Mr, Elrod said the people involved in the off-site improvements would have to ~be willing to provide the easements necessary for such improvements. In summary, Mr. Elrod said there is a good indication that developers are willing to contribute to construction of regional detention basins in lieu of providing on-site detention basins. Mrs. Cooke asked if residents are also willing to contribute funds~. Mr. Elrod said at this time only developers have been approached with this idea. He then noted that discussions have been held on different approaches to funding the basins. One is to wait for collection of sufficient funds to finance the basins, or to have the County advance the necessary funds from the General Fund with the idea of recovering the funds from developers at some future time. This concept has been discussed with the Deputy County Attorney, Mr. Frederick Payne and Mr. Payne does not feel there is legally any problem with that approach. Mr. Elrod said another possibility is to adopt a general drainage district which would allow the County to assess the developer his pro rata share for the costs of these structures. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. St. John his feelings of this process. Mr. St. John said a lot of thoughtrhas been given to this matter and he.agreed that it is time tO proceed with the idea. The first step of course is to develop, and adopt, a stormwater drainage plan. Then, the matter of financing the necessary structures can be pursUed. Mr. Fisher asked what action is needed by this Board at this time. Mr. Elrod said $4,200 is needed for contracting out survey work and for the development of a.preliminary plan for the Meadow Creek and Windham areas. After that work is completed, he can present a detailed analysis of the amount needed for the necessary improwements. Mr. Fisher said this appears to mean that the County cannot accept funds until a plan is adopted.~ Mr. Elrod said this approach is like a proffer. Developers will still have to meet the requiremen of the Stormwater Detention Ordinance for off-site improvements, but the requirements will be set up on an on-site detention approach. Mr.~Agnor said this project would normally be includedin the Capital Improvements Program; but "in order to begin the necessary work, he would recommend transferring funds from the General Fund in order that the work can proceed. The necessary information for the transfer will be submitted to the Board at its meeting on May 18, 1983. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to authorize Mr. Elrod to proceed with the survey work necessary for the Stormwater Drainage Plan recommended for the two drainage areas, Meadow Creek and in Crozet. 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. ,., , , , , , , Mr. Fisher expressed his concern that the Stormwater Detention Ordinance (actually Section 18-22 of the Subdivision Ordinance) does not cover the Pantops Mountain area. Since this area is designated for intensive commercial development, he felt the area should be included in the ordinance. Mr. Elrod said the ordinance describes areas in a way that exempts any land which discharges directly into the Rivanna River. He said any project along the Rivanna River banks is unlikely to discharge directly into the river and affect the flood heights. Mr. Fisher said his concern is the entire Pantops area. In other words, what if property at the bottom of Pantops would be flooded by activity at the top of the ridge.~ Mr. Elrod said he did not feel that would be problem. The Rivanna River has a drainage area of 600 square miles. The amount of water coming off of Pantops will not raise the height of the Rivanna River. He also noted that the Stormwater Detention Ordinance states that if drainage discharges into a tributary of the Rivanna River, then that is within the requirements of the Stormwater Detention Ordinance, but if the drainage discharges directly into the Rivanna River then it is not coVered by the Ordinance. Mr. Fisher said he would meet with Mr. Elrod later to review the maps of the area he is concerned about. Agenda Item No. 24. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher said the consent agenda showed a notice from YEPCO dated April 20, 1983, regarding application to the State Corporation Commission for approval and certification for rebuilding the Charlottesvilte-Gordonsville Transmission line for a 230 KV operation. He is concerned about this particular application because the line between the Gordonsville substation and the Cash's Corner substation is next to an existing 115 KV line. Mr. Butler said he has discussed this proposal with three property owners in the subject area and he understands, there are some problems about placement of the lines. Mr. Agnor said he, Mr. Tucker and Mr. Butler have met with representatives from VEPCO about this line. He under~ stands that VEPCO received approval for building of the line from Gordonsville to Cash's Corner several years ago. The reason this line has not been constructed is that a decision is still pending on the route over the mountain to the Hollymead substation. May !1, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher said he is concerned that it is becoming a common practice for lines of separate companies to be constructed side bY side, and he feels the lines should be ~consolidat~ or at least carried by one set of poles. Mr. Lindstrom agreed'. Mr~ St. John said he understands this line was approved some time ago, but the matter was reopened due to objection~ of citizens and requests received for adjustments in plans. Mr. Lindstrom 'then offered motion to authorize Mr. St. John to send a letter to the State Corporation Commission by May 16 noting the County's objection to the proposed 23OKV line between mCash's Corner and the Gordonsville Subst'ation since the existing tl5KV line will remain in place, and to request that the Commission give close scrutiny-to applications of power companies in an .~ attempt to coordinate and, if possible, consolidate routing of lines in order to avoid duplication 6f same. Mr. Butler seconded the motion and same carried by'the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and LindstrOm and Miss Nash. None. "~ ~ Mr. Henley. Mr. Fisher said notice has been received from the State Water Control Board about a public hearing on May 19, 1983, regarding Federal Grant Funds on Municipal Wastewater Facilities. He asked Mr'. Agnor if the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority plans to present anything at the public hearing regarding the Croz~et Interceptor Facility. Mr. Agnor said Mrs. Treva Cromwell will attend the public hearing on behalf of the Rivanna Authority. Mr. George Williams, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, has said that .... he does not feel there will be any 'problems with"this request, but if problems seem eminent regarding the funding then he will request Senator Michie or the delegates to attend the meeting also. Mr. Fisher then noted letter dated April 14, 1983, from Delegate George Allen regarding a public hearing on May 12, 1983, on Regulatory Reform MeaSures; in particular, a course of action initiated by the Governor for a systematic review of all existing regulations by state agencies to repeal or amend any regulations not necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Miss Nash said she has been contacted by members of the Albemarle Education Association concerning complaints that the Association does not knOw when items arebeing presented to the Board. She had indicated to the members that she would mention this concern to the Board. Also, she has been informed that a banquet to be attended by the School Board and other affiliated educational persons is to be held May 18, 1983., which is the evening scheduled for the adoption of the budget, Based on this information,, she suggested deferral' of vote~on the schoOl budget until June l; 1983, in order that persons interested can attend the meeting. Mr. Fisher asked if Mi~s Nash was suggesting the deferral at the request of the School Board. Miss Nash said no, Mr. John Baldino, representing the Albemarle Education Association had made this request because of the-schedUling of the banquet. Mr. Lindstrom did not object to deferral in order that interested persons could be present at the meeting. Mr. Fisher said he would not object other than the fact-that the budget has to be adopted by June 30 and he was concerned that the matter would continue bouncing back and forth. Miss Nash then offered motion to defer the'discussion of the budget and adoption of same to June !, 1983, in order that the'School Board could be present. Mr. Fisher suggested the School Board be asked if deferral is preferred. Miss Nash then amended her motion to ask the School Board Chairman if the School Board preferred deferral of the budget untiI they could be present. Mr'. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 25. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 P.M.