1983-12-14461
(Youth-in-Government Day)
December 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting'of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
December 14, 1983, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler, (arrived at 9:11 A.M.), Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke,
Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, gr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John;
and Director of Planning and Community Development, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M. by the
Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the consent agenda
with the items as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Butler.
Item No. 2.1. Street Sign Request - State Route 676.
In response to a request from Mr. William Walker Rowan, a resident of State Route 676, fox
a street name sign to identify Hydraulic Road (State Route 676), following approved Board of
Supervisors action on November 9, 1983, the Board adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS request has 'seen received for a street sign to identify the
following road:
Hydraulic Road (State Route 676) at its intersection with
State Route 743.
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the office
of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and
maintain the above mentioned street sign.
Item No. 2.2. Statement of expenses for the State Compensation Board for the Director of
Finance, Sheriff, and Regional Jail for the month of November, 1983, were approved as presented
Item No. 2.3. Change Orders 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 for Phase II of the Albemarle County
Office Building Project were approved as presented.
Item No. 2.3(a). Take Country Lane in Country View Subdivision into State System.
In response to a request from Mr. Gregory Pappas, dated September 1982, to place Country
Lane in the Countryview Subdivision into the State Secondary Road System, the following
resolution was adopted:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of
Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident
Highway Department, the following road in Country View Subdivision:
Beginning at station 0+18 of Country Lane a point
common to the centerline intersection of Country
Lane and the edge of pavement of Route 708, thence
with Country Lane in a northwesterly direction
1,133.09 feet to station 11+43.09, the end of the
cul-de-sac of Country Lane in Country View Subdivision.
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 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 683, page 384, and Deed Book 733, page 597.
Item No. 2.4. Report of the County Executive for the month of November, 1983, was present
as_~information pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-602.
462
December 14, 1983 (Regular Da.y Meeting) ~-
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 November, 1983,
were also presented as information:
State Account Fund
General County Fund
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
Grant Projects Fund
Metro Planning Grant
Community Development Block Grant
County School Fund
TIPS
Secondary Advocates for Gifted Students
Cafeteria Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Mental Health Fund
Textbook Rental Fund
Capital Improvement Fund
$ 2,570.30
10,420,384.61
467,565.92
1,065,580.43
3,801.73
2,084.46
8,413,307.83
21,188.89
1,346.47
53,689.95
421,959.75
1,265,969.41
122,208.20
4r.569r617.45
GRAND TOTAL
$26,831,275.40
Item. No. 2.5. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of October, 1983
was presented in accordance with Section 63.1-52 of the Code of Virgini'a.
Item No. 2.6. Notice from AT&T Communications dated November 23, 1983, re: proposed
tariffs covering interexchange telecommunications services as of January t, 1984, which will
result in an overall revenue decrease of $39 million.
Item No. 2.7. Letter dated November 15, 1983, from t~he Highway Department acknowledging
receipt of proposed design for Meadow Creek Parkway and the McIntire Road Extension (Projects
U000-104-102,C50~ and 0631-002-128,C502).
Item No, 2.8.
tration.
Copy of a Report from The Governor's Commission to Increase Voter Regis-
Item No. 2.9. Copy of a memorandum from Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, dated
December 9, 1983, entitled: "Revised Revenue Estimates of Property Taxes for Tax Year 1983
(FY83-84) noting that so far, the total revised revenue estimates are 4.46 percent over the
amounts budgeted.
Item No. 2.10. Letter from Equalization Board dated December 6, 1983 re:
printed on appraisal slips. (Discussed later under Agenda Item No. 21.)
notice to be
Agenda Item No. 3.
Approval of Minutes:
August 10, September 14 and October 12, 1983.
Mr. Butler had read the minutes of August 10 from pages 318 to 329 and found no errors.
Mrs..Cooke had not read the minutes of August 10 from page 329 to the end. Mr. Fisher had not
read the minutes of September 14, pages 1 to 11. Mr. Henley had read the minutes of September
14 from Agenda Item 11 on page 11 to the end (page 20). Miss Nash had read the minutes of
October 12 and found no errors.
Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve the minutes of
October 12, 1983. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Butler.
(The minutes of August 10 and September 14, 1983 will be forwarded to the next
scheduled Board meeting of December 21, 1983).
Agenda Item No. 4(a). Highway Matters. Request to relocate a portion of State Route 697
(Deferred from the November 9, 1983 meeting).
Mr. Fisher noted that this request had been deferred to this date in order to allow
notification to adjoining property owners thus allowing them an opportunity' to respond to the
request.
Mr. James Murray, Jr., addressed the Board as both friend and advisor to the applicant,
Mr. Hale. Mr. Murray said he was impressed by two things about Linden Farm; one is the
historical significance of the house built in 1779, and the other that the house has a state
road in its front yard. The location of this road has always presented a problem for the
farm's owners. Mr. Murray said Mr. Hale initially proposed to relocate the road'away from the
house to where the road was once located. (Mr. Butler arrived at 9:11 A.M.) Mr. Hale propose~
to construct a new road up to his property line, to preserve a buffer of trees between he and
his neighbor and to preserve most of a hayfield. Mr. Hale later learned one of his neighbors
objected to this proposal. As a compromise he now proposes an alternate plan to put the road
through the center of the hay field closer to the house. Both proposals, continued Mr. Murray
involve dedicating to the State additional right-of-way and constructing a better road with
less slope and better drainage, which will make it easier for the highway department to _
maintain.
December 14, 1983 (Re~Ular~Day Meeting)
Mr. Gary Whe!an, certified land surveyor, indicated by use of a map, the original and the
most recent proposal, showing alignment of the existing state road, Mr. Hale's property and the
buffer of trees. Mr. Murray interjected that the curve on the present road would be greatly
reduced under both the original and the most recent proposal. Mr. Whelan then indicated the
second proposal which would have the road coming through Mr. Hale's hayfield.
H Mr. Murray said he sees no disadvantages to the County from either proposal. In fact,
the Highway Department will be deeded additional land, the slope will be reduced, the width of
the road will be increased, and the maintenance and drainage of the highway system will be
improved at the landowner's expense.
Mr. Butler wanted to know how adjoining property owners feel about this proposal. Mr.
Murray said that the new proposal relocates the road closer to its original site which is
closer to Mr. Sutherland's property line. The proposed road will be located over the side of
the ridge, approximately one hundred and fifty feet from Mr. Sutherland's property Line. Mr.
Murray said Mr. Sutherland's entrance to his residence is one quarter of a mile back up the
road. He does not think Mr. Suthertand makes any use of the road. However, this proposal will
affect the property owners living in the valley to the south who presently travel a road with
a sharp hair pin curve. The proposed road will eliminate the curve and reduce the slope from
7.7 to 6.6 degrees. In conclusion, Mr. Murray said the road will be widened and improved.
Mr. Frank Hardy, a potential property owner on this road was next to speak. Mr. Hardy has
contracted to purchase a parcel of land just south of the Hale property. Mr. Hardy wished to
go on record as stating he had no objection to the proposed road change and sees no negative
affect on himself.
Mr. Roosevelt said he had met with Mr. Hale and Mr. Whela~ to discuss the possibility of
relocating this section of road. There is an old road scar which effectively catches drainage
and funnels it away. The original proposal would improve drainage along the road, but would
considerably increase the grade. Subsequent to Mr. Roosevelt's examination of the original
proposal, a new line had been staked out. Mr. Roosevelt said he reviewed the second line but
has not seen any plans or profiles so cannot cbnfirm or deny that the grade will be improved.
Mr. Roosevelt said from viewing the new line on the ground, it appears to take care of the
grade problems posed by the original alignment, and also improve the drainage situation. Mr.
Roosevelt said that if the proposed road eliminates or reduces the sharp vertical curve on the
existing road, that would be a definite improvement. Mr. Roosevelt said he gave both Mr. Hale
and Mr. Whelan the minimum standards necessary for construction of the new road. He wanted the
Board and the applicant to be aware that the Highway Department views the proposal neither as
an improvement or a detriment but rather will accept the road for maintenance provided the road
is built to Highway Department standards.
Mr. Murray referred to the map stating there are two locations, 2A and 2B, one proposal
for a curved line which would be the least expensive to build, and a proposed alignment along a
straght line which would be the most costly. The straight line would eliminate the curve and
Mr. Hale is willing to incur the expense in order to build a better road. Mr. Lindstrom asked
why the original road had been abandoned. Mr. Roosevelt said he knew very little about the
past history of this, but understands the road has been in its existing location since being
taken over by the Highway Department in 1932. Therefore, he assumes the road was moved sometim
prior to 1932. Mr. Roosevelt speculated that the reason for this relocation was due to the
difficulty experienced by Model T's and horse drawn wagons to make the grade along that align-
ment.
Mr. M. Y. Sutherland, an adjoining property owner, submitted a petition signed by users of
the existing road, approximately eighty percent of the land owners involved. Mr. Sutherland
read the following petition signed by: R. S. Brown, Dorothy H. Brown, M. Y. Sutherland, Jr.,
Michael Herdsen, Maxine S. Beams, John W. Sutherland, R. A. Yancey, John Henderson and Werner
Hambsch:
"We, the undersigned landowners and users of Route 697, are opposed to
the relocation of a portion of 697 by Mr. Jeff Hale of Winter Park,
Florida. Mr. Hale is asking that the road be moved further away from his
main dwelling. His newly acquired home is now located on the south side
of Route 697, approximately 200 feet from the road. The road has been
located here for about 100 years.
In reaching the residence of Mr. Hale from Route 29, he passes through the
property of M. Y. Sutherland for nearly one-half mile and when the route
reaches his property, Mr. Hale is proposing that the road be moved close to
the property line of M. Y. Sutherland until it passes well beyond his home
for a distance of approximately 1600 feet. He is taking the nuisance of
the road from its present location and placing it in close proximity to
his neighbors property. His proposed route is parallel to and very near
a road that was abandoned about t00 years ago, in horse and buggy days,
because it was too steep, rocky and washed badly. The road was moved to
its present location because it is a better grade and less rocky. The
ravine is still there today.
To move a road from a good grade to one that is much steeper and a longer
distance is unthinkable to us. The reason for moving the road is that he
wants to place the nuisance near his neighbors' property. To our knowledge,
never has a road been relocated in Albemarle County for such an ugly reason.
The home of Mr. Hale is now served by electric and telephone service by lines
that come through the property of M. Y. Sutherland. The majority of the road
to his property from Route 29 North is through the same Sutheriand property.
The proposed location could cause problems by the underlying rocks. From a
study of the outcropping of rocks in this vicinity, it is highly probable
that solid rock will be encountered in excavating for the new road. Not only
will this be a problem in constructing the road, but it will create drainage
problems.
In conclusion, the undersigned believe it is in the best interests of the
landowners of Route 697 to continue to use the present road."
464
December
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Sutherland if his comments were directed to both proposals. Mr.
Sutherland answered in the affirmative and said if just any one person can decide to move a
road-against the wishes of the people on that road, he did not think there could be a secondar~
system. Mr. Sutherland said he is opposed to moving the road, period.
Dr. Robert Brown, adjacent property owner, was the next to speak. He noted that he is a
'"city slicker" who looked for land in the county so he could get away from people. He purchase
property on this road and hopes to live on the land in the future. He referred to the will of
Mr. Sutherland's grandfather which divided the land equally between his four children. Dr.
Brown feels that the community in question is a place where tradition needs to be preserved.
He supports Mr. Sutherland in his objection to the relocation of State Route 697.
Mr. David Brown, Dr. Brown's son and manager of the family farm showed slides of the
location of the existing road and the land along the proposed relocation. Mr. Brown indicated
the routes proposed by Mr. Hale, which would run through a hayfield. He pointed out the curve
which has been labeled "very sharp", stating his conviction that this was "no hairpin curve."
The sharp curve referred to by Mr. Murray, Mr. Hale and Mr. Whelan is further up the road and
Mr. Brown is not sure how the relocation of Route 697 would affect this curve. Mr. Brown
showed a slide of the existing road as it runs in front of the Hale home. Mr. Murray inter-
jected that the right wing of the house is 104 feet from the existing road and not 200 feet as
noted earlier.
Mr. Larned Randolph, former owner of the property in question, was next to speak. Mr.
Randolph lived on the proper.fy for 38 years and stated that the proximity of the house to the
present road created many dust problems. Mr. Randolph does not understand why Mr. Sutherland
is objecting to relocating the road and pointed out the apparent conflicts which seem to
,...~r. Sutherland believes the slope created by relocating a portion of Route 697 would
prevail. :~'
be worse than at present, while Mr. Whelan~ the land surveyor hired by Mr. Hale, indicates the
grade will be less. Mr. Randolph, while acknowledging the virtue of Dr. Brown and Mr.
Sutherland's traditionalism, sees no relevance between the will of Mr. Sutherland's grandfathe:
and the relocation of State Route 697. Mr. Randolph said it is Mr. Hale's intent to improve
the dwelling and the surrounding property. He pointed out that some years ago Mr. Sutherland
complained about the amount of dust being raised on the existing road and stated that Mr.
Sutherland's home is much further from the road right-of-way than is Mr. Hale's home. Mr.
Randolph feels the relocation of the road is reasonable, will improve conditions, and requeste~
favorable consideration of same by the Board.
Mr. Sutherland noted that his home is located on the north side of the road; prevailing
winds in the summer are from the south and southwest, bringing dust to his home. Mr. Hale's
home is located on the south side of the existing road; therefore, the winds should carry the
dust away from his dwelling. Mr. Sutherland suggested alternative measures to curb the dust
problem. Mr. Sutherland stated he could not understand how moving a road 40 feet higher over
hill can improve the grade.
.Mr.' Murray said Mr. Hale is willing to build the road along the alignment which would cut
through the bank referred to by Mr. Sutherland and straighten the sharp curve. This is the
more expensive alternative. Regarding the matter of rocks referred to in the petition, should
rock be encountered during construction, Mr. Hale will have to assume the cost of removing
same. Mr. Murray said there are only two residences located beyond this point, Mr. Fairchild
and Mr. Hambsch and neither name appears on the petition. Both were approached but refused to
sign because they are in favor of Mr. Hale's proposal.
- .. Dr. Robert Brown, Jr., addressed the Board next. He and his wife are purchasing a piece
of property from his father on which to build a home. He indicated that the portion of the
road proposed for relocation is the only stretch where there is decent visibility. By moving
the road, this visibility will be greatly reduced.
Mr. Lindstrom inquired about the vehicle count along this road. Mr. Roosevelt answered
that in 1980 the count was 65 vehicle trips per day and in 1982 the count decreased to 35
vehicle trips per day.
Mr. Fisher commented that Mr. Roosevelt had stated he had not reviewed the plans for the
grade nor did he know exactly where the road proposed under 2B would intersect the existing
road. Claims have been made that the proposed road will reduce the grade considerably and Mr.
Fisher would like to compare the grade of the existing road against that proposed in the
relocation. Mrs. Cooke concurred with Mr. Fisher adding that a second opinion would serve the
interests of all. Also, the Highway Department should decide whether or not the change would
really improve the road. Miss Nash agreed that the Board needs more information. Mr. Lindstr~
asked Mr. Roosevelt how long it would take for him to report back to the Board. Mr. Roosevelt
said he would need a profile of the existing road, and plans and profiles of the proposed road
before he could review anything. If Mr. Hale and Mr. Whelan can provide that information by
the first of January, 1984, Mr. Roosevelt can respond to the Board's request by the January 11
198~ meeting.
Mr. Fisher said that concern has also been raised that any change in the road location
will reduce the sight distance. Both this question and the question regarding the grade must
be considered. Mr. Roosevelt asked if it is the Board's intent to have him review the plans
before the Board takes any action. Mr. Fisher acknowledged this was so, adding that other
interested parties are not sure the proposal will in fact improve the road situation. Mr.
Lindstrom asked if a new road will be more substantial than the existing road. Mr. Roosevelt
said the proposed road will be wider than the existing road, but not sufficient in width for
future hard-surfacing. The proposed road will be built to meet standards for the existing
traffic.
? 465
December 14, 1983.(Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Hale, the applicant, addressed the Board saying he is no newcomer to Albemarle County.
He grew up in the South Garden area. Mr. Hale assured the Board that everything he is doing is
an~attempt to improve the property and the home, which is being restored. The barns also are
being restored and Mr. Hale hopes to eventually have a beautiful horse farm and spend more time
in Albemarle County. Mr. Hale said he has personally measured the distance and the house is
exactly 104 feet from the road. Mr. Hale stated his surprise at Dr. Brown's objection since
for the last two weeks Dr. Brown has been trying to obtain a compromise from Mr. Sutherland,
and has told Mr. Hale that neither he nor his wife have any strong objection to the proposed
relocation of Route 697. Mr. Hale said that the people most affected by this relocation, Mr.
Fairchild and Mr. Hambsch, have stated their support of his proposal.
Mr. Sutherland asked the Board's policy on the closing of roads. He asked if Mr. Hale
were permitted to build the proposed road, if other property owners will still be permitted to
use the existing road. Mr. Roosevelt said this is a prescriptive easement, so the abandoned
right-of-way would belong to Mr. Hale. Mr. Sutherland then asked who has the right to close a
road if interested parties wish to maintain the road. Mr. Fisher said roads have been changed
in the past at the request of a single applicant. Since there are people objecting to this
request, the Board must weigh both sides of the argument. He asked that the applicant and his
counsel communicate directly with the Highway Department in order that a side by side compariso
can be made of ~he_.ex±sting..'~aa~ with the proposed road to determine the best alignment at the
curve, the better grade and the most advantageous sight distance. Mr. Fisher said this matter
will be taken up again at the January 11, 1984 Board meeting.
Miss Nash said she has one reservation concerning this proposal. She feels it incumbent
upon the Board to consider whether a citizen has just cause to request relocation of a road
simply on the basis of the existence of dust.
Agenda Item No. 4(b). Request from Ms. Winifred Legerton re: Rural Addition Funds.
Ms. Winifred Legerton, partner/owner of property at 2000 East Market Street, addressed the
Board. Ms. Legerton reminded the Board that Rural Addition funds were approved on February 9,
1983, for two roads to be brought into the State System, these being designated as the "East
Market Street Alley" and the old "Entrance Road" to The Charlottesville Woolen Mills. The cost
estimated to construct the "Entrance Road" to state standards was $13,831; $6,915 to be pro-
vided by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and the balance of $7,905 to be
raised by the interested parties. With regard to the East Market Street alley, ~os~ for.. -'~
construction to state standards was estimated at $4,139, an equal share ($2,070) to be borne
by the Department of Highways and Transportation and interested parties. Ms. Legerton then
made the following requests as indicated in her letter dated December 9, 1983:
"1) That the Board extend the authorization of Rural Addition Funds,
the same which were granted February 9, 1983, to be used for the
improvement to the "Entrance Road" at the Woolen Mills, so that
these funds may be used by December 31, 1984;
2) That, for the benefit of residents on the adjoining alley, the
Board also e'xtend the authorization of Rural Addition Funds that
were granted February 9, 1983, to be used for the improvement of
the "East Market Street" Alley, that these fUnds may be used by
December 31, 1984;
3) That the Board consider the significant impact of the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority's construction on and use of the
State Road lll5-East Market Street connector (the Entrance Road);
and that the Board instruct its members who serve on the Board
of Directors of the Rivanna Authority to work for the resolution
of the road issues and to assume the amount of financial respon-
sibility warranted by the Authority's past and future use of the
road; and
4) That the Board of Supervisors authorize its representative (the
County Executive, a Board member, or other designee) to proceed with
discussions regarding a special assessment levied with the agreement
of 75% of adjoining property owners, as the means for collecting
monies for the funding of the road(s)."
Mr. Fisher asked for comments from Mr. Roosevelt regarding the extension of Rural Addition
Funds. Mr. Roosevelt said Rural Addition funds allocated in any one year can be brought forwar
for three consecutive years. Mr. Lindstrom asked if funds are available for both roads. Mr.
Roosevelt said funds have been set aside for both roads, providing conditions are met, one of
which is that the property owners raise their matching share of the cost. Miss Nash asked Mr.
Roosevelt to present a more detailed cost of the projects. Mr. Roosevelt said the total cost
for the "Entrance Road" is $13,831 for roadway work only. Relocation of the parking area where
the Rivanna Authority presently parks its trucks is $990. There is an unknown amount for
relocation of a utility pole; 100 percent of which must be borne by the citizens. With regard
to the East Market Street Alley, the total cost of the roadwork is $4,139. There is also
relocation of a fire hydrant which cost must be borne by the citizens.
Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Butler, to approve extending Rural
Addition funds to be used for improvement of both the "Entrance Road" at the Woolen Mills and
the "East Market Street Alley", until June 30, 1985. 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.
466
December 14, 1~83 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher referred to the third and fourth requests presented in Ms. Legerton's letter
note~d above. Ms. Legerton handed pictures to the Board, showing the Rivanna Water and Sewer ~
A~thority's generator and use of their property. Mr. Fisher said the Authority could be asked
to consider Ms. Legerton's request. Mr. Agnor stated he felt the Rivanna Authority, as a
property owner, should be interested in improvement of the road and participate to the extent
of sharing in the costs borne by a single property owner. Mr. Fisher requested that Mr. Agnor
take. this matter to the Rivanna Board for review.
The fourth request concerning a special assessment was addressed by Mr. St. John. He
advised Ms. Legerton that a petition signed by seventy-five percent of the property owners
involved would be needed before the Board could consider such a request. He said there is no
particular language or formality for such a petition. Ms. Legerton asked Mr'. St. John about
property owners, particularly the people on the "alley" who must use this road as ingress and
egress from that "alley." Mr. St. John said all of these people could be considered adjoining
prQP~rty owners.
Miss Nash called attention to a letter she had just received from Mr. Daniel R. Lowe
requesting the Board to reserve the funds which had previously been designated for Brookhill
Road in Lakeside Subdivision, for an additional three months. Miss Nash suggested reserving
the funds until June, 1985 to provide adequate time for the property owners to fund their
portion of this project. Miss Nash pointed out that the one property owner who refused to
donate his share of the funds had recently sold his property. There is a chance the new owner
may be more agreeable. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to
extend use of Rural Addition funds designated for Brookhill Road in Lakeside Subdivision until
June 30, 1985. 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.
Agenda Item No. 4(c). Report on the Hatton Ferry.
Miss Nash said that in the absence of Mr. P. J. Jenkins, Chairman of the Hatton Ferry
Committee, she would like to bring to the Board's attention a report of the Committee dated
November 21, 1983 with the following recommendations:
"1)
That the Highway Department continue to operate the ferry on
the established, seasonal Schedule.
2)
That Secondary Road Improvement Funds be used to finance the
operation of the ferry.
That the Department of Parks and Recreation be designated as
the liason agency to work with the Albemarle County Historical
Society to enhance the image and awareness of the ferry."
Miss Nash asked Mr. Roosevelt the amount of money spent by the Highway Department on the
operation of the ferry. Mr. Roosevelt referred to his letter dated December 1, 1983:
"Weather conditions kept us from opening the ferry until Friday, April 22,
1983. After that date, the ferry was open every Friday, Saturday and
Sunday until June 26, 1983, when we experienced low water in the river.
From that date until October 15, 1983, the river was so low that the ferry
could nov operate and remained closed during that entire period. A copy
of the number of autos and pedestrians carried on each date between
April 22 and October 15, 1983, (is attached for your information).
Our records show that between July 1, 1982, and June 30, 1983, a total of
$9,091.19 was spent on the operation of the ferry. Between July 1, 1983,
and October 31, 1983, a total of $341.07 was spent. This makes a grand
total of $9,432.26 spent to date since July 1, 1982. Most of this amount
was spent as salary for the ferry boat operator. We have kept records of
operating costs other than the operator since January 1, 1983. These costs
amounted to $2,045.43."
The question of the continued operation of the ferry, who will operate it
and how it will be financed must again be determined prior to the adoption
of a budget for secondary roads improvement for fiscal year 1984-1985. As
the Board is aware, the ferry is currently being operated with an allocation
brought forward from the 1982-1983 secondary road improvement budget. The
$9,432.26 spent since July 1, 1982, has been charged to an original allo-
cation of $20,000 for this purpose. As you can see, there remains something
in excess of $10,000 in this fund. I expect the six year plan and secondary
improvement budget process to begin in January of 1984. I would request
that the Board give me some guidance concerning the continued financing of
the ferry prior to that time."
December 14~ 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Patrick Mullaney, Director of County Parks and Recreation, stated that since March,
1983, the Albemarle County Historical Society has become involved and has appointed a standing
committee entitled "The Hatton Ferry Committee". Mr. Mullaney stated the four functions of
this committee as being: the responsibility for recommending specific capital outlay projects
to improve the site; to raise funds for these projects; the responsibility to publicize the
historical aspects of the ferry to the citizens of Albemarle County; and to pursue the desig-
nation of the site as a Virginia Historic Landmark. Mr. Mullaney added that when the Hatton
Ferry CQmmittee report was sent, Mr. Roosevelt's report was not available. He suggested that
after the committee reviews this report, some changes in the hours or days of operation may be
recommended. Miss Nash said she would like to see the Highway Department continue to operate
the ferry for another fiscal year. It is her hope that by the end of the fiscal year, the
committee sponsored by the Historical Society will have come up with plans for raising funds to
operate the Hatton Ferry. Mr. Lindstrom said he supports operation of the ferry but does not
want to extend approval of using highway funds for another year based on the feeling that the
committee will determine how to fund this operation. Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded
by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve recommendations one and two as presented by the Hatton Ferry
Committee: The Highway Department continue to operate the ferry on the established, seasonal
schedule, and the Secondary Road ~Improvement funds be used to finance the operation of the
ferry. 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. 4(d). Presentation: Functional Highway Classification Plan
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning and Community Development, explained that
every seven or eight years the Highway Department requests the County to review the Functional
Classification System of highways. The last plan adopted by the Board was in 1975. The
classification system basically is to group highways and streets together according to the
character of service they provide. Functional classification can be applied in planning
highway system development, determining jurisdictional responsibility for particular systems,
but the primary purpose is for fiscal planning. Mr. Tucker said functional classification does
not affect the total amount of funding the county will receive; rather it provides the State
with more options for funding Albemarle's allocation. The Staff prepared recommendations based
on review of the 1975 Plan. On December 12, 1983, Staff met with Mr. Dan Roosevelt and Mr.
Frank Hancock of the Department of Highways and Transportation and modified the recommendations
made by Keith Mabe of the Department of Planning and Community Development in his memorandum of
December 9, 1983 as follows:
Meadowcreek Parkway (City limits to Rio Road) leave as major collector
as minor arterial classification is only appropriate for inter-county
routes.
Rio Road (City limits to~Meadowcreek Parkway) major collector
classification is recommended due to function with Meadowcreek.
Route 637 (Interstate 64 to County landfill) leave as major collector
due to the amount of traffic generated by landfill.
Route 637 (County landfill to Route 635 at Miller School) local road
classification is appropriate because traffic volume is low and Route 635
serves as the major connection to Route 250 West.
Route 635 (Miller School to Route 250 West) major collector status is
recommended due to connection to Route 250 and the deletion of Route 637.
Route 691 (Route 692 to Route 250 West) local road classification is
appropriate due to connection of Route 692 with Route 250 West.
Route 691 (Route 250 West to Route 240) major collector status should
remain as traffic volumes are quite high on certain segments.
Route 708 (Route 637 to Route 738) local road classification should
remain until traffic volumes increase. Also minor classification status
adds nothing to the funding options for Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation.
Route 616 (Fluvanna County to Route 250 East) Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation recommended this road for major collector
status due to the in-commuting from Fluvanna.
Route 20 Connector (Meadowcreek Parkway to Route 20 North) delete
because same was deleted from the CATS plan.
Route 692 (Route 691 to Route 250 West) major collector classification
is recommended due to the connection to Route 250 West. Also, Route 691
was recommended to be deleted.
Route 616 (Route 250 East to Interstate 64) major collector is
appropriate due to the interstate and the classification of the other part
of Route 616 to major collector.
December 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Roosevelt said that all this Functional Classification does is give the Highway
Department more options as to where they can obtain the money to pay for road improvements.
He pointed out that the County adopted a Plan in 1975 at the Urging of the Department of
Highways and Transportation. Mr. Tucker is merely presenting changes recommended by Staff and
the Highway Department. Mr. Roosevelt said a resolution is needed, and he then presented a
draft for the Board's review.
.Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the following
resolution:
WHEREAS, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 required that the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation realign the
Federal-Aid Highway Systems in Virginia by July 1, 1976'on the basis of
their current and anticipated functional usage; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has
previously functionally classified the State Highways in accordance with
the guidelines presented in the "Highway Functional Classification
Manual" (Volume 20, Appendix 12, Highway Planning Program Manual) and
developed the Realigned Federal-Aid Systems for Virginia in accordance
with the Federal-Aid Highway Prosram Manual (Volume 4, Chapter 6,
Section 7); and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on October 8,
1975, concurred with the "1985 Highway Functional Classification:. and
"Realigned Federal-Aid Highway Systems: for the County as developed by
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
has updated the Functional Classification/Federal-Aid Highway Systems
in accordance with the aforementioned Federal regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors concurs with the "1990 Highway Functional Classification:"
and "Realigned Federal-Aid Highway System: for the rural portion of
Albemarle County~as updated by the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation.
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. 4(d). Other Highway Matters.
No other Highway Matters were brought before the Board at this time.
Agenda Item No. 5. Appeal: Cason Fruit/Vegetable Specialty Food Store Site Plan.
Mr. Fisher noted the letter dated December 13, 1983, hand-delivered by Mr. George Cason
and read same as follows:
"I wish.to withdraw my application for a special retail store in the
Highway Commercial zone and my appeal from the Planning Commission
decision on advice of counsel. Mr. Robert Vaughn, Zoning Administrator
at the time, advised me that this is what I would have to do to sell
retail items other than my fruits and vegatables. My attorney advises
me that he believes my application is impossible if not inappropriate.
I thank the Board and the Staff for its consideration.
Signed,
George A. Cason."
Mr. Fisher asked what action the Board should take. Mr. St. John said the Board need not~
only that the appeal has been withdrawn; in other words, the decision of the Planning Commissi~
stands. Judge Gerald Tremblay, earlier this year, overruled a decision of the Board of Zoning
Appeals and found that Mr. Cason's activity needed an approved site plan in order to be legal.
Mr. St. John s~2d his office then received a letter from Mr. Cason saying that the business
had not been terminated. The Zoning Administrator found this out, and obtained a criminal
warrant from a magistrate. That is where the matter stands now; there is a proceeding pending
in General District Court on that warrant.
Mr. Fisher said there were some other citizens interested in this question who had expect
~o speak today. He asked if the Board wanted to open this matter for discussion. There were
no objections voiced to this procedure.
Mr. William West, an adjoining property owner, stated his objection is based on there
being no adequate site plan to protect his property. Mr. West noted that Mr. Cason's operatio:
is still in progress despite there being no approved site plan and despite attempts to termi-
nate the business. He said that even when the business is closed down on the highway, there
is still activity on the site. He would like to go on record as stating his belief that this
is not a seasonal operation. Mr. West is interested in having a provision included in any sit
plan approval that would provide a barrier between this business and his property. He feels
frustrated because all efforts have not resulted in closing down the business, providing some
reasonable protection of his property. Mr. West said this question has been in Court once.
He asked what is required to resolve this issue.
December 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
619
Mr. Fisher said that is definitely the question he has heard from a number of citizens.
He asked Mr. St. John for a response. Mr. St. John stated he originally felt it would be more
appropriate to discuss this issue in executive session as it involves litigation and pending
litigation, but now sees no reason why it cannot be discussed. He discussed the status of the
situation and some possible remedies. Mr. St. John said ~his~is the only remedy to correct the
issue; legal action in the Court of a criminal and/or civil nature. The Zoning Administrator
obtained a criminal warrant and that was set for trial, but the trial has been continued at
the request of Mr. Cason until January, 1984. Mr. St. John suggested a possible remedy by
notifying Judge Tremblay that despite his previous ruling requiring Mr. Cason to have a site
plan to continue operating his business, the business still operates without a site plan.
Perhaps a civil injunction can be obHainad~requesting Judge Tremblay to enjoin this activity.
Mr. St. John said that a zoning violation normally involves a twenty-five dollar fine and he
pointed out that in Mr. Cason's position, it may be well worth his incurring this fine in order
to continue operating through the Christmas season.
Mr. West said one of his concerns is the unauthorized use of his land as a bathroom
facility. He provided testimony and some pictures concerning this, all of which were admitted
as part of the Court record. The remedy he seeks is based on more than just operation of the
business with regard to whether or not Mr. Cason can sell items such as fireworks. Mr. West
feels the issue is much larger in that the narrow strips along Route 29 North abutting resi-
dential areas, do comprise a large portion of a problem the County may eventually have to face.
He feels that site plans of the future should be looked at very carefully with respect to the
barrier requirements and protection of adjoining land zoned for residential use. He feels this
problem will recur in other areas.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is anything allowed under State Code to remedy such a situa-
tion that is not a part of the County's Ordinance. Mr. St. John said State Code charges the
Zoning Adminstrator with the responsibility to enforce the zoning ordinances by civil or
criminal proceedings. The Zoning Administrator can issue a cease and desist order and if
ignored, his final remedy is to seek criminal or civil enforcement. Mr. St. John said he knew
of no other way to deal with this matter. He noted that on the average a twenty-five dollar
per day fine is imposed on zoning violators, though recurrent violations are generally viewed
more seriously. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the citizens need to feel that the County is doing
what it can to enforce its laws. Mr. St. John said he will attempt to bring out to the court
that the matter in question is a willful, knowing, ongoing violation which should result in far
more than the twenty-five dollar fine. Mrs. Cooke asked how many times this matter has been
brought up. Mr. St. John said there is a long history of the Cason matter. The Zoning Adminis
trator initially issued a cease and desist order. Mr. Cason brought that matter to the Board
of Zoning Appeals who overruled the Zoning Administrator and legitmized the business. The
Circuit Judge overruled the Board of Zoning Appeals and reinstated the Zoning Administrator's
ruling. There was a site plan submitted at one point, but that plan expired. The activity went
far beyond what was allowed on that site plan. Mr. St. John said the matter has been active
for approximately one year.
Mr. Fisher wanted it stated for the record that this was the second time the Cason appeal
had been placed on the Board's agenda. The first time the applicant requested a continuance.
The second time, being this date, and yesterday the applicant requested that the appeal be
withdrawn. Mr. Fisher asked if any action is required by the Board. Mr. St. John said no.
Agenda Item No. 6. Request re: 0akhill Water Company.
Mr. Fisher referred to a letter, dated November 22, 1983, from Ms. Sue B. Minor, President
of Oakhill Water Company, Inc. as follows:
"In accordance with section 56-265.3 of the Code of Virginia, in order
to obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the
State Corporation Commission to operate a public service corporation;
I am requesting approval of the governing body of the political
subdivision in which we are located.
We serve 458 customers.
and pipe lines.
Enclosed is a map locating area served, wells
If you have any further questions, please call me at 979-0856 (office)
or 295-5676 (residence).
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Signed
Sue B. Minor, President
0akhill Water Company, Inc."
Mrs. Minor was present but did not care to make any further remarks regarding the request.
Mr. Tucker read the following staff report:
"Request: Approval from County of Albemarle to obtain a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity from the State Corporation Commission.
Location: Currently, the Oakhill Water Company serves primarily Southwood
Mobile Home Park and 0akhill Subdivision. These developments are located
south of Interstate 64 and east of Route 631.
Current Service: The Oakhill Water Company indicates a provision of
service to 458 customers. The Waterworks Operation Permit issued by the
State Health Department authorizes 286 equivalent residential connections
(300 mobile homes and 63 dwellings in Oakhill).
December 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Proposed Service Area: The map submitted with this request does not
clearly identify current customers. Likewise, no specific service areas
are delineated. Some water lines in this system run through substantial
undeveloped acreages.
Staff Recommendation: While the issues raised regarding current and
future service could be addressed by submittal of more comprehensive
information, Staff opinion is that approval of this request would not
serve the public interest:
The County Attorney's letter of December 5, 1983, outlines
legal considerations with a recommendation that the Board not
approve Oakhil!'s application.
A time-established goal of the Comprehensive Plan is the cost-
effective and efficient provision of public utilities and
facilities. From the history of this well system, it does not
appear that a level of service comparable to that provided by
the Albemarle County Service Authority can be provided by the
Oakhill Water Company. The County, City, Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority, and the Albemarle County Service Authority have
made substantial investment in the protection and enhancement of
public water supplies and in the provision of a regional wastewater
treatment system. Authorizing competitive utility companies is
viewed as contrary to such investment, duplicative of service and
contrary to the cited goals of the Comprehensive Plan."
Mr. Tucker referred to a letter, dated December 5, 1983 from Mr. St. John, the County
Attorney (copy of letter is on file in the Clerk's office), which provides the Board with the
legal framework bearing on the Oakhill Water Company situation. Mr. Tucker read Mr. St. John'
remarks addressing the legal results of a company being granted a certificate of public
convenience and necessity as follows:
"If a company gets such a certificate, then there are two legal results:
a) A jurisdictional monopoly area is assigned to the company. The
company has to submit a map along with its application, and if that map is
approved along with the certificate of convenience and necessity, then the
company has a monopoly in that area as to any other company or any water
and sewer authority.
b) Once a certificate of convenience and necessity is issued, the
company will be immune from condemnation by the Service Authority or the
County. This section~ however, states that in a county which has formed
a water and sewer authority under the Virginia Water and Sewer Authority
Act (the Albemarle County Service Authority) no private company can obtain
a certificate of convenience and necessity without the approval of the
governing body of such county. The Code states no guidelines for with-
holding of this approval, and apparently none is required. If the
governing body withholds its approval, then according to this section no
certificate can issue from the State Corporation Commission .... "
Mr. St. John stated that Ms. Minor is already aware of the opinion he presented to Mr.
Tucker and the recommendations in his letter of December 5, 1983.
At this time, Mr. Fisher asked if any member of the public wished to speak.
Mr. Bruce Rasmussen, an attorney representing landowners on Route 20 South stated his
concurrence with the conclusions of Mr. St. John. Mr. Rasmussen said his clients would oppose
any monopoly created by the granting of a certificate of convenience and necessity. He stated
it is the preference of his clients that the County assume this water system. Mr. Rasmussen
said he and his clients disagree with some of the matters in Mr. St. John's letter concerning
alternatives for remedying the situation presently existing.
Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, stated that
the request from Oakhill Water Company has not been considered by the Board of Directors of th~
Albemarle County Service Authority, but is on their agenda for December 15, 1983. Mr. Brent
asked the Board not to approve the request until such time as the Service Authority Board can
review the matter.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adop~.~he~'£~lowing
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the request by Oak Hill Water Company, dated
November 22, 1983 to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for
approval of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity under
Virginia Code Section 56-265.3, is hereby denied.
Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
December 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Not Docketed: At this time, Mr. Fisher introduced students from Western Albemarle High
School attending Youth-In-Government Day: Pam Carlen, Patty Carver, Michelle LaFleur,
Betty Austin, Elizabeth Cook and Suzanne Ibbeken. Mr. Fisher then introduced the Board of
Supervisors and officers to the students.
At 11:24 A.M., motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adjourn
into an Executive Session for discussion of personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
The meeting reconvened into open session at 1:30 P.M. with Mr. Butler absent at this time.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing. Reapproval of industrial bond issue for Augusta
Lumber and Supply Company. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 1 and December 7,
1983.)
Mr. M. E. Gibson, counsel for Augusta Lumber and Supply, requested reapproval of an
industrial revenue bond issue for $900,000 which the Board previously approved on March 10,
1982. The $900,000 is for the construction and equipping of a lumber drying facility located
on Route 712 in North Garden, Virginia. The total cost of the project is approximately
$1,000,000. There is presently no lumber drying facility in Albemarle County; this industry
will provide five to six new jobs. Between the Board's approval of the industrial revenue
bonds and the present time, Congress amended Federal legislation relating to industrial bonds
and a public hearing is now required by the Industrial Development Authority prior to the
issuance of bonds. Mr. Gibson said that the resolution previously adopted by the Board is
still valid. On December 12, 1983, the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority
unanimously reapproved the project. Mr. Gibson then briefly discussed the project itself .....
Mr, Howard Carr, an officer of the company was present. The Company deals in fine hardwoods
which must be dried. Currently this work is all shipped to North Carolina, carrying revenue
out of the County. With construction of this facility, the revenue can remain in Albemarle
County.
Miss Nash asked if there was any change in the owner's plans since the Board's approval
two years ago. Mr. Gibson responded in the negative. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any
change in the amount of money requested. Mr. Gibson again replied no.
The public hearing was then opened.
hearing was closed.
There being no one present to speak, the public
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the
following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County,
Virginia, (the "Authority"), has considered the application of Augusta
Lumber and Supply, Incorporated (the "Company") requesting the issuance
of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not
to exceed $900,000 (the "Bonds") to assist in the financing of the
Company's construction and equipping of a lumber drying facility
consisting of approximately 10,672 square feet (the "Project") to be
located at the intersection of State Route 712 and State Route 296 in
North Garden, Albemarle County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing
thereon on December 12, 1983; and
WHEREAS, Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as
amended, provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over
the issuer of industrial development bonds and over the area in which
any facility financed with the proceeds of industrial development bonds
is located must approve the issuance of the bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia (the "County"); the Project is to be located in the
County and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia
(the "Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the
County; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the
issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance
of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the
public hearing, and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the
Board;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
i. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority
for the benefit of the Company, as required by Section 103(k) and
Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Virginia Code. to permit the Authority to
assist in the financing of the Project.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute
an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the
creditworthiness of the Project or the Company.
3. This Resolution shall take affect immediately upon its adoption.
'472
December 14~ 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
Agenda Item No. 9.
legislation.
Request from Albemarle County Transportation Safety Committee for
Mrs. Cooke said that a member of the Committee had suggested that legislation be introduc~
at this Session of the General Assembly requiring that half of the monies collected by the
Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program be returned to the locality in which the money was
collected, to be used for selective enforcement to combat drunken driving. Mrs. Cooke said
that due to increased efforts to control drunken driving, the strain on local law enforcement
officials has been substantially increased. She feels it would be helpful to have additional
money to aid in the enforcement of these laws and to implement the programs designed to reduce
drunken driving. A suggested resolution has been drafted and the Board is being requested to
adopt same and forward to local legislators.
Mrs. Cooke explained that when an individual is arrested for drunk driving, a fine of $25
is imposed, all of which goes to the Alcohol Safety Action Program for mandatory rehabilitatio~
of the offender. It is felt that the total amount of this fine is a great deal of money
considering the fact that ASAP receives this amount from each person arrested while driving
under the influence. Mrs. Cooke feels half of this money should be returned to the locality
for law enforcement purposes.
Miss Nash asked if ASAP is not in fact governed by a Board consisting of local judges and
various other people. Mr. Agnor replied in the affirmative. Mr. Fisher pointed out that
attempting to take money away from a program being run by judges and returning same to a
program being run by the police may not be feasible. Miss Nash suggested that not every arres'
results in a conviction. Mrs. Cooke said that despite this, every $250 fine collected is
channeled to ASAP and she feels this is a tremendous amount of money.
Sheriff George Bailey, also a member of the committee, was present. He said that in
Albemarle County his department will arrest approximately 200 people driving under the influen
of alcohol by the end of the year. The conviction rate is over ninety-five percent. Sheriff
Bailey continued that all the convictions result in a $250 fine, which money is given to ASAP~
Multiplying 200 arrests by $250 is a great deal of money, and he would like to see part of thi:
money returned to the locality for selective enforcement. Sheriff Bailey said he does not feel
that ASAP needs all this money to operate their program. He pointed out. that he had requested
from ASAP, ten pieces of equipment for breath tests. This equipment was to have been received
bY July but still has not been received. Mr. Fisher asked if Sheriff Bailey felt there is
sufficient money for ASAP's program. Sheriff Bailey said ASAP uses the money for administrati~
of their office, for their instructors and other-areas. Miss Nash felt ASAP does a wonderful
job and she would like more information regarding the actual amount of money collected through
fines and how much money ASAP actually needs to operate effectively. Mrs. Cooke said that the
Drunk Driving Task Force Committee has asked for this same information but it has not been
available up to this point. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the. staff prepare a report on funds
generated through the conviction and arrest system and the annual Alcohol Safety Action Progral
budget and present that information to the Board at the December meeting.
Mr. Agnor noted that Sheriff Bailey has been awarded a selective enforcement grant for
expenses related to law enforcement regarding drunk driving. Sheriff Bailey said the amount o~
money awarded was $6,240 for selective enforcement and the Program will begin at midnight on
January 1, 1984. Mr. Lindstrom asked how much money would be needed to facilitate the Sheriff
selective enforcement program. Sheriff Bailey said $25,000 plus would permit paying overtime
to indivduals who would work every weekend in an attempt to control the number of accidents
caused by drunk drivers. He added that the grant will not permit enforcement every weekend.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to defer this discussion to i
December 21 to allow the staff an opportunity to determine the amount of money generated
through the conviction and arrest system and to gather information regarding ASAP's annual
budget. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Butler.
Agenda Item No. 10.
Staff.
Transfer of funds - Reorganization of General County Government
Mr. Agnor referred to the memorandum of Mr. Ray Jones, dated December 8, 1983, recoma
mending General Fund transfer of funds~ to finalize the reorganization from a funding
standpoint. These transfers will provide the necessary monies in the proper departments for
salaries, fringe costs, operations~ supplies and furniture for the County Executive's office
and the Zoning Department. Salaries for the two deputy county executives prior to the reor-
ganization will continue to be paid out of the salary codes of the Finance Department and the
Planning Department. The total transfer needed is $35,452.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the transfers
within the General Fund as follows:
n
473
FROM:
1-1100-11010-309907
1-1100-12141-300200
Reserve for Contingencies
(Board of Supervisors)
Data Processing
(Finance-Real Estate)
$ 26,~10
8,542
$ 35,452
TO: County Executive's Budset
1-1000-12010-100100
1-1000-12010-200100
1-1000-12010-200200
1-1000-12010-200600
1-1000-12010-520100
1-1000-12010-520300
1-1000-12010-540100
1-1000-12010-542500
1-1000-12010-550400
1-1000-12010-700200
Compensation-Regular Salaries
FICA
Retirement
Group Life Insurance
Postage
Telephone
Office Supplies
Pool Car Mileage
Travel - Conventions and Education
Office Furniture
$ 5,634
394
645
60
100
600
60O
2O0
3OO
6,300
TOTAL
$ 14,833
TO: Zoning Department Budget
1-1000-81040-100100
1-1000-81040-200100
1-1000-81040-200200
1-1000-81040-200500
1-1000-81040-200600
1-1000-81040-520300
1-1000-81040-540100
1-1000-81040-700200
Compensation-Regular Salaries
FICA
Retirement
Hospital & Medical Plan
Group Life Insurance
Telephone
Office Supplies
Furniture & Equipment
$ 14,545
1,018
1,665
290
151
3O0
35O
27300
TOTAL $ 20~619
GRAND TOTAL
$ 35~452
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
Agenda Item 11. Public Hearing: Budget Amendments - Planning Grants.
the Daily Progress on December 6, 1983).
(Advertised in
Mr. Agnor referred to the memorandum from Melvin Breeden, dated November 22, 1983 re~uest~
appropriations and revenue amendments for three transportation grants. The Metro Planning
Grant PL Funds involve an amendment to an existing grant project appropriated by the Board of
Supervisors on July 15, 1983. The Metro Planning Grant - Section 8 Funds, and the Rural
Transporta~mn~ant, Section 18 Funds, are both new grants. Mr. Agnor then referred to the
memorandum from Keith Mabe, Chief of the Community Development Division, dated November 8,
1983 describing the purposes for which these grant funds were obtained:
"1) Metro Planning Grant - PL Funds
Purpose - to carry out a continuing, comprehensive and cooperative
transportation planning process as required by the Metropolitan
Planning Organization.
Products - Administration, audit, work program preparation, CATS
Route 29/eastern bypass, pedestrian circulation study, functional
classification, transportation systems management, interstate
intersection policies, and computerized comprehensive information
system.
2) Metro Planning Grant - Section 8 Funds
Purpose - Same as PL Funds.
Products - Pedestrian circulation study, feasibility of transit
operations, computerized comprehensive information system.
3) Rural Transportation Grant - Section 18 Funds
Purpose - to provide a needs assessment and working plan for the
provision of rural transportation services in Albemarle County.
Products - development of needs assessment and inventory of
transportation services."
At this time the public hearing was opened. There being no one present to address these
budget amendments, the public hearing was closed.
December 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Motion was offered by Mr. Linds~rom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve the amendment to
the existing grant project concerning Metro Planning Grant - PL Funds; to adopt two resolution
regarding appropriations from the Grant Fund (Metro Plan~i~g~Grant-~ Section 8 Funds, and Rural
Transportation Grant - Section 18 Funds); and the Revenue Amendments, as requested by Mr.
Breeden in his memorandum of November 22, 1983 as follows:
Metro Planning Grant - PL Funds
CODE DESCRIPTION ADJUSTMENT
1-1201-94000-100601
1-1201-94000-200100
1-1201-94000-540104
1-1201-94000-585004
Salaries - Interns
FICA
Copy Supplies
Transfer to General Fund
$-950
- 50
+ 25
+380
NET ADJUSTMENT
$-595
REVENUE AMENDMENT
2-1201-94000-800000
Grant Proceeds
$-595
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $7,200 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the Grant Fund (Metro Planning Grant - Section 8 Funds) and codes as
follows:
CODE DESCRIPTION
APPROPRIATION
1-1201-94002-100601
1-1201-94002-200100
1-1201-94002-540100
1-1201-94002-540104
1-1201-94002-550100
1-1201-94002-585004
Salaries - Interns
FICA
Office Supplies
Copy Supplies
Travel
Transfer to General Fund
930
70
75
50
150'
5925
TOTAL $7200
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1983-1984 County
budget is hereby amended by the addition of $7200 to the following code:
CODE DESCRIPTION
APPROPRIATION
2-1201-94002-800000
Grant Proceeds
$7200
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $2930 be, and the same hereby~is~pp~ppriated from the
Grant Fund (Rural Transportation Grant - Section 18 Funds) and coded
as follows:
CODE DESCRIPTION
APPROPRIATION
1-1201-94003-540100
1-1201-94003-540104
1-1201-94003-300200
1-120t-94003-550100
1-1201-94003-585004
Office Supplies
Copy Supplies
Data Processing
Travel
Transfer to General Fund
$ 5o
25
1000
2OO
1655
TOTAL $2930
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1983-1984 County
budget is hereby amended by the addition of $2930 to the following code:
CODE DESCRIPTION
APPROPRIATION
2-1201-94003-800000
Grant Proceeds
$293O
AND FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
Agenda Item No. 12. Budget Amendments - Education.
Mr. Agnor referred to the memorandum of November 28, 1983 from Melvin Breeden regarding
amendments to the Education Department's budget as follows:
:475
December 14~ 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
"The majority of the changes involve salary and fringe benefit codes,
resulting from these items being originally budgeted in several line
items which are now being distributed to the various cost centers which
were established for each school. This should permit a better comparison
of operating expenses.
Reductions in salaries and fringe benefit costs plus some reduction in
other operating costs will result in a net reduction of $244,315 which
is necessary due to projected revenue shortfalls.
I would recommend that appropriations be adjusted by categories as shown
in David Papenfuse's memo dated October 31, 1983 and not by individual
line items as shown in the detailed listing. This will provide for some
flexibility when making these adjustments in the accounting system. The
adjustments as shown in the line item detail were based on line item
balances in October, 1983 and since the actual adjustments will not be
made until December, 1983, I feel sure that some variations from the
detailed listing will be necessary."
(Mr. Butler returned to the meeting at 2:07 P.M.)
Mr. Agnor then noted receipt of a memorandum from David Papenfuse, Assistant
for Finance/Administration, dated October 31, 1983 which provided a categorical recap of the
changes requested for the Board's review. Also reviewed was a budget document approximately
65 pages in length, giving a detailed line item breakdown of the request.
CATEGORY
NET CHANGE
50 Administration
52 Instruction
54 Health
56 Transportation
58 Operation of Plant
60 Fixed Charges
64 Other Instruction
66 Capital Outlay
$~,~1
- 122,776
- 3,633
- 87,859
- 9,368
+ 14,532
- 15,057
- !9~073
$- 244,315
Mr. Papenfuse addressed the Board, explaining the contents of his FY83-84 First Quarter
Budget Adjustments with Exhibits Al, A2, Bi, B2, C1, C2, D1, D2, D3 and E, and discussing the
cost center changes and how the cost center concept works (contained in an exhibit referred to
as the "Green Book"). Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Jones if he had reviewed all the details behind
these changes. Mr. Jones replied in the affirmative, adding that what Mr. Papenfuse is doing
is reducing the overall education budget by $244,315 and distributing these changes through
eight major categories listed above. Mr. Lindstrom asked how the shortfall in revenues of
$244,315 occurred. Mr. Papenfuse said that the major portion of this reduction is based on
lower pupil attendance than was anticipated. Mr. Jones said he expects the State to soon
announce a greater receipt of State sales tax than originally was estimated which will offset
some of the shortfall. Mr. Agnor said the County expects sales tax to increase by $73,388.
Mr. Papenfuse said he has heard that the Governor will make an announcement by December 18
about the sales tax, which will be in line with his earlier announcement about the five percent
budget reduction for education. Mr. Papenfuse said the increase in sales tax revenue is
negated by the decrease in the ADA rate. Mr. Jones said the basic aid reimbursement based on
enrollment would be short some $317,700, but $73,388 of that amount is expected to be offset b
the increase in sales tax revenue. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom, to approve the request of the Albemarle County School Board to amend the overall
education budget decreasing same by $244,315 as outlined in the memorandum of David papenfuse
dated October 31, 1983, with said changes to be made categorically, as set out above.
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.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Papenfuse if he has been working on the revenue projections for next
year's budget. Mr. Papenfuse said he has been informed by the State Department of Education
that the composite index will be changed next year based on the zip code error in reporting
gross income for this area. Mr. Papenfuse added that at this point he has no way of knowing
what the full impact of this new formula will be. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Papenfuse about
the full budget for next year. He said there have been stories in the news media quoting
projections of an increase in revenues. He asked if these were based on County staff pro-
jections or some knowledge of what the General Assembly will do. Mr. ?apenfuse said he thinks
the news media may have misinterpreted some statements. It was mentioned that an increase of
the magnitude being requested by the teachers could be supported if the Schools experience an
equal or porportionate rise in revenues as has occurred during the current fiscal year.
December 14~ 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
"The majority of the changes involve salary and fringe benefit codes,
resulting from these items being originally budgeted in several line
items which are now being distributed to the various cost centers which
were established for each school. This should permit a better comparison
of operating expenses.
Reductions in salaries and fringe benefit costs plus some reduction in
other operating costs will result in a net reduction of $244,315 which
is necessary due to projected revenue shortfalls.
I would recommend that appropriations be adjusted by categories as shown
in David Papenfuse's memo dated October 31, 1983 and not by individual
line items as shown in the detailed listing. This will provide for some
flexibility when making these adjustments in the accounting system. The
adjustments as shown in the line item detail were based on line item
balances in October, 1983 and since the actual adjustments will not be
made until December, 1983, I feel sure that some variations from the
detailed listing will be necessary."
(Mr. Butler returned to the meeting at 2:07 P.M.)
Mr. Agnor then noted receipt of a memorandum from David Papenfuse, Assistant Superintende~
for Finance/Administration, dated October 31, 1983 which provided a categorical recap of the
changes requested for the Board's review. Also reviewed was a budget document approximately
65 pages in length, giving a detailed line item breakdown of the request.
CATEGORY
NET CHANGE
50 Administration
52 Instruction
54 Health
56 Transportation
58 Operation of Plant
60 Fixed Charges
64 Other Instruction
66 Capital Outlay
$ ~!,~l
- 122,776
- 3,633
- 87,859
- 9,368
+ 14,532
- 15,057
- 19~073
$- 244,315
Mr. Papenfuse addressed the Board, explaining the contents of his FY83-84 First Quarter
Budget Adjustments with Exhibits Al, A2, Bi, B2, C1, C2, D1, D2, D3 and E, and discussing the
cost center changes and how the cost center concept works (contained in an exhibit referred to
as the "Green Book"). Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Jones if he had reviewed all the details behind
these changes. Mr. Jones replied in the affirmative, adding that what Mr. Papenfuse is doing
is reducing the overall education budget by $244,315 and distributing these changes through th~
eight major categories listed above. Mr. Lindstrom asked how the shortfall in revenues of
$244,315 occurred. Mr. Papenfuse said that the major portion of this reduction is based on
lower pupil attendance than was anticipated. Mr. Jones said he expects the State to soon
announce a greater receipt of State sales tax than originally was estimated which will offset
some of the shortfall. Mr. Agnor said the County expects sales tax to increase by $73,388.
Mr. ?apenfuse said he has heard that the Governor will make an announcement by December 18
about the sales tax, which will be in line with his earlier announcement about the five percent
budget reduction for education. Mr. Papenfuse said the increase in sales tax revenue is
negated by the decrease in the ADA rate. Mr. Jones said the basic aid reimbursement based on
enrollment would be short some $317,700, but $73,388 of that amount is expected to be offset by
the increase in sales tax revenue. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom, to approve the request of the Albemarle County School Board to amend the overall
education budget decreasing same by $244,315 as outlined in the memorandum of David Papenfuse
dated October 31, 1983, with said changes to be made categorically, as set out above.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messr~s. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. ?apenfuse if he has been working on the revenue projections for next
year's budget. Mr. ?apenfuse said he has been informed by the State Department of Education
that the composite index will be changed next year based on the zip code error in reporting
gross income for this area. Mr. ?apenfuse added that at this point he has no way of knowing
what the full impact of this new formula will be. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Papenfuse about
the full budget for next year. He said there have been stories in the news media quoting
projections of an increase in revenues. He asked if these were based on County staff pro-
jections or some knowledge of what the General Assembly will do. Mr. Papenfuse said he thinks
the news media may have misinterpreted some statements. It was mentioned that an increase of
the magnitude being requested by the teachers could be supported if the Schools experience an
equal or porportionate rise in revenues as has occurred during the current fiscal year.
_~¢ember 14: 198~ (Regular Day Meeting)-
Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion:
1983 Session of General Assembly.
Comprehensive Conflict of Interests Act - Adopted by
Mr. St. John noted that all the Board members including the two supervisors-elect have
received copies of the new Conflict of Interests Act. He briefly explained that the new
Conflict of Interest Act is little different from the previous one with respect to local
governments. The main difference lies in the processing of the disclosure statements in that
as of July 1, 1983, the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors receives these forms and distributes
same accordingly. With respect to the Personal Interest Disclosure form, the Board has the
option of adding individuals to the list of those required to file these forms. Otherwise,
only the Board members themselves must file. Mr. St. John then briefly discussed three
substantive areas which are part of the new Conflict of Interests Act: the first being the
prohibition against any Board member contracting with the County or the Board of Supervisors.
In addition, no corporation or business entity in which a Board member owns. any interest, as
defined by the Act, can contract with Albemarle County or the Board. The second area is the
prohibition against any Board member participating in official actions before the Board in
which a Board member has a personal interest. The third area is new for local officials and i
the prohibition against any Board member accepting gifts or gratuities, or positions of employ-
ment which any Board member realizes is being offered as a means to influence an action coming
before the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. ~Fisher noted that neither the Real Estate Disclosure Form nor the Personal Interest
Disclosure form is due to be filed until January 15, 1984. Mr. St. John stated that the Code
of Virginia requires that each member of the governing body be furnished a copy of the Freedom
of Information Act which he requested be placed in the Board's packet. He noted there were no
changes and felt it unnecessary to discuss. Mr. Fisher noted the Real Estate and Personal
Disclosure forms are to be filed with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors and added that this
is a change.
Agenda Item No. 16.
Albemarle County.
Letter re:
Land disposal of sewage sludge on certain parcels in
Mr. Agnor referred to the letter from Ronald E. Conner, Regional Director of the Departmen
of Health, Division of Water Programs, dated December 1, 1983 as follows:
"Additions to the previously approved 'Comprehensive Sludge Disposal Plan
for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority' have been received by this
Department. This submittal, as prepared by the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority staff, includes additional parcels of agricultural land in
Albemarle County which will be utilized as disposal sites for stabilized
sewage sludge generated at the Moores Creek wastewater treatment facility.
The sludge material is to be applied by the respective land owners under the
supervision of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority in accordance with the
Sewerage Regulations and the Authority's approved sludge disposal plan.
The additional sites include ten separate parcels of land totaling 256.6 acres.
Annual sludge loadings to these sites will not exceed 5.0 dry tons per acre
and will allow the disposal of a maximum of 1,283 dry tons of compost material
per year. The specific application sites are given below. Additional sites
may be submitted for approval at a future date.
1) Thirty-nine and three tenths (39.3) acre parcel of Clover Hill Farm
owned by Herman Loose, Route 22 North near Cismont.
2) Sixteen and six tenths (16.6) acre parcel of Clover Hill Farm owned
by Herman Loose, Route 22 North near Cismont.
3) Twenty-two and four tenths (22.4) acre parcel of Clover Hill Farm
owned by Herman Loose, Route 22 North near Cismont.
4) Twenty-eight and three tenths (28.3) acre parcel of Clover Hill Farm
owned by Herman Loose, Route 22 North near Cismont.
5) Thirty-eight (38) acre parcel of Forest Hill Lodge owned by I. J.
Breeden, State Route 20, 4.0 miles south of Charlottesville.
6) Twenty-two (22) acre parcel of Forest Hill Lodge owned by
I. J. Breeden, State Route 20, 4.0 miles south of Charlottesville.
7) Thirty-five (35) acre parcel owned by Bart J. Shaw-Kennedy located
1.0 miles east of Route 20 North on the north side of Route 612.
8) Twenty (20) acre parcel owned by Bart J. Shaw-Kennedy located on
the west side of Route 20 North and 1.0 mile south of Route 612.
9) Twenty-seven (27) acre parcel owned by Bart J. Shaw-Kennedy located
on the west side of Route 20 North and 1.0 mile south of Route 612.
10) Eight (8) acre parcel owned by Bart J. Shaw-Kennedy located 1.0 mile
east of Route 20 North on the south side of Route 612.
You are being notified in accordance with recently enacted legislation of
the General Assembly which adds Section 32.1-164.2 to the health laws of
the Commonwealth and requires that the Board of Health, upon receipt of
application for land disposal of sewage or sewage sludges, shall notify
the local governing bodies where disposal is to take place. The Board of
Health shall not consider the application for land disposal of sewage or
sewage sludges to be complete until comment has been received from the
local governing body or until 30 days have lapsed from the date the local
governing body is notified."
478
Deaember 14: 2985 (ReMu~ar
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve the ten additional
sites noted in the above referenced letter. 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.
Mr. Agnor said the staff had wondered about putting this item on the Board's agenda since
this is part of the Rivanna's "Comprehensive Sludge Disposal Plan" which was adopted by the
Board on June 8, 1983. He asked if the Board wanted to continue reviewing such applications.
Mr. LindsVrom said it really did not mean much to him; only that he knows some of the owners
involved. He would assume that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority will follow the approved
plan. Mr. Agnor asked if it was the general consensus that the staff would not bring these
applications to the Board unless there was some controversy. There were no comments from the
Board members.
Agenda Item No. 17. Virginia Association of Counties (VAC0)/Virginia Municipal League
(VML) Telephone Rates and Negotiations Committee. -~
Mr. Agnor re~ferred to the memorandum from the VML/VAC0 Telephone Steering Committee, date¢
December 2, 1983, excerpted below:
"...because it is critically essential that the Steering Committee have
wide support across the state in order to negotiate effectively, the
Steering Committee is requesting each locality to adopt a resolution
expressly authorizing the Committee to negotiate.
...Accordingly, the Steering Committee is recommending that each
jurisdiction which supports the principle of negotiation go on record
as being opposed to any such amendment to Virginia law.
...Therefore, at its November 28, 1983 meeting, the Steering Committee
unanimously adopted a recommendation to local governments that current
telephone rates be paid (rather than any increased rates) pending
negotiation of acceptable rates.
...Since school boards and other agencies of local governments will
probably receive separate telephone bills, local government officials
should issue instructions with respect to the payment of such bills."
Mr. Agnor, in his memorandum to the Board of Supervisors, dated December 9, 1983,
explained as follows:
"VACO and VML have joined together in appointing a steering committee
to negotiate telephone rates for the telephone systems used by counties,
cities, and towns in the Chesapeake and Potomac (C&P) service area.
Virginia law provides that utility rates to local governments are not
subject to the jurisdictions of the State Corporation Commission.
Traditionally, utility companies have offered rates to local government
that were the same as their rates for business customers adopted by the
State Corporation Commission. As you know, VACO and VML have successfully
negotiated favorable electric rates with Virginia Electric and Power
Company (VEPC0) and Appalachian Power Company (APCO) in recent years.
To date C & P has not agreed to negotiate with the VAC0/VML Committee,
and has taken the position that a number of local governments are not
supportive of the committee's actions and have not authorized negotiation
by the Committee. Additionally, C & P is soliciting support of local
government officials to seek an amendment to the State law that would
place local government rates under the jurisdiction of the State
Corporation Committee.
In Albemarle, C & P serves only the Greenwood School, and the Greenwood
Community Center, plus one line to Western Albemarle High School related
to the Valley Technical Education Center for a computer hook-up. The
County's concern in this current negotiation effort is minimal.
Distribution of negotiating costs among local governments is based upon
population, which is not a good measurement of relative benefits.
Although it may be important to support the negotiations from the
standpoint of the principles involved, in the event that negotiations
with other telephone companies, such as Central Telephone and Telegraph
(Centel) follow this initial effort, such negotiations will have costs
involved that would legitimately be borne by the affected jurisdictions.
It is recommended that:
l)
3)
Albemarle not join these negotiations because of the funding
formula;
Opposition to State code amendments be deferred until the
amendments are factual;
Telephone bills be paid as received. If rates are later
amended, credits are always applied to accounts that have
been kept current."
December .14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
479
Mr. Fisher noted his agreement with Mr. Agnor's recommendations saying he felt these
negotiations would cost the County more than would be realized in savings. Mr. Lindstrom also
acknowledged his concurrence with Mr. Agnor's recommendations. Mr. Fisher asked the Board if
anyone desired to authorize the Steering Committee to negotiate with C & P on Albemarle County'
behalf. There being no Board member desiring to support the request made by the Steering
Committee, Mr. Agnor stated he would respond to the Committee in accordance with the wishes of
the Board.
Agenda Item No. 18. Appointments.
Mr. Agnor briefly outlined the process which was followed in the recruiting of a Chief of
Police, as outlined in his memorandum dated December 2, 1983:
"On September 14, 1983, you approved the job description for the Chief
of Police, along with appropriate specifications and a salary range. At
that meeting, you authorized the staff to begin the advertising, screening,
and interview process.
Advertising was placed in newspapers of general circulation in the
Washington, D.C., Richmond, Roanoke and Tidewater areas. This advertising
resulted in a strong field of forty-one applicants from eight states, with
a large group from Virginia. The applicants were from Federal, State, and
local government law enforcement agencies and included several chiefs of
police and deputy chiefs.
Initial screening of the applications was conducted by a panel which
included, Ray Jones, Acting County Executive, Dr. Carole Hastings, Director
of Personnel, and Russell Otis, Executive Assistant. The panel selected
fourteen of the applicants for an initial interview. In the interview
process, the panel was joined by Mr. George Chimenti, a local citizen
retired from over thirty years experience in law enforcement work and
police administration. Mr. Chimenti is currently directing the Police
Science program a~ Piedmont Community College.
At the conclusion of these interviews, an advisory recommendation of five
applicants was recommended to this office. I reviewed all of the applicants
with Sheriff Bailey and concurred in the fourteen selected by the panel based
upon educational backgrounds and law enforcement experience. The five
applicants recommended by the panel were invited for a second interview, and
the results of the interviews were discussed with Sheriff Bailey.
As you already know, Section 15.1-598 of the Virginia Code requires that the
County Executive make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for the
appointment of department heads. In accordance with this requirement, I will
be prepared to make such a recommendation in executive session at your
December 7 meeting."
Mr. Agnor then recommended that Mr. Frank W. Johnstone, currently the Director of the
University of Virginia Police Department, be appointed to the position of Chief of Police, to
be effective February 1, 1984. Mr. Agnor added that should Mr. Johnstone be appointed, he will
serve as Deputy Chief of Police under Sheriff Bailey until July 1, 1984, at which time he will
assume his full responsibilities as Chief of the Albemarle County Police Department.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to appoint Mr. Frank W.
Johnstone as Chief of Police, effective February 1, 1984. Mr. Lindstrom stated he feels very
comfortable with the process used in selecting Mr. Johnstone for this position. Mrs. Cooke
said she also felt comfortable with the process used in selecting Mr. Johnstone. Mr. Agnor
informed the Board that the starting salary offered Mr. Johnstone is $30,300.00 (in round
numbers). Mr. Butler acknowledged his support of the motion, adding his approval of the
procedure used. Miss Nash said she is happy to have Mr. Johnstone joining the County in this
position. Mr. Agnor expressed his gratitude to Sheriff Bailey for his participation and
support in recruiting and filling the position of Chief of Police.
At this time, 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.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to appoint Mr. Keith Mabe,
Chief of Planning and Community Development, and Mr. Tom Muncaster, Civil Engineer, to serve
on the Resource Recovery Commission. 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.
480
December 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 20(a). Discussion. Organizational Meeting for Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Fisher noted the organization meeting of the Board would normally be held on
January 4, 1984 at 7:30 P.M., which is a regularly scheduled meeting. However, because the
Conference for new Supervisors begins on that date, Mr. Fisher suggested holding the meeting
instead on January 3, 1984, at 1:00 P.M., in Meeting Room 7 of the County Office Building.
Motion to this effect was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. 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.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to cancel the regular
meeting scheduled for January 4, 1984 at 7:30 P.M. 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. 21. Other Matters Not On The Agenda.
Mr. Lindstrom said that the Piedmont Environmental Council is considering ways of assisti:
local governments in their nine county service region and in farmland preservation through
private incentive. The Piedmont Environmental Council has requested permission to have one or
more of its staff members work in the County Office Building for the purpose of reviewing
County records in an attempt to determine how much land is under Land Use Taxation, how much
land in the County is actually good agricultural soil, and the tax implications of the land usc
tax on the County. As the information the Piedmont Council representative will review is
already public information, Mr. Lindstrom merely wanted to inform the Board of this review.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Mr. Andrew C. Epps, of the United States
Department of HUD, dated December 1, 1983, regarding a preliminary proposal for housing assist.
ance in Albemarle County under the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program for New
Construction. The proposal numbered VA 36-H027-262 calls for 130 units to be located in
Branchiands. Mr. Fisher asked if any action is required by the Board. Mr. Tucker briefly
explained the background relative to Mr. Epps' letter, saying that the Board has already
approved this project through application of the Virginia Housing Development Authority. A
Certificate of Approval, dated July 13, 1983, was approved by the Board stating that "all
approvals necessary under all applicable local ordinances and regulations must be obtained."
The Branchlands PUD Plan has to be amended in order to locate the number of dwellings units
requested. The letter from Mr. Epps basically requests the same approval. Mr. Tucker said he
has already responded to Mr. Epps letter informing him that the Board took action on the
request from the Virginia Housing Development Authority and he has no problem with the proposal
providing all regulations are met. Mr. Tucker also informed Mr. Epps that. the Planning
Commission has reviewed the amendment to the Branchlands PUD and recommends denial because the
proposal fails to address several pertinent issues. The applicant will request deferral by th~
Board of Supervisors in order to resolve the issues. Mr. Tucker said the reason for needing al
amendment of the Branchlands plan is that the section selected for these units is approved for
only eighty-two units, whereas the applicant is requesting 130 units. Mr. Tucker said an
official at HUD had informed him that they will approve the eighty-two units if the applicant
wishes to consider this. It is Mr. Tucker's understanding the applicant is considering that
lower number. Should the applicant decide to accept the lesser number, they will withdraw
their application and submit a site plan under the PUD concept. Mr. Tucker said no action on
the letter is required by the Board.
Miss Nash referred to a memorandum from Mr. Rey Barry, Chairman of the Albemarle County
Equalization Board, dated December 6, 1983, requesting that the Board authorize additional
information to be printed on the County's Notice of Change in Real Estate Appraisal concerning
the owner's rights of appeal. Mr. Jones said that information explaining the procedure for ~
appealing an assessment will be rewritten to be as clear and comprehensible as possible. Mr.
Ag~br suggested that a separate'statement attached to the notice statement would be more
appropriate than printing the information on the reverse of the Notice of Change. Mr. Agnor
pointed out that the wording suggested by Mr. Barry does not indicate the public's option to
carry an appeal beyond t. he Equalization Board to the Circuit Court. Both he and Mr. Jones
agree that this needs to be stated.
December 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
.481
The Board recessed at 3:30 P.M. and reconvened at 4:07 P.M. in the "Green Room" on
the Fourth Floor of the County Office Building, with Miss Nash being absent at this time.
Agenda Item No. 19. Discussion of Buck Mountain Reservoir project.
The following persons were present on behalf of the respective parties involved in
the matter regarding the Buck Mountain~project:
Albemarle Board of Supervisors: ~Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke and
Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. and C. Timothy Lindstrom.
Charlottesville City Council:
E. G. Hall.
Mrs. Elizabeth Gleason and Messrs. Frank Buck and
Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors: Messrs. Thomas E. Bruce, Jr.,
Norman P. Gillum, and L. A. Lacy and Mrs. Elizabeth Tewksbury.
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor,
Jr.; County Engineer, Maynard Elrod; City Manager, Cole Hendrix; City Director of Public
Works, John Berberich; and Mrs. Treva Cromwell, Chairman.
The following staff members were present: Mr. George Williams, Executive Director
of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority; Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director of the
Albemarle County Service Authority; Mr. Harry Marshall, Attorney for the Rivanna Water &
Sewer Authority; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. William Norris, Watershed
Management Official.
Mrs. Treva Cromwell, Chairman of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, was present
and noted appreciation for all parties present ~in the effort to help the Authority resolve
the problems which have resulted during the last few months regarding the Buck Mountain
Reservoir project. The purpose of the discussion is to request modification of the
resolution defining the criteria which was adopted in January 1983 and under which the
Authority has been working. Mrs. Cromwell said Mr. George Williams is present to explain
the rationale of the criteria changes. In conclusion, Mrs. Cromwell said the final
request is that the four parties to the agreement grant the Rivanna Authority full
responsibility for further decisions regarding the Buck Mountain Reservoir project with
the understanding that the Rivanna Authority will meet the guidelines of the proposed
resolution and will assume full responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the
Reservoir.
Mr. George Williams reviewed the following statement dated December 8, 1983:
"The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, the Charlottesville City Council,
the Albemarle County Service Authority, and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
formulated and adopted criteria in late 1982 which identified the areas required
for the future Buck Mountain Supplemental Water Supply project. In early 1983,
a Joint Resolution was signed among all the parties which established the
mechanism whereby the costs of the project could be distributed.
Following the adoption of the Joint Resolution, the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority had the affected areas mapped concurrent with additional engineering
studies. Criteria established for acquisition of land necessary for the project
were applied to detailed mapping of the area and a public hearing was held
by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority on the interpretation of these
criteria on October 25, 1983.
Review of the public hearing comments and subsequent staff evaluation of the
reservoir proposal has prompted the need for consideration of certain changes
in the land acquisition criteria as agreed to by the four signators of the joint
resolution. *Posted on the wall were the following: (Map A showing the
Buck Mountain acquisition as the original criteria was interpreted.
Map B showing the area with the suggested changes.) These changes
concern: (1) the need for acquiring slope additions to the acquisition line by
easement rather than by fee simple acquisition; (2) the addition of
slope easements to the easement area as established from the one hundred
year flood plain; and (3) consideration for notch exemptions for six
existing homes located adjacent to or crossed by the outer limits of the
acquisition line.
Slope additions to acquisition line. The criteria requires that a minimum
buffer zone of 300 horizontal feet measured from the normal pool level be
purchased using the fee simple method. One of the criteria for extending
beyond the 300 feet distance is critical or steep slope conditions. The
adopted criteria requires that the additional area be acquired by the fee
simple method. Staff consensus is that extension of the acquisition line
by easement rather than fee simple is adequate to protect the proposed
reservoir and will be less costly for the consumers.
S.~ppe additions to one hundred year flood plain. The adopted criteria
does not address the question of extension of the easement on steep
slopes from the one hundred year flood plain. (Mr. Williams noted that
during last year's discussion, there was an indication of intent to do
this but such action was not taken.) Staff consensus is that addition
of these slopes by easement should be included in the criteria. This
would provide additional benefit to future water quality by controlling
certain land disturbing activities in these sensitive areas.
48'2
December 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Notch exemptions for six existing homes on or near the acquis'it'~on line. There
are six homes located on or near the acquisition line. Since the Joint resolution
had no provision to decrease the project area, the original map propOsal as taken
to public hearing was drawn to include these six homes. These homes have an
assessed value of approximately $800,000 and the land on which they are located
represent approximately 12.5 acres or 0.7 percent of the land to be acquired.
(Mr. Williams said he discovered this morning that the amount is actually
0.5 percent.) It is recommended that upon request of the affected
homeowner, consideration be made for a notch exemption in the acquisition
line if (1) provision can be made for a septic system tank outside of
the acquisition line, and (2) that a minimum residue lot of two acres
remains with the parcel unless the parcel is part of a PUD previously
approved by the Cpunty of Albemarle in which case a smaller residue
parc~Ouldi~be a~towed.. ~tt &s the staff consensus that notch exemptions as
indicated above Wmuld have negligible affect on water quality, would be less
costly, and would be of less hardship on affected homeowners.
Maps showing the acquisition areas with and without the above modifications
are available for review in the Watershed Management Official's office and
will be on display at the joint meeting on December lq at 4:00 p.m. in the County
Office Building.
It is conceivable that other issues will develop during the course of acquiring
these properties. The parties to the joint resolution should agree that the
Rivanna Board assume full responsibility for the Buck Mountain project from
this point forward and further decisions affecting this project should be made
by that Board, similar to other capital projects undertaken by Rivanna."
Mayor Buck said since some persons present are not familiar with past discussions,
perhaps an explanation could be given regarding what further decisions are to be made
affecting the project. Mr. Williams said there are a number of parcels involved and one
particular decision that may need to be resolved is what will be done when a landowner's
drinking water well is located four or five feet outside of the acquisition line. He
said the Rivanna Board of Directors feel such a situation should be within their authority
to decide.
Mr. Butler asked if this new proposal would alleviate complaints from some of the
affected homeowners. Mr. Williams said there are a total of ten homes involved in the
pool acquisition and it appears that six will meet the above criteria and therefore be
exempt from purchase. However, it is felt that the other four will not be exempt.
Mrs. Gleason asked the reason for slope acquisition being by easement rather than
fee simple. Mr. Williams explained that the Rivanna Board of Directors feels that adequate
controls can be placed by easement and this will allow the property to continue in
private ownership. This approach would be less costly to the Authority and would allow the
property owner to continue owning and using the land to an extent. Mrs. Gleason asked if
any use could be made of slope areas. Mr. Williams said yes, the slopes can be grazed,
but not cultivated.
Mr. Hall then asked what other type of incidents might occur other than the situation
with a well just mentioned. Mr. Williams said there may be situations involving a septic
system location or a family graveyard. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Williams was referring to
a septic system located outside of the original acquisition line or a new acquisition
line. Mr. Williams said the system would have to be outside of the three hundred foot
criteria. Mrs. Gleason asked who would have to pay for moving a septi~ system. Mr.
Williams said the Authority would be required to make payment.
Mayor Buck asked the significance for the two-acre recommendation in Mr. Williams'
statement versus one-acre or one-half acre. Mr. Williams said two acres was chosen
because that is minimum lot size in the RA district in the County. Mayor Buck asked if
the amount of acreage was reduced, if other homes would be exempt. Mr. Williams did not
feel that would make any further difference. Mayor Buck said he was just trying to
confirm that there is not another house similiarly situated that would not be exempt
because there was only a residue of one-half acre. Mr. Williams said he did not think
there were any similiar situations. The reason for exempting the house in the PUD was
for less cost to both the homeowners and the Authority. Mr. Fisher asked the maximum
depth of the notch in the three hundred foot setback. In other words, how close would
any structure actually be to the water's line. Mr. Norris said anywhere from 100 to 270
feet. If it is not feasible to relocate the septic field outside of the three hundred
foot easement, then the exemption would not be given.
Mrs. Cromwell distributed a copy of a proposed resolution and noted that the Authority's
Board and the homeowners effected by this project are very anxious to proceed. Discussion
followed on the inclusion of the revised criteria as summarized in the foregoing writing
by Mr. Williams as well as the two maps presented for discussion today. Mr. Lindstrom
suggested amending the resolution ~by the inclusion of the revised criteria as Exhibit A
and the maps be included as Exhibi~ B-1 and Exhibit B-2, Mr. Lindstrom said he could
understand that the Authority would want to avoid having to get all four parties involved
in this matter every time something needs to be resolved. Mrs. Cromwell said the Rivanna
Authority will make every effort to defend the integrity of the proposed Reservoir site
and if a major problem occurs, the Authority will consult the four parties.
December 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
483
Motion was offered at this time by Mr. Lindstrom, and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to
adopt the resolution presented today ~y Mrs. Cromwell with the following amendment on the
second page, subparagraph 1, that the revised criteria as shown in the "Conclusions
Regarding a Reservoir on Buck Mountain Creek as affirmed by the Board of Supervisors and
City Council" be marked Exhibit A and maps on the wall submitted and approved for the
acquisition of land be marked Exhibit B (noted as Exhibits B-1 and B-2 in the following
resolution). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Miss Nash.
JOINT.~RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, the City Council
of the City of Charlottesville, the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County
Service Authority, and the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority in January, 1983 adopted a Joint Resolution approving the acquisition
by Rivanna of property for the Buck Mountain raw water supply; and
WHEREAS, the parties previously adopted criteria to be applied in
determining the area to be acquired in fee and the area to be controlled by
the acquisition of easements; and
WHEREAS, the staff of the Rivanna Authority after careful study of the
affected areas, has recommended certain changes in the adopted criteria, for
reasons of economy, to provide better watershed protection, or to accommodate
certain existing homeowners where such accommodation can be made without
impairing future water quality, and has submitted a revised criteria for the
acquisition of land and easements for the proposed Buck Mountain water supply;
and
WHEREAS, a possibility exists that minor changes not now contemplated may
occur during property acquisition, the Rivanna Authority requests that it be
allowed to make such changes as, in its sole discretion, it may determine to be
in the best interest of all parties to this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, maps have been prepared delineating the changes proposed, have
been shown to the parties to this Resolution, and are now on file in the office
of the Watershed Management Official;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, the Board of Directors
of the Albemarle County Service Authority, and the Board of Directors of the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority that:
(1) The revised criteria as shown on the "Conclusions Regarding a
Reservoir on Buck Mountain Creek as affirmed by the Board of Supervisors and
City Council", marked Exhibit A, and the maps submitted marked Exhibit B-1 and
Exhibit B-2 are approved for use in the acquisition of land and easements for
the proposed Buck Mountain water supply.
(2) The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is authorized to make minor
changes in the areas to be acquired in fee or by easement when, in its sole
discretion, it determines such changes to be in the best interest of the parties
to this Resolution.
(3) In all other respects the terms of the Joint Resolution of January,
1983, as amended by a resolution in May, 1983, clarifying the intent of
Paragraph 4B, are hereby reaffirmed.
ATTEST:
(SIGNED BY) Lettie E. Neher
Clerk
ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
February 1 , 1984
(SIGNED BY) Gerald E. Fisher
Chairman
ATTEST:
(SIGNED BY) Jeanne Cox
Clerk
ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
December 14 , 1983
(SIGNED BY) Frank Buck
Mayor
ATTEST:
(SIGNED BY) J. W. Brent
Clerk
ADOPTED BY THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY
SERVICE AUTHORITY
December 14 , 1983
(SIGNED BY) L. A. Lacy
Chairman
ATTEST:
(SIGNED BY) Guy B. Agnor~ Jr.
Secretary
ADOPTED BY THE RIVANNA WATER AND
SEWER AUTHORITY
December 14 , 1983
(SIGNED BY) Treva W. Cromwell
Chairman
The Board of Directors for the Rivanna Authority, the Board of Directors for the
Albemarle County Service Authority, and the City Council members present also voted
approval of the foregoing Joint Resolution.
'484
December 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Mr. Butler left the meeting at 4:40 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 20. Discussion: Proposed Legislation re: Airport.
Mr. Agnor, Chairman of the Airport Board, said Ms. Sheila C. Haughey, Assistant City
Attorney and Counsel for the Airport Board, is present to explain the legislation proposed
for the creation of a political subdivision to be known as the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport Authority.
Ms. Haughey offered apologies that the revised draft to replace the draft of October
3, 1983 had not been delivered to the Board in advance of today's meeting. Ms. Haughey
then read from her memo of December 12, 1983:
"In the last several years the Airport Board and its manager have often been
frustrated by the Board's lack of financial flexibility in connection with
their ability to make necessary capital improvements at the airport. The
current owner of the airport, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Board,
was created by agreement of the City and County under general enabling
legislation and, as such, operates under severe State constitutional
financial restrictions.
The legislation was conceived in an effort to allow the growing airport
to finance necessary capital improvements with laa~a or bonds repayable
solely from airport revenues. Senator Thomas J. Michie, Jr. was kind
enough to enlist the assistance of Legislative Services in drafting the
bill, and he has agreed to introduce it in the 1984 session of the General
Assembly. If all goes well, the Authority will be in place July 1, 1984.
Under this legislation, the General Assembly would create the Authority
directly and the Authority would acquire the airport from the Airport
Board which would then go out of business. The three-member Authority
would consist of the City Manager or his or her principal assistant, as
selected by Council; the County Executive or his or her principal assistant,
as selected by the Board of Supervisors; and a Joint Airport Commission
member selected directly by joint action of the Council and the Board of
Supervisors. (Council and the Board would continue to appoint a seven-member
advisory commission.)
The Authority would not have the right of eminent domain. Albemarle County
could condemn property and convey it to the airport, if necessary.
The Authority would have the power to issue revenue bonds and refunding bonds
and to borrow money in traditional ways through lending institutions.
The City and the County could still give money or .other property to the
Authority if they chose to do so. It is anticipated that the Authority
would continue to receive in kind assistance from the City and County by
agreement in the areas of personnel, engineering, legal counsel, etc.
(although I suggest strongly that the airport's legal business has grown
to the point that it could use its very own attorney on about a half-time
basis and, if bonds are issued, it will require bond counsel)."
Ms. Haughey said there are some projects the Airport Board is interested in doing,
but are having difficulty receiving funds for same. The Airport Board and the Airport
Manager would like to borrow money in order to undertake capital projects from time to
time, and if necessary, to issue revenue bonds to be repayable solely from airport revenues.
Under this legislation, neither the City, County nor State would be responsible for
repayment of the bonds, but rather, payment would be from revenue generated by users of
the Airport. She noted that many airports in the State, particularly large airports, are
operated by an authority. Ms. Haughey said another change in the draft is that a provision
has been included to assure that the bonds are legal investments. Ms. Haughey said the
City and County can still legally fund projects at the airport and give, grant or lease
property; any combination thereof. Another important change from the first draft is the
removal of the right of eminent domain. The Airport Board now has the authority under
the agreement between the City and County to condemn property for public airport purposes,
but that power has never been used. However, Ms. Haughey said there is at present one
easement which may require condemnation. She further noted that if and when that power
is ever used~ the County would be asked to exercise that power and such would give the
County more control over property within its jurisdictional boundaries.
Mr. Fisher said it is difficult to make a decision without having viewed the draft
before today. He was concerned that if this proposal is submitted to the General Assembly
and approved, that will be automatic approval without the City and County taking any
action on same. Ms. Haughey felt it would be a good housekeeping measure for both the
City and the County to amend their respective ordinances regarding the Airport Commission
to refer to an authority and not an Airport Board, and also to actually convey the property
to the Airport Authority. Due to the more independent status of an authority, Ms. Haughey
felt the arrangements now in place for legal, engineering and personnel services should
be formalized.
December 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
485
Mr. Lindstrom asked the urgency for such legislation in terms of the Airport Board's
financial needs; specifically, what will be done if this legislation is passed as far as
expansion of the facilities that cannot be done at present. Mr. Agnor said the terminal
building and the parking lot in the current five year master plan are not eligible for
federal funds and are both urgently needed. Most of the other projects in the plan are
eligible for federal funds. Mr. Agnor noted that the airport hangar and office building
projects are being resolved by some private entrepreneurs leasing land from the airport
and financing same with industrial development authority bonds. Mr. Agnor said it will
be difficult for the City and County to finance the terminal building project since the
amount is now approaching two million dollars. After thorough research, Mr. Agnor said
this is the only viable approach available under Virginia statutes for financial assistance.
Mr. Lindstrom said if this legislation is adopted, future projects of the Authority will
be subject only to the Authority's approval unless land needs to be condemned. Mr. Agnor
assumed that to be the case but felt the Authority would be operating with an approved
master plan. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a master plan would continue to be approved by the
City and County. Mr. Agnor said the City Manager and the County Executive (both members
of the Authority) would, in his opinion, still desire that a master plan be approved by
their respective governing bodies. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it is possible to include such
wording in the legislation. Ms. Haughey said the existing master plan could be adopted
by the Authority. However, she did not feel it was appropriate to include such a requirement
in state law. She will discuss that with Legislative Services but same has not been
included in legislation for other authorities throughout the state.
Mr. Hendrix felt it was important for the City and County to retain controll through
the appointment process. Mr. Fisher said the risk with the appointment process is that
it would be exercised only after a problem has occurred. An authority could borrow money
and get itself into financial trouble and the City and County would have to rescue them.
His concern is not with the current members on the Airport Commission, but future persons.
Ms. Haughey said legally the City and County could not be required to rescue the Authority
in a financial situation. Mr. Fisher said that may be true but the City and County could
not allow the Airport to close or shut down as a result of such difficulties. Mr. Fisher
said he has very serious reservations about this whole proposal. Particularly, once the
General Assembly acts, there would not be time for the governing bodies to schedule a
public hearing on the question and the bill passed by the General Assembly could be quite
different from the draft. Ms. Haughey said perhaps the legislation could be amended to
allow for ratification of the bill'by the City and County after passage by the General
Assembly, but before the final enactment of same. Mr. Fisher said he would feel comfortable
i£ such a provision were included.
Mr. George Prilt, member of the Airport Board and Chairman of the Airport Commission,
was present. The Commission is unanimously in favor of an Authority and adopted a resolution
to that effect. Mr. Prill said he was concerned that this draft was not delivered in
time for ample discussion.. Mr. Prill said one current problem at the Airport is that
enplanement traffic has increased fifty to sixty percent. Also, he is convinced that
there will be continuous growth in the use of the airport facilities. Mr. Prill said he
is concerned that if this legislation is not enacted this year, another year will be
involved and some of the projects are urgently needed. Ms. Haughey said this is not a
charter bill, therefore can be introduced later than the January 11, 1984 filing deadline.
Mayor Buck asked if there could be an agreement between the City, the County, and
the Authority, regarding any funding decisions. Ms. Haughey said the Authority could not
delegate that kind of responsibility but the City and County could require their employee
members, specifically, the County Executive and City Manager, to return to their respective
governing bodies with that information before final action by the authority. Mayor Buck
said although the concerns of Mr. Fisher are reasonable, he did feel that suggestions
have been made for clearing those concerns.
Mr.'Agnor urged favorable action on this proposal and noted that there is no legal
requirement to bail the Authority out of debt if such ever occurred. Mr. Agnor said the
appointment process for the authority is to offset citizen concerns about not being
represented on the authority but once a debt is created, an authority cannot be put out
of business.
Mr. Lindstrom said there is no way the City or the County can avoid making a significant
Contribution to maintain an airport. At least, a master plan is in effect which does
give some direction about improvements and it is a mechanism approved by both bodies. He
understands the need for this type of legislation, but also envisions an authority feeling
the need for more projects and planning beyond what i's envisioned at this time. Ms.
Haughey said in that situation, the County, not the City, would make a planning review
under general county ordinances and regulations. Mr. Lindstrom asked how much control
the County planning process would have on airport projects. Mr. St. John said the Authority
would be subject to the same review that a private developer or jurisdiction is subject
to.
December 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mayor Buck asked if Ms. Haughey felt the General Assemb. l¥ would pass legislation
stating that the projects of the authority had to be those in conformity with the master
plan. Ms. Haughey did not feel that would be a problem. Mr. Fisher said Ms. Haughey had
stated that in the future the master plan would be one approved by the Authority, and no~
the City and County. Ms. Haughey said that is correct. She would, however, examine that
concern to see if the City and County could have more authority. However, if an authority
is to be created with the power to issue bonds and be independent from the City and
County, it is a delicate balancing act to make the authority a legally viable separate
entity. There would be a point where bondholders and counsel would state that the Airport
Authority was still a part of the City and County. Mr. Lindstrom stated interest in
knowing whether the bill could include a provision that plans would have to be those
approved by the Board and Council. Mr. St. John could foresee problems with the kind of
language being suggested for insertion in the bill. This language would mean that bond
counsel or the underwriters are not only to see that the underlying documentation authorizing
the bond is enacted but the plans as well. Mayor Buck disagreed with that interpretation
because the resolution is certifying that the project will be financed in conformity with
the master plan. Mr. Prill said no thought was given to doing anything not in accordance
with the plan. (Mr. Henley left the meeting at 5:15 P.M.) Mr. Lindstrom preferred some
review by the City and County. Mr. Prill had no problem with that suggestion and agreed
that the plans for the Airport should be approved by the owners of the Airport. Mr.
Fisher said according to this proposal, the City and County will not be the owners.
Mayor Buck said two suggestions have been made for inclusion in the bill which are:
final review by the Board and Council after passage by the General Assembly before the
enactment of same, and that financing of projects be only for those projects in accordance
with the Master Plan approved by the City and County. Ms. Haughey said she would check
with Legislative Services and Senator Michie about these two items. Mr. Agnor said as
soon as this information is available, this matter will be returned to the two bodies.
Agenda Item No. 22. With no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned .at 5:23 P.~