1984-01-11January 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on January 1!, 1984, at 9:00 A.M. in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Messrs. F. R. Bowie, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (Arrived at 9:10 A.M.)
C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
Absent: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; and Deputy County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 9:04 A.M. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Mr. Fisher requested Mr. Way to lead those present in the pledge of allegiance and
a moment of silence. Mr. Way accepted the request.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded
by Mr. Way, to approve the consent agenda as presented. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Henley.
Item No. 4.1. Statement of Expenses for the State Compensation Board for the month
of December, 1983, for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, and Regional Jail, were approved
as presented.
Item No. 4.2. Take roads into State Secondary System. The following resolution
was adopted by the Board to request the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
to accept a road in Brinnington Subdivision into the State Secondary System. This road
had been completed by the County using funds from a bond called after the developer
failed to complete the road work.
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 Brinnington Subdivision:
Beginning at station 3+17.65 a point common with the centerline
of Brinnington Road and the edge of Route 678, thence in a
northerly direction 1,722.35 feet to station 20+40, the end
of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of
way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plats
in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 532, page 511, Deed Book 558, page 400 and Deed Book 785, page 797.
Mr. Henderson Heyward, President of Hedgerow Corporation, requested by letter dated
October 20, 1983, for Rodes Drive in Greencroft Subdivision to be taken into the State
Secondary System since all the necessary requirements are in order. The following
resolution was adopted by the Board:
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 the Greencroft Subdivision:
Beginning at station 0+00 of Rodes Drive, a point common to the
centerline intersection of Rodes Drive and the edge of pavement
of U. S. Route 250 East, thence with Rodes Drive in a southeasterly
direction 2,5Q1.59 feet to station 25+01.59, the end of the cul-de-
sac of' RodeS Drive in Greencroft 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 by plat
in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 740, page 507.
51.7
January 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Item No. 4.3. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of November,
1983, was presented in accordance with ¥irginia Code Section 63.1-52.
Item No. 4.4. The following letter from the City regarding the Route 29 North Bus
Service was received as information:
"January 6, 1984
Action taken by the Virginia General Assembly earlier this year has increased
the amount of state subsidy which the City will receive to operate the
Charlottesville Transit Service. While the agreement between Charlottesville
and Albemarle County for the provision of bus service does not require that
the benefit of this increase in subsidy be passed along to the County, the
City feels it is appropriate to reduce the cost in light of the state's
contribution. The contract currently requires Albemarle County to pay
$17,456.00 for the bus service provided in the Route 29 North corridor.
By this letter, the cost to the County is reduced to $6,830.00. Please
have the County staff member responsible for payment contact the City's
Finance Director, Robert Sheets, to arrange for adjustments to the payment
schedule. Ail other terms and conditions specified in the agreement remain
as written.
I am pleased that the County and the City have been able to work together in
attempting to meet the transportation needs of the residents in the urbanized
area. It is my hope that this cooperation will continue to mutually benefit
both Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville.
Very truly yours,
(S~aNED BY)
Francis L. Buck
Mayor"
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: August 10 and September 14, 1983.
Mr. Fisher noted that Mrs. Cooke is in New York on County business and will not be
present today. Therefore, the minutes assigned to her for August 10, 1983 are to be
deferred. He had misplaced the minutes of September 14, 1983 which were assigned to him
and requested same be deferred.
Agenda Item No. 6a.
697.
Highway Matters:
Report:
Relocation of a portion of Route
This matter was presented to the Board at its meeting on November 9, 1983 and
deferred to December 14, 1983 in order that adjacent property owners 'could be notified
regarding the request from Mr. Jeff Hale, owner requesting this relocation. (See the
minutes of November 9 and December 14, 1983 for details of this request.) On December
14, 1983, the Board deferred the request to this date in order that the applicant, and
his counsel, could furnish the Highway Department with profiles of both the existing
road and the proposed relocation so a comparison of the two could be made to best determine
which grade, drainage, sight distance would be the most advantageous.
Mr. James Murray was present and said Mr. Hale's engineer was not able to get the
engineering data to the Highway Department in time to prepare a report for today's
meeting. He requeste.d deferral to February 8, 1984. Mr. Fisher said the Clerk had
already notified the other interested parties that this request would be deferred and
therefore, the only thing necessary at this time is to reschedule this for February 8,
1984. No objection was received from the Board members and no one from the public was
present to comment.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Status Report: Vacation of portion of Ashmere Subdivision.
Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney, said he is not certain about the status of
the road because he has not been able to contact Mr. Leroy Hamlett, the bankruptcy
attor'~ey. Therefore, he does not recommend any action be taken to vacate said portion
of the subdivision or that the ordinance be dropped from the agenda, but that same be
deferred to February 8, 1984. Mr. Agnor said he has a report from Mr. Maynard Elrod,
County Engineer, which indicates that the contractor has been working on this road but
construction is not complete due to recent inclement weather. Mr. Elrod assumes that
the work will soon be completed. Mr. Agnor said there will be an appropriation request
on January 18, 1984 for $522.00 of bond money to pay the contractor for this work. (Mr.
Henley arrived at 9:10 A.M.) Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way,
to defer the vacation of a portion of Ashmere Subdivision to February 8, 1984. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
5t8
January 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 6d.
for discussion.
Other Highway Matters.
There were no other matters brought up
Due to being ahead of schedule for the next agenda item, the Board skipped to an
item having no scheduled time.
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Community Development Block Grant projects.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning and Community Development, said a
staff report dated January 5, 1984, from Mr. Keith Mabe, Chief of Housing and Community
Development, was submitted as information to advise the Board that requests for Fiscal
Year 1984-85 block grants are soon to be processed. (Copy of this report is on file in
the Clerk's Office). Mr. Tucker said both a regional and a local application were
submitted last year for housing rehabilitation programs and both applications were denied.
Mr. Tucker said the Albemarle County Service Authority requested consideration last year
for the Crozet sewage collector system, but the Board decided to submit applications for
housing projects. He noted that Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director of the Service
Authority, plans to be present today to again request consideration of the collector
system application. Mr. Tucker said the staff only wants to alert the Board that
proposals are now being considered for submittal in April. The staff needs time to
review all proposals and then prepare a staff report on same.
A discussion followed on information received since denial of the applications last
year. Mr. Tucker said the staff had been very confident about the success of past application
and was surprised when the requests were denied. Mr. Tucker noted for the two new Board
members that the maximum allowed for the regional and local grants is $700,000; specifically,
$200,000~regional, and $500,000 local. Mr. Bowie said he had obtained a list of the
applications approved last year. He gets the feeling that less affluent communities were
given higher consideration for the grants. This confused him because he felt the application
for Albemarle County was more deserving as far as the intent of the grant. Mr. Fisher
said the unemployment rate is given a high factor in grading of the proposals, and Albemarle
County rates had improved more than some other localities. Mr. Fisher further stated that
the number of low income persons benefitting from a project is another factor in the
grading. Therefore, a housing rehabilitation program can be totally one hundred percent
for low-income people whereas a project such as sewer and water will not serve that percentage
Discussion followed on having a delegation of persons from the County go to Richmond to
discuss legislation regarding the applications. Mr. Tucker said he understands the Planning
District Commission will send a delegation to Richmond to discuss regional application
requirements with the staff of the State Community Development office. Mr. Lindstrom felt
the County should resubmit the housing rehabilitation programs. Since the Board was ahead
of schedule and Mr. Brent had planned to be present to speak on this subject, the Board
agreed to continue this discussion when Mr. Brent arrived.
Agenda Item No. 13. Resolution: Matter of Attorney Fees in Virginia Harris Case.
Mr. St. John requested that this item be discussed during executive session at lunch.
Agenda Item No. 12. Amendment of Airport Board Agreement.
Mr. Agnor reviewed his memorandum dated January 5, 1984 regarding the amendment to
the Airport Board agreement:
"In 1974, the County and the City executed an agreement which created the
Airport Board to own and operate the Airport. The City is requesting
that the agreement be amended to provide that the governing board
consist of the City Manager, or his or her principal assistant as
selected by .the City Council~ and the County Executive, or his or her
principal assistant as selected by the County Board of Supervisors and
the Chairman of the Airport Commission.
This amendment is similar in concept to the resolution adopted by the
Board in September 1983 during my recent absence, to provide for
clarification of the appointment of an alternate to the County Executive
on a number of boards and commissions to which the County Executive
had been appointed, but for which an alternate had not been specifically
appointed.
It is recommended that the proposed amendment be approved, and that Mr.
Tucker be selected as the alternate since the Airport is included in the
staff division to which he is assigned Deputy County Executive duties."
Mr. Bowie said he did not object to the proposed wording but said that during discussion
of the reorganization of County government, a reason cited for adding the deputy county
executive was the number of committees on which the County Executive is required to be a
member. This amendment simply states "principal assistant". He asked if that language is
intended to ~mean any person could fill that job as long as the Board approved. Mr. Agnor
said the words "principal assistant" were chosen because the City has assistants and the
County has deputies. Mr. Bowie said he just wanted to clarif~ that once appointed, the
person does not have to be called a deputy.
January 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
519
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the following
Airport Board agreement as recommended by Mr. Agnor, to designate Mr. Tucker as the
principal assistant, and to authorize the Chairman to execute same. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
This Agreement is made and entered into this llth day of January, 1984,
by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE and the CITY OF CHARLOTTES¥ILLE,
pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 5.1-35 and 5.1-36 of the
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
WITNESSETH:
The parties heretofore entered into an agreement dated July 15, 1974
and now desire to amend the first two full sentences of that agreement
to read as follows:
"The parties hereto agree that the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport
shall hereafter be owned and operated by a governing board which shall
consist of the County Executive of the County of Albemarle, or his or her
principal assistant as selected by the County Board of Supervisors; the
City Manager of the City of Charlottesville, or his or her principal
assistant as selected by the City Council; and the Chairman of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Joint Airport Commission, all of whom shall
serve without compensation but shall be reimbursed for reasonable and
necessary expenses. The three members hereby designated shall serve
on the board at the pleasure of the County Board of Supervisors, at the
pleasure of the City Council, and while serving as Chairman of the
Airport Commission, respectively."
The balance of the 1974 agreement remains unchanged.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the County of Albemarle, pursuant to a resolution
duly adopted by its Board of Supervisors on January 11, 1984, has
caused this agreement to be executed on its behalf by Gerald E. Fisher,
Chairman, and attested by Lettie E. Neher, Clerk of the Board, and the City
of Charlottesville, pursuant to a resolution duly adopted by its City
Council on January 3, 1984, has caused this agreement to be executed
on its behalf by Francis L. Buck, Jr., Mayor, and attested by Jeanne Cox,
Clerk of the Council.
The Board recessed at 9:26 A.M. and reconvened at 9:34 A.M.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Appeal: McDonald's Site Plan.
(Mr. Lindstrom said a technical conflict may be involved since his firm and he, in
particular, have represented on a regular basis the consultant used by the applicant.
Therefore, he will abstain.)
Mr. Fisher noted the following letter of appeal dated December 19, 1983:
"RE: December 13, 1983, Decision by the Albemarle Planning Commission
Denying Request by Jefferson Savings & Loan Association for
Crossover in the Proposed Median in Riverbend Drive
Dear Mr. Tucker:
Please consider this letter to be an appeal by Jefferson Savings
& Loan to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors of the Planning
Commission's decision of last Tuesday niEht. It is my understanding
this this appeal will be placed on the January 11 docket of the Board
of Supervisors meeting.
The reasons for our appeal are that we do not believe the
decision by the Planning Commission took into account the legitimate
concerns expressed by Jefferson Savings & Loan. In addition, the
action by the Planning Commission, when coupled with the zoning
actions previously taken regarding the shopping center, have greatly
diminished the value and use of the property, without just cause
or without just compensation to the Savings & Loan Association.
Because the Savings & Loan never received notice of the prior Planning
Commission hearings when the issue of the unbroken median was discussed
in detail, it was never given a viable opportunity to present its
proposal to the Commission. Finally, we do not feel the decision
of the Planning Commission was consistent with the purposes of the
County's Comprehensive Plan.
Please advise me if you need any further information from me or
the Savings & Loan Association. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
(S~GNEO
Herb Beskin
Attorney for the Applicant"
January 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Tucker presented a brief history of the McDonald's site plan application. He
referred to a schematic site plan and pointed out the one acre parcel owned by the Jefferson
Savings and Loan which was subdivided and approved by the Planning Commission in December
1979. At that time, the Planning Commission required, and it was noted on the plat, that
all access from Route 250 to this parcel is prohibited. When a proposal was submitted by
McDonald's, the site plan included an entrance off of Route 250. The Commission was
therefore being asked to delete the note from the plat prohibiting any access from Route
250. The Commission did not agree with the request, but felt access to the parcel should
be only from Riverbend Drive in order to protect the integrity of Route 250. The note
remains on the plat. Mr. Tucker said in August 1983, the Planning Commission indefinitely
deferred the McDonald's site plan in order that the applicant could revise same. The
applicant then retained a consultant to study traffic volumes and turning movements in the
area in order to justify a median break on Riverbend Drive. Mr. Tucker said when the plan
for the Riverbend Shopping Center was approved, one of the conditions placed on that
approval was that a continuous median be provided from South Pantops Drive to Route 250;
no median breaks were allowed. Jefferson Savings and Loan did not feel the property could
be marketed without some access to Route 250 and therefore requested a median break. Mr.
Tucker then presented the following staff report which went to the Planning Commission on
December 13, 1983:
"The McDonald's site plan was deferred indefinitely in August 1983 by
the Planning Commission. Subsequently, consultants for Jefferson Savings
and Loan Company, owners of the property, developed a transportation
analysis plan intended to justify a crossover in the median of Riverbend
Drive. This study was submitted to and rejected by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation. This letter of response to
the study and one prior letter from the Department of Highways and
Transportation contained language about the median which raised questions.
At the request of the applicant, staff requested verification of issues
related to the proposed median. On December 12, 1983, the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation verbally responded that
'Should the County authorize a median break, Riverbend Drive would
not be accepted into the State Hghway System.'
Since acceptance of Riverbend Drive into the highway system is a
requirement of both the site plan and rezoning for Riverbend Shopping
Center, authorization of a median break by the Planning Commission would
effectively foreclose Riverbend Limited Partnership's ability to satisfy
these prior conditions of the site plan and agreements with the Board
of Supervisors, as set forth in the zoning approval. The issue of whether
or not this request for a median break is properly before the Commission
has been discussed with the County Attorney's office. The staff was
advised that the item is properly before the Commission and that the applicant's
right to be heard should not be foreclosed or otherwise inhibited
administratively. However, it is also recommended that the Commission's
discretion in this matter is effectively limited at this time by prior
requirements of and committments to Riverbend Limited Partnership. That
is to say, the County is equally bound by site plan requirements and
rezoning agreements and any contrary action is. deemed as inappropriate.
Some alternative actions are as follows:
- Deferral of the request until Riverbend ~Limited Partnership has
fulfilled its site plan requirements and rezoning agreements and
Riverbend Drive has been accepted into the highway system.
- Deferral of the request until the item can be presented in a posture
which would not compromise the shopping center in terms of site
plan and rezoning issues and would not limit Commission review.
- Denial of the applicant's request based on the particulars of the
case without cognizance to past actions and committments.
Again, the Commission's discretion in review is compromised at this time.
Staff would caution the Commission regarding comment or action which
could be deemed in any fashion as promissory or indicative of some future
action."
Mr. Tucker noted that alternative one is for the applicant to deal directly with the
Highway Department instead of dealing with the County as a middle person. The second
alternative would be to defer and let Riverbend Limited Partnership request an amendment
to the condition regarding a full median with no cut from South Pantops to Route 250, if
they were amenable to same.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on December 13, 1983, unanimously recommended
denial of the applicant's request for a median crossover on Riverbend Drive. The Planning
Commission found the request to be inconsistent with previously approved road plans for
Riverbend Drive, and also felt there is the probability that the proposed median break
would cause a safety hazard out on Route 250.
January 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Beskin said that in October, 1983, Dr. Nicholas Garber, a traffic analysis expert
was hired by the Savings & Loan to determine if a crossover could be allowed and be safe
enough to meet highway planning concerns. Mr. Beskin then presented a diagram of Dr.
Garber's proposal. About 83 percent of traffic to the McDonald's site would be coming f~b~
Route 250 with the other 17 percent coming down Riverbend Drive from South Pantops Drive.
The proposal made in October was that a storage lane, approximately 170 feet long, be
carved out of the median. He noted that the McDonald's lot is only 190 feet long. This
lane would hold about eight cars and there would be a crossover placed in the median so
cars could turn left into the McDonald's site. The lot owner is willing to dedicate to
the County a twelve-foot wide strip for a right turn only lane onto Route 250 so that
Riverbend Drive could still be six lanes at its intersection with Route 250. Mr. Beskin
said McDonald's will suffer if this proves to be incorrect planning since customers will
not use the establishment if access is not safe. Mr. Beskin said, in the report from Dr.
Garber, two potential problems were mentioned which would be of concern to any highway
planning. One problem is that cars turning into Riverbend from Route 250 and then turning
again at the crossover will cause traffic to back out onto Route 250. The second is that
the cars turning left into McDonald's will cause unreasonable restrictions for the traffic ~
moving northward on Riverbend from this intersection. Mr. Beskin said since the intersection
of Route 250 and Riverbend Drive is to be signalized, Dr. Garber used a widely accepted
computer program and a number of other tools to determine that a crossover would not
create a problem in either case. On November 14, 1983, Mr. Roosevelt responded to Dr.
Garber's report and raised some concerns. T~hen, on December 13, 1983, the Planning Commission
denied the request by the Savings & Loan to allow a crossover in the median. However,
before the hearing by the Planning Commission, the staff had already informed the Planning
Commission in its staff report that there were only two alternatives for action, denial or
deferral. Mr. Beskin said that on that same date, the Highway Department took the position
that Riverbend Drive would not be allowed into the highway system if there was a break in -~
the median on Riverbend Drive. However, Mr. Roosevelt confirmed on that date that the
County has the power to grant one or more crossovers in the median on Riverbend Drive. r
Mr. Beskin said that there are a number of aspects about this situation that are
troubling to the Savings & Loan. One is the fact that an unbroken median on Riverbend
Drive was discussed by the Highway Department and the County, according to records he has
seen, as far back as September, 1977, with a great deal of discussion occurring by 1979.
However, nothing was ever said to the Savings & Loan about this proposal until March,
1983.
In conclusion, Mr. Beskin said the Savings & Loan's primary concern is the manner in
which the Highway Department is exercising its judgment on this question. Does there
really need to be a median on Riverbend Drive and the crossover standard mentioned is just
a suggested minimum. Mr. Beskin feels the Highway Department has the authority and discretion
to grant a crossover and are not choosing to exercise that authority. The Highway Department
stated a median is needed because there are to be 8,000 cars per day moving at 35 miles
per hour along Riverbend. The Savings & Loan feels highway standards arle not being applied
in a consistent fashion in the County. Mr. Beskin then referred to the recent reconstruction
of Hydraulic Road (traffic far exceeds that which will be on Riverbend Drive) where the
median is only ninety feet long. He also noted that Town & Country Exxon on the corner of
Hydraulic Road also has access directly onto Route 29 North. Mr. Beskin said the Savings
& Loan wonders why there is so much concern about traffic backing up on Riverbend Drive
where the storage bay proposed by the Savings & Loan consultant would be 170 feet, and the
median on Hydraulic is only 90 feet and the area appears to be more dangerous.
Mr. BeSkin also noted that the property owned by the Savings & Loan is obviously
intended to be for commercial purposes. McDonald's (the contract purchaser) will employ
75 full and part-time people, probably have $1,000,000 in sales per year, thus paying over
$40,000 in sales tax. However, with restricted access, a retail establishment cannot be
built on this site. Therefore, the Savings & Loan feels that the decisions of the Highway
Department and the County border on the taking of property without just compensation.
Despite extensive efforts by the Savings & Loan to work out a solution to this situation,
nothing has happened. The Highway Department says it is not their decision, and the
County says the reverse. In summary, Mr. Beskin said the Savings & Loan feels that requiring
an unbroken median is an unreasonable condition. The request is that the County require
the Highway Department to meet with the parties involved to work out some reasonable
solution. The Savings & Loan feels the request is reasonable and without approval for a
median break, the lot has no commercial value.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present. He said that Riverbend
Drive does not have to be a part of the highway system so the design of the road nor the
question of the break in the median does not rest with the Highway Department. The Highway
Department will become involved when the County decides to have the road taken into the
system. At that time, Riverbend Drive must meet subdivision standards for acceptance into
the secondary system. Mr. Roosevelt said it has taken a few years for an agreement to be
reached on Riverbend Drive regarding the number of vehicles using the road per day and
that estimated count is 8,000. According to Highway standards, a road carrying that many
vehicles is in the classification for a four-lane divided road with left-turn lanes at any
median cuts. He further noted that the Highway Department standards regarding medians has
been in existence for a number of years. Minimum spacing for crossovers is 500 feet, with'
less than that minimum being considered when required by intersecting public highways or
streets with current daily vehicle count of 100 or greater. Other crossovers will be
allowed only after an individual study and only with the approval of the Traffic, Planning,
and Location and Design Engineers. Mr. Roosevelt said a study was submitted to the County
regarding the traffic analysis performance by Dr. Garber. The County had requested the
Highway Department to review that study. Mr. Roosevelt said he does not feel that there
is any indication in that study to necessitate a waiver of the 500-foot crossover spacing
requirement. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department is stating to the County that if
Riverbend Drive is to be added to the Secondary System, then highway department standards
must be met. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department will not take a road into the
system that at some time in the future will have to be upgraded with secondary improvement
January 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
523
funds. In other words, the Highway Department will take the road into the system to
maintain, but not for improvement. Mr. Roosevelt said the median that has been referred
to on Hydraulic Road is not a median, but a traffic control device to channel traffic at
the intersection. Further, the device was not planned as a median or to comply with
standards regarding median breaks. Mr. Roosevelt further noted that the Highway Department
could not afford to purchase the right-of-way necessary to construct a median on Hydraulic
Road.
Mr. Henley asked if 35 miles per hour is the customary speed limit for this type of
development. Also, he asked what effect the speed limit being reduced to 25 miles per
hour would have on a median cut. Mr. Roosevelt did not feel the speed should be reduced.
He noted that 25 miles per hour is designed for residential areas, and Riverbend Drive is
a collector road which is designed for a minimum of 35 miles per hour. Without further
information, he would not suggest that the speed be reduced to 25 miles per hour. At
issue is the information submitted in the traffic analysis study, which boils down to
timing of the traffic signal on Route 250. In his letter dated November 14, 1983, he had
indicated that the traffic signal at the intersection should have a cycle length of 105
seconds as a minimum. The study submitted by Dr. Garber indicated 57 seconds. Mr. Roosevelt
said he appreciates the position of the consultant, but the consultant is not responsible
for the traffic signal or the movement of traffic on Route 250.
Speaking next was Mr. Chuck Rotgin, representing Riverbend Limited Partnership, the
owners of Riverbend Shopping Center. As has been mentioned, the certificate of occupancy
for the center, which is due to open in about thirty days, is dependent upon Riverbend
Drive being accepted into the Secondary System. The Highway Department will not accept
the road without the median or with a break in the median. Mr. Rotgin said the Partnership's
traffic engineers and the Highway Department engineers both feel that the median cut
suggested is unsafe and would create problems for the traffic coming from Riverbend Shopping
Center and wanting to turn left onto Route 250 and come back into the City. The Partnership
wants Riverbend Drive taken into the state system and that is of paramount concern for the
amount of money invested by the tenants of the center. The median is shown in the recorded
documents which preceded the purchase by the Savings & Loan of their property. He also
noted that the property bought by First Virginia Bank contained easements on record Go
ref~ct the median. With all of this in mind, and although the Partnership has sympathy
for Jefferson Savings & Loan, there is a desire to try to develop something desirable and
workable for all parties involved. Therefore, Mr. Rotgin suggested that a committee
comprised of representatives from each of the groups be established and the County Planning
and Highway Department staffs be included as well with a report submitted in a month or
six weeks.
Mr. Fisher asked for suggestions of persons to serve on such a committee. Mr. Rotgin
suggested Mr. Don Wagner represent the Partnership, a representative for Virginia Land
Company, the Savings & Loan Association, and a representative of both the Highway Department
Staff and the County Planning staff. Mr. Fisher asked if the Savings & Loan would be
agreeable to the suggestion offered by Mr. Rotgin. Mr. Fisher said if he.had to vote on
this question today he would not be able to vote for the waiver because of the years of
concern for traffic in the area involved and the desire that Riverbend Drive be taken into
the State Secondary System. Mr. Beskin felt the suggestion would be acceptable but would
like to check first with the vice-president of the Savings & Loan Association. However,
considering the feelings expressed today, perhaps that would be the best alternative.
Mr. Way agreed with the suggestion. Mr. Bowie felt a reasonable solution between
reasonable people is a better solution to the problem.
Discussion then followed on the role staff members of the Planning and Highway Department
would have as members of this committee. Mr. Agnor suggested that both participate but
not vote since both will be in a position of approving whatever results come from the
committee.
Dr. Charles Hurt was present and stated willingness to serve on the committee for
Virginia Land Company.
Mr. Beskin sai~ his only concern is that the committee report back as soon as possible.
Mr. Fisher suggested the report be returned for Board consideration on February 8, 1984.
Dr. Hurt noted confusion and asked if a crossover is at all possible. Mr. Fisher
said according to statements of Mr. Roosevelt, it appears that if a traffic study were
presented that took into consideration highway department concerns, there was such a
possiblity.
Mr. Fisher said if the Board is agreeable, he would suggest action to appoint a
committee consisting of Mr. Don Wagner for the Riverbend Limited Partnership, Dr. Charles
Hurt for Virginia Land Company, a representative from Jefferson Savings & Loan Association,
and a staff member from both the planning and the highway departments to work out an
acceptable solution for all concerned parties with a report to the Board on February 8, 1984.
Motion to that effect was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bowie.
Mr. Agnor asked if someone should represent First Virginia Bank since that property
is in the same vicinity. Mr. Rotgin said the Bank participates by proxy through Riverbend
Partnership because there is a recorded easement with Dr. Hurt for access, but certainly
they should be represented to participate. Both Mr. Way and Mr. Bowie accepted the inclusion
of a representative from First Virginia Bank to the committee.
524
January 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. St. John suggested that the Board simply recognize the existence of this group
attempting to work out something with the County's planning staff and the Highway Department
rather than the Board making appointments. If a committee is appointed by the Board, then
the committee is subject to all provisions of the Freedom of Information Act which would
require that the meetings be held in open door sessions. He said if the committee is
recognized as a self-formed group, the group would not be subject to such laws. He further
noted that the committee is not really doing work for the Board of Supervisors. He said
this would be a better procedure. Mr. Way said if the Board by appointing the people as
a committee is not going to provide a Solution (whiCh is the whole point of the committee),
then he will withdraw his motion. He then offered motion to follow the recommendation of
Mr. St. John. Mr. Bowie withdrew his se~nd~ and then seconded the new motion. Mr.
Fisher said the motion is just to recognize the above named persons as spokesmen for their
respective business, with a report back to the Board on February 8, 1984. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom.
(Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 10:36 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 7. Agreement for review and signature re: 911 and Central Dispatch
System. ~
Mr. Michael Carroll, Emergency Services Coordinator for the City and County, was
present. In November 1982, a committee representing the City, County, University and
volunteer emergency service providers presented to the Board recommendations urging adoption
of the 911 and central dispatch system. During the past year, a committee made up of the
three funding agencies met to discuss ways of implementing the recommendations. The committee
feels that the agreement presented today is acceptable to all parties involved. The
request is for authorization to execute the agreement in order to proceed with the 911
system and the dispatch center. Mr. Carroll said the 911 Center will be housed in the
basement of the City Police Department. The County is to be the employing agency, the
fiscal agent and furnish legal staff for the center. Mr. Carroll said the agreement provides
for the distribution of costs through June 30, 1985; the costs being 53 percent Charlottesvill
28 percent Albemarle, and 19 percent University of Virginia. Mr. Carroll said when the
agreement has been executed by all parties involved, the next step is to finalize construction
drawings for renovations necessary for the dispatch center. Mr. Carroll also presented the
budget for operations from July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1985, totalling $346,000. Mr.
Carroll said he felt the system will not be in service in July 1984 as planned but rather
in September, 1984.
Mr. Fisher said this emergency telephone system has been the subject of discussion for
about ten years. He then recognized Mr. Ray Haas, Vice President of Administration for the
University, and asked if he cared to make any comments. Mr. Haas said efforts between the
three entities during negotiation sessions on the establishment of this system have been
superb.
Mr. Agnor pointed out letter dated December 5, 1983 from Mr. Ray Hunt, Vice President
for Business and Finance at the University, as follows:
"City of Charlottesville
c/o Mr. Cole Hendrix, City Manager
City Hall
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
County of Albemarle
c/o Mr. Guy B. Agnor, County Executive
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Gentlemen:
This letter constitutes a memorandum of understanding among the City
of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle and The Rector and Visitors
of the University of Virginia, the participants in the 911 Center.
While the University of Virginia will attempt in each year to contribute
its assessed share of the Center's operating costs, it is understood
that the University will not be required to increase its contribution
to the Center for any fiscal year by a percentage greater than the
percentage increase of state general fund appropriations for operations
to the University for that year, as set forth in the Appropriations Act
enacted by the General Assembly.
The University will notify the appropriate city and county officers as
early as practicable should it become necessary to limit the University's
contribution to the Center as provided above.
January 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
52'5
Sincerely yours,
THE RECTOR AND VISITORS OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
(SIGNED BY)
By ~.ay _C. Hunt
Vice President for Business and Finance
AGREED: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
By
Authorized Officer
AGREED: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
By
Authorized Officer"
Mr. Frank Johnstone, Chief of County Police, was present and said he is pleased with
progress and hoped the Board will approve the agreement. He then introduced Mr. Mike
Sheffield, Acting Director of the University Police, and noted that Mr. Sheffield is very
familiar with a 911 emergency system.
Mr. Fisher asked if every citizen in Albemarle County will have acccess to the 911
system; particularly those living on the border of the County having the 703 exchange. Mr.
Carroll said it can be made possible for all citizens in the County to have access to the
joint dispatch center by dialing a given number. The Albemarle County people on the 703-
456 exchange in Greenwood get Lovingston by dialing 911 and that will continue until those
persons are transferred to the Centel system. The telephone company has informed him that
there is no way to split the exchanges by jurisdictional boundaries. Mr. Carroll said
there are a couple of alternatives and one is to establish a toll free 800 number. The
disadvantage is that the purpose of the 911 system is to get away from remembering lengthy
numbers. Another alternative is to establish what is known as a foreign exchange. Mr.
Carroll said a toll free number would be $1,000 per year and a foreign exchange system
would be $2,000 per exchange per year. There are probably three exchanges involved and
which would be costly. Mr. Carroll said perhaps the calls now going to Lovingston on the
703-456 exchange could be hot lined to this center.
Mr. Bowie said he is pleased to see the cooperative efforts of the parties involved.
He is, however, concerned that the costs have increased 50 percent in a year and there ~itl
be twelve dispatchers and a manager. Also,~ he noticed that the dispatchers now working~for
the Sheriff and City Police are not guaranteed a job. 'Mr. Carroll said the original budget
submitted carried an underestimate on salaries since some of the current dispatchers make
more than the first step of the proposed pay range. The intent was to show the salaries at
a higher step in the pay range. Mr. Lindstrom shared the concern of Mr. Bowie and aske~ if
Mr. Agnor had analyzed this information. Mr. Agnor said it was felt that the estimate Was
too low and the purpose of the increase was to assure that there would be adequate fund~.
As far as the process involved for the dispatchers, they will be part of the County's PaY
plan or an adjunct to same. (Mr. Henley left the room at 10:50 A..M.) Mr. Agnor said
detailed information on the dispatch center will be submitted during budget work sessions.
He noted that $45,000 was included for operational costs for fiscal year 1983-82 and was
not needed. (Mr. Henley returned at 10:54 A.M.)
A brief discussion followed on the rescue squads using the 911 system.
said that during all discussions, the rescue squads requested that their units not be
dispatched through the central system, but rather that calls be transferred to the resc
squad unit and then dispatched. The rescue squads are now considering centrallizing
dispatching functions for all of the rescue squads in the area.
Mr. Carroll
me
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is any particular reason for the county volunteer fir
companies not having a representative on the management board of the center. Mr. Agnor
said the City fire chief is to represent both C{ty and County fire services. Mr. Linds
asked if the volunteer companies have been involved in these discussions. Mr. Agnor sa
yes.
Mr. Bowie said unless there is some objection, he would like the Jefferson Country
Firefighter's Association included on the management board. He also emphasized concern
that the budget contains high salaries for the dispatchers. He then asked who will' hit
the dispatchers. Mr. Carroll said the management board is to retain control on the cos
Mr. Lindstrom expressed concern about whether or not the volunteer companies have
consulted and agree to the arrangement involved in the Agreement. Mr. Agnor said the
companies have been involved to an extent, but if it is desired to have a representati~
from the Jefferson Country Firefighter's Association, he would recommend that the Presi
of the Association be added to the management board. Mr. Carroll said the report of a
ago noted that there would be an advisory board consisting of thirteen members who woul
representatives from the rescue squads, fire companies, emergency medical services cour
and a number of other emergency organizations. This advisory board would work with the
management board on issues affecting all of the organizations. Mr Lindstrom asked if t
Agreement has been approved by City Council. Mr. Carroll said yes. Mr. Lindstrom sug8
City Council be contacted to see if they would be agreeable to amending the agreement t
include a representative from the volunteer fire companies being on the management boar
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to defer the 911 and Central Dispatch System
agreement to January 18, 1984, in order that Mr. Bowie and Mr. Agnor can communicate w~
the volunteer fire companies regarding section 2(b) of the agreement constituting the
management board.
vote:
e
trom
id
e
been
e
dent
year
d be
ci!,
he
ested
O
d.
th
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion and same carried by the following reccrded
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
'526
January 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: Ordinance - Disposal of unclaimed property in
possession of County law enforcement agencies. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
December 27, 1983 and January 3, 1984.)
Mr. St. John said Sheriff George Bailey requested that this ordinance be adopted in
order to allow the Sheriff, or the Chief of Police, to dispose of unclaimed property in his
possession after making a reasonable attempt to notify and find the rightful owner. Mr.
St. John said the ordinance extracts the language from Virginia Code Section 15.1-133.01.
Mr. Henley asked if any such sale will be advertised. Mr. St. John said the ordinance
requires a notice to be published once a week for two successive weeks before public sale
of unclaimed property. The proceeds of the sale will take care of the advertising costs
a~.~.t~th~baIa~ce kept for three years in the General Fund. If the proceeds are not
claimed within that period of time, the proceeds become part of the General Fund and are
not subject to redemption. He said an account will be established by the Director of
Finance. He presumed the account would be interest bearing with records kept in order to
trace the origin of the funds.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if any County employee would be prohibited from participating in
the sale. Mr. St. John said that is covered by the Virginia Conflict of Interest Act. Mr.
Lindstrom expressed concern because that prohibition is not specified in the ordinance.~
.Mr. Bowie did not feel there was any reason that a County employee should be prohibited
unless so specified by state law. Mr. Lindstrom felt county employees should not benefit
from a reduced value on an item. Mr. St. John said that prohibition can be spelled out in~.
the ordinance. Mr. Henley agreed with Mr. Bowie because the sale will be public and the
proceeds will actually benefit the County.
The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the proposed
ordinance, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested including the following wording to at least exclude the members
of the departments collecting the property: "No member of the County Sheriff's Department
or the Police Department will be permitted to participate as a purchaser in any sale o£
personal property hereunder." He offered motion to adopt the following ordinance concernmng
the disposal of unclaimed property in possession of the law enforcement agencies of the
County with the above amendment. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion and same carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE DISPOSAL OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
IN POSSESSION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OF THE COUNTY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County as follows:
I. Any unclaimed personal property which has been in the possession of the Sheriff,
the Chief of Police or any of their duly authorized and acting deputies or officers
and which has remained unclaimed for a period of more than 60 days may be sold at
public sale as more particularly set forth hereinafter. For purposes of this
'ordinance, the term "unclaimed personal property" shall be any personal property
belonging to another which has been acquired by a law enforcement officer pursuant
to his duties, which is not needed in any criminal prosecution, which has not been
claimed by its rightful owner and which the State Treasurer has indicated will
be declined if remitted under the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property
Act (Section 55-210.1 et se~.).
II. Prior to the sale of any unclaimed item, the Chief of Police shall make
reasonable attempts to notify the rightful owner of the property, obtain from the
Commonwealth's Attorney in writing a statement advising that the item is not needed
in'any criminal prosecution, and cause to be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the locality once a week for two successive weeks, notice that there
will be a public sale of unclaimed personal property. Such property shall be
described generally in a notice, together with the date, time and place of the
sale. The Chief of Police shall pay from the proceeds of sale the cost of
advertisement, removal, storage, investigation as to ownership and liens, and notice
of sale. The balance of the funds shall be held by such officer for the owner and
paid to the owner upon satisfactory proof of ownership. No member of the County
Sheriff's Department or the Police Department, will be permitted to participate
as a purchaser in any sale of personal property hereunder.
III. If no claim has been made by the owner for the proceeds of such sale
within ~0 days of the sale, the remaining funds shall be deposited in the general
fund of the County. Any such owner shall be entitled to apply to the County
within three years from the date of the sale and, if timely application is made
therefor, the County shall pay the remaining proceeds of the sale to the owner
without interest or other charges. No claim shall be made nor any suit, action
or proceeding be instituted for the recovery of such funds after three years
from the date of the sale.
IV. The Ch±ef of Police is hereby constituted the agent of the County for
purposes of the administration of this ordinance.
(For authority to adopt this ordinance, see Virginia Code Section 15.1-133.01.)
(Note: This ordinance was amended at the after.noon session of this meeting.)
January !1, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
62,7
Agenda Item No. 9. Request re: Extending water service to property in Ivy area.
Mr. R. F. Loving, Jr., Broker, was present and referred to letter dated January 5,
1984 requesting on behalf of the owners, A. M. and Gay!e Pulley, water connections for five
lots on nineteen acres in the Ivy area on the west side of Route 678 across from Meriwether
Hills Subdivision. Mr. Loving said the Albemarle County Service Authority has a waterline
in the ground at the property line at which point there is a cut-off and stubbed line. He
also noted that Mr. Richard Bell, owner of two acres adjoining this property has been
granted water rights but has not connected at this time (Copy of the letter is on file in
the Clerk's Office).
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker how this request relates to the growth area for the Ivy
village. Mr. Tucker referred to a map adopted by the Board in November, 1983 and pointed
out the borders of the old water service areas and the new growth area boundaries for the
Ivy Village. The Board revised these service areas last year due to the amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan. Locust Hill Subdivision, which is in the subject area, was approved
for one-acre lots several years ago. Three or four wells were drilled without obtaining
any water, therefore, the area was included in the water only service area. Mr. Loving is
correct in stating that there is a stub out to the Pulley property, but this property is
not included in the growth area at this time. This tract was platted before 1980 and does
have five development rights under the current Rural Areas zoning designation. Mr. Tucker
said the past policy of the Board has been to limit utility service to those areas located
outside of the County's designated growth areas and/or those areas located within the
watershed of a drinking water impoundment except for existing dwellings. There are no
dwellings existing on this tract. Mr. Fisher asked if the Bell property is within the
service area. Mr. Tucker said yes, and that property does contain a dwelling. Mr. Fisher
recognized Mr. Bill Brent from the Albemarle County Service Authority and asked if he cared
to comment. Mr. Brent said the Service Authority Board of Directors has not taken any
position on individual requests and Mr. Loving has not approached the Authority concerning
this connection.
Mr. Fisher then summarized the policy of the Board concerning limitation for utility
services; specifically, being a policy used to discourage intensive development in areas
not designated for future growth and development, as well as those areas lying in drinking
water supply impoundments. Mr. Fisher said approval of this request would create a difficult
situation in denying any future request in the subject area.
Mr. Lindstrom said if public water is made available to this property, there could be
a slight increase in the minimum lot size, even if not an increase in density. Therefore,
he felt an incentive for high density zoning would be created. He agreed with Mr. Fisher
about the difficulty at some future time in denying a similar request when a waterline is
so accessible to a parcel of land. Mr. Fisher asked if any attempt had been made to drill
new wells on this property. Mr. Loving said no and emphasized there is a stub-out on the
property's edge as well as'an eight-inch line on the edge of the property.
Mr. Henley did not feel a waterline will encourage development. Therefore, he
supported this request since the line is readily accessible to the property. Mr. Lindstrom
said his concern is the difficulty of denying a rezoning if extending public water to and
adjacent to the Ivy village. He recognized that this would not create as much density as a
sewer line but feared this would set a precedent for a future request. Mr. Henley said he
could deny a rezoning easier than this request.
Mr. Bowie said the letter from Mr. Loving indicates that this property has already
been downzoned so there can only be five lots. Mr. Fisher said that is correct for the
present time. Mr. Bowie said he too would have no problem denying a future rezoning request,
and did not feel a rezoning and this request are related.
Mr. Fisher said boundaries have been established for utility service and until action
has been taken through the public hearing process to change same, he will stay with the
existing policy. Mr. Fisher said there are other smaller parcels in this area having
similar difficulties and he felt that instead of looking at areas piecemeal or as they
begin to develop the entire area should be examined on some other criteria than on its
basis for development. Mr. Fisher did not feel he could support an extension of water
service to one parcel on a piecemeal basis without examining other criteria involved.
Mr. Lindstrom said he assumed any action would be preceded by amending the service
areas which would be an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. He also felt there are other
parcels in similar situations that would have to be taken into consideration. Mr. Henley
said the Board itself created this hassle. He felt the request is reasonable and he is
willing to correct the problem created by this Board. He understood the points of Mr.
Fisher but imagines there are a number of small parcels that could be served by water and
this "bureaucracy is going to prevent it". Mr. Henley felt the uncertainty of when the
Comprehensive Plan will be revised again is asking a person to wait a long time.
Mr. Lindstrom could not support a motion asking the Planning Commission to study
amending the Comprehensive Plan because he did not feel he could support such an amendment
when returned to the Board. He expressed concernabout changing the Board's policy and
allowing exceptions for small lots and then being faced with other similar situations. He
also felt development of small lot residential subdivisions in the rural areas should be
prevented.
Mr. Henley said he would agree with those statements if this were a request for public
sewer, but could not agree with situations involving just water service. Mr. Fisher said
if the Board wants to proceed further, a resolution of intent to consider amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan boundaries of the Ivy Village and the service areas of the Albemarle
County Service Authority should be considered. Mr. Henley offered motion to that effect.
Mr. Way seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Henley and Way.
Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom.
Mrs. Cooke.
528
January 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. St. John said he is not certain that an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan is
necessary because he is not sure the Comprehensive Plan is that exact as to the boundaries
of the service areas of the Service Authority. Mr. Tucker said comments made today indicate
that there may be other properties similarly situated, but he could not answer that question
at this time. However, he feels that only amendments to the service areas are necessary.
Mr. St. John said he is not advocating what should be done one way or the other, but noted
that the Board can extend water to this applicant without showing this_particular parcel of
land in the growth area. Mr. Fisher said for several years, the Board has gone through the
process of having the boundaries shown in the Comprehensive Plan for the growth areas and
the services areas of the Service Authority be exactly the same. He would dislike having
the two separated now. Mr. St. John said if this parcel is placed in the growth area, that
would implicitly mean sewage disposal was projected, and he did not feel that is the Board's
intent. After a brief discussion about the intent of the motion, Mr. Henley stated that he~
did not intend to amend the Ivy growth area. He then clarified his motion to adopt the
following resolution of intent to amend the service areas of the Service Authority in the
Comprehensive Plan for water only. Mr. Bowie and Mr. Way agreed with the clarification.
(The resolution of intent as adopted is as follows.)
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
does hereby state its intent to amend the "Albemarle County Service Authority
Project Areas Map" in the Comprehensive Plan and the actual "Service Areas Map
of the Albemarle County Service Authority" to include Parcel 84 on Tax Map 58
in the Ivy area,
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Planning Commission
is hereby requested to hold a public hearing on this resolution and to make
a recommendation to this Board as soon as possible.
Agenda Item No. lla. Legislation: Alcohol Safety Action Program.
This matter was presented to the Board at its meeting on December 14, 1983 from the
Transportation Safety Commission for legislation to be considered for one-half of the funds.
collected by the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program to be returned to the locality in
which same are collected (See the minutes of December 14, 1983 for the complete presentation
of this request). The request was deferred from December 14 to December 21, 1983 in order
that the staff could obtain some estimates concerning actual funds of the program generated
through the arrest and conviction system, the total of the program's budget and where the
funds are disbursed. However, the information was not submitted on December 21, 1983 and
so this item was deferred to this date.
Mr. Agnor said Mrs. Cooke is the Chairman of the Transportation Safety Committee and
since she is not present today, perhaps the Board would rather defer this until she is
present. Mr. Fisher said he understands from Mr. Agnor's memorandum dated January 6, 1984,
that approval of the request for legislation is not recommended. Mr. Agnor said that is
correct. He then reviewed his memorandum as follows:
"Attached is the data on the funds generated in the Alcohol Safety Action
Program, summarized as follows:
Calendar year 1983:610 County and City arrests; 519 referrals to ASAP
Program; $119,370 revenue generated.
County portion: 241 arrests; 205 referrals to ASAP; $47,150 revenues.
FY '83-84 ASAP Budget
Estimated revenues
Projected surplus
$132,354
145,000
12,646
The State retains eight percent of the revenues to fund state-wide program expenses.
The 1983 revenues are the totals available to the local program. The projected
surplus in FY 83-84 is used for projects in the community requested by
private or public agencies, and approved by the ASAP Board. A selective arrest
program in the County, as an example, could be requested of the local ASAP Board
and funded from any surplus that exists~
With the local ASAP Board having authority to spend funds generated in the
community and with the State using a relatively small percentage of the funds,
staff opinion that a request to the General Assembly to return the funds to
serve the localities needs is inappropriate. A request from the Transportation
Safety Committee to the James River ASAP Board would be appropriate."
Mr. Fisher said the program appears to be an option of the courts when dealing with
drivers arrested under the influence. Taking those funds away for other purposes would be
a major shift of legislation. Mr. Fisher said he did not feel the Board should become
involved. Mr. Way agreed and felt the Board could perhaps persuade the ASAP Board to allow
the County to use some of the funds, but he did not feel all of the money is needed as
requested by the Committee.
Hearing no further comments, Mr. Fisher suggested that the packet of information
submitted to the Board containing the data from the ASAP Program be sent to the Transportatio]
Safety Committee and noting that the Board agrees with the recommendation of Mr. Agnor as
contained in memorandum dated January 6, 1984.
January Ii, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
529
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Community Development Block Grant Projects.
Mr. Fisher said this was discussed briefly earlier in the meeting but several persons
are now present to speak. He then invited comments.
Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, said he
woul~ not go into detailed information about the Crozet sewage collector system, but the
Authority is requesting that the Board consider this for the block grant this year~ The
project is to cost between four and five million dollars with service to approximately 700
customers. Although the Crozet interceptor is projected to soon be underway for service to
some people in the Crozet area, there will still be 700 customers without connection to
sewage. A 14 mile system will be necessary for the Collector. The Authority is projecting
at this time that rates will increase by 50 percent by 1986 for this project alone.
Therefore any funding would be helpful. Mr. Brent concluded by stating that the Authority
hopes to be considered for these grant funds.
Mr. Gary 01iveria, Executive Director of the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program,
was present. He urged the Board to consider the housing rehabilitation program for the
grant applications again this year. He felt the proposals submitted for the last two years
were reasonable and competitive. In conclusion, Mr. 01iveria urged favorable consideration
for the housing rehabilitation programs for the grants.
Mr. Fisher asked if anyone on the AHIP staff had discussed with the Community DevelO
office in Richmond the reasons for denial of last year's application. Mr. Oliveria said he
along with Mr. Tucker and Mr. Mabe, reviewed with the Richmond office several months ago
the reason for denial. He was less than satisfied w±th the answers given, particularly,
grading on certain sections of the proposal. He personally could not understand the reason
for denial since the County's proposal would have served 165 low income persons. He felt
the proposal was reasonable when compared to those actually receiving the grant funds.
Mr. Lindstrom felt discussing this problem with the legislators may be helpful.
Although he felt both proposals were worthwhile public projects, he was inclined to submit
for the third time the application for the AHIP program. If the application is denied this
year, perhaps the Crozet sewage collector system should be considered next year.
Mr. Tucker said the purpose of the report today was only to allow the Board of Supervis
the opportunity to submit any ideas for applications to the staff in order that the proposals
could be analyzed in ample time for submittal in April.
Agenda Item No. llb. Legislation: Airport Authority.
The proposed language of the legislation was presented to the Board at its joint
meeting with City Council on December 14, 1983 and deferred in order that Ms. Shelia Haughey,
Assistant City Attorney, could clarify two concerns of the Board. Ms. Haughey has worked
with Legislative Services and Mr. Agnor then summarized his memorandum dated January 5,
1984 as follows:
"Please find an amendment to page 5 of the Airport Authority
legislation which provides that bonds~ will not be issued, or money borrowed,
except by unanimous vote of all three Authority Board members. The amendment
is a response to the concerns expressed at the Board of Supervisors and
City Council joint meeting regarding airport approval of projects or
indebtedness that would not be in agreement with the Airport Master Plan
approved by the Board of Supervisors and City Council.
The second concern regarding the approval by the General Assembly of the
bill creating the Authority that could possibly be unacceptable to the
Board of Supervisors and/or City Council could not be addressed in this
draft legislation. The State cannot provide for local governments to
approve or disapprove State legislation. However, Senator Michie who has
agreed to sponsor the bill, advises that normally legislation of a local
nature seldom is amended by others, but if amendments are made, he will send
the amended bill to the Board and Council for review prior to it being voted
upon by the Assembly, and if there are objections to the bill, he as sponsor,
will withdraw the bill.
Included in the proposed legislation are safeguards which guard against
a project being initiated that the County government does not approve. These
are: 1) approval by the Board of Supervisors of the Airport Master Plan;
2) review by the Planning Commission under State Code 15.1-456 to determine
compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan of any project at the Airport;
3) approval and inclusion of the Airport's capital projects in the County
Capital Improvement Program; 4) requirement of an unanimous vote of the
Airport Board prior to indebtedness being incurred, thereby eliminating
the County's representative on the Board being outvoted on any dispute over
the financing of a project.
The current County Capital Improvement Program includes $4,034,000 in Capital
projects at the Airport from 1983-84 through 1985-86 of which the County's
share is estimated to be $753,350. Of that amount, only $26,850 has been
approved in 1983-84 and the remainder is needed in the next two years.
It is recommended that you approve the draft legislation to provide the
Airport Board the legal ability to finance a large portion, if not all,
of its capital needs."
530
January 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher said this is one of the few irreversible decisions that the Board and City
Council face; specifically, the creation of an Authority can never be undone. For that
reason, Mr. Fisher felt due consideration should be given to this matter. He personally
did not feel a case has been made that other methods of funding airport capital needs are
not available. The Airport is a public agency advertising services; but when the services
are used, the facilities are inadequate to handle the demand. He understands the needs at
the Airport and would like to see the needs dealt with, but did not feel a case has been
made to this Board or the county's citizens that this is the only method for meeting
financial needs. Therefore, Mr. Fisher stated his reluctance to support this legislation
and lead the local legislators to believe that he supported-this legislation as the best
way to deal with a public concern of the community.
Mr. Bowie said he was not in office when the background information on this request
was submitted on December 14, 1983, and he was uncomfortable taking any position today.
The materials he has read involving this have raised questions. Some of his concerns are:
will the Airport Authority be able to condemn property, and if so, what affect will that
have on the property owners around the airport. Also, if the Authority sold bonds and
could not pay the costs, who is then responsible for that payment.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has the same concern as Mr. Bowie about eminent domain, but
noted that the proposed legislation has been amended to delete the Authority having that
power; it would have to rely on the County's power of eminent domain.
Ms. Haughey responded to the second concern of Mr. Bowie regarding the Authority being
unable to repay bonds. She said the Authority is estabiished with the power toiis~ue
revenue bonds and there are protections included in the legislation so that no other
agency of the State or local government would be required to meet that obligation should
the Authority ever be in that position. Although, the City and County may feel some moral
obligation to help in such a situation, there is no legal requirement for same. Legally,
the revenues from the Airport would be the sole source to repay the bonds. Mr. Bowie said
he did not feel so much of a moral responsibility as a concern for self-protection.
Mr. Agnor said other methods of financing have been examined by the legal staff and no
other methods were found in Virginia law to provide resources for the Airport without this
type of legislation. Without this, the Airport remains a general obligation of the County
and the City.
Mr. Fisher asked why the Airport is different from the Library and the Jail which are~_~
provided with capital funds from both localities. Mr. Agnor said the Library serves the
total community and has a far more visual need. The localities are required by State law
to fund the Jail. The Airport serves a much smaller segment of the community and the usage
is extremely limited. The concern of the Airport Commission and the Airport Board is that
a referendum for the Airport might fail because the general voters of the County do not see
this as an important function. Mr. Fisher said the County's citizens have not been requested
to vote on such an issue.
Mr. Bowie asked if this proposed legislation has to be acted on today. Mr. Agnor said
yes, the deadline for submittal of legislation for this session of the General Assembly is
involved.
Mr. Fisher did not feel giving this to the Board in late December, and then having two
new Board members take office in January, was fair. He assumed this has already been given
to Legislative Services and the question really is whether it should be withdrawn. Ms.
Haughey said Senator Michie is waiting to introduce this legislation pending action by the
City and County. Mr. Fisher said that means some decision needs to be made, but once this
is enacted, the "damn thing" is created and in effect. Mr. Agnor said Senator Michie could
be requested to withdraw the bill if any changes are made. Ms. Haughey said if the Authority
is created by the General Assembly, it will only be an authority on paper unless the City
and County turn over the Airport property to the Authority. Mr. Bowie asked if that meant
the Board could change its mind even after approval by the General Assembly. Ms. Haughey
said nothing is contained in the legislation to require the City or the County to turn over
the airport property to the Authority.
Mr. Fisher said if he could make a motion, it would not be in favor of creating an
Airport Authority.
Mr. Henley asked Mr. St. John to comment. Mr. St. John said over a period of years,
his office has examined ways of financing Airport improvements and operations without
creating an Authority and without using county general funds. Further, he noted the differen¢
between this facility and the Library and Jail'is that the Airport generates income. He
did not see any moral obligation for the County to be responsible for payment of bonds
issued. Those buying the bonds will be aware that the source of payment is from revenues
of the Airport Authority. Mr. Fisher asked why an enterprise fund could not be established.
Mr. St. John said that is possible, but there would have to be a referendum first. This
idea was explored with the City and County both involved, but the procedure is so cumbersome
that he questioned whether the bonds would be marketable. Mr. St. John further emphasized
that the legal offices for both the City and County have explored possible methods for
financing the Airport, and this legislation was unanimously decided upon as being the only
feasible way to overcome the financial problems.
Mr. Henley shared the feelings expressed by other Board members about not having
enough time on this subject. Also, he personally has no interest in the Airport and does
not want his tax dollars used there if at all possible. He prefers the Airport Board
"standing on their own feet".
January 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
531
Mr. George Prill, Chairman of the Airport Commission, was present. He said the
establishment of an Airport Authority was unanimous by both the Commission and Airport
Board. He noted that many cities have an Airport Authority. Mr. Prill said facilities are
deseparately needed at the Airport due to the increase in usage. He noted that there is no
other way for the Airport to pay for itself without this Authority and he too felt the
rcitfzens of the County should not be asked to pay for this service.
Mr. Henley then offered motion to approve the legislation proposed to establish the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority as presented at this meeting. No second was
received, therefore, the motion died.
Mr. Lindstrom said he did not offer a second to the motion because it is clear that
one member of the Board does not favor the Authority, one member has not made any statement,
and two members would like to know more about the legislation. He is ambivalent not knowing
how to vote. He has a great deal of concern about the direction in which this community is
growing. He is inclined to support the legislation so as to avoid throwing roadblocks in
the way of what is inevitably going to happen in the future. However, he does see an
Airport Authority as opening one more door to further expansion and rapid development in
the area. He personally feels that would be unfortunate. He realizes the economics of the
Airport are important to many people, but the character of this community is also important
to many people. Mr. Lindstrom said he realizes that as long as the Airport is operated by
the City and County, the demands at the Airport cannot be met. Again, Mr. Lindstrom said
he felt voting against this legislation would mean setting up a roadblock for what appears
to be a future necessity. However, he could not make a motion to support something that
other Board members are not fully informed about, and one which he has only a weak reason
to support.
No further discussion of the question took place and no action was taken on this date.
At 12:37 P.M., Mr. Fisher said there was a need for an executive session to discuss
personnel matters, sale or acquisition of property, and the agenda item regarding attorney
fees for the Virginia Harris case which was requested by Mr. St. John. Mr. St. John also
requested that the legal implications of agenda item 6c, the McDonald's Site Plan appeal,
be included. Motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss the foregoing items was
offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
The Board returned at 1:37 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 14.
on January 4, 1984).
Public Hearing:
Budget Amendment (Advertised in the Daily Progress
Mr. Agnor noted that these are grant monies from the State which the Sheriff will use
for selective enforcement of driving under the influence laws. The grant is in the amount of
$6,240 and will be used to pay over-time wages for law enforcement personnel. The public
hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the proposed amendment, the
public hearing was closed. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by
Mr. Way, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $6,240 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
Grant Fund for expenditure by the Sheriff's Department for selective
traffic enforcement, and is coded as follows:
1 1203 31110 100200
Compensation-Overtime $6,240
AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1983-1984 County
budget is hereby amended by the addition of $6,240 to the following code:
1 1203 31110 80000
Grant Proceeds
$6,240
AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Henley, Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 15. Presentation of Annual Fi~nancial Report for the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, for the year ended June 30, 1983.
Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, said that a new state law adopted in 1982 required
that all professional services be put out to bid. This was done, and the Board selected the
firm of Price Waterhouse to perform the audit mentioned above. The firm started work in
July, finished in September, and submitted the Financial Report to the State Auditor of
Public Accounts. The report was accepted by the Auditor of Public Accounts as acknowledged
by letter dated December 19, 1983 (copy on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. Jones noted that
at the beginning of the Financial Report there is a management letter setting out several
recommendations for changes in the financial system. Mr. Jones said these suggestions are
viewed by the staff as being positive comments to strengthen internal controls of the accounti
system. These are recommendations and not findings of irregularities or errors. Mr. Jones
then introduced Mr. Glen Johnson, a partner in the firm; Mr. Bill Crewe, Management Specialist
and Mr. A1 Kent, Audit Manager.
January 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Jones said the audit was completed in accordance with newly adopted standards of U. S~
General Accounting, and the 1983 "Specifications for Audit of Counties, Cities and Towns"
furnished by the State Auditor of Public Accounts. There are no details of fixed assets
included as required by generally accepted accounting principles because same are not required
by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This may become an issue in the future since the Municipal
Finance Officers Certificate of Conformance requires that this to be a part of the financial
statements. In addition to the financial statements themselves, a number of other examinations
were performed; the Federal grant examination, Financial Statement transmittal forms, Federal
Census, Federal Revenue Sharing reports, and a separate audit on the various school activity
funds.
Mr. Johnson said that as the County Data Processing Department develops, it will be
utilized for auditing in the future. Much:of the day-to-day activity is on a cash basis, but
the financial statements are on an accrual basis, so there is some difference in revenues and
expenses. That is not unusual. In the future, the financial statements must include an
accrual of employee vacation and sick leave. This data is being worked on now and will be
incorporated in the financial statements as a year-end accrued liability.
Mr. Bowie said he has only had two days to digest a document containing 56 pages of
information and ten recommendations. Since this is the only independent view of the financial
system, it is difficult to say yes or no in a matter of ten minutes. He also did not expect'
the auditors to remain for several hours answering questions. Mr. Kent said he and his "~
colleagues would be please ~O_come_back at any time which is convenient for the Board. Mr. ~
Bowie then offered motion that the Board not take any action on the Audit report; that same ~.~
be deferred until February 8, 1984; and that a committee of Board members be appointed to
meet with persons from Price Waterhouse to ask questions and review the recommendations.
Mr. Johnson said it is normal for the governing body to have an Audit Committee. Mr. Bowi
asked Mr. Johnson if an exit interview (discussion of the audit and recommendations contained
therein) was held with staff. Mr. Johnson said yes; everyone from the "ground up" was involvec
on the management report. Mr. Bowie said he would assume that no member of the Board of
Supervisors was present. Mr. Fisher said that was true. At this time, Mr. Bowie's motion
was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to state before voting that he would be willing to serve
on such a committee. Roll was immediately called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 16. Report: Victim-Witness Assistance Program. Ms. Charlene Easter,
Coordinator of the Program, was present. Ms. Easter said that on July 1, 1983, the Board
approved $8,000 for this program which began on July 1, 1983 with a part-time coordinator at
a salary of $7,500/year. The remaining $500 was set aside for office expenses. The program
is handled out of the Commonwealth Attorney's Office and is available to the Sheriff's Depart-
ment and victims of crime on a twenty-four hour basis, at hospitals, in the home, etc. Ms.
Easter said.that crisis intervention is important because it offers immediate support and
education on the criminal justice system. This lessens the confusion experienced by the
victim and establishes rapport with the victim that is important in the months ahead. Services
offered to victims are: notification of court dates and continuances, case disposition,
changes in case status, orientation to court procedures, and preparation of testimony. Ms. :
Easter said she also coordinates court dates with the police, prosecutors and court clerks,.
assists in obtaining restitution, filling out victim compensation forms and impact statements.
If funding is received for a full-time coordinator next year, services will be expanded to
victims of property crimes and also to conduct community education activities focusing on
changes in the criminal justice system and crime prevention. Ms. Easter said a recent study
concluded that victim-witness programs lead to increased victim cooperation and successful
prosecution since as the victim and witnesses become more knowledgeable about court room
procedures, they are less intimidated by the criminal justice system. The State Attorney
General's Office and others in the criminal justice field are cooperating in developing legis-
lative proposals for the 1984 Session of the General Assembly. Ms. Easter said the County
Victim-Witness program has the support of the local law enforcement agencies, judges, the
Virginia Bar Association, other agencies and citizens. She hopes that the program also has
the support of the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if any other groups in the community do crisis intervention work.
Ms. Easter said there is a rape crisis program which provides counseling, and the victim/
witness program provides those same persons information about the criminal justice system.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about the Shelter for Help in Emergencies. Ms. Easter said she has not
worked with this organization. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Ms. Easter works independently of
other intervention groups. Ms. Easter said she works with these groups, but does not duplicate
their services. Mr. Lindstrom asked at what point Ms. Easter becomes involved in a case.
Ms. Easter said when there is a violent crime, she is called by the Sheriff's Department.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how'the other agencies become involved. Ms. Easter said the rape crisis
program gets information from the victim, ~he hospital, or the Sheriff's Department. Mr.
Lindstrom said it seems that the victim has several different agencies coming to them immediatel
after the crime. Ms. Easter said she often goes with someone from the rape crisis program.
Rape crisis provides clothing and shelter, while she goes to provide information on the
criminal justice system.
Mr. Fisher asked how many citizens the local program has helped. Ms. Easter said that
from July 1 to December 31, 1983, the program worked with 224 people; 58 were victims, while
the other 166 were witnesses. Most of the 58 victims were involved in a violent crime.
Ms. Easter said there is a new law going into effect in July which provides that a victim's ~
statement can be included in the pre-sentence'records if requested. She would help with
these victim impact statements.
Y
533
January 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked how many volunteers work with this program. Ms. Easter said there is
one graduate student from the University of Virginia working in the office now and a pool of
about 25 law students working on a domestic violence project.
Mr. Fisher said that concerning restitution, does the person responsible for the loss
have to make restitution? Ms. Easter said that is true, however if the victim has received
any compensation from an insurance company, the restitution goes to the insurance company
first.
Mr. Way asked the reason for this report being made at this time. Ms. Easter said this
is a new program, and the County's budget review committee recommended that a progress report
be made after the first six months of adoption.
Mr. Lindsay Dorrier, Commonwealth's Attorney, was present. He said the state report
stated that a victim/witness coordinator saves money paid in over-time to police officers
waiting to appear in a court room. That is a direct benefit to the taxpayer. Mr. Fisher
said it sounds like this program should be part of another core budget such as the Commonwealth
Attorney, the Police Department, or something similar. Mr. Dorrier said he feels it ~hould
be a part of the Commonwealth Attorney's budget, because his office presently gives the
program support through items he already has in his office. Mr. Fisher said if this program
is to be continued and is essential to the operation of the Commonwealth Attorney's Office,
maybe it should be budgeted in that office. Mr. Dorrier agreed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he was glad to see that society is finally 'focusing attention on the
victims of crime as well as the criminal. However, he hopes that the Board will be able to
avoid funding duplicate efforts by different crisis intervention groups.
Mrs. Jane Kirksey said she was the victim of a violent crime. She was assisted by the
Albemarle Victim/Witness Program. She said there was no duplication of services from any
other agency.
Mr. Fisher thanked all who had come to speak today, and noted that the Board would be
reviewing budget requests in a few weeks.
Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher said he had received a call from the Emergency Medical Services Council that
their offices are being relocated to inadequate space even though they have a lease for their
present space in the old County real estate offices off of High Street. Mr. Agnor said that
during renovations to the County Office Building on Court Square, the Clerk of the Circuit
Court was to relocate twice in that building to accommodate the remodeling. This will not
work because of the security needed for court records, the noise and the dust of remodeling.
Mrs. Shelby Marshall quickly became dissatisfied and conferred with Judge David Berry, who
then contacted County staff members. Mr. Calvin Jones is to meet with the tenants of the old
real estate offices (Emergency Medical Services Council, Albemarle Housing Improvement Program,
State Office of the Department of Public Welfare) tomorrow and request that they move to the
former Jailer's House so the Clerk of the Circuit Court may be relocated to that space during
the remodeling. Emergency Medical needs space for a training area and that will not be
available in the same building where their offices will be located, however space will be
made available elsewhere. Mr. Fisher asked when these moves are expected to take place. Mr.
Agnor almost immediately, with the Clerk being temporarily relocated for at least twelve
months.
Mr. Fisher noted letter dated January 6, 1984, from Mayor Frank Buck concerning the
Route 29 North bus service contract (letter is set out in full under the Consent Agenda for
this date). Mr. Fisher said he had heard on the radio that the City intends to begin furnishin
bus service to Piedmont Community College. Mr. Fisher said he believes any extension of
service into the County must be reviewed by the County Attorney and approved by the Board.
He asked the staff to check into this matter.
Mr. Lindstrom referred to Agenda Item 8 re. adoption of an ordinance for Disposal of
Unclaimed Property in Possession of County Law Enforcement Agenc±es. The ordinance was
adopted earlier ~n the day. Mr. Lindstrom said he meant for his amendment to change the
wording of the ordinance to include "such employee's immediate family." He then offered
motion to reconsider the vote taken on adoption of this ordinance. This motion was seconded
by Mr. Way. Roll was called and the motion to reconsider .passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to amend the final sentence added to Section II to
read as follows: "No member of the County Sheriff's Department or the County Police De
or any member of such employee's immediate family, will be permitted to participate as a
purchaser in any sale of personal property hereunder."; and to readopt the ordinance with
this amended sentence. This motion was seconded by Mr. Way. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
(Note: The Ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.)
534
January 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE DISPOSAL OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
IN POSSESSION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OF THE COUNTY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County as
follows:
I. Any unclaimed personal property which has been in the possession
of the Sheriff, the Chief of Police or any of their duly authorized and
acting deputies or officers and which has remained unclaimed for a period
of more than 60 days may be sold at public sale as more particularly set
forth hereinafter. For purposes of this ordinance, the term "unclaimed
personal property" shall be any personal property belonging to another
which has been acquired by a law enforcement officer pursuant to his duties,
which is not needed in any criminal prosecution, which has not been claimed
by its rightful owner and which the State Treasurer has indicated will be
declined if remitted under the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property
Act (Section 55-210.1 et seq.).
II. Prior to the sale of any unclaimed item, the Chief of Police shall
make reasonable attempts to notify the rightful owner of the property,
obtain from the Commonwealth's Attorney in writing a statement advising
that the item is not needed in any criminal prosecution, and cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the locality once a
week for two successive weeks, notice that there will be a public sale of
unclaimed personal property. Such property shall be described generally
in the notice, together with the date, time, and place of the sale. The
Chief of Police shall pay from the proceeds of sale the cost of advertisement,
removal, storage, investigation as to ownership and liens, and notice of
sale. The balance of the funds shall be held by such officer for the owner
and paid to the owner upon satisfactory proof of ownership. No member of
the County Sheriff's Department or the County Police Department, or any
member of such employee's immediate family, will be permitted to participate
as a purchaser in any sale of personal property hereunder.
III. If no claim has been made by the owner for the proceeds of such
sale within 60 days of the sale, the remaining funds shall be deposited in
the general fund of the County. Any such owner shall be entitled to apply
to the County within three years from the date of the sale and, if timely
application is made therefor, the County shall pay the remaining proceeds
of the sale to the owner without interest or other charges. No claim shall
be made nor any suit, action or proceeding be instituted for the recovery of
such funds after three years from the date of the sale.
IV. The Chief of Police is hereby constituted the agent of the County
for purposes of the administration of this ordinance.
(For authority to adopt this ordinance, see Virginia Code Section 15.1-133.01.)
Agenda Item No. 17. Executive Session: Personnel. At 2:37 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested
a motion to adjourn into executive session for discussion of personnel matters (to interview
various persons for appointment to boards and commissions). Motion to this effect was offered
by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
The'Board reconvened into open session at 5:23 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 18. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to appoint Mr. Walter F.
Perkins as the White Hall District representative on the Albemarle County School Board; said
term to expire on December 31, 1987. Motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to appoint Mr. Richard F.
Gould as the Rivanna District representative on the Albemarle County Planning Commission;
said term to expire on December 31, 1987. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to appoint Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., Mr. Connie L. Cochran, Mr. John R. Carter and Mrs. Carol K. Hollenshead to the
JAUNT Board of Directors; said terms to expire on September 30, 1984. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
535
Januar~f~ 1984~1ar Da__~_Meetin~.) _
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to appoint Mr. Lindstrom and
Mr. Agnor to the Library Budget Committee. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to appoint Messrs. Henley,
Way and Bowie to the Properties Committee (formerly known as Buildings and Grounds Committee).
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to appoint Mr. Lindstrom as a
member of the Clean Community Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to appoint Mr. Keith Mabe
as a member of the Community Housing Resources Board. Mr. Agnor said this is a federal
requirement to examine the real estate market in terms of the resources that are available in
the local market itself. It has a broad span of concerns. The Board meets with the local
realtors and the City and County staff people involved in the housing field. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 19. Staff Report on School Board Request for Capital Funds. Mr. Agnor
noted that late last year, Mrs. Jessie Haden, Chairman of the Albemarle County School Board,
wrote to the Board asking the status of funding for two projects; Albemarle High School,
Phase IV, and Broadus Wood Elementary School renovations. Mrs. Haden wanted to know if the
School Board could proceed with bidding in the Spring in order for construction to begin when
school closes in June. Mr. Fisher had then requested that the staff prepare a status report
of the Capital Improvement Program and make a report to the Board. Mr. Fisher said today has
been a long day, and he would request that only a summary of the report dated January 10,
1984, containing twenty pages, be given at this time.
Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, said his recommendations are based on Attachment III
to the memorandum of January 10, 1984, which shows that a grand total of $3,513,049 was
proposed to be spent in the 1983-84 fiscal year; $2,681,790 has been appropriated so far;
leaving $831,259 still to be appropriated. As of January 1, 1984, there was $1.9 million in
the Capital Improvements Fund and the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund still available for appro-..'
priatimn. Mr. Jones said he recommends that the Board fund $45,800 in projects designated
for funding in the current year; that the Board fund the $107,000 recommended for Albemarle
High School Phase IV as originally planned for the FY 83-84 year;,and that the balance of the
Albemarle High School, Phase IV project be funded in the 1984-85 year as originally planned;
and since the Federal Revenue Sharing Law has been extended for three additional years,
consideration be given to utilizing the proceeds from revenue sharing to first pay off the
advance to the School Fund from the Capital Improvement Fund, and secondly the advance to the
School Fund from the General Fund. This will allow the money going into the CIP Fund to be
used for construction projects. If the Board considers funding the Broadus Wood project
during the 1983-84 year ahead of the planned schedule, some form of borrowing other than
Literary Fund loans must be considered. It is possible that the status of Literary funds
will be known by mid-1984. Recent estimates of the Broadus Wood project from Mr. John Massie
show that the price has escalated from $2,240,000 shown in last year's CIP, to $2,357,000;
this creates a need for an additional $157,600 in local funds.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to know why the Broadus Wood project should be taken
out of sequence. He said there is pressure from parents to do something to the school, but
he has not heard anything which would cause him to believe the project should be moved forward
in time. Mr. Agnor said the School Board has been told by the architect that he needs to
know about getting the project ready for bid in order for the project to proceed during the
summer of 1984. Mr. Agnor said this will be an eighteen month or longer project, so it
cannot be completed before school begins in the fall. Literary Fund loans have been frozen
until July, 1984 and this project is Number 26 in line for funding.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Jones for his recommendation. Mr. Jones said he recommends that
the Board not take these projects out of order, or move same forward in time, since the Board
will have to consider some alternate form of borrowing at that time.
prin
proj
on t
a pc
he w
the
l'ane
work
Mr. Fisher said he had attended a meeting at Albemarle High School last week where the
ipal, teachers, some school board members, and the architect were discussing the Phase IV
ct. There are a lot of unanswered questions concerning the architect's recommendations
.e heating/cooling system. Mr. Fisher said he does not feel things have settled down to
~nt where everyone has agreed to what should be done at the School. Mr. Lindstrom said
~uld prefer to put this decision-off until next week since he is inclined not to change
~chedule. Mr. Jones said he asked that the Board approve the appropriation for Miscel-
~us Repairs as requested by the School Board; these repairs are a part of the CIP and the
does need to be done immediately.
,5 3:6
January 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $45,800 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Capital
Improvement Fund and coded as follows for certain school projects included
in the adopted 1983-84 Capital Improvements budget:
1-9000-97000-970200
1-9000-97000-970300
1-9000-97000-970900
1-9000-97000-971100
1-9000-97000-971500
1-9000-97000-971600
1-9000-97000-970303
1-9000-97000-970501
Miscellaneous School Reparis
Albemarle High School Projects
Henley School Projects
Crozet School Projects
Stony Point School Projects
Stone Robinson School Projects
Albemarle High School Renovations
Broadus Wood Planning
$10,000
13,500
2,500
4,500
1,300
2,000
7,000
5~000
$45,800
The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley.
following recorded vote:
Roll was Called and the motion carried by the
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Bowie asked what the $5,000 designated for Broadus Wood planning covers. Mr. Jones
said when the project was originally brought to the Board, there were several options, and at
the request of the Board the School Board went ahead with an analysis of the water tank
situation.
Agenda Item No. 21. At 5:4? P.M., motion was offered by Mr. LindStrom, seconded by
Mr. Way, to adjourn until January 18, 1984, at 4:00 P.M. in Meeting Rooms 5 & 6. The roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.