1982-10-06405
October 6, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on October 6, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher and
Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. and Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom.
Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr., and Assistant Director of
Planning, Ronald S. Keeler.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman,
Mr. Fisher, who announced that he had received a call today from Mr. Lindstrom who is in
New York City and will not be~present for this meeting; also, Mr. Henley called to say that
he and Mr. St. John will be late for this meeting.
Agenda Item No. 2. Report from the Consolidation Study Committee.
Mr. Fisher said the ConsoIidation Study Committee met last week and makes the following
recommendations, unanimously, to the Board of Supervisors and City Council for a series of
studies on specific items that may be considered for consolidation at a later date.
1) The Institute of Government at the University of Virginia be requested to perform
a background study of other consolidated areas in Virginia and in other states. No specific
recommendation is to be requested of or offered by the Institute of Government as to whether
or not a full consolidation of the City and County should take place. This study would be
part of a long-range process of exploring the possibility of a total consolidation at some
future time. The cost of the study is $3,000, with the money paying for secretarial time,
some travel expenses and copying costs; research time is being donated.
2) The Committee recommends that if in the future, should any services in the area of
general government be consolidated, that these services be managed by a Joint Services Board.
comprised of the County Executive~and the City Manager. The department head responsible for
the consolidated service would meet with the Joint Services Board at least monthly. Between
monthly meetings of the Board, either the City Manager or the County Executive, depending on
the consolidated service, would be the person to whom the department head reports with day-
to-day problems. If new services were developed, a decision would be made by the Joint
Services Board as to which manager would be responsible for that service. The purpose of
this organizational structure would be to provide professional management and guidance to
department heads.
3) A number of service areas were considered for possible consolidation and the areas
recommended for study are:
a) Law Enforcement. Discussion has taken place as to whether this might be the
appropriate time to consider converting law enforcement duties in the County from a sheriff's
office to-a police department, and if that decision is positive, whether this should be done
jointly with the City. To find the best answer, it is recommended that professionals in the
law enforcement field be employed to study the question.
b) Social Services. Both the County department and the City department operate
under the same Federal laws, have approximately the same Federal support for clients, and
probably have a duplication of files because clients tend to move back and forth across the
City/County boundary. The Committee members felt that administrative costs might be saved
through a consolidation of these departments. The Committee recommends that a study be
conducted in-house and that a report be made to the governing bodies by March 31, 1983.
c) InSpections. The reason for this recommendation is that the Committee felt the
two departments operate under the same State Code regulations relative to plumbing, electrical.
structural, etc., and City and County ordinances are the same on these regulations. Although
there may be differences in other areas of inspections, the Committee feels it may be possible
to make some cost savings, so recommends that the County Executive and City Manager initiate a
study of these departments immediately with a completion date of February l, 1983.
d) Education. The issue of education has been one topic where there has been
disagreement among the members of the Committee. This disagreement has been resolved tO the
point of recommending that the two school boards be asked to develop a list of areas they
desire to study over a long period of time, and from this list select two or three high
priority items to study in 1983 keeping in mind the educational value and potential cost-
savings in determining the priorities. A list of priorities should be presented to the
Consolidation Study Committee by December 31, 1982, with the results of the first study
being presented by December 31, 1983. Mr. Fisher said that Mr. Butler and Mr. Agnor were
also members of the Committee and he then asked them for comments.
Mr. Butler said he felt Mr. Fisher had accurately presented the Committee's recommendations.
He supports the recommendations and feels this is the best way to proceed in attempting a
consolidation.
Mr. Agnor said he felt the Committee was attempting to respond to concerns of the
entire Board of Supervisors to present a group of recommendations rather than making recommen-
dations in segments or pieces.
Mr. Fisher said the Committee members also recommend that the Committee be continued in
its present form to review the results of the various studies and to make recommendations to
the City C~Uncil and Board of Supervisors as well as to consider other areas of possible
future cooperation. Mr. Fisher said the Committee has no other meetings scheduled but
awaits the pleasure of the Board as to whether to continue with the studies, and if the
Committee is to continue, to then await the results of the studies. Mr. Fisher said the
recommendation on education is not to study complete consolidation of the two school systems,
but only to study specific areas chosen by the two school boards.
October 6, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Miss Nash said she takes for granted that the law enforcement study will not be a
prejudgment of what the Board will ultimately decide. Mr. Fisher said the Committee did not
discuss whether any consolication would be good or bad, only that this might be a good time
to make the study. If it is decided that it is a good idea, this idea may have to be studied
again in the future.
Miss Nash said that according to the Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City, this
Consolidation Study Committee was to have reported by January 1, 1983, so the Committee
recommendations made at this time actually change that schedule. She feels it is now up to
the two governing bodies to reestablish a committee to go on from this report. Mr. Fisher
said the Committee considered the timetable and concluded that the January date was a deadline
by which the Committee had to report, but the Committee could report at an earlier date if
it so desired. Mr. Fisher said if the Committee report is accepted, then the Committee does
not have any other work to do until the reports are received. Miss Nash asked if the report
from the Institute of Government will give facts on the whole question of consolidation in
toto instead of just on individual sections. Mr. Fisher said the Institute will examine
localities where there has been a total consolidation and perhaps some localities where
consolidation was attempted and did not work. Miss Nash felt the Committee would be in a
status quo until the reports are received.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the two school boards have been requested to do the school studies,
or if the Board of Supervisors has to make the request. Mr. Fisher said the latter. Mrs. Cook.
asked when the Board should formally ask the School Board to do the studies. Mr. Fisher said
the Board could formally accept the Committee's report and ask the school boards to move
forward with the proposals. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion that the Board of Supervisors
accept the report of the Joint Committee on Consolidation as presented tonight, and move
ahead with the necessary requests to the various areas of government to initiate these studies.
Miss Nash seconded the motion and said it should be made clear that this is the rePort of
the Committee that was actually not due until January, and that now it is up to the two
governing bodies to bide their time until they get the reports and then go ahead with further
recommendations of the committee to decide the question of consolidation on these reports.
Mr. Fisher restated the motion to say that the report be accepted and to move forward on
the implementation of same. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing: Budget amendments. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on September 29, 1982.) Mr. Agnor noted letter from the Clerk stating that budget amendments
must be handled in the same manner as the original budget is adopted, which requires a seven
day advertising period for a public hearing, with seven days elapsing between that time and
the time when Board takes final action. Mr. Fisher asked that Mr. Agnor present all of the
amendments advertised for this public hearing.
a) Appropriate $16,800 as the County's share of a joint study of consolidation of law
enforcement agencies. Mr. Agnor said this is only the County's share of the study. The
Board had ordered, on September 16, that this item be advertised for public hearing.
b) Appropriate $11,629 to the Clean Community Commission from a Division of Litter
Control grant. This is required because the County is fiscal agent for this Commission.
c) Appropriate $1,000 as the County's share of improving and bringing into the State
Secondary System of Highways one short section of Greenbrier Drive. Mr. Agnor noted that this
project was approved by the Board at an earlier meeting. The Highway Department will make the
repair and use a matching amount form Highway Department funds set aside for Rural Additions.
The County's share is to be taken from the General Fund, with the money being forwarded to the
Highway Department with the resolution requesting addition of this section to the Secondary
System.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against
the proposed budget amendments, the public hearing was closed. With no further discussion,
these amendments were carried over to the October 13th meeting for final action.
Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing: CPA-82-1. Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to add
a new map showing the area proposed for a water supply reservoir on Buck Mountain Creek and
language related thereto. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 22 and September 29,
1982. )
Mr. Keeler said the original map of Buck Mountain in the 1977 Comprehensive Plan was on a
very small scale and the area was outlined in a very general fashion. The Comprehensive Plan
was amended in August, 1980 to better describe the proposed location of the reservoir.
Subsequently, when the consultants for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority completed the
third phase of their study and presented same to the Board and City Council earlier this
summer, and following the Board's determination on August 4 as to the buffer area around the
reservoir, it became apparent that another amendment to the Plan was appropriate. The
amendment is intended to reflect as closely as possible, the Board's action of August 4.
Mr. Keeler then read the following textual amendment:
The Buck Mountain and Piney Creek watersheds have been recognized as potential
water supply impoundments. As currently planned, a dam located on the Buck
Mountain Creek about 1,500 feet downstream of Route 665 would impound waters ~
to the 464 foot elevation as determined from USGS mapping, providing a 450 acre
reservoir with a calculated safe yield of 19.2 MGD. This reservoir is intended
to supplement existing water supplies. Assuming expansion of the safe yield
of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir by 6.4 MGD through the use of flashboards
to raise the normal pool level by four feet and assuming continued viability
of existing supplies, the Buck Mountain Reservoir would be constructed about 2015.
407
Though the reservoir would not be realized within the design frame of this plan,
long-term planning to insure an adequate water supply is viewed as essential.
Should a determination be made to proceed with the project, it is recommended
that land and easement acquisition be undertaken immediately in order to insure
adequate control and to eliminate uncertainty of affected property owners.
Map XII A outlines the impoundment area and a minimum buffer area which consists
of all lands upstream of the proposed dam which lie within 300 horizontal feet
of the 474 foot elevation as determined from USGS mapping as well as a one hundred
foot buffer zone on either side of certain tributary streams.
Amenomen[ to the 'Community FaciLities & Utilities 'Section, Page 21: Public Water;~
; \
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, on August 31, 1982, unanimously recommended
approval of the amendments.
Mr. Fisher asked if the 474 foot elevation referred to is the one hundred year flood
level. Mr. Keeler said it is the one hundred year flood elevation as currently calculated.
A better determination will be made during the Phase IV study by the Rivanna Authority
consultants.
The public hearing was opened. With no one presen~ to speak for or against the proposed
amendements, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash to adopt
the amendments as presented and recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Butler. Mrs. Cooke asked what effect the 474 foot elevation has on the
property owners in the area. Mr. Keeler said that by the time the final elevation of the
one hundred year flood is determined, the Rivanna Authority will be preceding with acquisition
of property. This elevation is being shown as the maximum area for acquisition of property
by fee simple.
Mr Fisher said he is hesitant to continue this proposal as a part of the Comprehensive
Plan, but he thinks that whether~ a decision is made to purchase the land in the near future,
the land will ultimately be needed for a future water supply. He said the Rivanna Authority
has done exactly as requested in trying to determine the best area for a public water supply,
so he is willing to support this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and to follow through
with the actions required to protect this land to make same available for future generations.
October ~, 19~2 ~Re~ular Night Meeting]
At this time, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: An ordinance to reenact Section 5-3.1 of the Code
of Albemarle dealing with restrictions on the issuance of certain building permits. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on September 22 and September 29, 1982.)
Mr. Agnor noted that this ordinance, which effectively restricts the issuance of building
permits in the Buck Mountain Creek area, was originally enacted in August, 1980 for a two-year
period of time while the area was studied relative to a public water supply impoundment. When
final action had not been taken by the Board and Council on the recommendations from the
Rivanna Authority by the expiration date of the ordinance, the ordinance was reenacted on an
emergency basis for sixty days, or until October 10, 1982. The purpose of the public hearing
tonight is to affirm the Board's action in extending the ordinance on an emergency basis.
Mr. Agnor then read the ordinance as advertised for readoption:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMMEND AND REENACT SECTION 5-3.1 OF THE
CODE OF ALBEMARLE DEALING WITH RESTRICTIONS ON THE
ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN BUILDING PERMITS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County as follows:
(1) That Section 5-3.1 of the Code of Albemarle be, and it hereby is,
amended and reenacted as follows:
SectiOn 5'3.1. Restrictions on issuance of certain permits.
No permit shall be issued for the construciton of any building within any
area identified with reasonable specificity in the comprehensive plan for
acquisition for public use for the period of __years from the delineation
of such area on the plan, or amendment thereof, whichever shall be shorter.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the building official may issue such permit in
order to prevent unnecessary hardship in the application of this section. The
standards set forth in Section 15.1-495(b) shall apply to the determination of
the existence of such hardship hereunder mutatis mutandis.
For purposes of this section, a building shall be deemed to be within the
area herein specified if the building, the sewerage system or any part of either
of them shall be located within the area so identified for acquisition.
Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to add to any rights which may
be acquired in any property subsequent to the expiration of any period of
reservation set forth in the plan.
(2) The foregoing amendment shall have effect immediately.
At this point, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Leigh Middteditch was present to
represent the 5C's Committee. He said this committee was formed by interested citizens over
two years ago in order to assist in the deliberations between the City and County relative
to annexation. He said this group met on September 29, 1982, and unanimously adopted the
following resolution:
RESOLVED, that the Citizens Committee for City County Cooperation (5C's)
hereby recommends that land necessary for the Buck Mountain Reservoir be
acquired as soon as possible and that the landowners be fully compensated for
their property so acquired; that in order to permit this acquisition to be
accomplished, the existing moratorium be extended for a limited period of
time to permit exploration of alternate methods of acquisition and financing;
and that a blue ribbon committee be appointed by the 5C's to make recommen-
dations to the City and County which may include these matters and others,
and that this committee shall report to the City and County no later than
October 15, 1982.
Mr. Middleditch said this committee met once since September 29 and received a report
from representatives of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. The Committee will meet
again tomorrow. He said that of the eleven members appointed to the blue ribbon committee,
there are three former members of City Council, three former members of the Board of Supervisor~
and the last chairman of the Rivanna Authority. He said the Committee should have a recommen-
dation for the Board and Council by the data stated. Mr. Fisher said there were only nine
days until October 15 and asked if that was a reasonable length of time. Mr. Middleditch felt
it would allow enough time for making a recommendation.
Mr. Roy Patterson, speaking for Citizens for Albemarle, said his group feels the Board
should continue to try for a solution. They feel the Buck Mountain project is very important
so he urges that the moratorium be continued in order to allow this proposed committee and
the board a chance to achieve some success.
With no one else present to speak for or against the ordinance, the public hearing was
closed at 8:19 P.M.
Mr. Fisher said that he had mentioned several weeks ago that he did not believe the
moratorium should be continued because of the problems it has caused the property owners in
the area. Mr. Fisher said he is surprised that no property owners are present tonight to speak
for themselves. However, during the last two weeks there have been a number of people in the
community trying to help arrive at a resolution of the problem. Mr. Fisher said that although
at this time he does not see any way to resolve the issue of finances, he will "eat his own
words" and support continuation of the moratorium for a very short period of time. He had hope~
that this matter would have been resolved by tonight.
409
October 6, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
-- - - ..... ~ ~ght. Meeting)
Mrs. Cooke said she feels the people in the Buck Mountain area have waited long enough,
but if there is some glimmer of hope, she will support another extension of the moratorium.
Mr. Butler said he has talked to ~ number of people and he has sat in on some meetings
of the 5C's Committee. Most people he has talked to think the Board should not let this
opportunity for a water supply go by. He feels that something needs to be done at this
time. Mr. Butler said water is one of the most important commodities for a community, and
if this viable source gets by, the community will be in bad shape one day.
Miss Nash agreed with Mr. Fisher's statements, but said that the thought of not going
ahead with this project is terrifying since the cost of the project will continue to go up
because people living in the area will continue to build. Miss Nash thought the ordinance
should be readopted for a short period of time because she felt that some decision can be
reached before the new year begins. Mr. Fisher suggested that a hearing be set for a date
in November and the ordinance be extended only to that date. Mr. Agnor suggested that a
hearing be held on November 10 during the regular day meeting. After a short discussion,
Mr. Fisher suggested that the first sentence of the ordinance read: "No permit shall be
issued for the construction of any building within any area identified with reasonable
specificity in the Comprehensive Plan, as amended, for acquisition for the development of a
future public drinking water impoundment for the period ending November 11, 1982." Motion
to adopt the following ordinance was then offered by Miss Nash:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND RE-ENACT SECTION 5-3.1 OF THE COUNTY CODE DEALING WITH RESTRICTIONS
ON THE ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN BUILDING PERMITS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that
Section 5-3.1 of the Albemarle County Code, be, and it hereby is, amended as
follows:
Section 5-3.1. Restrictions on issuance~of certain permits.
No permit shall be issued for the construction of any building
within any area identified with reasonable specificity in the Compre-
hensive Plan as amended for acquisition for development of a future
public drinking water impoundment for the period ending November 1t,
1982. The foregoing notwithstanding, the building official may issue
such permit in ~order to prevent unnecessary hardship in the application
of this section. The standard set forth in Section 15.t-495(b) of the
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, shall apply to the determination
of the existence of such hardship hereunder, mutatis mutandis.
For purposes of this section, a building shall be deemed to be
within the area herein specified if the building, the sewerage system
or any part of either of them shall be located within the area so
identified for acquisition.
Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to add to any rights
which may be acquired in any property subsequent to the expiration of
any period of reservation set forth in the Plan.
The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Fisher said that in agreeing to the contin-
uation of a moratorium, he did not want anyone to get the idea that the Board is looking
toward any sort of a solution that would use property taxes, or any form of general taxation~
to purchase this property. He also stated that after looking at the rates that are charged
to the City/County water users, the County users are presently paying a rate that is sixty-fiw
percent higher than City users for the same amount of water, and he did not feel it is fair
to increase the burden on the County users disproportionately.
Roll was called at this point, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr Fisher and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Fisher said he had received a re.port today from Mr. George Williams of the Rivanna
Authority regarding the timetable to be followed once a decision is made to proceed with the
Buck Mountain project. Mr. Agnor then read the following from a memo dated October 6, 1982:
Phase IV - Buck Mountain Study - This is a preliminary design phase and
will require four months to complete once a Notice to Proceed is given.
Aerial Survey & Mapping - This work can be accomplished simultaneously
with the Phase IV Study. In order to take advantage of defoliation and
the proper angle of the sun, it will need to be done after December 1
and before March 1. A three month contract time should be reasonable.
Property Surveys - Individual plats will be required for each parcel to
be acquired. This should be done upon completion of the Phase IV Study
using mapping information from the aerial survey. Approximately two months
will be required to do this work.
Appraisals - By an independent appraiser will be required to develop a
bona fide offer. Sixty days is the best estimate of the time required.
410
October 6,
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Mr. Agnor noted that there were four lottery
permits listed on the consent agenda for approval, plus two items of general information.
~ion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Butler, to approve the consent agenda as
presented. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom.
Item No. 6.la. Lottery permit for the Stony Point Elementary School PTO for games to be
Ld on Friday, October 22, 1982, from 7 - 11 P.M.
Item No. 6.lb. Lottery permit for the Student Council United Way--University of Virginia,
for games to be held from October 4 to October 8, with a raffle to be held on the Lawn on
October 29.
Item No. 6.1c. Lottery permit for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad, Inc. for
raffle to be held on October 9, 1982.
Item No. 6.1d. Lottery Permit for the Martha Jefferson Hospital Auxiliary for raffle to
be held on October 26, 1982.
Item No. 6.2. Reports of the County Executive for the months of June and August, 1982,
were presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602.
Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by
the Director of Finance for the month of June, 1982, and charged against the following funds
were presented.
Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Fund
Cafeteria Fund
Capital Improvements Fund
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
Grant Project Fund
Mental Health Fund
$ 2,654.00
836,698.23
3,525,339.83
36,039,16
151,106.48
407.29
101,903.00
355.63
27,627.08
315,557.5.9
$4,997,688.29
Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by
the Director of Finance for the month of August, 1982, and charged against the following
funds were presented:
Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Fund
Capital Improvement Fund
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
Grant Project Fund
Mental Health Fund
$ 1,654.02
619,827.30
898,528.60
533,253.93
3,513.46
92,862.15
364.23
6,449.65
39.09
249,626.93
$2,406,119.36
Item No. 6.3. Report from the Albemarle County Service Authority entitled "Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1982" was presented as information.
Agenda Item No. 7. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Agnor said the staff has drafted a response to questions raised by the Planning
Commission relative to enforcement of County ordinances. He suggested that a joint meeting
be scheduled to discuss the response. It was agreed that the meeting would be held on October
1982, at 4:00 P.M. in Meeting Room #5, if possible.
Mr. Agnor said he'has been requested by Dr. Frank Hereford, University of Virginia
President,.to serve as a member of a University Hospital Advisory Committee for advising the
President, through the Vice President for Health Affairs, on community health needs. Mr.
Agnor said he has accepted the invitation.
Mr. Fisher said there is a task force on drunk driving meeting in Richmond on November 5
at the John Marshall Hotel with the concurrence of the Governor. The County has been asked to
send a representative and he asked Mrs. Cooke if she would attend. Mrs. Cooke agreed.
411
October 6, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Miss Nash asked if there had been progress made on a recommendation for the Old
Scottsville School property. Mr. Agnor said that a report from the appraiser is due tomorrow,
so this matter should be on the Board's agenda of October 13.
Agenda Item No. 8.
adjourned at 8:45 P.M.
Ad~ ournment.
With no further business to conduct, the meeting was