1982-12-08December 8, 1982 (R~gular Day Meeting)
.§2-4
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on December 8, 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 (Arrived at 9:07 A.M.) and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: None.
Officers Present:
R. St. John.
County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr., and County Attorney, George
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Fisher, who stated that this is Youth in Government Day and a delegation of students from
Western Albemarle High School will be Joining the Board about 10:15 A.M. (Mr Lindstrom
arrived at 9:07 A.M.) ·
Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. The consent agenda consisting of two items for
approval and four items as information was presented. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke,
seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the consent agenda as presented. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Item No. 2.1. Approve reduction for in-service grant from $29,921 to $14,320. Mr.
Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, by memorandum dated November 10, 1982, had indicated
that the State Department of Education reduced the in-service grant allocation to Albemarle
County from $29,921 to $14,320. Therefore, Board action is necessary to reduce the in-
service grant allocation for the Education Department as follows: Revenue--2330!.120 In-
Service Grant, the original budget was $29,921 and the adjustment is $15,601 (down to
$14,320) and Expenditures--17VC Special Education (In-Service Grant), the original budget
was $29,921 and the adjustment is $15,601 (down to $14,320). The Board approved the
reduction as requested by Mr. Jones.
Item No. 2.2. Statement of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's
Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of November, 1982, were presented; said statements
were approved as required by the State Compensation Board.
Item No. 2.3. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of October,
1982, was presented in accordance with Section 63.1-52 of the Code of Virginia.
Item No. 2.4. Report~of the County Executive for the month of November, 1982, was
presented as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602.
Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment
by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of November,
1982, were also presented as information:
Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Fund
Cafeteria Fund
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
Grant Project Fund
Capital Improvements Fund
Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
Mental Health Fund
$ 771.89
641,183.08
2,091.666.16
38,815.20
6,379.72
82,194.35
5,000.00
1,965.08
152,299.49
377.86
189~748.48
$3,210,401.31
Item No. 2.5. The Annual Report for the Youth Service Center for Fiscal Year 1981-82
dated November 30, 1982, from Ms. Amy Melville, Director of the Youth Service Center, was
received as information.
Item No. 2.6. The Report on Audit for Shelby J. Marshall, County Clerk and the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County for calendar year 1981 was received as information
from the State Auditor of Public Accounts, Mr. Charles Trible.
525
December 8, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes: September 15, 1982 (Day) and September 15,
1982 (Night).
Mr. Lindstrom had not completed reading the September 15, 1982 (Day) minutes but
would have them completed by the end of the day.
Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes of September 15, 1982 (Night) and found no errors and
offered motion to approve same. Mr. Lindstrom seconded 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. 4a. Highway Matters: Public Hearing: Abandon public right-of-way
between Lots ll and 12 on Flordon Drive. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 24
and December l, 1982.)
This request was presented to the Board on NoVember 10, 1982, and is set out in the
minutes of said meeting.
Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney, was present and said copies of the ordinance
to abandon this public right-of-way between Lots ll and 12 on Flordon Drive had been
distributed to the Board. He then recommended that the following wording be inserted at
the end of Section I of the ordinance: "Each of the two 25-foot strips shall become part
of the respective lot which it adjoins." Mr. St. John said this wording prevents two
separate parcels being created by this adoption of this ordinance.
Mr. Agnor suggested that the two lots be identified because the twenty~!we2~oot
strips actually touch three lots; Lots llA, 12 and 5. Mr. St. John agreed and then suggested
the wording be changed to read: "Each of the two 25-foot strips shall become a part of
Lot llA and 12 respectively." The Board did not object to the recommended change.
The public hearing was then opened. Mr. James Garnett, representing Lot llA, was
present and noted that he did not have any objection to the proposed abandonment but did
have some questions. Assuming that the abandonment is approved, what evidence of ownership
would he get for the twenty-five foot strip? Mr. St. John said Section 3 of the ordinance
covers that concern and when that requirement is accomplished, this action will become
part of Mr. Garnett's chain of title. Mr. Garnett asked if a deed is involved. Mr. St.
John said a deed is not required. Mr. Garnett then asked if a survey is to be done by the
Board. Mr. St. John said a plat was part of the papers submitted with this application.
He said the vacation of this right-of-way affects an existing survey which is of record in
the Clerk's Office. Mr. Garnett said he was thinking of a marker to identify his portion
of the twenty-five foot strip. Mr. St. John said that is not part of this action and if
desired, the owners would have to incur that expense.
Mrs. Evelyn Garnett, owner of Lot llA was present and said her understanding had
been that the twenty-five foot strip would be'deeded without any costs to her. Mrs.
Garnett asked if there is any way to get a new plat without incurring a lot of expense so
that the true condition of the property would be reflected. Mr. St. John said ownership
of the twenty-five foot strip will be received but not by a deed, rather a notation on an
existing plat which is part of a deed plus the minutes of this meeting. Mr. St. John~said
if Mrs. Garnett preferred to have. the action in the form of a deed, that could be done,
but it is out of the ordinary. In other words, Mr. St. John said a deed is not legally
necessary in this type of procedure but rather a matter of convenience to have a new plat
or deed.
Mr. James Hill, agent for Virginia Land Company, was present and said he had informed
the Garnetts that the twenty-five foot strip would be indicated on the plats for Lots i1
and 12. Mr. Hill said the agreement between his company and the Garnetts has nothing to
do with this public hearing.
Mr. Fisher then asked if it was the opinion of the planning staff that the subject
right-of-way was no longer needed. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was
present and said that was correct.
With no one else present to speak for or against the proposed ordinance, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher was in favor of the adoption of the ordinance with the change recommended
by Mr. St. John. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Butler, to adopt
the following ordinance with the recommended change to Section l:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-482b, as follows:
Section 1. That part of a certain plat by B. Aubrey Huffman,
Engineer, bearing no date, captioned "Lots ll, 12, 12A & 13, Block C,
Subdivision of Flordon, Albemarle County, Virginia" of record in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
374, page 285, consisting of the strip of land 50 feet in width
designated Flordon Drive between Lot ll and Lot 12 on said plat lying
to the northeast of Tanglewood Drive, is hereby vacated and the dedication
of the said strip of land 50 feet in width to public use is rescinded.
December 8, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
By plat of B. Aubrey Huffman & Associates dated April 2, 1971, of
record in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 507, page 485, Lot 11 was
divided into Lots llA and liB, and by plat of B. Aubrey Huffman &
Associates dated January 26, 1968, of record in said Clerk's office
in Deed Book 440,.page 551, a portion of Lot 12 was deducted from Lot
12 and added to Lot 12A. Accordingly, be it hereby further ORDAINED
that fee simple to the said strip shall revert to the owners of Lot
llA and Lot 12, respectively, from the centerline of said strip,
subject to any easements for utilities, or other matters of record.
Each of the two 25-foot strips shall become a part of Lot llA and
Lot 12 respectively.
Section 2. The vacation set forth in Section 1 of this ordinance
shall in no way vacate any other portion of the street, road, right of
way or lot duly platted and recorded on the aforementioned plat.
Section 3. Pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia
(1950) as amended, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia, shall write in plain legible letters across the vacated
portion of the aforesaid plat the word "VACATED", and shall also make
reference to the same on the same to the volume and page in which the
instrument of vacation is recorded.
Section 4. Such vacation of a portion of the aforesaid plats
shall be effective on and after December'8, 1982.
Roll was then called on the foregoing 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. 4b. Highway Matters: Status Report: Georgetown Road Walkway.
Mr. Agnor said that last month the Board was informed that the' State right-of-way on
Georgetown Road is wider than,originally thought and that has resolved the problem which
had occurred relative to the ~ohnso~r~erty? All easements have either been signed or
have been determined to be no longer necessary. Bids should be taken this month since all
the right-of-way problems have been resolved. Mr. Lindstrom expressed delight about this
accomplishment.
Agenda Item No. 4c. Highway Matters: Report: Hatton Ferry Committee.
Mr. P. J. Jenkins, Chairman of the Hatton Ferry Committee, Was present. He thanked
the Board for the opportunity to serve on this Committee which had been a very rewarding
and interesting experience. Mr. Jenkins said the Committee feels that the historical
significance of the Ferry has been clarified, even though this is not included in the
report. He then presented the report which is set out below:
"Recommendations from the Committee to the Board
1. Short Term
The Committee recommends that the ferry operation be discontinued
immediately through April 14, 1983. During this period the Highway
Department should be asked to study the best method of handling
the boat during a period of inoperation (including dry docking).
Thorough preventive maintenance should also be performed at this
time.
Beginning Friday, April 15, 1983, the ferry should be operated
for five hours per day on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. This
arrangement under Highway Department operation should continue
through June 30, 1983. This seasonal schedule should be followed
as long as it is satisfactory.
This proposal should result in substantival savings in funds in
1982-83. Recommendations for the use of these funds are included
below.
2. Long Term
It is recommended that the Board seek title to the land, boat,
and improvements, except the road and right-of-way.
B. capital Outlay
First Priority
Install interpretative signs, cover maintenance building with
appropriate facing, and minor improvements.
December 8, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Install a wooden deck with built-in benches on the edge of the
island to provide overlook of the river.
Third Priority.
Construct a regular size or scale model replica of an original
ferry boat.
Operation
It is recommended that the operation of the ferry and related
activities be placed under the supervision of a County department
such as the Department of Parks and Recreation effective July 1,
1983. The Ferry would operate from April 15 through October 15
each year.
Funding
1. Capital Outlay
The estimated cost of the First Priority Capital Outlay projects
is $3,000. It is recommended that these funds come from savings
from the 1982-83 appropriations for ferry operations.
It is recommended that Capital Outlay Second and Third priorities
be placed in the regular County capital outlay procedure for
consideration for inclusion in the County Capital Outlay budget.
The Board of Supervisors should exercise the option of appointing
an ad hoc committee to raise funds for the items included in these
priorities or any other nonoperating fund projects.
2. Operation
The estimated cost for operating the ferry activity for 1983-84
is $6,500. It is recommended that these funds be appropriated
as a special line item to the department to which the operation is
assigned. The balance of savings from 1982-83 operations should be
used to reduce this amount, after the first priority capital outlay
expenditures have been subtracted."
The Albemarle Historical Society will underwrite the writing of the history of the
Ferry and this will enhance the application to the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission
to have the site designated as an-historic landmark. Mr. Jenkins said the Committee is in
favor of .operating the Ferry in a manner which is consistent with its existing character.
The facility being proposed by the Committee will provide a pleasant, relaxing spot for
residents as well as preserve an historical point of interest. Mr. Jenkins said the
Committee is concerned about what will happen to the Ferry during the period of inoperation,
and as indicated in the report, the recommendation is that the Highway Department use this
winter to explore how to best maintain the boat. Mr. Jenkins said the proposed budget
includes funds not only for the five and one-half months of operation but for inspection
periods. Mr. Jenkins said the request today is to approve the closing of the ferry immediatel
for the winter months until April 15, 1983, and to request the Highway Department to
explore the best method of handling the boat during the inoperative period and assign the
supervision and operation of the activity to a County department in July, 1983 and to
include operating funds for the Ferry in the 1983-84 County budget.
Mr. Fisher did not feel that funds saved from the interim closing of the Ferry could
be used for Capital Outlay projects on the Ferry because those funds are from the Highway
Department's Secondary Improvement budget· Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer,
was present and said, since the Secondary Improvement funds had been designated for operation
of the ferry, he was not certain the funds could not be paid to the County in a lump sum
for the maintenance of the Ferry.
Mr. Henley asked what kind of liability the County would be accepting when assuming
operation of the Ferry. Mr. St. John said under the present law, the County would be
immune from any liability.
Mr. Fisher then extended appreciation to the Committee for its work on this matter.
Mr. Henley supported the recommendation of the Committee to close the Ferry down for
the winter. Miss Nash offered motion to accept the recommendation to close the Ferry down
as soon as possible and to reopen same on April 15, 1983 under the Highway Department's
supervision until June 30, 1983. Mr. Henley did not feel a definite reopening date should
be stated because the Board may have a change of mind by that time. Miss Nash disagreed
and felt the Board's intent should be made clear to the Highway Department now. Mr.
Lindstrom seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher asked if the intent of the motion was that the
Highway Department would no longer be responsible for the Ferry after July l, 1983· Miss
Nash said that was correct. Mr. Henley again noted that he felt some issues should be
resolved before asking the Highway Department to dispose of its responsibility after June
30, 1983. Mr. Fisher then suggested that the issues in the report be separated for discussi<
purposes. Miss Nash said the Board has already decided not to use Highway Department
funds for operation of the Ferry after this fiscal year. Mr. Lindstrom then asked what
December 8, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
maintenance and other items must be performed when the Ferry is out of service. Mr.
Roosevelt said it is his understanding that thee Highway Department is to study ways of
taking care of the Ferry during inoperative periods, to check the Ferry ~daily during the
shut down, and winterize the Ferry as necessary. Mr. Fisher asked about the employee who
presently operates the Ferry. Mr. Roosevelt said the employee was hired with the understand-
ing that if the Ferry was taken out of service he would be placed in the highway maintenance
department. Mr. Henley noted concern about the County getting into the business of operating
the Ferry and did not feel the costs would remain as modest as indicated by the Committee.
Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher said the question of what happens to the Ferry on July 1, 1983 needs to
be examined. Miss Nash suggested that Mr. Patrick Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation,
study the matter and report to the Board. Mr. Mullaney was present and accepted the task. Mr
Fisher said an assumption is being made that the County Parks and Recreation Department will
be responsible for the operation of the Ferry. He then suggested that part of the report inclt
a comment on that assumption. He also felt that this should be reviewed in a month or two to
determine how the Ferry will be operated and what the continuing expenses will be not only
~or ~m~mal operation but an estimate for major repairs. Mr. Henley felt the experience of
the Highway Department will show what the costs have been over the years. Miss Nash also
suggested that the recommendation of the Committee about the Capital Outlay Funds be examined.
Mr. Fisher said the report will be expected in January or February in order to allow time
for the Board to make plans for the operation of the Ferry after July 1, 1983. Mr.
Fisher said if there are any savings in the operation, he supposed a minor adjustment to
the Secondary Road budget would be appropriate. Mr. Roosevelt said he will discuss with
'Mr. Mullaney the options of using the $20,000 after the first of July. Miss Nash also
noted appreciation to the Committee members for their work. (Mr. Agnor left the meeting
at 9:45 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 4d. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. St. John said when the Board elected to fund one-half of the costs of taking in
the last short section of Greenbrier Drive on the west side of Route 29 North, (see
minutes of September 15, 1982), his office was instructed to try and recapture the County's
expenditure from the developer(s). Mr. St. John said this question has been researched
and it is his opinion that there is no way to recapture any funds. This road has a long
history and even though the County's records indicate that the entire length of the road
is a part of the Secondary System, Mr. Roosevelt and the Highway Department do not agree.
Since funds were appropriated to put the road in the system, the question is moot.
Miss Nash said Route 723 was reviewed by the Road Viewers in April 1981 but has not
been improved. She questioned the status of the road. Mr. Roosevelt Said a meeting with
Mrs. Josephine Feggans, property owner on the road, and Mr.. J. Ashley Williams, Assistant
County Engineer, was held last spring to stake out the right-of-way needed for~the improvement
Mr. Roosevelt said the resolution approved by the Board on this road stated that the
right-of-way would have to be ready by July 1, 1982 and the right-of-way problems have
not been resolved. Therefore, this will have to be reviewed by the road viewers again.
Agenda Item No. 5. Amendment to the Street Light Policy.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner, said that at the November 10, 1982,
meeting, his staff was instructed to define those areas of the County where street lights
would be most appropriate. The following language is recommended to be added to condition
#2 of the policy:r "Areas within the County for which this policy may be applicable
include: community buildings, growth areas as designated in the Comprehensive Plan and
nondesignated growth areas where existing residential density exceeds one dwelling unit
per acre (1 du/ac)." Mr. Tucker said there are areas outside of designated growth areas
which have been in existence for sometime such as Esmont, Cobham and Newtown. Mr. Lindstrom
asked how two houses sitting next to each other on less than one acre lots would be
defined and if that would meet the requirements. Mr. Tucker said this is a policy and
some discretion will have to be exercised. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Miss Nash, to reapprove the Roadway Lighting Policy with the foregoing
language added to condition #2 of the policy; the remainder of the policy to be the same
as that adopted by the Board on July 13, 1977. 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. 6. Discussion: Violation of conditions placed on SP-77-83.
Mr. Fisher noted that this item had been sent to the Board by the Deputy Zoning
Administrator, Andrew Evans, who had sent numerous pieces of correspondence relating to a
zoning violation. He turned this matter over to the Board for its review and disposition
as set out in the Zoning Ordinance.
529
December 8 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher then noted the following letter received December 7, 1982, from Mr.
George B. McCallum, III, attorney representing Mr. David Lee Spradlin, the holder of SP-77-83:
"Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
By Hand
Re:
David Lee Spradlin -- SP-77-83
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I have been employed today by Raymond L. Spradlin to assist his son, David
Lee Spradtin, in understanding and complying with the zoning ordinance of
Albemarle County, Virginia, in the conduct of his business operation on
State Route 620. I underst'and that in 1977 in SP-77-83 you granted a
special use permit to conduct a public garage upon the subject property
upon certain conditions and that on Wednesday, December 8, 1982, you will
consider what action, if any, should be taken to correct certain alleged
violations of the conditions of the special use permit.
I would be most appreciative if you would defer taking any formal action
on this matter for approximately one month so that I may have sufficient
time to investigate the situation and cause such corrective measures
as may be appropriate to be undertaken. I spoke today by telephone with
Mr. Andrew Evan's secretary, and she is sending to me photocopies of the
special use permit and pertinent correspondence.
I am assured by Raymond L. Spradlin that his son desires and will comply
with the ordinances of Albemarle County, Virginia.
With best regards, I am"
Mr. Fisher felt the request to be reasonable and supported deferral for a month.
Mr. Lindstrom felt Mr. Spradlin has had an opportunity to obtain an attorney for a long
time particularly since the violation notices began in July. Therefore, he felt the
matter should be considered now. Miss Nash agreed that a considerable amount of time has
been involved but felt Mr. Spradlin has tried to do a good Job in the area and since the
attorney has only requested a month deferral, she felt the request should be honored.
Mr. St. John said there are other factors involved in this case. If a public
hearing is set to consider revoking the permit, then people will start building a case to
defend in the hearing rather than trying to alleviate the situation and working with the
zoning administrator on the problem. He felt the deferral should be granted since this
is the first time an attorney has been involved and the people in the subject area are
not oriented toward ordinances like developers who deal with ordinances daily. He visualized
this as an adverse situation if the public hearing route is taken. Mr. Lindstrom said he
would agree but noted that he felt the applicant has had a while to do something about
the violations since July and waiting until the last minute and then getting an attorney
involved is stretching the issue. Mr. St. John said he can agree, but an attorney costs
a lot of money and he could understand the reason for waiting until the last moment. Mr.
Lindstrom agreed, but felt the Zoning Administrator needs the Board's support when same
is requested. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to defer
the discussion of the zoning violations under SP-77-83 to January 12, 1983, as requested
in the foregoing letter. 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. 7. New Regional Library Contract.
Mr. Lindstrom, member of the Library Contract Study Committee, made the following
report. The Committee decided that each jurisdiction should have the responsibility for
maintenance of the building and the personnel operating the library in that Jurisdiction.
The costs of such should be local and not determined on a regional basis. The Committee
also agreed that the Library Board would set salaries. Regional costs will be allocated
on a circulation of books basis, but Charlottesville and Albemarle costs will be divided
between those two jurisdictions on their circulation reatios. The local costs will be
borne entirely as a single local jurisdiction. Bookmobile service will be contracted
separately by each jurisdiction.
Mr. Lindstrom said another major problem discussed by the committee was the manner
in whioh the Library budget is developed and reviewed by each local government. Paragraph
9 of this new agreement strengthens the role of the budget committee which has not really
been functioning for several years. Mr. Lindstrom said another new item in the contract
is that when this contract is signed, a portion of the costs of operating the regional
library building on East Market Street will be paid as regional costs. The other item is
that the City has been acting as fiscal agent for Library funds and the agreement will
allow an administrative fee for this work.
December 8, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
530
Mr. Lindstrom concluded by stating that there was regular, participation by all the
jurisdictions at the meetings and the contract was unanimously agreed to by the COmmittee
members. Mr. Lindstrom said several of the counties felt "ripped off" by use of circulation
figures for proportioning costs, but after studying the issue, the circulation approach
was determined to be the least expensive. One concern expressed by Committee members
which was not resolved, was what would happen with state aid if one of the jurisdictions
dropped out of the library system.
Mr. Fisher said from reading the contract, he feels the budget committee will have
more power than just a normal review body. If that is the case, and considering the
amount Albemarle County will be paying toward the total cost of a system that serves five
localities, then he feels Albemarle County should have more representation on the Committee
than the other localities.. He felt the word "shall" in the following two sentences
indicates that jurisdictions are losing legislative discretion. The sentences are "Each
jurisdiction shall pay a percentage of the regional costs equal to its percentage of the
regional library system's total circulation." in paragraph 4a and in paragraph 4c "Local
costs shall be determined by the regional library board, approved by the budget committee
and paid by the jurisdiction for which they are incurred." Mr. Lindstrom said the intent
is that payment will be made after the budget has been recommended, reviewed and approved
by the localities. No jurisdiction can be mandated to pay anything. The problem in the
past has been that all localities have not participated actively in the budget review
process therefore creating problems. Mr. Lindstrom said essentially this will give the
budget committee authority to make the final recommendation to the regional library board
after approvals by the individual jurisdictions.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the Library Board has seen this proposed contract and approved
same. Mr. Lindstrom said the Library Study Committee which drafted the proposal will
have each jurisdiction act on same. The Library Board may have comments about the contract
but the Library Board does not have any final approval of same. Mr. Agnor said he has
received correspondence from Mrs. Karen Hayden who served on the contract study committee
as a member of the Library Board of Trustees along with Ms. Betty Kohler. Mrs. Hayden
wrote to him in October and stated that the Library Board had reviewed the draft and same
was well received by the Library Board and hoped that the jurisdictions would approve
same.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve the following proposed Library Agreement,
Amended 1982, as presented by the Library Study Committee. -Miss Nash seconded the motion.
Mrs. Cooke said she did not have any problem with the agreement but would like to
know how it was received by the present members of Library Board before final action is
taken. Mrs. Hayden said the draft was discussed by the Library Board in October and it
was well received. Mrs. Hayden said she and the other Library Board members need to know
the results of the agreement as soon as possible if a budget is to be submitted to the
jurisdictions by December 31. 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.
The agreement as approved is set out below:
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle,
Louisa, Nelson and Greene have heretofore established, pursuant to law and
subject to the provisions of an agreement among the city and counties
dated August 11, 1972, a regional library system known as the Jefferson-
Madison Regional Library; and
WHEREAS, that agreement was modified by a further agreement executed
by the city and the counties in 1974; and
WHEREAS, the parties to that contract now desire further to amend
the agreement for operation of the library system;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises in this
agreement, the city and counties hereby agree as follows:
1. The management and control of the Regional Library shall
continue to be vested in the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board
created and appointed by the governing bodies of the city and counties
pursuant to Chapter 2, Title 42.1, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
The Board shall have all of the powers vested in such boards by law.
Charlottesville shall appoint four (4) members to the Board; Albemarle,
four (4) members; Louisa, one (1) member; Nelson, one (1) member; and
Greene, one (1) member. Louisa, Nelson and Greene are each authorized
to appoint one alternate member who may attend all meetings but may
vote only in the absence of the principal member. The members currently
serving on the Board are confirmed and shall continue in office for the
terms for which they have been appointed.
2. The Library Board shall provide and regulate library services.
to the residents of the City 'of Charlottesville and the Counties of
Albemarle, Louisa, Nelson and Greene on as equitable a basis as is
practicable, consistent with the wishes of the governing bodies of
those jurisdictions.
December 8, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
5. The regional library board has designated the director of
finance of the City of Charlottesville as the treasurer of the regional
library system. Until further notice his office shall act as the system's
accounting and disbursing office, maintaining payroll and purchasing
accounts and rendering monthly statements. Each jurisdiction shall
pay its share of the costs, determined as provided above, to the treasurer
on a quarterly basis. The City of Charlottesville shall be paid an annual
sum equal to one percent of the annual operating budget of the regional
library system for the services rendered by its director of finance.
6. Each Jurisdiction shall be credited with a percentage of any
operating funds received each year from the United States or the Commonwealth
of Virginia equal to that jurisdiction's percentage of the regional
library system's total circulation, determined as provided in subparagraph
4(a).
Fines collected shall be retained by the library facility which
collected them, and used in connection with the operation of that facility.
7. The regional library board shall determine hours and places of
library service and determine all policies, in accordance with state statutes
and the state library board's regulations regarding employment of the
library director. The regional library board's policies, formulated on
recommendation of its members and the Director, shall govern the selection,
emphasis and distribution of library books, periodicals, records, films and
other media, the provisions of supplementary services to schools and other
institutions, the use of public meeting rooms, and every other question
of service, policies or expenditures within the limits of annual appropriations.
Regulations concerning all services, including branch libraries and
bookmobiles, shall be promulgated by the regional library board.
(d) Bookmobile services shall be contracted separately by
each jurisdiction with the regional library board upon such terms and
conditions as the board and the contracting jurisdiction find mutually
agreeable.
3. All costs of operating the Regional Library shall be
considered to fall into one of three categories defined as follows:
(a) Regional costs shall include all costs of providing
reference services, book purchasing, cataloging and technical services,
financial management, extension coordination and related expenses,
and the fair rental value of space required in the Main Library building
to provide the foregoing regional services.
(b) Charlottesville-Albemarle costs shall include all costs
of providing facilities to house the collections at the Main Library
and the Gordon Avenue branch, which shall be deemed local collections
Jointly serving those two jurisdictions, and the compensation and related
expenses for personnel who work in those two facilities, except those
personnel working in the Main Library who are engaged primarily in
rendering the services described in subparagraph (a) above.
(c) Local costs shall include all costs of housing local
book collections in all branches of the library other than the Main
Library and Gordon Avenue, and compensation and related expenses for
personnel who work in such other branches.
4. The costs described above shall be determined and allocated
among the participating jurisdictions as follows:
(a) Regional costs shall be determined by the Library Board
and agreed to by the budget committee (established under paragraph 9)
before the start of each fiscal year. Each jurisdiction shall pay a
percentage of the regional costs equal to its percentage of the regional
library system's total circulation. The percentages to be used in any
fiscal year shall be determined by the circulation figures for the
previous calendar year.
(b) Charlottesville-Albemarle costs shall likewise be determined
by the regional library board and approved by the budget committee before
each fiscal year begins. These costs shall be allocated between the City
of Charlottesville and Albemarle County in direct proportion to their
respective shares of the total circulation at the Main Library and Gordon
Avenue branch. The circulation figures shall be determined in the same
manner as those used to allocate regional costs.
(c) Local costs shall be determined by the regional library
board, approved by the budget committee and paid by the jurisdiction
for which they are incurred. The type of facility to be used to house
a local collection shall be determined by the governing body of the
city or county in which that collection exists. However, the regional
library board, may refuse to permit local collections to be housed in
facilities it determines to be inadequate to provide minimal protection
to the collections.
532
December 8, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) '
8. Ail library employees, whether engaged in local or regional cost
activities, shall receive compensation and benefits established by the
pay and classification plan adopted by the regional library board, as amended
from time to time.
9. By December 31 of each year, the regional library 'board shall
submit to the budget committee copies of its proposed budget for the fiscal
year beginning the following July 1.
The budget committee shall be composed of members appointed by the
participating jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction shall appoint one member of
its governing body and one officer responsible for budget preparation.
The budget committee shall meet to review the proposed budget and direct
such revisions as it may deem appropriate. The budget committee shall report
its findings and recommendations to the participating jurisdictions no later
than February 1 of each year.
Upon receipt of the findings and recommendations of the budget committee,
the governing body of each jurisdiction shall review the same and inform its
representatives on the budget committee of its intent with respect thereto, so
that the budget committee may meet to review each jurisdictions stated intent
and make such recommendations as are necessitated thereby to the regional
library board no later than March 15.
The budget committee shall meet again promptly when all participating
Jurisdictions have adopted their final budgets for the coming fiscal year and
shall make such-recommendations to the regional library board as it shall
deem appropriate, considering the appropriation made by each Jurisdiction to
the regional library system.
t0. Gifts of money, books, or other useful donations may be accepted by
the regional library board for general use in the library system, or at the
regional library board's discretion for particular use in the library branch
or jurisdiction preferred by the donor. Gifts of money shall be paid to the
treasurer of the regional library system credited for use as the regional library
board decides. Removal or reallocation of such particular gifts or funds,
where permitted under terms of the original donation, may be ordered only by
the regional library board.
11. In the event any participating jurisdiction determines to dissolve this
agreement as provided by law, the distribution or allocation of buildings, books
and equipment shall be negotiated by a Joint committee appointed by all the
participating jurisdictions. However, any library books or other media
permanently assigned to any particular local collection at the time that
negotiation for dissolution begins shall remain in the Jurisdiction responsible
for that local collection for its use or disposal.
12. This agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, any one
of which need not contain the signatures of more than one party, but all of
such counterparts taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement.
This agreement shall be in force and effect upon its approval by all
participating Jurisdictions."
Not Docketed. At this time, Mr. Fisher introduced the Western Albemarle High School
students present for Youth-In-Government Day, Meredith Everhardt, Paul Wineshank, Conley
Gilliam, Mark Dominick, Heather Wood and Tommy King.
The Board recessed at 10.:41 A.M. and reconvened at 10:46 A.M.
Mr. Fisher then introduced the Deputy Clerk, County Attorney, County Planner and
members of the Board to the students.
Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: Bookmobile to serve as Branch Library and staff
report on permanent northside library branch.
Mr. Tuc.ker said at the November 10, 1982 Board meeting, the planning department was
requested to submit information on the location of a bookmobile at Albemarle Square.
There is very little information available on the use of a bookmobile as a branch library,
therefore, the staff treated the proposal to park a bookmobile in Albemarle Square Shopping
Center as a permanent branch location. In examining the Albemarle Square area as the
place for a branch library and using several locational radii, a branch library at Albemarle
Square may be expected to serve a one mile radius of 1,500 adults and 1,250 children. A
two mile radius would serve 1,800 adults and 1,300 children. Mr. Tucker said the number
of people served and influenced by a bookmobile would be somewhat lower than a normal
branch library. Mr. Tucker said one of the concerns regarding the bookmobile being
located at Albemarle Square is pedestrian and automobile traffic. Few people arrive at a
library on foot these days except school children or those Who live very near a branch
and some senior citizens who do not drive must rely on public transportation. Mr. Tucker
said pedestrian traffic for a branch at Albemarle Square should not yield dissimilar
results and very few adults or children would walk with the exception of persons residing
across Rio Road in Squire Hills Apartments. The increasing number of vehicles along Rio
Road could present some problems for persons walking from that area. Pedestrian traffic
from the next three closest neighborhoods (Berkeley, Four Seasons and Woodbrook) should
be insignificant since bookmobile service would be continued in those areas. Pedestrian
traffic from within the shopping center would be substantial but should be safer considering
motor traffic in a shopping center moves slower than on a busy street. Pedestrians
535
December 8, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
cutting across traffic aisles on their way from parked vehicles to the branch is of
concern.~ Most of the pedesmtri&n traf£ic in the shopping center is currently directed
toward the sidewalk in front of the stores. This aids in keeping pedestrians from cutting
across traffic aisles. Placement of the unit near the sidewalk could possibly reduce
this potential problem. Mr. Tucker said the library should not be a large generator of
vehicular traffic because estimates show that sixty percent of persons visiting a shopping
center branch library combine that visit to the library with general shopping. Therefore,
vehicular traffic should not be a major problem. Using the above estimates of combined
shopping/library use, the need for additional parking for the library should be minimal.
The use of as few as ten parking spaces by library users should not be any hardship on
the 1,200 plus parking, spaces in Albemarle Square. Mr. Tucker also noted that public
transportation through the Charlottesville Transit Service and JAUNT is available to the
Albemarle Square area.
Mr. Tucker then noted that Albemarle Square is zoned Planned Development-Shopping
Center and libraries are one of the uses permitted by right. However, a public facility
such as a library, requires a review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Tucker said according to Virginia Code Section 15.1-456, this type of facility must be
approved by the local planning commission as to whether the facility is in accordance
with the adopted comprehensive plan or any part thereof. Site plan review and review for
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan can be handled simultaneously. Mr. Tucker said
the County Comprehensive Plan recommends that new branch libraries should be located on
the urban area fringe for access to both urban area or outlying residents. The plan also
states that the service area should be defined by a ten or fifteen minute drive for
approximately 10,000 persons not otherwise adequately served by a library.
Mr. Tucker said as to a specific location, the Hollymead area is where a branch
library has been proposed to be located since the initial Comprehensive Plan was drafted.
The recommendation has been for the branch to be located in the center of the Hollymead
community. However, other criteria and standards reviewed by the planning staff indicate
that it is not a good idea to locate the library in the center of a major development but
to locate same near a main thoroughfare so that the library can also serve outlying
areas. Therefore, the staff will probably recommend that if a library branch is to be
kept in Hollymead that the location be shifted from the center of the community closer to
Route 29 North.
Mr. Tucker concluded by stating that there are some advantages to locating the
library in Albemarle Square. One advantage is that the library would be located where
high volumes of people converge in one location. Another advantage is that existing
parking would serve a branch library use. The third advantage is that the area around
shopping centers is usually well-lighted and well protected and safer than a busy street.
The fourth advantage is that a shopping center location is easily accessible to a diversified
population. The last advantage is that visibility is excellent in a shopping center.
Mr. Tucker said while most of the data and comments presented apply to branch library
locations, slightly lower results might be expected with the location of a bookmobile in
Albemarle Square. One final consideration should be that the location of the bookmobile
in Albemarle Square will act as a test market indicating potential usage for a branch
location. Mr. Tucker said it should be recognized that if the bookmobile is located in
Albemarle Square and people become accustomed to its convenience, the bookmobile may be
difficult to remove in the future. Mr. Tucker said if a branch library is located in
Albemarle Square, it should be noted as an interim branch in order that no one get the
impression that this will be a permanent library because all of the standards do .not lend
themselves to that particular location. However, on an interim basis, Mr. Tucker felt
that some amendment or a note to that effect should be made in the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Fisher recognized Mr. James Hingeley, President of the Library Board, and asked
if he were prepared to respond to the questions of concern which were expressed by the
Board on November 10. Mr. Hingeley said the first two questions in the letter about
circulation figures for all present bookmobile stops and what funds, other than funds
from Albemarle County, were used to purchase the newer bookmobile, were both answered in
correspondence submitted to the Board. Mr. Fisher said he did not receive any such
correspondence. Mrs. Betty Kohler, Library Director was present, and said she had sent
to Mr. Fisher a list of the bookmobile stops. Mr. Fisher then recalled receiving the
material at home, but did not have the information with him today. Mr. Hingeley said in
regard to the other concerns, he was not in a position to respond to either of them at
this time. The question about Louisa County funding repairs and maintenance costs to
place the older bookmobile back into use in Louisa County only is an alternative which is
not presently under consideration. As far as the question about the discontinuance of
service to Louisa County, this is speculative and something that Louisa County would take
up at the appropriate time. Mr. Hingeley said in regard to the question asked by Mrs.
Cooke during the discussion of the Library contract as to whether the Library Board is
within the various state guidelines that govern the library operations, one of the guidelines
from the state is the provision of bookmobile service to certain Jurisdictions. The
guidelines are of a type that do not require service to be provided to Greene or Nelson
County. However, in developing the plan which was discussed at the November l0 meeting
for the use of bookmobile #1 or #2, the guidelines of the state were being responded to
when the minimal bookmobile service was provided to Louisa County. Therefore, bookmobile
service to Louisa County was in a sense mandated by the State if the same level of state
funding was to be maintained. As far as the impact on Louisa County, the status of that
is hard to assess. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Hingeley if Louisa County had been asked
these questions. Mr. Hingeley said no.
534
December 8, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mrs. Kohler then noted that the bookmobile travels seven hundred miles a month in
Albemarle County. Mr. Fisher asked who paid for the bookmobile. Mrs. KohIer said she
understands that the County paid for bookmobile #1. M~:~n~eley ~ai.d~h~_was~ndicated
at the last meeting but Mr. Agnor noted that there may have been funds from another
source as well. Mr. Fisher asked how Albemarle County can be assured that it will continue
to receive service from the bookmobile for which it paid. Mrs. Kohler said the first
year the bookmobile was intended for use strictly in Albemarle County and after the first
year, all the jurisdictions could have service. Mr. Fisher said that must have been
based on the fact that there would be two bookmobiles. Mr. Hingeley said that parking
the bookmobile at Albemarle Square is an experimental thing and the results are not
known. However, the intentions are that Albemarle County will receive as much, if not
more, service under this plan than under the former schedule of bookmobile #1. Mr.
Fisher said he understan~S~that, but it appears that service will be discontinued in
certain places were the bookmobile now provides service. Mrs. Kohler said five stops
immediately adjacent to Albemarle Square have been discontinued and one new stop has been
added at North Pines Subdivision. Mrs. Kohler did not feel this will be of great concern
when the bookmobile is permanently established.
Mr. Fisher said it appears that the Planning Commission should review the proposal
and if the Planning Commission funds the proposal to be in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan, then the bookmobile might be placed at Albemarle Square .on a temporary basis. He
suggested that if that occurs, a sign should be placed in the window that the facility is
only temporary. Mrs. Kohler said it was never the intention of the Library Board that
the bookmobile be permanent. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Tucker how soon this matter could
be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said perhaps by early January. Mrs.
Cooke felt this was the best solution to the problem. Mr. Hingley said he would like to
emphasize to the Board that this is an interim arrangement.
Agenda Item No. 9. Albemarle Garden Club offer to provide landscape plan and plantings
for the County Office Building.
Mr. Fisher noted that a letter dated July 21, 1982, had been received from Mrs.
Susan Scott on behalf of the Albemarle Garden Club containing a proposal to provide a
landscape plan for the County Office Building.
Mrs. Angelica Kilham, President of the Albemarle Garden Club, was present and said
the Board of Directors of the Albemarle Garden Club proposes to offer Albemarle County a
master landscaping plan for the County office building, but first of all, the Garden Club
needs the interest of the Board in such a project to be stated. She has talked with two
landscape architects who are interested in this proposal and have offered a fair price to
do the work. Mrs. Kilham said a low maintenance type plan is being thought of particularly
with trees. She said the Club does not want any further responsibility after the master
plan has been submitted and accepted by the Board. Mrs. Kilham said the feeling is that
materials might be donated by civic groups. This public building is well recognized by
the public and a tasteful landscape plan is desired. Mrs. Kilham said the Board of
Directors would like for one member of the Board of Supervisors to work with the Club
while this plan is developed. Mrs. Kilham said the Club will hire an architect and pay
for the original landscape plan but will not implement the plan with materials.
Mr. Fisher said he had several conversations with Club members about this proposal
and had encouraged the idea because he agreed a plan of this type was needed.
Mr. Lindstrom agreed and offered motion to appoint Miss Nash and Mrs. Cooke to work
with the Garden Club on this landscape plan. Mr. Fisher then asked if the membership of
the Club had voted on this matter yet. Mrs. Kilham said no. Mr. Lindstrom said his
motion is for appointment after the positive reaction of the entire Club membership.
Mrs. Cooke felt this offer provides an excellent opportunity to enhance this building and
seconded the motion. 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. 20b. Appointment: Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
Mr. Fisher noted that a letter has been sent to the City with a nomination for this
vacancy but a response from the City has not been received.
Agenda Item No. 20g. Appointment: Youth Commission.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to app°int Mr. Patrick
Iachetta as a representative on the Youth SerVice Commission. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the~following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. ~Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes: September 15, 1982 (Day).
Mr. Lindstrom had completed reading the minutes of September 15, 1982, and noted the
following correction on page 3, after the third paragraph, to add the following wording
for clarification purposes. "Mr. Lindstrom's motion relating only to taking in Greenbrier
Drive is set out in resolution form below:".
December 8, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher noted on page 14, seventh paragraph, fourth line, the wo~d "existing" to
be inserted betw.een "with" and~"struCtures".
Motion was then Offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the minutes of SeptemBer 15,
1982 (Day) with the.above corrections· Miss Nash seconded 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. t0. Report: 'Joint Dispatch Center and 911 Task Force.
Ms. Linda Peacock, former Emergency Services Coordinator for the City and County and
Chairperson of the Joint Dispatch and 911 Task Force, was present. She said the issue of
911 has been a subject of discussion since 1974. In July 1980, the City and County
requested that a task force be convened to look at the technical aspects of establishing
a joint law enforcement dispatch center and implementing a 911 emergency number system.
Various issues have been studied associated with renovation of a site for a joint dispatch
center, telecommunications aspects of implementing 911 and also radio communication needs
for the City and County and University. Mrs. Peacock said representatives on the task
force included persons from the Albemarle County Sheriff's Department, Charlottesville-
Albemarle Office of Emergency Services, Charlottesville Fire Department, Charlottesville
Police Department, Scottsville Rescue Squad, Thomas Jefferson Emergency Medical Services
Council, University of Virginia Police Department, Western Albemarle Rescue Squad, Central
Telephone Company and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad. Ms. Peacock said the
following are the recommendations unanimously adopted by the Joint Dispatch and Task
Force at its meeting in October 1982:
That the establishment of a joint dispatch center in the basement of
the City Police Department building be approved and that Centel
be requested to begin preparation of its telephone network for
acceptance of a "911" emergency telephone number.
That the joint dispatch center directly dispatch law enforcement
personnel for the City, County and University and maintain patch
or transfer capabilities to access other emergency service providers
in the area.
That an advisory board of directors, as delineated in the report,
be appointed to oversee the general operation of the center and
the emergency response system.
That a management board, as specified in the report, be appointed
to manage the day-to-day operation of the center and finalize such
details as protocol and procedures, records handling, etc.
That the firm of Browne, Eichman and Dalgliesh be retained to
prepare final bid documents for the renovation of the Joint
dispatch center site, and that the project be let for bid.
That telecommunication and radio equipment be upgraded and purchased,
according to the recommendations of the report, for use in the
Joint dispatch center.
That the costs of "hot lines" to external emergency response agencies
be absorbed as part of the center's operating budget and paid for
by the three jurisdictions.
That the cost apportionment formula, as recommended in the report,
be adopted for use in the first year of the center's operation
and be reviewed and updated annually."
Ms. Peacock said the Task Force determined that the capital costs of establishing a
joint dispatch center are approximately $160,000. Annual operating costs will total
about $247,000, with $243,000 of that for operating the center and $4,000 for operating
the hot lines to the various agencies. For Albemarle County, using an apportionment
formula is based on the number of calls for service plus population, its contribution for
the first year of capital costs would be 28%. Of the total capital costs for establishing
the center, Albemarle County would be responsible for about $45,000. If a joint dispatch
center is pursued, the Sheriff's Department would need to purchase a console for ¢
into the dispatch center and that would cost about $20,000. Annual costs attributable to
Albemarle County would be about $70,000 in the first year and the present costs for the
County's dispatching are $68,933. Ms. PeacOck said the costs for telephone lines to
Greenwood and Schuyler (who are now long distance) are included in the operating costs
for the base. However, she had recently learned that Nelson County has requested that
those exchanges be connected into their 911 system. She then noted that Mr. Michael
Carroll, who will be replacing her as Emergency Services Coordinator, has spoken with
those persons about that possibility.
December 8, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher then extended appreciation for the report presented (Copy of Final Report
dated November 5, 1982, is on file) and noted the price for this service has decreased
since the concept was first discussed in 1974. Ms. Peacock said that is because Centel
has updated their telephone switching stations to accept 911, therefore, the localities
do not have to be responsible for paying for that switch. Mr. Fisher asked about a new
state tax to help pay for this system. Ms. Peacock said the new state statute provides
for imposition of a local tax to recover the initial capital and installation costs of
enhanced emergency telephone systems (E-911), which automatically route emergency 911
calls to preselected public safety answering points. Centel equipment does not include
needed features, thus, it does not meet the criteria necessary to enable the imposition
of a tax at the local level.
Mr. Fisher asked if both an advisory board and a management board are necessary.
Ms. Peacock said the task force felt that the management group should be responsible for
day to day activities and a smaller group, such as the advisory board, could provide some
philosophical input into the operation and would have representatives from each of the
agencies to meet quarterly.
Mr. Fisher then asked if Greenwood would have toll free access to this system.
Peacock said, under this proposal, yes.
MS.
Speaking next was Mr. Frank Johnstone, Director of the University Police. He said
the University is very much committed to a 911 system and he feels the service is urgently
needed.
Mr. Butler said that the northeastern part of Albemarle County is on a different
area code and he wondered how that affects the services which would be available. Ms.
Peacock said in this particular study, estimates were not provided in terms of a hot line
or that area. There are only twenty some persons in the northeastern portion of the
County. Mr. Butler felt there were more than twenty. Ms. Peacock said in order to bring
in those persons, it would also bring in a large majority of Louisa County. However,
that aspect is not impossible to add into the costs of the lines which are $25.00 per
month per line.
Ms. Andrea Clapp, representing the Emergency Medical Services Council, was present
and said Louisa County had looked into having the 911 system four years ago and she feels
it is time for Louisa County to reexamine the issue and implement the system in their
area in order that all of Planning District 10 will be involved.
Mr. Fisher said Greene, Fluvanna and Nelson have had 911 systems for a few years and
he feels Albemarle County needs to be on this system. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Agnor if
he had reviewed the financial estimates of this system. Mr. Agnor said yes. The capital
costs have been included in the Capital Improvements Program since 1978. Mr. Agnor
agreed that approximately the same amount of funds are now being spent in terms of dispatching
and the numbers can almost be equated to each other. Ms. Peacock said the recommended
formula should be used for the first year and be reviewed annually. She anticipated that
in terms of percentages, the figures may change.
Mr. Fisher then asked what action should be taken by the Board. Ms. Peacock said
the task force hopes that the Board will accept the recommendations and agree with the
concept of a central police dispatch center and a 911 system in order that work can start
on same. She noted that City Council has taken the report under advisement. Motion was
then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to accept the recommendations of
the Task Force on the joint dispatch center and 911 emergency number as set out above and
to request the County Executive to consider this item in the next fiscal year budget for
the County's share. Mr. Butler noted concern about some sections of Albemarle ~ounty not
being included in the 911 system. If Greenwood can be served, then he felt all of
the County should be served. Mr. Lindstrom then amended his motion to include further
information being submitted as to the cost of providing this service to every citizen in
Albemarle County. Mr. Butler said he would like to see that information. Roll was then
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 noted appreciation for the work and efforts of the persons involved in this
report.
At 11:58 A.M., the Board recessed for lunch.
(Mr. Lindstrom was not present at this time.)
The Board reconvened at 1:34 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: To amend the 1982-83 County Budget to include
Energy Conservation Project (at Brownsville, Crozet, Henley, Hollymead, Jouett, Walton
and Woodbrook Schools) in the amount of $12,362. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
December 1, 1982).
Mr. Agnor noted that the Department of Education has received an additional check on the
Energy Conservation Grant from the Federal Government in the amount of $12,362, to be used
in the ongoing program of energy conservation measures.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. There being no one present wishing to
speak either for or against this amendment, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Motion was immediately offered by Miss Nash to adopt the following resolution:
537
December 8, 1982 (Re:_ular Da _Mee~in. ~ _ ~_ ..
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $12,362 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the Capital Improvement Fund and coded to 9700-1090.10 -- Energy
Conservation Project; for said program at Brownsville, Crozet, Henley,
Hollymead, Jouett, Walton and Woodbrook Schools.
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized
to amend the Revenues section of the 1982-83 County Budget by adding
$12,362 to Code 111102.10 -- Energy Grant Proceeds; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that this approval shall be effective on December
15, 1982.
The motion was seconded by. Mr..dButler and carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Agenda Item No. 12. Request from NACO re: One time only Member Service Fee-. Mr.
Agnor explained that due to financial problems derived during the construction of NACO's
new office building in Washington, NACO is requesting a one-time member service fee. Mr.
Agnor said NACo has notified each member county that counties will pay increased dues
beginning in t983 amounting to either a 15% increase of their 1982 dues or a shift to dues
based on the 1980 census, which ever is greater. (NACo has not raised its membership dues
since the early 1970's.) Mr. Agnor said the fee, in the amount of $239, will be an
advance to NACO on future dues to be paid by Albemarle County. (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at
1:40 P.M.)
Mr. Fisher proceeded to explain in detail the exact nature of the NACO financial
problems, and what is being done by NACO to correct the situation. Mr. Agnor noted that
if the Board chooses to pay the member service fee, there are currently sufficient funds
in the Board's budget to cover this request.
Motion was offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the expenditure
of $239 to the National Association of Counties from the current fiscal year's budget,
which will be offset in the payment of future dues. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
AYES:
NAYS:
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Whether to appoint staff committee to consider
revision of voting precincts. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Mrs. Susan L.
Swedenborg, dated November 9, 198~i~n file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors), and indicated it was only one of about fifty complaints he personally has
received about the location of the voting precinct for the residents of Sherwood Manor.
Mr. Fisher said it has been a question for a long time as to whether there should be a
suburban precinct on the southern side of Charlottesville. Mr. Fisher said he would
recommend the establishment of a staff committee comprised of someone from the Planning
Department, the County Attorney's office and the Registrar. Miss Nash felt a represen-
tative of the Electoral Board should also be on such a committee.
Mrs. Mary Lou Matthews, County Registrar, was present, and suggested possibly looking
at all the precincts which currently surround the City of Charlottesville. Mrs. Matthews
noted that precincts such as Charlottesville are almost at the limit as far as the number
of registered voters allowed by State law. Mr. Fisher felt the review should be limited
to the southern area of the County.
Motion was then offered by Miss Nash to establish a oommittee, comprised of Mrs.
Elizabeth Haugh, Chairman of the Electoral Board; George R. St. John, County Attorney;
Robert. W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, and Mary Lou Matthews, Registrar.
Roll was then called and the motion to establish the committee to review voting
precincts carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Receipt of County Financial Report for year ending June 30,
1982. Mr. Jack Farmer of the firm of Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates, was present and
explained in great detail the financial report for the year ended June 30, 1982. Mr.
Farmer noted that this financial report has been accepted by the Commonwealth of Virginia,
Auditor of Public Accounts, in a letter from Mr. Charles K. Trible dated October 26, 1982
(copy of Mr. Trible's letter is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Super-
visors).
Following Mr. Farmer's presentation, Mr. David Papenfuse, Assistant Superintendent of
Schools/Finance and Business Management, along with School Board members Dr. James Walker
and Dr. Charles R. Tolbert; questioned Mr. Farmer and the Board of Supervisors about
entries in the audit report (Page 16, Note 8, titled Transfers To The School Fund) referring
to authorized advances to the School Fund from the General Fund, and provisions for
repayment of same.
December 8, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
538
Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion of City Proposal to Fund Watershed Management Program.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated November 24, 1982, from Francis L. Buck, Mayor
of the City of Charlottesville, regarding distribution of expenses for the watershed
management program as follows:
"November 24, 1982
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Counvy Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4956
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We have exvensively discussed the four issues which you have raised regarding
the distribution of expenses for the watershed management program. Based on our
discussions and in the interest of cooperation, we are willing to agree to the
following settlement:
The cost of inspection and maintenance of the runoff control facilities
would be paid by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority as part of the. urban
water rate. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority should perform the
inspections and provide the maintenance required. However, we believe the
County should explore legal methods of shifting these costs to the property
owners, who create the need for these facilities. We would be willing to
cooperate in seeking enabling legislation, if necessary. We further believe
that the Rivanna staff should approve all future plans for the runoff
control facilities, and that the City Engineer should inspect all existing
facilities and certify them as being in good condition and acceptable for
maintenance.
The cost of the Watershed Management Official would be paid by the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority as part of the urban water rate. We agree at
this time to leaving the position in the County management structure since
it appears to be working well; however, we have no reservations about the
position being placed in the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
The City Attorney would be authorized to work with the County Attorney, if
requested, in defending lawsuits directly related to the protection of the
South Rivanna Reservoir. Authorization would be made on a case-by-case
basis, by City Council.
We do not feel it is appropriate for the City to pay a portion of the cost of
the operation of the County Engineer's Office. We do recognize that the staff
of the County Engineer's Office may spend some time in reviewing site plans and
engineering calculations and making inspections with regard to the runoff
control ordinance. However, we feel that some of this work would need to be
done if there were no runoff control ordinance and that the County is probably
out little out-of-pocket expense. If you feel you must be compensated for this
work, then we suggest a small fee be charged to the applicant to cover your
costs.
We will be glad to meet with you in the near future to discuss this proposal, if
you so desire. We await your comments.
Respectfully submitted,
Charlottesville City Council
by Francis L. Buck, Mayor."
Mr. Fisher next noted receipt of a letter dated December 1, 1982, from County
Attorney, George R. St. John:
"Mr. Agnor forwarded to me your inquiry on two points concerning City partici-
pation in the costs of runoff control.
I do not believe the County can legally impose an application fee for a
runoff control permit without special legislation. I base this decision on
the fact that the Virginia Supreme Court held, absent enabling legislation,
that the County could not impose a fee for subdivision applications.
The runoff control ordinance at Section 19.1-9(a) provides that the runoff
control official and his designated agents shall have the right to enter
upon the property subject to this article at all reasonable times for the
purposes of monitoring surface water runoff and of making inspections and
investigations relating to compliance (and so forth). I think the runoff
control official could appoint Rivanna personnel as his agents for this
purpose.
Mr. Agnor's letter asked if I have any other opinions on the City's letter of
November 24, 1982. They are as follows:
The runoff control ordinance at Section~ 19.1-6(d), 19.1-7(c), 7(c), 19.1-9(b)
and 9(b), put the responsibility for compliance on the owner, and provide for a
bond and the creation of a legal entity such as a homeowners' association, for
this purpose. There is also a provision for notice by the runoff control
official to any owner in the event of noncompliance and for enforcement, if
necessary.
December 8, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Section 19.1-9(d) allows, but does not require, that the facilities be dedicated
if the owner wishes. Thus, the ordinance already provides for the cost of
maintenance and repair to be borne by the owners. This is a different matter
from the cost of inspection. We don't think the cost of inspection by the
runoff control official and his agents can legally be shifted to the owners.
Furthermore, the ordinance provisions requiring continued maintenance by the
owners, rather than the public who uses the water, have never been tested in
court and even if they are upheld, there are bound to be severe practical
problems if we ever find it necessary to use the enforcement procedures pre-
sently on the books.
In a court test, I think it is very likely that the court would disagree with
the City's basic proposition that the need for these facilities is generated by
the owners of the property, rather than the reservoir itself. The facilities
are of not direct benefit to the properties on which they lie, and I have never
seen or heard of an assessment on property, for a purpose which did not benefit
that property. In fact, typically, any legislation which allows assessments
contains a clause limiting the amount of the assessment on each property to the
amount of benefit bestowed upon that property by the particular project. But
even if you prevail on this Zegal point, and the court upholds the concept, you
then have to face the practicalities of prosecuting citizens for noncompliance
and ultimately of auctioning their properties. We have always thought that at
some point, we are going to find that the practical solution is to have all of
these facilities dedicated to public use and maintained at the expense of the
water users not the owners.
The City Council suggests at the bottom of page one of the November 24, 1982,
letter, that the City Engineer should inspect and certify the existing facil-
ities. I don't think the city has any authority for this unless he is appointed
as the agent of the runoff control official."
Mr. St. John commented that he did not believe the City Engineer or other official
would have any authority to engage in participation in these inspections and enforcement
of the County's ordinances without the County entering into a jo±nt exercise of powers
agreement with the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Lindstrom said the City did not speci-
fically suggest that the Council have a hand in revising and administering the ordinance,
only that the City Engineer inspect all existing facilities and certify them as being in
good condition and acceptable for maintenance. Mr. Henley asked if there were any reason
why someone from the City could not go out with the Runoff Official and inspect the
facilities. Mr. St. John said for City personnel to accompany the County Runoff Control
Official on an inspection of runoff control facilities, it would require an official
appointment, making said City official an agent of the Runoff Control Official.
Mr. St. John noted a sentence in the City's letter indicating that the cost of
inspection and maintenance of the runoff control facilities should be borne by the pro~
perty owners who create the need for these facilities. Mr. St. John said the users of the
public water supply are clearly the persons requiring these facilities and not the pro-
~erty owners where the facilities are constructed.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor about the County's costs for watershed management and
runoff control. Mr. Agnor said $27,000 in legal costs has been added to the estimate for
Fiscal Year 1982-83 that he gave at the October 29, 1982 meeting. That makes a total of
$92,440, of which $15,000 is for maintenance of runoff control facilities. The City did
not offer to fund any of the legal costs, but offered to authorize City staff to work with
County staff on a case-by-case basis. This could reduce the County's costs somewhat.
Mr. Fisher said the first two sentences in paragraph one of the City's letter seems
to answer the County's request to the City of four years ago and again two years ago.
Mr. Fisher added that he felt inspections should be made part of the duties of the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority and that they be designated the agent to do the inspections, and
that the City as an entity should not be involved. Mr. St. John said the Virginia Water
and Sewer Authorities statute gives the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority the power to go
onto private property for inspections, etc., if it is determined that the devices are for
assuring the quality of water in the reservoir. That is different from having City
personnel help with the inspections.
Mr. Henley felt the County Runoff Official could take a City official and a Rivanna
official for an inspection tour of the facilities, and then no one other than the County
Official would have to be involved from that· point on. He did not agree with the City
suggestion to shift the costs to the property owners. Mr. Agnor commented that he be-
lieved the City Officials did not foresee the complications ..as indicated by Mr. St. John,
and felt the Board of Supervisors should offer the City a counterproposal of having Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority officials handle the inspections as an agent of the County. Mr.
Lindstrom felt a "counterproposal" would be very time consuming and he felt the County
shouZd simply ask the City what they would like and if they would consider having the
Rivanna Authority handle the inspections of the facilities. Mr. Lindstrom said if that
was not acceptable to the Board, possibly a joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors and
City Council could take place to help expedite the discussions about the inspections of
runoff control facilities. Mr. Fisher said he felt that would be difficult to arrange.
Mr. Lindstrom then suggested that one member of the Board meet with the Mayor and attempt
to work out the problem of inspections. Mr. Fisher said he would meet with the Mayor
during the upcoming week and report back to the Board of Supervisors'at its meeting on
December 15.
Agenda Item No..16. 'Discussion: Report of Tourism Committee. Mr. Fisher gave a
brief summary of the discussion which took place at the meeting of the Board of Supervisors
on December 1, 1982. Mr. Fisher said he agreed originally to support the Visitors Bureau
if 50% of the funds needed to finance the Buarau came from the private sector. Mr. Fisher
said this proposal from the Tourism Committee adds to the costs of support from both the
City and the County and calls for only 10.6% funding from the Chamber of Commerce for the
priVate sector. Mr. Fisher said if the private sector does not feel the Bureau is a
valuable asset to the community and is not willing to support same, then why should the
December 8, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
540
County vote to fund the Bureau. Mr. Fisher said a decision needs to be made as to whether
or not to continue funding the Visitors Bureau so he would accept comments from the public
at this time. ~
First to speak was Mr. Charles Grandquist, Chairman of the Thomas Jefferson Visitor's
Bureau Board. Mr. Grandquist said tourism is the largest industry in the Commonwealth of
Virginia, and that in order to get the tourists to come to this area, money must be spent.
Mr. Grandquist said it has been difficult in the past to get private businesses to con-
tribute to the Visitors Bureau because it has been felt that collection of the transient
lodging tax was their contribution to this cause. Mr. Grandquist added that the Bureau
now has the necessary statistics to show businessmen how the Bureau has actually helped
the tourist industry and the motel industry specifically and why monetary contributions
are in order. Lastly, Mr. Grandquist said a decision must be made immediately on the use
of the Bicentennial Center Building as a location for the Visitors Bureau, because once
this building reverts to Piedmont Virginia Community College, it will be lost to the
Visitors Bureau forever and an equally appropriate site cannot be duplicated.
Mr. Fisher noted that in the budget presented as part of the Tourism Study Committee
report, no funding is included for capital expenditures or major maintenance costs. Mr.
Grandquist said no such costs were anticipated in the immediate future, but that $3,000
has been included for such items as plumbing/heating costs.
Mr. Jerry Brown, President of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of Commerce, said
the Chamber does not have the power to require membership of community businesses. Mr.
Brown said the dues for hotels and motels are extremely high, but are literally passed
through the Chamber's budget to the Visitors Bureau. Mr. Brown said the Chamber cannot
contribute 50% of the Bureau's budget, but he feels that through promotion and continued
support by all, the Bureau can become more self-supporting in the future.
Next to speak was Ms. Carolyn Holmes, Curator of Ash Lawn. Ms. Holmes said tourism
is a very clean "industry" which helps draw positive attention to the area. Ms. Holmes
felt this positive attention indirectly draws new businesses and residents to locate in
the community on a permanent basis. Mr. Fisher asked Ms. Holmes if Ash Lawn has an
advertising budget. Ms. Holmes said a very small amount is available for advertising
special events which take place at Ash Lawn several times a year. Mr. Grandquist said
Monticello has a marketing budget of about $30,000.
Mr. Jerry Mazerkowitz, Manager of the Holiday Inn South, said he supports the Visitors
Bureau and feels it is a very worthwhile organization. Mr. Mazerkowitz said the Bureau
refers many visitors to his motel and inturn trys to help the Visitors Bureau whenever
possible.
Mr. Greg MacDonald of Michie Tavern said his business has an advertising budget, but
someone must do advertising for the community as a whole. Mr. MacDonald said the Visitors
Bureau does present the whole community to tourists, and the result is many tour groups
come to see more than just Monticello or Michie Tavern, they see a lot more of the com-
munity and stay overnight and eat in the restaurants which also brings more money into the
community.
Ms. Barbara White of Lake Reynovia said the Visitors Bureau has done a great deal for
the community. Ms. White said many of the visitors referred to her have commented on the
very warm reception the Visitors Bureau presents. ~
Mr. Fisher said he feels the Visitors Bureau is doing a fine job and he is in fawor
of it, but would like to see it more self-supporting. Miss Nash said she felt the Bureau
was doing a fine job and that it would be short-sighted if'the Board stopped this program.
Mr. Butler said he received a telephone call from the curator of Castle Hill stating
that most of the trade at Castle Hill is received directly from the Visitors Bureau and
that he is very much in favor of oontinued support of the Bureau.
Mrs. Cooke said she has been impressed with the job done by the staff to attain self-
support. Mrs. Cooke said the private sector must show additional support, but this lack
of support is overshadowed by the tremendous accomplishments of the Visitors Bureau.
Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with Mr. Grandquist that this building is very well
suited as a Visitors Bureau rather than an addition to Piedmont Virginia Community College.
Mr. Lindstrom said that although he feels strongly that the public business community
should give more support to this enterprise, he would hate to seethe very important
resource of the building ~lost. Mr. Lindstrom said Albemarle County does benefit signi-
ficantly from the Visitors Bureau and also has a responsibility to the tourists that come
to this community. Mr. Lindstrom expressed concern that in years to come the private
support will cease, thus leaving support of the Visitors Bureau strictly up to the two
local governments. Mr. Lindstrom expressed concern that if the Visitors Bureau does
receive the support of the Board of Supervisors, and does secure use of~the building from
the State, that arrangements made among the contributors for long-term support of the
facility.
Mr. Butler said he agreed with Mr. Lindstrom that a suitable site does not come along
every day.
Motion was then offered by Miss Nash to approve the concept of the report submitted
by the Tourism Committee and that the Board declare its intention to support this venture
following fiscal year 1983 and agree to help in the financial operation of the building.
Mr. Lindstrom said he supported the idea Miss Nash was attempting to express, but
offered to restate her motion in order to clarify the intent. Mr. Lindstrom said he would
offer motion to endorse the continuation of the operation of the Visitors Center as a
tourist bureau according to the recommendations of the Tourism Committee;also, to authorize
the Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau to lobby the State General Assembly for the continued
54
December 8, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
use of the Visitors Center building; to endorse in concept the funding of the Thomas
Jefferson Visitors Bureau for fiscal year 1983-84, for an approximate amount of $39,300,
but that the Board of Supervisors cannot guarantee the actions of any future Board.
Lastly, if efforts to secure use of the Visitors Center building are successful in Richmond,
arrangements should be made for the future control and continued use of the building, and
that such arrangements be handled in such a way that Albemarle County would have the right
to terminate the lease on a periodic basis (i.e. every five years).
Mr. Henley said he could not support that motion because he was afraid of what such a
venture might cost Albemarle County in future years. Mr. Fisher said he feels the Visitors
Bureau should remain in its present location, but that Albemarle County should not con-
tribute any additional support to keep the Bureau in operation.
The motion was then seconded by Miss Nash.
the following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
Agenda Item No. 17. Resolution of intent re: Scenic Areas Overlay. Mr. St. John
said this request for a resolution of intent is regarding crossings of scenic streams
which was discussed at the Board's meeting of December 1, 1982. Mr. Henley said he would
support such a resolution, but felt that you can't take the rights of the citizens away
just so someone can canoe down a stream. Mr. St. John said the proposed wording can be
relaxed, but this resolution is only to start the study process.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution of intent:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, intends to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
regarding certain crossings of scenic streams; and
FURTHER REQUESTS the Planning Commission to hold public hearing on
said proposal to amend the County Zoning Ordinance and report back to this
Board at the earliest possible date.
The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 18. Authorization to execute lease for office space with Albemarle
County Service Authority. Mr. Agnor said it has been recommended by the Auditing firm of
Robinson, Farmer and Cox Associates that Albemarle County enter into a formal lease
agreement with the Albemarle County Service Authority for 5,031 square feet of space
presently occupied in the Albemarle County Office Building. Mr. Agnor recommended that
the lease which follows be authorized for execution by the County Executive:
THIS DEED OF LEASE, entered into this 8th day of December, 1982, by and
between the County of Albemarle, Virginia, party of the first part, hereafter
referred to as the "lessor", and the Albemarle County Service Authority, party
of the second part, hereafter referred to as the "Lessee":
W I T NE S SETH :
That the Lessor does hereby let and demise unto the Lessee the following
property, to include 5,031 square feet of leased space, to-wit: 401 McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, known as the present Service Authority offices.
The herein-described property and premises are hereby leased to be used and
occupied by the Albemarle County Service Authority or its agent or agents for
such purpose or purposes as the Lessee may now or hereafter be empowered by law
to use the same, and any or all of the undertakings of the Lessee and its agents
or affiliates.
This lease shall commence on the 1st day of July, 1982 and extend for a
period of twelve months, ending on the 30th day of June, 1983, yielding there-
from during the term the rental of $25,155.00, which amount shall be due and
payable as follows:
$2,096.25 payable monthly at the end of each month (rent calculated on
basis of $5.00 per square foot). Rent also includes the use of public meeting
rooms and other common-area facilities.
1. The Lessor covenants and agrees:
(a) To deliver quiet possession of the premises to the Lessee on the
effective date of this lease;
(b) To deliver the premises in good repair suitable to the use for
which they are leased and warrants that all plumbing, heating, air conditioning,
electrical and mechanical devices and appliances of every nature upon the
premises are in good repair and working order;
December 8, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
(c) To keep the premises and all plumbing, heating, air conditioning,
electrical and mechanical devices and appliances of every nature upon the pre-
mises in good repair and in working order at the expense of the Lessor during
the tenancy of this lease and to provide heat, air conditioning, as conditions
require, electricity, water and janitorial services on the premises at Lessor's
expense during the tenancy of this lease;
(d) If the premises are damaged by fire or otherwise, but not so as
to render the premises untenantable, the Lessor may elect, but is under no
obligation so to do, to repair and restore the premises to their former condi-
tion, in which event there shall be a pro rata abatement of the rent for the
period during which the repairs and restoration are being completed for that
portion of the premises not usable by the Lessee during such period;
(e) In the. event the Lessor elects not to make such repairs and
restoration within a reasonable time, not to exceed sixty (60) days after the
premises are damaged by fire or otherwise, then the Lessee may terminate this
lease.
(f) To equip and make such alterations and additions to the premises
and the equipment thereon belonging to the Lessor as shall be necessary at all
times to' comply with the provisions of Federal, State and local laws, ordinances,
and regulations pertaining to health, safety, fire and public welfare; and
(g) That the Lessee may make such alterations and additions to the
premises during the term of this lease as the Lessee may deem proper, subject to
the written approval of the Lessor and, further subject to the written approval
of the Lessor, that the Lessee may install fixtures, partitions, and make such ~
other improvements as the Lessee deems proper or necessary, and that the title
and ownership of such materials as may be used in such alterations and additions
and all fixtures, partitions, and other improvements made or installed by the
Lessee shall become the property of the Lessor.
2. The Lessee covenants and agrees:
(a) To pay the rent herein provided for in the manner herein provided,
without the necessity of demand being made therefor by the Lessor;
(b) To pay the cost of telephone service to t.he premises;
(c) At the termination of this lease, to deliver peacefully the
premises in as good order and repair as the same was at the beginning of this
lease, reasonable wear and tear excepted;
(d) That the Lessor, its agents or assigns, may show the premises to
prospective purchasers during the business hours maintained by the Lessee, and
at such other times during this tenancy as the Lessee may permit.
3. It is mutually covenanted and agreed by the Lessor and the Lessee:
(a) That for the purpose of this lease, it is mutually understood and
agreed that where the words "repairs" and/or "restoration" are used, the same
shall be deemed to include the replacement of broken glass;
(b) That if the premises be so damaged by fire or otherwise as to
render the same, in the opinion of the Lessor, untenant.able, this lease shall
immediat.ely terminate;
(c) That the Lessor shall insure the premises against fire and other
casualties, except that the Lessee shall insure its personal property against
fire and other casualties as it. sees fit;
(d) That in the event that by operation of law the Lessee shall cease
to exist or that the powers of the Lessee shall be so construed as not to permit
the Lessee to continue to use the premises herein demised for the purposes for
which they shall have been used,-then in that event, this lease and all responsi~~-
bility and liability of the Lessee of whatever kind shall terminate;
(e) That a written notice of twet~e (12) months prior to expiration
of this lease shall be given by the Lessee should it desire to vacate the
premises and, should the Lessor desire possession at the termination of this
lease a like twelve (12) months' notice shall be given by the Lessor; that this
lease shall be renegotiated each year as to rent upon mutual agreement of the
parties; and ±n the event that no such notice is given by either party or
renegotiation does not occur, then this lease shall continue in force from year
to year at the same annual rental and-subject to all the terms, conditions, and
covenants herein contained; notice by either party to be made by certified or
registered mail.
(f) This written lease constitutes the entire agreement between the
Lessor and the Lessee regarding the demise of the property herein described and
no agent of either party has any authority to alter, amend, or waive any of the
terms hereof, unless such amendment be in writing and consented to and signed by
the parties hereto..
54 3
December 8, 1982 (R~gular Day Meeting)
4. The Lessor hereby designates Ray B. Jones, whose address is Office of
the Director of Finance, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-
4956, as agent of the Lessor, and directs that the payment of all rents to
accrue hereunder shall be made by the Lessee to such agent; and any and all
notices hereunder, when served upon this agent, shall have the same force and
effect as if served upon the Lessor; and the Lessee hereby designates J. W.
Brent, whose address is 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4956,
as the agent of the Lessee, for the purpose of accepting notices as may be
herein provided.
Motion to approve the above written lease was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by
Mr. Lindstrom, specifying that the County Executive sign said agreement on behalf of the
County. Ro.ll 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. 19. Agreement: Town of Scottsville. Mr. St. John said he had
received from Mr. Lindsay Dorrier, Attorney for the Town, a proposed agreement relative to
earthfill work for the Town's levee. Mr. St. John said this is a further agreement in
addition to the easement already granted by the Board last May. Mr. St. John said the
legal form of the agreement is acceptable but the agreement does not contain a disclaimer
of liability by the County and he would recommend that paragraph four be reworded to
incorporate such a disclaimer. Mr. Agnor said he and Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer,
also reviewed the agreement as well as the recommended change noted by Mr. St. John; and
endorse the adoption of the agreement as follows:
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE
AND ALBEMARLE COUNTY
REGARDING EARTHWORK FILL AREAS
Now c~mes the Town of Scottsville, hereinafter called "Town" and Albemarle
County, hereinafter called "County", and agree to the following:
1. Property Ownership and Location of Earthwork Fill Area
Albemarle County is owner of a tract of land located on the attached Plat
and Exhibit 1, entitled "Earthwork Fill Area", showing outlined portion of
said tract hereinafter called "earthwork area".
2. Description of Work by Contractor
ae
Ail work done by the Town's Contractor on the earthwork area shall be
in accordance with the plans and specifications of the Flood Protec-
tion Facilities, Town of Scottsville, Virginia, prepared by Mattern
and Craig, consulting engineers. The approved set of plans and
specifications are further described as that set which is incorporated
by reference~ into the contract between the Town of Scottsville and its
contractor. The said approved plans and specifications shall include
provisions such as insurance, bond, erosion control, protection of the
earthwork area, access to the earthwork area, stripping vegetation,
break up existing pavement, fill, finished grading, repaying and
seeding and restoration of the earthwork area.
Paved areas in the earthwork area will be filled and repaved by Town's
Contractor in accordance with the plans and specifications of the
Flood Protection Facilities.
Uncontrolled fill will be placed in unpaved areas of the earthwork
area by Town's Contractor.
da
Compaction of the fill will be by tracked spreaders of Town's Con-
tractor.
The fill will be placed to a minimum elevation of 273.5 feet, USGS
datum, by the Town's Contractor.
re
The filled area of the earthwork area will be sloped to drain by the
Town's Contractor.
ge
Fill material used by Town's Contractor will be excavated by the
Town's Contractor from the area under the levee. No topsoil layer
will be placed.
he
Sanitary sewer manholes will be adjusted to the new finished grade by
Town's Contractor.
The unpaved areas of the earthwork area will be reseeded and mulched
by Town's Contractor.
3. Access to Earthwork.Area
The County agrees to let the Town or its agents and contractors have the
right of access to the earthwork area:
a. During the engineering process in order to view the site;
During the term of this agreement, for the carrying out of earthwork
operations and for restoration of the site.
December 8, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Consideration
The County, for and in consideration of the public benefits to be derived
from the earthwork improvements on County property, shall grant the right
of access~and use of the earthwork area for the work described herein.
However, ~h<e Uounty hereby assumes no liability or responsibility for
damage to any person or property as the result of these improvements,
either during or subsequent to construction, nor does the County assume any
liability or responsibility whatever for maintenance of the said improve-
ments, either during or subsequent to construction, during the term of this
agreement, or subsequent to the expiration of this agreement.
Term of Agreement
ae
This agreement shall terminate upon written acceptance of the work by
the owner or shall expire five years from the date of the contract
between the Town of Scottsville and its contractor for the construc-
tion of the Flood Protection Facilities, which ever occurs first,
unless the Town and the County mutually agree to an extension or
reduction in the term of agreement. The Town assumes no responsi-
bility for the maintenance of the earthwork area after termination or
expiration of this agreement.
The right of access to and use of the earthwork area hereby granted by
the County to the Town shall be for the full term of this Agreement
irregardless of the number of contracts awarded by the Town for
construction of the Flocd Protection Facilities.
The terms of this agreement, and the right of the Town to have access
to and from the County property and the right of the Town to install
fill material to the earthwork area shall run with the land and shall
be binding on any future owners of said County property.
A copy of this agreement shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit County of Albemarle County under "Town of Scottsville" and
"Albemarle County".
The terms of this agreement shall be subject to future modification by both
parties, upon agreement by both parties, and said modification shall be
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County.
Motion was immediately offered Miss Nash to approve this agreement as recommended by
the County Executive and authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to sign same.
The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. 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. 20. Appointments. Mr. Fisher said an Equalization Board must be
appointed for calendar year 1983. Mr. Fisher said four Board members wished to reappoint
their representatives on the Equalization Board and that Mr. Henley wished to appoint Mr.
Charles E. Smith of Crozet. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to reappoint Mrs.
Shirley Chapman, Mrs. Sharon Hamner, Mr. Barry R. Plotnick and Mrs. Barbara Staples to the
Equalization Board for the calendar year 1983; and to appoint Mr. Charles E. Smith to the
Equalization Board for the calendar year 1983. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 21. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. At 5:00 P.M., Mr. Fisher said
he would be leaving the meeting, but asked Mr. Butler to report on a meeting he had attended
in Richmond with the Governor.
Mr. Butler said he attended the Governor's forum on unemployment of youth and adults
in Virginia. Mr. Butler said the statistics are very alarming, especially among young
blacks. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 5:02 P.M.) Mr. Butler said presentations were
made by representatives of three localities outside of Virginia on what their areas are
doing to attempt to control unemployment. Mr. Butler said the main purpose of the confer-
ence was to emphasize to localities that solutions to the unemployment problem must begin
now and must start locally. Mr. Butler said several citizen representatives from the
Charlottesville/Albemarle area were also in attendance, there persons are involved with
local organizations established to fight unemployment. Mr. Butler said he was certain the
matter will be before the Board a great deal in future years but that it would not be an
easy problem to solve.
Agenda Item No. 22. At 5:10 P.M., Mr. Henley requested a motion to adjourn to 2:30
P.M., on December 15, 1982, in meeting room #7. Motion to that effect was offered by Mr.
Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.