1982-03-1098
j~arcJa 3]_,O,i~[S9282((Reg~ul~r.Da, y, Meeting).
Hegu±ar l~ign~ Meeting)
lvlarc~
Miss Nash then offered motion to authorize the Chairman to write a letter to the
Governor recommending that Mr. William R. Moore from Campbell County be appointed to the
State Highway Commission as the Commissioner for Rural representation. Mr. Lindstrom
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher said some appointments are still needed on Boards and Commissions and
suggested that interviews for such be scheduled for March 10, 1982. The Board concurred.
Mr. Lindstrom then asked Mr. Agnor to coordinate a meeting with the other members of
the Crozet Interceptor Committee in the immediate future'.
Not Docketed. At 12:00 A.M., Mr. Fisher requested an executive session to discuss
legal matters. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to that effect, which was seconded by Miss
Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 12:10 A.M.
Agenda Item No. 10. With no further business, the meeting immediately adjourned.
March t0, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on March 10, 1982, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room #7, Second Floor, County Office Building,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom, and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: None.
Officers Present:
St. John.
County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Mr. Agnor presented the consent agenda consisting
of four items for the Board's consideration. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded
by Miss Nash, to approve the items on the consent agenda as presented. Roll was called on
the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash.
None.
Item No. 2.1. Statements of expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth'
Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of February, 1982, were presented; said statements
were approved as presented.
Item No. 2.2. Statement of expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the
Regional Jail for the month of February, 1982, was presented along with summary statement
of prisoner days, statement of jail physician and salaries of paramedics and classification
officer; said statements being approved as presented.
Item No. 2.3. Report of the County Executive for the month of February, 1982, was
presented as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602.
March 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment
by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of February,
1982, were also presented as information:
Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Fund
Cafeteria Fund
School Construction Capital Outlay Fund
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
General Operating Capital Outlay Fund
Grant Project Fund
McIntire Trust Fund
Mental Health Fund
$ 9,289.89
585,592.47
1,854,239.01
25,944.04
49,049.92
871.88
112,164.89
400.63
47,129.00
72,404.57
23,817.22
5,732.85
164,131.76
$2,950,768.13
~ Item No. 2.4~ Lottery Permits. Lottery permit requests were received from the Alpha
Phi 0mega-Theta Chapter for a lottery on March 23, 1982 and from the Fraternal Order of
Police Thompson Hall Lodge No. 5 for a bingo permit for calendar year 1982; same were
approved in accordance with the Board's adopted rules and regulations for the issuance of
such permits.
The following eight items were received by the Board as information:
(1) The Audit for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court for the
Fiscal Years ending June 30, 1981, 1980, 1979 and 1978 was received by the
Clerk on February 10, 1982.
(2) An informational report of the Commonwealth Attorney's office for 1981
dated February 9, 1982, was received.
(3) A report on 1981 residential development activity in Albemarle County
dated March 8, 1982 from Mr. Keith Mabe, Principal Planner, was received.
(4) A 1981 Annual Report of the Planning Commission was received March 5,
1982, from Mrs. Norma H. Diehl, Chairman of the Albemarle County Planning
Commission.
(5) A report entitled "Ridesharing Programs in Virginia: Services, Operations,
and Costs for Fiscal Year 1981" was received February 18, 1982, from Mr.
Michael D. Kidd, State Public Transportation Coordinator.
(6) A report entitled "Selection of Alternatives and Finding of No Significant
Impact for the General Management Plan" for the Shenandoah National Park was
received by the Clerk on February 26, 1982.
(7) The following letter dated March 2, 1982 was received from Mr. Leo
E. Busser, III, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer of the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation:
"As requested in your resolutions of January 13, 1982 and January 20, 1982,
the following addition to and abandonment from the Secondary System'of
Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective March 2, 1982.
ADDITION
LENGTH
CARRSBROOK SUBDIVISION
Shawnee Court - From Route 1433 southerly 0.05 mile
to end of cul-de-sac.
0.05 Mi.
ABANDONMENT
Route 641 - From 0.54 mile east Route 20 to 0.80 mile
east of~'Route 20.
0.26 Mi."
(8) The following notices from the State Corporation Commission were
also received~as information: Lynchburg Gas Company regarding an
application ~to.revise tariffs, dated February 24, 1982; Lynchburg
Gas Company, order rescheduting hearing, dated February 25~ 1982;
Columbia Gas of Virginia Inc., application to increase rates,
dated February 11, 1982; and The Potomac Edison Company, application
for an increase in rates, dated February 10, 1982.
March 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Lot ~,...Block A and Lot 1, Block B - Hessian Hills - No right-of-way is
required over either of these two parcels since the walkway can be constructed
within the highway right-of-way. Fencing is recommended along the walkway
on Lot 1, Block B. The length of the walkway is 415 feet.
~i~ginia W. Lee - This area is heavily wooded and will require clearing.
The walkway is located to avoid the relocation of utility poles to require
the minimum clearing. The owner has a plan for development known as the
Terrell Subdivision. The plan as proposed will not require any additional
right-of-way since it is shown on the subdivision plat. Fencing is
recommended in conjunction with the walkway. The length of walkway on
this site is 910 feet. My conversation with Robin Lee indicates that this
walkway meets with his approval.
Ga~ Johnson Blair Hathaway.- The area for the walkway is wooded and
will require clearing and grubbing. The walkway has been located so as to
preserve as much as is practical to the entrance to the property as it now
exists and to retain the existing fence. A short section of the 1,120~
foot walkway on either side of the entrance will be substandard to avoid
relocating the fence. Only 0.02 acre is required for the easement. Fencing
is recommended. I have met with and talked to Mrs. Hathaway on numerous
occasions. I believe she wants to talk with someone who can give her a
definite reason for the walkway.
Exxon Corporation - No right-of-way is required over this property
since the walkway ends at the property line with Hathaway."
Mr. Lindstrom said he understood that the apartments on the Frimel property are
managed by R. D. Wade, Inc., and asked if the company had been approached about this
matter. Mr. Williams said no and noted that several attempts have been made to communicate
with the apartment owners without success~
Miss Nash asked what will happen to Mrs. Hathaway's entrance when the sidewalk is
built. Mr. Lindstrom said there is enough level land along the front that can be used so as
to prevent any problems for her. One of Mrs. Hathaway's earlier concerns were that she
would loose trees. Therefore, Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, the former County Engineer, had designed
the sidewalk in a manner to eliminate cutting of the trees. Mr. Williams said the width of
the sidewalk was changed from five feet to four feet in front of her property because there
was limited space between the fence and the ditchline. There are also a lot of overhanging
trees on the ditchline. The entrance is on a grade and Mrs. Hathaway does have some property
closer to Hydraulic Road which is steep. Therefore, some culverts will have to be extended
and the grade changed. Mr. Lindstrom said if the problem with Mrs. Hathaway can be resolved,
it appears that there could be a continuous sidewalk from the Georgetown Veterinary property
all the way to the intersection of Georgetown and Hydraulic Roads. Mr. Lindstrom said he
will discuss this project with Mrs. Hathaway and also try to talk to the Bell's attorney.
He also suggested that Mr. Williams discuss this matter with someone from R. D. Wade Incorpora
Mr. Lindstrom said he did not want this project to be prolonged for another month and suggeste
a response be submitted at the March 17, 1982, meeting. Mr. Lindstrom then asked how long
it would be before the County could use the necessary right-of-way for this project if
eminent domain was exercised. Mr. St. John said the question is whether this project is
eligible for what is called a quick take and it would take him several weeks to resolve that
question. The Board agreed to continue this discussion on March 17, 1982.
Agenda Item No. 4b. Highway Matters: Request to vacate portion of Route 768.
Mr. Agnor noted the following letter dated February 24, 1982, from Mr. Cole Hendrix,
City Manager:
"Re: Closing of a portion of State Route 768
Miss Nash, Mrs. Cooke and Gentlemen:
The City of Charlottesville would like to request that the most eastern
210 feet of Virginia Route 768 be vacated. As you can see on the enclosed map,
the City owns the property on both sides of the road in this area. It is
the desire of the City to continue to operate this property in the manner
it is now operated and to prevent any conflict with Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation policies, we are requesting this closing."
Mr. Agnor said the Engineering staff has researched this matter and discovered that the
description of the request should be the southern 210 feet, not the eastern 210 feet. The
road is in the vicinity of Penn Park. Mr. Fisher then asked the purpose of the request.
Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present and said the City recently
graded a parking lot off of Route 768 without the highway department's permission. The
Department had contacted the City informing them that the selected location blocks the sight
distance to two other entrances off of Route 768 and this is not safe. The Highway Departmen~
requested the City to remove the obstacles and in turn the City asked if there was a way to
vacate this section from the secondary system. Mr. Roosevelt said the request to vacate
this section of Route 768 is to permit the City to develop their property as they see fit.
Mr. Roosevelt said he is not sure if the right-of-way is fee simple or not. If it is not
a~ is an old prescriptive right-of-way, then it would be returned to th~ C~ty by action of
abandonment.
March 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Henley asked if there is now a cul-de-sac at the end of the road. Mr. Roosevelt
said no. Mr. Fisher said there is currently a place to turn around and if that area is
closed off and a chain erected, then cars would have to turn around in private driveways.
Mr. Roosevelt did not feel the City intended to put a gate at the end of the State maintained
road. Mr. Henley said he did not have any problem with the request provided there is a
place to turn around. Mr. Fisher felt a public hearing should be held on this request and
someone from the City should be present to explain how the problems will be dealt with, and
the private property owners on the road should be notified of the request.
Mr. Agnor said the Board could require that a cul-de-sac be placed on the City's property
and the cul-de-sac be the termination of the state maintained highway. Motion was then
offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to advertise for public hearing on April
14, 1982, the request from the City to consider abandonment of the southernmost 210 feet of
State Route 768 as a public road and that the City be requested to consider siting of a
cul-de-sac that will be part of the secondary system and the property owners along the road
be notified as well. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4c. Highway Matters: State Transportation Plan.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was present and summarized the following
memorandum dated March 2, 1982:
"I have just received a copy of the 'Highway Needs' portion of the proposed State
Transportation Plan. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has
suggested a priority ranking of High, Medium and Low for certain primary and
secondary roads in Albemarle County. I have reviewed their priority suggestions
and am recommending changes to certain roads based upon the proposed
Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study recommendations.
While the CATS proposal has not been adopted, I am recommending that the County
follow the CATS Policy Committee's recommendations in the interim, until the
CATS proposal can be adequately reviewed and acted upon.
The attached '~ighway Needs' Table 1 reflects the proposed State Transportation
Plan's priority ranking (Copy on file in Clerk's office). My suggested
changes~ based upon CATS, have been made in pencil to the right of the Virginia
Department of Highway and Transportation's recommendation. Although I do not
necessarily disagree with the other high priority routes listed, I am not
endorsing their ranking at this time.
Any comments or changes must be sent in writing to the ¥irginia Department of
Highways and Transportation by March 18, 1982. I am requesting that the Board
of Supervisors review these recommended changes for any amendment and/or
endorsement at their March 10 day meeting, in order to forward any changes
to Richmond by March 18, 1982."
Mr. Tucker said if changes are made to the CATS recommendations in the future for
Planning District 10, then changes can be made to the Transportation Plan i£ necessary. He
understands that the plan will be reviewed again in~ two years. He did not feel any implemen-
tation of these roads will be in that two year period. Therefore, he did not feel that the
County, by making a recommendation based on the CATS study, would be blocking itSelf into
anything. Mr. Tucker then reviewed a map showing the CATS study recommendation's and noted
that the roads are to be undertaken in phases and are separated into segments in an attempt
to follow Highway Department recommendations and priorities.
Mr. Lindstrom said he did not agree with showing a western Route 29 bypass, which is
not shown in the County's Comprehensive Plan, and he is also reluctant to support plans
which have not yet been seen or heard by the Board. Miss Nash agreed and although she feels
that improvement of Route 631 south from Interstate 64 is necessary, there are other necessar
road improvements such as Route 20. Mr. Tucker said improvement of Route 631 is shown in
the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Route 250 West is shown in the Comprehensive
Plan for four laning. Mr. Tucker said no. Mr. Lindstrom then asked what is shown in this
State Transportation Plan that is not included in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Tucker said a connector between Rio Road and Route 20, a western Route 29 bypass and improve-
ments to Route 250 West. Mr. Fisher felt that the Board should not endorse any projects not
-~specifically addressed in the Comprehensive Plan and he did not feel there should be any
problem waiting to approve this Plan until after the County's Comprehensive Plan is revised
since there are no highway funds available. He felt the Comprehensive Plan should be used
as a guide for physical improvements.
Mr. Tucker said there are some disagreements between what the Plan recommends and what
is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. One in particular is the extension of McIntire
Roa~ which is the County's highest priority and is listed as a low priority in the State
Transportation Plan. Mr. Tucker said the request to the people at the state transportation
office is to delete projects which are in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Lindstrom then asked if this State Transportation Plan will be considered the
locally approved plan when adopted by the Board. Mr. Roosevelt said the General Assembly
adopted a resolution three-years ago requesting that the Statewide Transportation Plan
include mass transit and the Secretary of Transportation was requested to develop a plan.
Once completed, no one is certain. However, he felt this would not be a locally approved
plan since it is being prepared for the General Assembly.
March 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher then asked if any action by the Board is necessary. Mr. Tucker said the
action requested is basically to support the routes shown in the Comprehensive Plan with any
discrepancies to be transmitted to the Virginia Department of Highways.
~ Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve this Stat~ Transportation Plan w~t~--i-t~t~
~ consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and Smx-Year Highway Plan. Miss Nash
seconded the motion. Mr. Henley did not care to vote for something that so little is known
about. Mr. Henley said it has been five years since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and
a lot of things have changed during that period of time. Mr. Fisher said the Comprehensive
Plan is being reviewed this year and he did not feel that waiting would make a lOt of
difference. He agreed with Mr. Lindstrom that the CATS study should not be endorsed until
it has been examined. Mr. Lindstrom said the motion could state that the Board will not
support any recommendation that is not in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Henley felt the
motion should state that the Board has not seen the CATS study and hesitates to approve
something that is not included in same.
Mr. Lindstrom then amended his motion to send a reply to the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation by deleting from the State's proposed Transportation Plan, those
roads which are not currently shown in the County's Comprehensive Plan; give a high priority
ranking to those secondary roads which are currently identified in the County's Six-Year
Highway Plan; and placing some other designation on other roads recommended in the State's
plan. Miss Nash accepted the amendment to her second. Roll was then called on the motion
and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 4d.
Planning Organization.
Highway Matters:
Approve Charlottesville/Albemarle Metropolitan
Mr. Agnor said the following letter dated February 24, 1982 was received from Mr.
Richard C. Lockwood, Transportation Planning Engineer, Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation:
"As agreed upon at our meeting of February 16, this is to provide
you with additional information concerning the need for and procedures
to be followed in establishing a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
for the Charlottesville-Albemarle area.
As a consequence of the 1980 census, the City of Charlottesville
and portions of adjacent Albemarle County have been designated as an
urbanized area. Attached is a map depicting the proposed boundary of the
area. (Copy on file in the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors' Office.)
In order to ensure continued planning and funding of highway and transit
projects in the urbanized area, it will be necessary to initiate a
Continuing, Comprehensive, and Coordinated (3-C) transportation planning
process. At the heart of the process is the establishment of an MPO.
As a forum of state and local officials formed to facilitiate
cooperative decision-making on regional transportation issues, the duties
of the MPO include: (1) to form a working partnership for the 3-C process;
(2) to link transportation planning and transportation improvement programs;
(3) to give policy direction for the urban transportation planning process;
and (4) to provide for the distribution and expenditure of certain federal
transportation planning funds. The MPO generally consists of a policy/decision
making group, a technical group, and supporting technical staff. It is
suggested that voting membership of the policy group include two representatives
from each jurisdiction (preferably a mix of elected and appointed individuals)
and one representative from the Department. Nonvoting members might include
one representative each from JAUNT, the A-95 Review Agency, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), the Urban Mass Transportation Administration
(UMTA), and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The technical group
membership could include an equal number of representatives from each
jurisdiction; one representative from the Department, University of Virginia,
JAUNT, Charlottesville Transit System, the A-95 Review Agency, and the
airport authority; as well as representatives from FHWA, UMTA, the
Department of Aviation, and other agencies as agreed upon. In the
initial stage, monthly meetings of each group may be necessary, with
subsequent meetings held on a quarterly basis or as necessary.
The supporting staff of the MPO is responsible for the preparation and
processing of planning reports and performance of administrative functions,
as may be directed by the policy making body. Staff support can be supplied
by the policy making body.
With creation of an MPO in the Charlottesville-Albemarle region, a
limited amount of money will be available to support its activities. For
the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1982, $25,062 in FHWA planning (PL)
funds will be available; this will require local and state matches of
$2,256 each. A total of $30,000 in UMTA Section 8 funds will be available
in fiscal year '83 to support transit technical studies in the
Charlottesville, Danville and Bristol urbanized areas. The MPO will be
responsible for the dispersal and expenditure of PL and Section 8 funds
for which the area qualifies. The Department will continue to use FHWA
planning and research (HPR) funds to support its planning activities
in the Charlottesville area.
March 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
1982:
In order to comply with the federal planning requirements, it will be
necessary to complete and periodically update a number of documents. Of
primary importance is the Memorandum of Understanding, which details the
responsibilities of the participating parties. Enclosed for your review
and comment is a draft memorandum of understanding for the Charlottesville-
Albemarle MPO. You will note that this is a five party proposal involving the
Department, the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission (as the A-95 Review Agency), and JAUNT.
Under Article V of the agreement, the City and County would have two voting
representatives each and the Department one. The remaining parties would
have one nonvoting representative each.
Federal regulations require that in cases where the MPO and the A-95
Agency are different, there shall be an agreement between the two organizations
which prescribes the means by which their activities will be coordinated. The
draft agreement as currently written satisfies these requirements. If the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is not made a party to this
agreement, it will be necessary to draft a separate agreement between the
Planning District Commission and the MPO concerning the coordination of
the A-95 review process.
Other documents of importance to the transportation planning process
are the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). The UPWP, which guides the coordination of transportation
related planning activities, is used to support the expenditure of planning
funds and to set transportation planning priorities. Enclosed for your
information is the Table of Contents from the Tri-Cities UPWP. (Copy on
file in the Clerk's Office.) The TIP, which essentially outlines the
priority capital projects in the urbanized areas that use federal funds
for all transportation modes, includes an annual element of projects
slated to go forward in the coming year. Enclosed is a copy of the
table of contents and a typical project listing from the Tri-Cities TIP.
It is anticipated that the Department will assume much of the responsibility
for preparing the UPWP and TIP the first year with the appointed MPO staff
assuming more of the responsibility in future years.
A long-range transportation plan is another document essential to the
3-C process. When completed and approved by Albemarle and Charlottesville,
the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study will serve in this regard.
It should be pointed out that in establishing MPO's in the new urbanized
areas, the FHWA and UMTA guidelines emphasize that the planning process should
be kept simple, rely on existing procedures and data, and reflect simplification
of efforts. To achieve full compliance with the federal planning regulations,
a transition period of not more than two years is permitted. Finally, the 3-C
process in small urbanized areas may be subject to change, as FHWA and UMTA may
make significant changes to the planning and programming requirements for these
areas.
In summary, in order to initiate the 3-C transportation planning process
it will be necessary for you to forward to the Department resolutions
indicating City Council's and the County Board of Supervisors' willingness
to participate in the 3-C transportation planning process. As a participant
your jurisdiction mus~ designate representatives to serve on the MPO, (Policy
making body for the 3-C transportation planning process) and be willing to
obligate local monies to aid in matching certain federal transportation
planning funds that may be made available. It will also be necessary to
proceed with development and approval of a Memorandum of Understanding.
The Transportation Planning Division staff is ready to assist in
whatever capacity necessary to bring about successful implementation
of the 3-C process."
Mr. Agnor then summarized hisl memorandum and recommendation to the Board dated March 5,
"The establishment of a MPO requiresi
Approval of an agreement between the County, City, State, Thomas
Jefferson Planning District as A-95 review agency, and JAUNT.
$
The appointment of a policy/decision group and designation of
a technical group.
Designation of a supporting staff.
In other areas of the State, the MPO organization is centered around the
Planning District agency with some members of the Planning District
Commission serving as members of the policy/decision group, and the
Planning District staff serving as the supportive staff.
The creation of the MPO is the responsibility of Albemarle and
Charlottesville. Charlottesville has requested that the County approve
the creation of the MPO separate from the Planning District with the
supportive staff being drawn from the County and City planning staffs,
101
March 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
and the policy/decision group being a five member group comprised
of one member each from the City Council and Board of Super¥isors,
the City Manager and County Executive or their designees,
i.e. Directors of Planning, and one Highway Department representative.
If the MPO is not a satellite of the Planning District, a second
agreement will be needed between the Planning District as the
A-95 review agency, and the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO.
Mrs. Harbaugh will attend the Board meeting and indicate the willingness
and desire of the Planning District to provide the supportive staff.
Bob Tucker and I have discussed the City's proposal, and believe that
the capabilities of City and County planning staffs, and the limited
area and role of the MPO lends credence to the City's approach to its
establishment separate from the Planning District."
Mr. F~he~ask~d why the County should participate in this organization. Mr. Agnor
said his understanding of the organization is that it is focused on transportation and not
participating in the organization eliminates eligibility for funding from federal sources.
Mr. Agnor then summarized the function of the organization which is basically to make
policy decisions in the area of transportation planning and initiate applications for grants
of federal funds for the operation of the bus system and related items. Mr. Fisher asked if
roads were included in this funding process. Mr. Agnor said it is possible that highway
projects would be included but the organization is not being set up for such.
Mr. Fisher said he was not very enthusiastic about the organization. Mr. Agnor said
federal funding of JAUNT will be affected if the organization is not put into effect. Mr.
Lindstrom said he understood that by not participating in the organization, any federal
funds would be affected. Mrs. Wayne Harbaugh, Executive Director of the Planning District
Commission, was present and said the federal requirement is in reponse to a demand from
localities to participate in the transportation planning process. She noted that there has
been a problem in the past with lack of coordination and priority establishments. The MPO
would allow local officials to meet with t~a~~ff~~ ~$s~ss~ipri~es.~i~s.
Harbaugh noted her hope that the staff of the Planning District Commission be utilized in
order to strengthen transportation planning. Mr. Fisher asked if it is envisioned that this
will become a transportation authority with actual operating control. Mr. Agnor said no.
This is a new federal requirement which may be eliminated in the future.
Mr. Fisher said it appears from the correspondence received that there will be two
different groups; technical and policy-making. Mrs. Harbaugh said the composition will be
similar to that of the CATS group. Mr. Agnor said the City does not want to have the CATS
system of planning repeated. The City prefers having a smaller number of persons who are
more involved with the administration of the two jurisdictions.
Mr. Fisher felt that the Board should indicate its willingness to participate in the
MPO and then at some time in the future decide how it is to be handled. A brief discussion
followed on the fact that the organization is alien to rural counties in the Planning
DistriCt and may be a problem for the other four rural counties who are members of the
Planning District. Mr. Agnor explained how the organization would operate if the supporting
technical staff was that of the Planning District Commission. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the
t~chn~a~i~taff~~r~a~~G.~~an~!~C~,~~~i~d~ne with existing
~taff. Mr. Agnor did not feel that 'demand for' staff woUld be'heavy enough to require hiring
additional persons. Mr. Lindstrom then asked what the role of the Board and City Council
would be in decisions made by the policy group if the Planning District Commission was the
supportive staff. Mr. Agnor said none that he knew of. Mr. Fisher said he felt that the
Board would be involved because many federal programs require a local match and that Would
require action by the Board for appropriations. Miss Nash said the Planning District Commissi
has a competent staff which she felt could be of great use to the policy group without
having the Commission in charge of the entire project.
Mr. Lindstrom agreed that the MPO itself is necessary, and he was in agreement that the
Planning District Commission staff is able to handle the technical staff work, but at the
same time he agreed with the City that the MPO is something completely related to the City
and County and does not involve the other counties who are members of the Commission. Mr.
Henley felt the Planning District Commission could handle the work now and if the MPO is
still in effect one or two years from now, then the composition could be changed. He felt
the Board should indicate its willingness to establish the MPO. .Mr. Agnor said that is
essentially what the City has done. Mr. Henley then offered motion to agree to the establish-
ment of a Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Charlottesville/Albemarle area with all
of the decisions on how to establish the organization deferred to a later date. Mr. Lindstrom
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4e. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum~dated March 10, 1982 from Mr. J.. Ashley
Williams, Acting County Engineer:
"In October of 1981, the County called a bond which totaled $7,000.00 from
Dr. Charles Helm for work not completed on the road in Section 1 of
Windrift. I have just received three proposals to do this work in order
for it to be taken into the state system:
March 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Haley, Chisholm &'Morris - $7,900
A. G. Dillard ?av±ng -'$7,975
Torrence Construction - No bid
In addition to the remedial repair work, approximately $100.00 in drafting
is needed to have the 'as built' drawings made by the surveyor. The developer
has also been delinquent on his payment for subdivision road inSpection to the
tune of $152.19 to date. This cost is a reimbursable expense to the County
by the developer and can be paid out of the Engineering Department's budget.
The performance bond with the Highway Department is $7,500.00 and the maintenance
fee is $t00.00.
Taking the lowest proposal for the repair work, the total budget is as follows:
Repair Work
Drafting by Surveyor
Subdivision Inspection '.
Highway Department Performance Bond
Highway Department Maintenance Fee
$7,900
100
152
7,500
t00
$15,752
With the County by letter being responsible for the bond and a!so paying for
the inspection out of the Engineering budget, the request for funds beyond
the $7,500.00 bond we have, is $1,100.00."
Mr. Agnor said the request is for authorization to expend the $7,000 which was called:
by the County on the bond in 1981 and for the Board to appropriate an additional $1,100.00
from the General Fund in order to complete the project. Mr. Agnor said he would also like
to have an opinion from the County Attorney to determine whether the $1,100 can be recovered
by a lien on a piece of property that the developer still owns in Section I of Windrift.
Mr~ St. John said the only way the County can get a lien on the undeveloped lot is to bring
suit against the developer to recover the funds. Mr. St. John said the County does not have
any legal responsibility to go beyond the amount of the bond and the $1,100 is a gift from
the County to the residents on the road. Mr. St. John said an option for the persons living
on the road to have the road completed is to pay for it themselves; the Board could impose a
moratorium on building permits for the lots that the owner still owns, or the County could
get a lien on a lot. A brief discussion followed on what option was the best to follow.
The consensus was to proceed with the County Executive's recommendation and motion was
offered by Mr. Henley to approve the following resolution and encourage the County Attorney
to do whatever is necessary to recover $1,100 of County funds. Mr. Butler seconded the
motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Henley and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $8,100 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
General Fund and coded to 4100-3002, 'Professional Services, Engineering
Department, for completion of road in Section 1, Windrift Subdivision.
Agenda Item No. 5. Discussion: Park Entry Fees.
Mr. Agnor said the'following memorandum dated February 26, 1982, has been received from
Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, regarding a recommended park
entry fee:
"Our department would like to request that the Board of supervisors consider
adjusting the present system of fee collections at Chris Greene and Mint Springs
Parks for the upcoming summer season. Under the present system, fees
are collected from Memorial Day through Labor Day for admission to the
swimming area and for rental of County-owned row boats and canoes. The
only other fee associated with Park usage is the rental fee charged
groups wishing to reserve picnic shelters. The shelter reservation
fee is a year round fee which was initiated this past May.
The current charges under the present system are as follows:
1) Season Pass Admission to Swimming Area*
County Residents - Adults $25.00, Children $15.00, Family $50.00
Noncounty Residents - Adults $30.00, Children $20.00, Family $60.00
*Season Passes reduced by one-half after July 15th.
2) Daily Admission to Swimming Area
County Residents - Adults $1.75, Children $1.00
Noncounty Residents - Adults $2.00, Children $1.25
3) Boat Rental (Chris Greene only) - Canoes $1.50/hr., Rowboats $1.00/hr.
4) Picnic Shelter Reservation Fees*
a. Groups under 50 - $10
b. Groups 50-100 - $20
c. Groups 100-150 - $30
*Reservations will not be made for groups in excess of 150.
103
March 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
It is our recommendation that the swimming fee be abolished in lieu of a park
entry fee and that the current charges for admission to the swimming area be
adopted as fees to be charged for admission to the Park itself. We feel that
this recommendation, if adopted, will not only increase our revenues, but will
also aid our Park's staff in controlling both the size and behavior of the
crowds at the Parks.
The majority of the crowd control problems that we now experience are being
created by our 'drive through' customers and by persons who choose to
congregate and swim in the less supervised areas of the Parks in order to
avoid paying admission to the swimming area. In comparison, our paying
customers who frequent the beach area have generally been very well behaved.
We have received many complaints in this office from County residents who no
longer wish to bring their families to our Parks because of the rowdy behavior
of many of our nonpaying visitors, many of whom are noncounty residents.
While we do hire off-duty sheriff deputies to patrol the Parks, their
efforts are greatly handicapped because of the size and demeanor of the crowds
attracted by the current free entry system.
There were also occasions last summer when Chris Greene Park became so crowded
that it had to be closed and additional visitors had to be turned away until
the crowds thinned out. In many cases, County residents who were planning
to pay entry to the swimming area, including some Season Pass holders, were
turned away, while nonpaying residents of Greene County and other localities
were enjoying the Albemarle County Park facilities.
If approved, our suggested procedure for fee collection and crowd control
is as follows:
I. Ticket booths will be constructed at the entrance to the Parks.
2. Park rules and regulations will be posted at this point.
Uniformed attendants will greet each car entering the Park,
collect fees, distribute a list of rules and verbally communicate
the same.
4. Cars will then be directed to parking spaces by the Parks staff.
A sheriff's deputy will be on duty at the Parks and will eject
visitors who insist on disregarding Park regulations.
As far as the other Park fee's are concerned, we feel that the boat rental
policy can remain the same. The picnic shelter policy can remain as is with
the possible ~xception that reservation fees be waived during the Memorial
Day to Labor Day period, as each individual in the group would already be
required to pay entry into the Park.
We do realize that a Park entry fee system would be a radical change that
may meet with opposition from some of our Park patrons. However, we feel
that the seriousness of the crowd control problems at the Parks have advanced
to the point that this is our only viable solution and we respectfully request
that the Board consider adopting this recommendation."
Mr. Agnor said if the above concept is agreed to, he would suggest that a public hearing
be scheduled in April to consider amending Section 14-11 of the Albemarle County Code to
incorporate these changes and in order for the fees to be in effect when the Parks open in
May. Mr. Agnor said the deputy assigned to patrol the parks has indicated that he feels the
entry fee will discourage persons riding through the parks, less persons drinking alcoholic
beverages, and lastly the deputy felt that a great deal of the problems are from noncounty
residents and the increased fees and fee for entry to the park will discourage such. In
conclusion, Mr. Agnor supported the request of the Parks Department.
Mr. Fisher did not feel there was enough differentation between the existing fees for
noncounty and County residents. He favored a greater difference and hoped there was some
way to reduce the amount of fees for County residents to get into the park and still make
enough money to cover operating costs and favored such rather than increasing the noncounty
fees. He also asked if there was any prohibition limiting access to this facility since
federal funds were used to develop the park. .Mr. Agnor said no. Mr. Fisher then asked the
pleasure of the Board. Mr. Henley offered motion to advertise for public hearing on April
14, 1982, an ordinance to amend Section 14-11 relating to park entry fees. Mrs. Cooke
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda I~em No. 6. Authorize execution of agreement with Appalachian Power Company.
Mr. Agnor said negotiations have been completed between the Virginia Municipal League,
Virginia Association of Counties Negotiating team and Appalachian Power Company for new
electric rates to be charged to local governments. The new service agreement provides for
an increase in rates for January 1, 1982 through June 30, 1984. The negotiations have been
consummated and the VML/VACO team recommends adoption of the new rates. Mr. Agnor said a
copy of the agreement has been received and he is requesting authorization to execute said
agreement on behalf of the County. He also noted that there is a separate agreement for the
Schools. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to authorize Mr. Agnor~tp execute an agreement
between the Appalachian' Power Company and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors dated
January 1, 1982, covering the following four facilities: Department of Housing, Esmont;
Albemarle County Park, Scottsville; .Scottsville Elementary School Building, Scottsville; and
McIntire Public Library, Scottsville. (copy on file in the Clerk of the Board's office).
Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: Ordinance to amend Industrial Development Authority
Ordinance. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 24 and March 3, 1982.)
Mr. Fisher said an inducement resolution from the Industrial Development Authority Was
presented to the Board on February 10, 1982, for the Augusta Lumber Company. (See the
minutes of February I0, 1982 for the details of the request.) Coincident with the resolution,
the Authority requested the Board to amend the Albemarle County Code, Section 2-52 in order
to authorize an additional bond issuance to cover the project. Therefore, Mr. Fisher said
this public hearing is being held to consider amending Section 2-52 by increasing the number
of bond issuances from six to seven.
The public hearing was opened. Speaking first was Mr. James Murray, Jr., Chairman of
the Industrial Development Authority. Mr. Murray felt that Augusta Lumber Company was one
of the most suitable requests for industrial development financing that has ever been
presented. Mr. Murray said the Authority urges support of the amendment to Section 2-52 in
order that Augusta Lumber Company can obtain the bond issuance.
Mrs. Ronald Hancock, member of the Industrial Development Authority, was present and
agreed with Mr. Murray's statement that this request is one of the best ever presented for
industrial funding. She also felt that small local businesses should be encouraged to
investigate the possibility of using industrial bonding.
With no one else to speak for or against the ordinance, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom agreed that this request is almost exactly what the Authority was designed
for and would provide local employment. Therefore, he would support the ordinance. Motion
was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 2-52
ARTICLE IX, CHAPTER 2, OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
RELATING TO THE LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF BOND
ISSUES OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that Section 2-52 of the Code of Albemarle is hereby amended and reenacted
as follows:
Sec. 2-52. Limitation on number of bond issues.
There shall be no more than seven bond issuances of the Industrial
Development Authority of the county in existence at any one time.
Roll was then called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher said the second matter is to concur in the inducement resolution of the
Industrial Development Authority. When this was presented to the Board in February, there
were some questions about the zoning and setback requirements of the property and he felt
that if the inducement resolution is approved by the Board, it should be with the understandin
that approval of the resolution does not have any bearing on approval of a special use
permit for the Augusta Lumber Company. Mr. Fisher then asked if the planning staff had any
other pertinent information on whether the site can accommodate the request.
Mr. Tucker was present and said he did not have any specific comments other than to
alert the Board that the applicant will have to apply for a special use permit for the
sawmill and conditions and regulations will be considered at that time.
Mr. Fisher then asked if the Board desired to consider a resolution before the special
use permit is considered or adopt same with a disclaimer that the resolution does not mean
the special use permit will be approved. Mr. St. John said the inducement resolution is a
separate matter from the special use permit and there is no need to consider the two together.
Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following
resolution with the understanding that such endorsement does not have anything to do with
the special use permit application:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
hereby gives its approval in accordance with Sections 2-50
and 2-51, Chapter 3, Article IX of the Albemarle County Code to the
financing by the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County,
Virginia, of a lumber drying facility to be located in Albemarle County,
Virginia, by an adopted resolution of the Industrial Development Authority.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
105
March 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher said at a recent National Association of Counties meeting~
there was a discussion on industrial revenue bonds and what the House of Representatives,
U.S. Senate and the Treasury Department are considering as changes. One proposal by the
Senate to be effective on January 1, 1983, is to exclude large corporations having more than
twenty-five million dollars worth of capital investments from taking advantage o~ the industri~
bonds. Another proposal is to allow the industrial revenue bonds only in distressed areas
of the country, high unemployment areas or other definitions of distressed areas. Mr.
Fisher said another proposal made by the Treasury Department to the Senate was to require
that there be a local contribution or commitment of one percent of the total value of bonds
or a guaranty that such could be raised by a local agency. The second part is to require
that a public hearing be held by the local legislative body with approval of same before the
bonds are issued. In conclusion, Mr. Fisher said there are a number of issues being discussed
and proposed on industrial revenue bonds and he felt the bonds will be more restricted than
in the past.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-81-67. Woodbriar Associates (Deferred from March 3, 1982).
This petition was considered by the Board on March 3, 1982, and a motion for denial was
offered but tabled until this meeting in order to allow a committee specified at that meeting,
to consider what action the County would have to take if the special-use permit was denied.
The special use permit request was to allow fill in the flood plain of property on State
Route 606. Mr. Agnor said the committee has met and made a recommendation but it is not in
complete accord with the following recommendation from the County Attorney dated March 5,
1982:
"While I do not fault the staff at all for conceiving the idea of a special
use permit based on the precedents of after-the-fact grading permits and
so forth, I do not think those precedents apply here where it is certain that
no permit would have been issued, and indeed could not lawfully have been
issued, in advance (the paint cans violate state law); and so I do not
think a special use permit should be granted under any circumstances.
My recommendation is that this matter be treated as an activity, rather
than as a structure; the offender having ceased and desisted from that
activity, the offense has been suppressed. The activity may have created
a condition -- paint cans buried in the flood plain -- as opposed to a
structure, but since there is no structure, there is no continuing zoning
violation and the only questions are whether to seek a criminal warrant
for the now-suppressed illegal activity, and how to remedy the condition.
Respecting the criminal warrant, I recommend against it and do not
think a conviction would result. As to the condition, I got the impression
that the Board felt that to require removal of the deposited debris would
be more damaging than leaving it buried; if this is their feeling, then
the Zoning Administrator has discharged his duty and there is nothing
left for him to do.
I believe this solution in no way compromises our ordinances or enforcement
practices and is appropriate under the facts of this case."
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Zoning Administrator concurred in this recommendation. Mr.
Agnor said yes. Mr. St. John said as indicated in his letter, he did not feel the Board
should approve the special use permit and since there has not been any request to withdraw
the application, he would recommend denial of the special use permit. By doing that, there
will not be any further action by the staff or the Commonwealth's Attorney.
The public hearing was then reopened. There was no one present to speak for or against
the petition, and the public hearing was closed.
Roll was called on the motion offered at the March 3, 1982, meeting to deny S?-81-67
and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11.
area for water service.
Request to extend Albemarle County Service Authority's jurisdictiona
Mr. Fisher noted the following letter dated March 3, 1982 from Mr. George Gilmer, Jr.:
"Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Sirs,
This letter serves to state that George Gilmer, Jr., Irving Brownfield,
and the Estate of Edward Brownfield own a parcel of land on the northwest
side of Ballard Road occupied by the United Parcel Company. We request
permission to pick up the water line at the Albemarle County Garage and run
a line to the United Parcel Bui.lding. The building had a well, but it
periodically runs dry, and they need continued service so that they can
wash their trucks and for their personal use.
March 10 ~. 982 (Regular Day Meeting)
106
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker for comments on the implication of this request with the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker explained a map showing the jurisdictional boundaries of
the Albemarle County Service Authority. He pointed out the R. E. Lee Construction Company
site which has used the Authority's water in the past and was included when the jurisdictional
area boundary map was amended. Therefore, this request would be an adjoining property which
would be for water only'. The water would have to be brought across from Albemarle High
School or Jack Jouett ~School to service the United Parcel Service site. The parcel is zoned
Light Industrial and was recognized for its existing use when the zoning map and text was
amended in 1980. Mr. Tucker said the applicant has indicated that the water service is
necessary in order to wash UPS trucks. Therefore, he would recommend that the engineering
department consider what type of stormwater detention facilities United Parcel has and even
though the County cannot legally require.them to install any kind of facilities, to at least
encourage them to use a low phosphate detergent for the washing of the trucks.
Mr. Fisher said when the jurisdictional areas were set out, he thought that the parcels
designated in this area such as Albemarle High School were to be serviced only for the
existing buildings and not for the entire parcels. Mr. Fisher felt the manner in which the
maps are drawn is misleading and it appears that all the areas are proposed for major developme
for water and sewer which is completely opposite from his interpretation. Mr. Tucker said
the Board should realize that the scale of maps that his department works on is only a
representation of what has been adopted because if just the buildings were shown it could
not be seen on the map. Mr. Tucker thought that the motion indicated service would be only
to existing structures and the only thing that his department is able to do is to show the
entire parcels. Mr. Fisher was very disturbed that memories have to be relied upon and felt
that a star o~ something of that nature could be placed on the maps to show the existing
uses. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought there was a note somewhere on the legend of the map
about the conditions of the zoning and felt the same sort of thing should be on maps for the
jurisdictional areas. Mr. Fisher said he remembered that the map was to show only existing
uses on these County-owned properties.
Mr. Fishe~,' then asked Mr. William Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County
Service Authority, if the Authority was able to service this area with water. Mr. Brent
said this request has not~~~ ~ervice Authority Board so he did not have an official
answer, but, this parcel ~$~u~-~~physically served by the waterline that is serving the
schools. Mr. Brent said frequently questions come up concerning parcels that abut the
fringes of the project service areas. He understands that this Board is concerned With the
Authority's service areas and how these areas comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore,
he would request that the Board redefine or be more implicit about the type of connections
that might be allowed on these fringe areas. The phrase used on the map "parcels continguous
to the solid line on the map may be served" should be expanded.
Mr. Fisher then noted another request received just this morning as folloWs:
"March 9, 1982
Dear Miss Neher:
The planning commission has recently granted approval for the Solar I site
plan located on Old Ballard Road in Ivy. The Solar I project, owned by Ms.
Nettie Marie Jones, involves the development of two passive solar duplexes
on a 144 acre parcel of land.
Two sides of the property lie adjacent to the Service Authority's limit
of jurisdiction, located along the center of Old Ballard Road and Ivy Creek.
An 8" waterline presently crosses the southern portion of the property
servicing the Candlewyck Subdivision across from Old Ballard Road.
The owner is seeking the right to connect to the existing waterline to
service the proposed duplexes. A 6" waterline will be necessary in order
to accommodate a proposed fire hydrant. We are requesting that approval
for this connection be granted by the Board of Supervisors.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED BY)
~effrey H. Frank
Landscape Architect"
Mr. Tucker said the service area for water only follows Ivy Creek and everything to the
east of Ivy Creek is within the water only area. Mr. Fisher asked if this site is outside
of the designated growth area for Ivy. Mr. Tucker said yes; that and the size of the parcel
is of concern to him. Mr. Fisher asked if there could be further development on this
property. Mr. Tucker said the owner has one more development right; the rest would have to
be in twenty-one acre parcels.
Mr. Fisher said this request is a different application than the request for Mr. G±lmer
and he has some problems with this one. Therefore, he felt the Board could advertise the
request of Mr. Gilmer for a public hearing and then continue the discussion on ~he request
from Mr. Frank. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to advertise
for public hearing on April 1~, 1982, an amendment to the Albemarle County Service Authority'
project area for water service to the parcel of United Parcel CompanF on Lamb's Road. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Flsher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
107
March 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Discussion then continued on the request from Mr. Frank. Mr. St. John asked if the
Service Authority Board has seen this request. Mr. Brent said no, however, the Service
Authority Board of Directors, has taken the position in the past to not be pro or con about
areas to be served. Mr. St. John felt the Service Authority should review this request
before Board action is taken.
Miss Nash asked if the eight-inch water line goes across the property being developed.
Mr. Tucker said the part of the property being developed is quite a distance from the line.
The developer thought it would be more economical to run a six-inch water line from the
eight-inch line to serve the duplexes. Mr. Fisher said a six-inch water line would provide
more water than necessary for four dwelling units. Therefore, he felt the line is being
planned for more than the four duplex units. Mr. Agnor said the six-inch line is for the
hydrant only and not because of the duplex needs.
Miss Nash then asked if the Service Authority must allow connection to the line when
the water line crosses a property outside of service areas. Mr. St. John said under State
Code provisions, persons are entitled to a connection but it does not give them the right to
divide their land in order to obtain additional connections. Mr. Fisher asked if the owner
is entitled to one connection without a change in the service area. Mr. St. John said that
is not answered in the Code because there are conflicting provisions. One provision states
that the person is absolutely entitled and the other states that the Service Authority shall
not engage in any business outside of their service areas. Mr. St. John felt the person is
entitled to one connection. Mr Fisher asked if that meant one dwelling unit. Mr. St. John
said it means whatever connection the Service Authority will permit.
Mr. Fisher requested that this question be examined because the line crosses this
owner's property; if there are existing rights, then the Board should know before taking any
action to amend the service areas. Mr. St. John suggested that the Service Authority also
show how this property could be served. Based on the absence of necessary information, the
request was deferred to April 14, 1982.
Agenda Item No. 7.
Office Building spaces.
Authorize County Executive to sign Leases on former Real Estate
Mr. Agnor said several weeks ago, he was authorized to negotiate leases for the rental
of the properties on East High Street, known as the former Real Estate Office Building. He
has negotiated with the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program and the State welfare support
agency group. The leases have been prepared by the County Attorney with AHIP and the lease
with the state agency has been reviewed by the County Attorney. Rent is based on comparable
market values with the tenants paying their own utility costs and the leases will be for two
years. Mr. Agnor said his request today is to be authorized to execute the leases with the
two agencies. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to authorize
the County Executive to execute the leases as noted above. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Appropriation.
Mr. Agnor said a memorandum was received on February 10, 1982, from the Education
Department requesting an appropriation for the cOmpletion of energy conservation measures at
five elementary schools and two middle schools. This is a result of past energy surveys
funded by Department of Energy Grants. The projects were ~n the School Board's Capital
Improvement Program last year but no appropriations were made. Bids have been taken and per
a memorandum dated February 22, 1982, from Mr. Ray Jones, a request for one-half of the low
bid which was $152,821, is being requested. When the grant proceeds are received, Mr. Jones
will then request that the grant funds be appropriated. Mr. Jones has also indicated that
the grant covers only fifty percent of the cost. Therefore, Mr. Agnor said the request is
to appropriate $76,140 from the unallocated balance of the Capital Improvements Fund with
same being transferred to Code 19.33, Energy Projects. Motion was then offered by Miss
Nash, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $76,140 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the unallocated
balance of the Capital Improvement Fund and transferred to Code 19.33, Energy
Projects.
Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Executive Session: Personnel.
At 12:05 P.M., mOtion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn
into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded Vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:40 P.M.
March 10, 1982 CRegular Da~ Meet~ng~
108
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: Amendments to the License Tax Code of Albemarle
County. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 17 and February 24, 1982.)
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Deputy Director of Finance, was present and said as previously
discussed, the proposed changes are a result of State Law changes. There is a reduction of
some tax rates on professional persons. The main category affected is "repair service"
which is currently $.20/$100 on gross receipts but the proposed rate is for $.36/$100. He
also noted other changes such as certain professional occupations which were transferred to
personal services. Mr. Breeden said one new section added is for a business license tax
added to telephone, telegraph, water, heat, light and power companies. Also, the basis on
which wholesale merchants have been licensed has been changed from gross receipts to gross
purchases.
The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Layton McCann, a local businessman, was present.
He said the ordinance may have been advertised for changes but he did not think most business
persons are aware of the proposed changes. His personal business is in a service category
(Section 11-66) and the proposal increases his license tax eighty percent. Therefore, he
will have to pay $71.62 per month more based on his last year's gross receipts. Mr. McCann
said the County does not furnish him very much in the form of services and he would prefer
that some of the services provided by the County be charged to businesses a little more. He
is aware that the County is not allowed by law to charge more than that which is set by the
State but the County can charge less. In conclusion, Mr. McCann noted that the current rate
he pays is $.20/$100 and the proposed~rate is $.36/$.100 and he felt that an eighty percent
increase is too much.
With no one else present to speak for or against the proposed ordinance, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Henley asked how the $.36 rate was derived. Mr. Breeden said that is the maximum
allowed by State Code.
Mr. Jones then recommended that the gross receipts in Section 11-18 be increased from
$2,500 to $5,000 due to the present economy; said section pertains to gross receipts that
are exempt from licenses. Mr. Jones said such a change is permissible by State Code.
Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Henley, to increase the amount of
gross receipts in Section 11-18 from $2,500 to $5,000. Roll was called and the motion
carried by 'the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr? Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
A discussion then followed on changing the rate in Section 11-66 to $.30 instead of the
proposed $.36 for repair, business, personal and other services. Mr. Fisher asked if the
Board desired to set the rate at $.30/$100. Miss Nash felt $.30 was easier to deal with.
Mr. Henley agreed and said that would be a fifty percent increase which he felt was sufficient
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to change the rate in Section
11-66 from $.36 as proposed to $.30 for repair, business, personal and other services. Mr.
Butler felt that Mr. McCann was correct in his statement and the proposed increase of $.36
was too high. He felt small businesses carry a large amount of the taxes and felt the Board
should think about the small businessman. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and
same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstr°m, and Miss~ Nash.
NAYS: None.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following
ordinance with the above amendments, which amends, reenacts, repeals.~and adds a certain
section to Chapter 11 of the Albemarle County Code. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND, REENACT, REPEAL AND ADD
CERTAIN SECTIONS TO CHAPTER 11 OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that certain sections of the Albemarle County License Ordinance, Chapter 11 of
the Albemarle County Code are hereby amended, reenacted, repealed and added as
follows:
Section 11-22. Taxes--When payable; penalties for nonpayment.
Paragraph (a) is amended to read as follows:
(a) Ail license taxes imposed by this chapter, except as herein otherwise
provided, shall become due and payable on or before the first day of June of
each year.
~ Section 11-13. Same--Persons liable to keep records; report of gross
receipts.
Paragraph (e) is added to read as follows:
(e) A penalty of ten percent of the tax due or ten dollars whichever is
t.~e~eater shall be imposed for failure to report gross receipts or expenditures
as required by .paragraph (b) of this section'.
.09
March 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Section 11-18. Same--Exemptions.
Paragraph (a) is amended to read as follows:
(a) Except as otherwise provided, no license tax shall be required to be
paid by any person under this chapter whose "gross receipts" shall be five
thousand dollars or less but such person shall be required to report such
sales to the director of finance who will issue an exemption certificate to
such person. This section shall not be applicable to any license which is
based on a flat rate.
Section 11-21. Exhibition of contractor's, etc., license prerequisite to
obtaining permit, county contract or subcontract.
Amended paragraph to read as follows:
Every contractor, electrical contractor, plumber and steamfitter, building
wrecker, deve. lqper, or speculative builder who proposes to do work in the
county ....
Section 11-25.
Section 11-26.
Section 11-28.
Section 11-29.
Section 11-30.
Section 11-32.
Aerated or drinking water. (REPEALED)
Agricultural fairs. (REPEALED)
Automobile graveyards. (REPEALED)
Bill poster or distributor. (REPEALED)
Boardinghouses and lodginghouses. (REPEALED)
Building or savings and loan associations.
Paragraph amended to read as follows:
Every building or savings and loan association having its principal
office in the county shall pay for the privilege of doing business an
annual license of thirty dollars.
Section 11-33.
Section 11-34.
Section 11-35.
Section 11-36.
Section 11-37.
Section 11-41.
Buyers of gold and silver.
Camp sites. (REPEALED)
Detectives and watchmen.
Labor agents. (REPEALED)
Lightning rod agents. (REPEALED)
Pianos tuners. (REPEALED)
(REPEALED)
(REPEALED)
Section 11-42. Pistol dealers. (REPEALED)
Section 11'43. Rifle ranges, shooting galleries, etc. (REPEALED)
Section 11-44. Sightseeing carriers and motor vehicle transportation
of persons. (REPEALED)
Section 11-45.
Section 11-46.
REPEALED )
Section 11-47.
Taxicab operators. (REPEALED)
Tourist cabins, hotels, motels and motor courts.
Wall signs and billboardS. (REPEALED)
Section 11-48. Generally.
Section amended by the addition of the following categories:
Dance halls, except restaurants licensed to serve food and beverages
h~v.i.ng _a dance floor with an area not exceeding ten per centum of the
tota~l,~floo area of the establishment and for which no admission is charged.
Drive-In Theatres
Rifle ranges or shooting galleries, except those operated by. private
or nonprofit gun clubs.
Theatres
Theatrical performances, etc.
~.Section 11-49. Carnivals and circuses.
Amended by the addition of the following paragraph:
(e) Licenses issued under this section shall include the operation
of ferris wheels, merry-.go-rounds and other amusement rides.
March 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
110
Section 11-50. Dance halls. (REPEALED)
Section 11-52. Amusement rides. (REPEALED)
Section ~-53. Theatrical performances, etc. (REPEALED)
Title of Division 3 amended to read as follows:
Division 3, Contractors, Developers, Electricians, Plumbers,
Steamfitters and Speculative Builders.
Section 11-54. Definitions.
Amended by the addition of the following two definitions:
Develop.e..r. Every person engaged in the business of subdividing
p~_op~r.~; .~stalling water systems, sanitary sewage sYs.t..ems, storm
dr.~i~.e..s.ystems or road improvements with the intent to offer for sale
either residential, industrial or commercial lots.
S.peculative builder. Every person in the business of erecting
a building, for the purpose of selling or renting it and making no contract
with a dulM licensed contractor for the erection of such building, whether
or not such person contracts with one or more duly licensed contractors for
one or more portions, but does not contract with any one person for all of
the work of erecting any one of such buildin~s..~.
Section 11-55. Amount of tax--Generally.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) were repealed and reenacted as follows:
a) Every contractor, electrical contractor, plumber, steamfitter,..
speculative builder or developer shall pay for the privilege of conducti.ng
business Within the county an annual license tax of fifteen cents for each
one hundred dollars of gross receipts from the business conducted during
the...~ac~i_n.g fiscal or calendar year.
· b) Ever.y person, firm or corporation engaged in the business of
a contract.or.,..electrical contractor, plumber, steamfitter, speculative
builder or developer shall include in their gross receipts all work done.;.
whether such work is done by contract, ~.ubcontract, day labor or time and
material.
Section 11-56. Same--Speculative builders. (REPEALED)
Section 11-58. Exemption generally when city, town or county
license purchased elsewhere; exception.
Paragraph amended to read as follows:
When a contractor, electrical contractor, plumbing or steamfitting
contrac'tor or building wrecker,, speculative builder or developer shall
have paid a local license ....
Section 11-59.
or county.
Deduction of receipts taxed by another city, town
Paragraph amended to read as follows:
In computing the license tax of a contractor, electrical contractor,
plumbing or steamfitting contractor, building wrecker or speculative
builder or developer whose principal ....
Section 11-61. Junk and secondhand dealers and canvassers. (REPEALED)
Section 11-64. Definitions.
Amended the definition of wholesale merchant as follows:
Wholesale merchant. Every person engaged in the conduct of a business
as set forth in section 11-69. The term "wholesale merchant" is further
defined to mean every merchant who sells to others for resale only,
or who sells to institutional, commercial or industrial users. Sales made
d.~_eqt.~y to a licensed contractor, sPeculative builder or developer shall
also be considered "wholesale" sales; however, sales to an individual home-
owner shall not be wholesale sales but are to be reported as retail sales.
Section 11-65 amended and reenacted as follows:
Section 11-65. Financial, real estate and professional services.
(a) The maximum rate for local license taxes imposed on a person
e~ga_ged in a financial, real estate or professional service is thirty.
dollars or fift.y-eight cents ..per one hundred dollars of gross receipts,
whichever is greater.
111
March 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
(b) Financial Service. Any perSon rendering a serv±ce ~for compensation
in the form of a credit agency., an investment company, a broMer or dealer
in securities and commodities or, a security or commodity exchange is
providing a financial service, unless such service is specifically provided
for under another section of this chapter.
Those en~aged in rendering financial services include, but are not
limited to, the following:.
~y~g installment receivables
Chattel mortgage financing
Consumer financing.
Credit card services
Credit unions
Factors
Financing accounts receivable
Industrial loan companies
Installment financing
Inventory. financing
Loan or mortgage brokers
Loan br mortgage, companies
sa~_~y ~eposit box companies
Securit.y and commodity brokers and services
Stockbroker
Working qapital financing...
~y person other than a national bank or bank or trust compa~
o~ganized under the laws of this state, or duly licensed and practicing
attorney. ~t law, that engages in the business of buying or selling for
others on commission or for other compensation, shares in any corporation,.
~q~. notes or other evidences of debt is a stockbroker. The fact that
orders are taken sub.ject to approval by a main office does not relieve
the broker from local license taxation. Also, an insurance company engaged
in selling mutual funds is a broker as to that portion of its business.
(c) Real Estate Service. Any person rendering a service for compensa-
tion as bu.yer., seller, agent or broker is providing a real estate service,
unless the service is specifically provided for under another section of
of this chaPter..
Those rendering real estate services include, but are not limited toa
the following:.
.Ap~raisers of real estate
Escrow ~gents, real estate
Fiduciaries, r.eal estate
Real estate agents, brokers and managers
Real estate selling agents
Rental ~gents for real estate.
(d) Professional Service. A person is engaged in providing ~
professional service if engaged in rendering any service specifically.
enumerated below or engaged in any occupation or vocation in which a
professed knowledge, of some department of science or learning, gained by
ap~!.ong.e.d course of specialized instruction and study is used by its
practical application to the affairs of others, either advising, guidinga
or teachin~ them, and in serving their interests or welfare in the practice
of an art or science founded on it. The word profession implies attainments
in professional knowledge as distinguished from mere skill, and the
application of knowledge to uses for others as a vocation.
Those e~gaged in rendering a professional service include, but not
limited.~.o,~.the following:.
Architects
A.t.to~neys-at-law
Certified public accountants
Dentists
E.~.gineers
Land surveyors
Pharmacists
Practitioners of the healing arts
Suvgeons
Veterinarians
The..p,erforming of services dealing with the conduct of business
itself,..including the promotion of sales or services of such business
and consulting services, do not constitute the practice of a profession,..
even tho~g~ the services involve the application of a specialized knowledge.
Section 11-66 amended and reenacted as follows:
S~¢tion 11-66. Repair, personal, business and other services.
(a) The maximum rate for a local license tax imposed upon a person
engaged in a repair, personal or business service or any other business
Qr o_c.~upation not specifically listed or expected in this chapter is thirt.~
dollars or thirty cents per one hundred dollars of gross receipts, whichever
is ~reater.
March 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
(b) Repair serwice. The.repairing, renovating, cleaning or servicing
of some article or item of personal prope?ty-for compensation is a repair
servilce,_ unless the service is specifically provided for under another
section of this chapter.
(c) Personal service. Any service rendered for compensation either
~pon or for persons, animals or personal effects is a personal service,.
unless the service is specifically provided for under another section of
this chapter.
(d) Business service. Any service rendered for compensation to any
business,_ ~trade, occupation or governmental agency is a business service,.
unless the service is specifically provided for under another section of
this chapter.
(e) Those rendering a repair, personal or business service or other
service as provided in (a) above include, but are not limited to, the
following:_
Addressing letters or envelopes
Advertising agencies
Airline p.assenger carrier
Airp. lane repair
~i~pq~ts, private
Ambulance services
Animal hospitals, grooming services, kennels or stables
Auctioneers and common criers
Auto repair, engine repair of any typa
Automobile driving schools
Barber shops, beauty parlors, and hairdressing establishments,.
schools and services
Bicycle repair
Bid or building reporting service
Bill poster or distributor
Blacksmith or wheelwright
Booking a. gents or concert managers
Bookkeeper, public
Bottle exchanges.
Brokers and commission merchants other than real estate or
financial brokers
Business and office machines repair
Business research and consulting services
B.~yers of gold and silver
Chartered clubs. Licensee hereunder may without additional
license operate service of retail merchant and restaurant.
Chartered club shall mean any nonprofit corporation or
association which is the owner, lessee or occupant of an
establishment operated solely for objects of a national,
social, patriotic, political or athletic nature or the
like,, but not for pecuniary gain,, the advantages of which
belong to all the members. It also shall mean the establish-
merit so operated.
Child care attendants or schools.
Cleaning chimneys, furnaces
Clinical laboratories
Clotha~,. hats, carpets or rugs,, repair of
Collection agents or age.ncies
Commercial photography, art or graphics
Commercial sports
Computer service operated for compensation
Correspondence establishments or bureaus
Dance studios and schools
Data processing, computer and systems development services
Day. nursery (other than foster homes)
Detectives and watchmen. Each person shall be registered by name
and service with the county sheriff
Developing or enlarging photographs
Dv~fting. services
E.~g~aving
Eradication or extermination of rats, mice~ termites, vermin or bugs
Erecting, installing, removing or storing awnings
Freight traffic bureau or ag.ency.
Fum~.g~ing or disinfecting
Funeral services and crematories
Furnishing clean diapers
Furnishing house cleaning service
Furnishing janitor service
Furnishing labor services
Furnishing statistical service
Furniture, upholstering, repair of
Gunsmith,. gun repairing.
Hauling of sand, gravel or dirt
Hauling or transfer, not in connection with taxicab business
~oldi~g. companies, including holding company for mass media
communications
Hotels, motels, tourist courts, boarding and rooming houses,
trai~er parks and campsites
113
_ March 10, 1982 Re ular ~
Information bureaus
Instructors, tutors, schools and studios of music, ceramics, art,
sewing, sports and the like~
Interior decorating.
~o~print.~,. printing shop, bookbinding, duplicating processes
Laundry,. cleaning, and garment services including laundries,
dr.y cleaners, linen supply, diaper service,, coin operated
laundries and carpet and upholstery cI.ea~ing
Locksmith
Machine shop, boiler shop .
Mailing, messenger and correspondent servmces
Marinas and boat landings.
Mattresses, repair of
Motor vehicle transportation of passengers
Music teacher
N~.~p..aper delivery service
Nickel platin~, chromizing and electroplating
Nurses and. physicians registries
Nursing and personal care facilities including nursing homes,.
convalescent homes~ homes for the retarded, old age homes,
and rest homes
Operating a scalp treatin$ establishment
Packing,. crating, shipping, hauling, or moving goods or chattels
for others
Paint shop, other than contractor
Parcel delivery services
~arki.~g lots, public sarages and valet parking
Pawnbrokers
Personnel services, labor agents, and employment bureaus
Photographers and photographic services
Piano tuning
Picture framing and gilding
Porter services
Press clipping services
Private hospitals
Private schools (other than religious and nonprofit)
Promotional agents or agencies
Protective agent or agency.
Public relations counselor
Publicity service, furnisher of; booking agent, concert manage.~.
Radio engineer
Ra~ios,. televisions, refrigerators, electrical appliances, home
appliances, repair of
~y multiple listing services
Recorder of proceedings in any court, commission, or other
organization
Refrigeration engineer
Renting airplanes
Renting or leasing any items of tangible personal property
Renting bicycles
Re~t.in~ or furnishing automatic washing.
Renting wallsigns or billboards
R.e~oduction services
Reweaving
Road machines, farm machinery, repair of
R~g cleaning.
Sales agent or agency
S~ws, .too!s, repair of
Scales, repair of
Scientific research and development service
Sculptor
Secretarial service
S.e~tic tank cleaning.
Shades, repair of'
Shoe repair, shoe shine and hat repair shops
~ightseeing carriers
Sig~ painting
St.en.qg~ap~er, public
Storag. e, .alI types
~pplying .clean linen, coats, aprons, towels
Tabulatin.g service
Tax consultant
Taxicabs
Taxidermist
TelaPhone answering service
Theatrical performers, bands, and orchestras
Tire repair.
Title abstract company
Title insurance company
T~ing services
Translator of foreign languages
T?.~ns.portation consultant
Transportation services including buses and taxis
Travel bureaus or tour agents
Tree surgeons, trimmers and removal services
Turkish, Roman or other like baths or parlors
U-drive-it firm or business
March 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Umbrellas,. harnesses, leather goods, repair of
Undertaker, embalmer
Vehicle title service
Vehicular advertising, electric advertising, bus advertising,
commercial advertising
Wake-up. services
Washin~,..waxing, auto -- cleaning of automobiles
Watches, clocks, repair of
We ~d,i~g s~op
Persons accepting or offering to accept or place orders, which such
person will deliver at a later date, for the sale of medicines~
perfumes, salves, 1.ini~ents., cosmetics, cookware, plastic wares,
brushes, books, ~agazines~ vacuum cleaners or any other
merchandise and not having a regular place of business in the
county but who sell or offer to sell from house to house, or
at parties or meetings arranged for that purpose.
Ail other similar personal service, business service, or repair
service occupations, trades or businesses not included herein and not
otherwise taxed by this chapter.
Section 11-67.
(REPEALED)
Repair service occupations, businesses or trades.
Section 11-68. Retail merchants.
Amended by the addition of the following categories:
Automobile .graveyards..
Firearms.
Junk or secondhand merchandise.
L ig h~t_ning rods.
Section 11-69. Wholesale merchants.
Paragraph amended to read as follows:
Every'person conducting or engaging in any of the following wholesale
merchants' occupations, businesses or trades, with the exception of a
manufacturer selling goods, wares and merchandise at wholesale at the
place of manufacture, or a wholesaler selling goods, wares and merchandise
to other persons for resale unless such wholesaler has a definite place
of business in the county, shall pay for the privilege an annual license
tax of five cents for each one hundred dollars of gross purchases in excess
of ten thousand dollars during the preceding fiscal or calendar year.
T-~is category shall include, but is not limited to, the following;
Section 11-72.
Section 11-73.
Section !1-74J
Money lenders. (REPEALED)
Slot machines--Generally. (REPEALED)
Same--Coin machine operators. (REPEALED)
Section 11-75 amended and reenacted as follows:
Section 11-75. Vending machines, coin-operated devices; operators
or. persons placing.
(.a.).. A.n.y person owning or placing in the county any machines of any
description into which coins are inserted for the purpose of disposing of
~y. article of merchandise or for the purpose of operating any device
other than a coin-operated washing, dr.y cleaning or drying machine, that
operates on the coin-in-the-slot principle, used for gain shall pay
an annual license tax on the gross receipts derived from all such machines
located in the county computed at the rate applicable to retail merchants,
as set forth in section 11-68 of this chapter.
This section shall not be construed to permit the keeping,
maintaining,._exhibiting or operating of any slot machine or device in
which the element of chance is employed, or which gives any prize or
a~y article other than the article of merchandise or service in payment
of which the coin was originally deposited.
Any. person having or maintaining any such slot machine the
licensing of which is prohibited by this section shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and such machine shall be confiscated and d'estroyed.
.(.b) In addition to the license tax hereinabove imposqd, ever~
person selling, leasing, renting or otherwise furnishing to others
pinball machines or machines furnishing music, games or amusement, other
than devices or machines affording rides to children, shall be deemed
a coin machine operator and shall pay an annual license tax of one
hundred dollars.
115
March 10_ 1~98~2 ~R~ular~D~v~e$~
(c) No part of this section shall be construed to apply to pay
te.!ephones or to slot machines used for the purpose of vending individual
sanitar~ drinking cups or United States postage stamps or to operators
of automatic baggage or parcel checking machines.
(d) Ever.y person placing any machine required to be licensed hereunder
in the county, shall furnish the director of finance, on January 1 of
each _ye_a~, _the location and the make of each machine owned. Every vending
machine shall be plainly marked by the owner thereof with the name and
address of such owner. Each license issued shall refer to the manufacturer's
numbers of the machines whose g.ross receipts are included thereunder.
If the machine has no such number a facsimile or copy of such license
shall be conspicuously posted on such machine.
(_e.)_ Re~!ar.t.y licensed retail merchants paying retail merchants'
license tax on their sales at retail shall not be required to pay any
s_eparate vending machine license on such coin-operated machines which are
located on the premises of their place of business.
Section 11-77. Amount of license tax. [REPEALED)
Section 11-78. Penalty for violation of division. (REPEALED)
AN ORDINANCE ~TO AMEND~TH~Ei~L~M~LE~ C~NTY
LICENSE TAX ORDINANCE BY ADDING A NEW SECTION TO CHAPTER 11
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE, ARTICLE II (SCHEDULE OF TAXES)
DIVISION I (GENERALLY), PLACING A BUSINESS LICENSE TAX ON
TELEPHONE, TELEGRAPH, WATER, HEAT, LIGHT AND POWER COMPANIES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Bo~d of Supervisors of Albemarle County, ~irginia,
that Chapter 11 of the Albemarle County Code is amended as f~llows:
On each telephone, telegraph, water, heat, light and power company, the
license tax shall be one-h~lf of one percent on the gross receipts of such
company from business cmnducted in the county subject to allowable deductions
provided by state law.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Agnor said the tentative schedule for the budget work sessions is March 22,
March 29, March 31, April 5 and April 7, 1982. Mr. Fisher said he assumed that the work
sessions will be held at 1:30 P.M. as in the past and also suggested that the work session
with the School Board be on March 22, 1982. Mr. Fisher also requested that social service
agencies be considered together.
Mr. Fisher noted that the University of ~irginia is to receive their consultant's
report on the incinerator on March 25, 1982 and the receipt of such will be at a public
meeting.
Mr. Fisher said unemployment figures have been received from the ~irginia Employment
Commission and such are up~4.75%.
Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Personnel.
At 2:30 P.M., motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Butler, to adjourn
into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 3:55 P.M. and continued with the following
matters.
Agenda Item No. !5d. Appointments: Equalization Board.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to reappoint Mr~ Russell
Swisher, Mrs. Sharon Hamner and Mr. Barry Plotnick to the Equalization Board for calendar
year 1982 and to appoint Mrs. Barbara Staples and Mrs. Shirley Chapman for calendar year
1982. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
March 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
116
Agenda Item No. 15e. Appointments: Zndustrial Development Authority.
Mrs. Cooke nominated Mr. Thomas A. McQueeney to the Zndustrial Development Authority
to replace Mr. Raymond Bell. Mr. Butler nominated Mr. Earnly Chapman as a replacement
for Mr. Preston Morris. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Miss Nash, to
appoint the above named persons with said terms to expire on January 19, 1986. ~Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15a. Appointments: Airport Commission.
Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to appoint Mr. George
Prill to the Airport Commission with said term to begin immediately and expire on December
1, 1984. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15c. Appointments: Community Services Board.
Motion was offered by Mr.~Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to appoint Mr. Gene
Krumnacher to the Community Services Board with said term to begin immediately and expire
on December 31, 1984, said term to replace Mr. Alfred A. Dofflemyer; and to appoint Mr.
William A. Chick to fill the unexpired term of Mr. C. Harmon Williams, Jr., with said
term to expire on December 31, 1982. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES-
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to appoint Miss Ellen
V. Nash as the Board's liasion member on the County Planning Commission with said term to
expire on December 31, 1982. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, tO appoint Mrs.
Patricia Cooke as a County representative on the Planning District Commission as the
replacement for Dr. F. Anthony Iachetta. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mrs. Cooke.
Not Docketed. At 4:10 P.M., motion was offered by MiSs Nash, seconded by Mr. Henley,
to adjourn into executive session to discuss matters of property acquisition. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session at
5:00 P.M. and, immediately ~ou_rned.
CHAIR~gN