1979-01-10January 10, 1979 (Regular-Day Meeting)
117
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on ~anuary 10, 1979, at 9f00 A.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Gerald E. Fisher (Arrived at 11:13 A.M.)
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 9:16 A.M.),/J. T. Henley, Jr..,
F. Anthony Iachetta, C. T±mothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent:
Officers present:
County Attorney.
Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and George R. St. John,
Agenda Itmm No. 1. Call to Order.
J. T. Henley, Jr., at 9:08 A.M.
The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: September 20~, 1978 (Night Meeting). Mr.
Lindstrom reported two corrections. First, on page 432, use the word "of" instead of "to".
Next, on page 433 change sentence to read: "Mr. Lindstrom also agreed and did not feel
that protection of the R-1 zone reqmired restrictions in the A-1 zone." There being no
other corrections noted, motion for approval was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by
Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Messrs. Dorrier and Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 3B. Other Highway Matters:
Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation reported
that the revisions made to the six-year highway budget in November were considered.to be
too major by the Secondary Roads Department in Richmond without a full public hearing being
held.~ He suggested to the Baard that the matter be reviewed again. Mr. Henley suggested
handling the matter at next month's regular day meeting. The remainder of the Board was
in agreement.
Agenda Item No. 3A. Abandonment of road off of Route 602 in Howardsville. Mr. Bruce
Rasmussen asked for another deferral since there are still some agreements which must be
prepared. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to defer this
item until March 14, 1979. Roll was called and the mo~m carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 3B. Other Highway Matters.
Route 728: Mr. Dorrier reported receipt of a letter dated January 8, 1978, from
Mr. Garland Hicks of the School's Transportation division, in reply to a petition filed
about this road. He said it is the recommendation of his department that County School
buses not use this route until visibility and the overall condition of the road are improved.
Mr. Roosevelt said he has studied the problem since the last meeting, and prepared three
estimates for improvements. First',.grade and wi'den only the very narrow portion to 20
feet--cOst $15w400. To grade and widen for a 'distance of approximately 3/4 mile from a
culvert to the Critzer's entrance would cost approximately $24,900, for a 20 foot wide
surface. To widen the road to a state standard specification wou~d require purchase of
50 feet of right-of-way; w~ith gravel instead of hard-surface, would cost approximately
$82,000. Mr. Henley said he was sympathetic to the probIem and would be agreeable .to
Mr. Roosevelt finding $25,000 in the budget to make minimal repairs to aase the situation.
It was the consensus of the Board to discuss the road in more detail and have the cost
figure reviewed at the February day meeting along with the 1979-80 Highway Budget.
Lambs Road: Mr. Lindstrom asked about removal of trees which block sight distance
near the intersection of Hydraulic Road. Mr. Roosevelt said the trees do not seem to pose
any problem. Mr. Lindstrom said Mrs. Garlick is willing to have the trees removed. Mr.
Roosevelt said he would get in touch with her as soon as possible.
Route 643: Dr. Iachetta asked if Mr. Roosevelt could stake the upper side of this
road. He said the landowners along the road wish to see where the right-of-way will be
taken before they decide whether or not to donate same. Mr. Roosevelt said he would be
happy to meet with a representative of the owners on the road and speak with them about
what would be necessary to have the road staked.
Mr. Henley said the work the Highway Department has done on the road into Innisfree
(White Hall District) has been a big improvement. Mr. Roosevelt s&id these people appeared
at the Annual Road Hearing last year to complain about the road. After that time, he
personally visited with them to explain about the donation of right-of-way, etc. and has
not heard a word since that time. Mr. Henley said evidently graveling the road has helped
the problem.
Key West: Mr. Roudabush asked if Mr. Roosevelt had heard anything new about Vincennes
Court which has not been taken into the State System. ~. Agnor said a report had just
been received from Mr. Bailey of the Engineering Department which said a new document has
· ~'~]~ January 10, 1979 (Regular-Day Meeting)
been drafted which ~hey hope the property owner will sign to create an easement. If he
does not sign the d~cument, then an alternative drainage system will have to be developed.
Mr. Agnor then noted receipt of the following letter dated December 27, 1978 regarding
road additions in the Key West Subdivision:
"December 27, 1978
As requested in your resolution dated November 13, 1978, the following additions
to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective
January 1, 1979.
ADDITIONS LENGTH
KEY WEST SUBDIVISION
Vincennes Road - From State Route 769 northwesterly to
George Rogers Road extended. 0.29 Mi.
George Rogers Road Extended - From intersection of Vincennes
Road northeasterly 0.11 mi. to Wildflower Drive. 0.11 Mi.
Wildflower Drive - Beginning at George Rogers Road north-
easterly to Chestnut Ridge Road. 0.31 Mi.
Randolph Court - From: Wildflower Drive southeasterly to end
of cul-de-sac. 0.10 Mi.
Chestnut Ridge Road - From Wildflower Drive northeasterly to
cul-de-sac. 0.12 Mi."
Route 29: Mr. Agnor read the following letter into the record:
"December 11, 1978
Route 29 - Project 0029-002-103, C-501
Changes in Primary and Secondary Systems
Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Gentlemen:
In accordance with a resolution passed by your Board on September 13, 1978,
changes in the Primary and Secondary Systems, made necessary by relocation
and construction on Route 29 in Albemarle County were confirmed by the
Highway and Transportation Commission on December 7, 1978, as shown on the
attached sketch and described as follows:
SECTIONS TRANSFERRED TO THE SECONDARY SYSTEM AS PROVIDED UN~ER SECTION 33.1-35
OF THE 1950 CODE OF VIRGINIA:
Sections 1, 7 and 2 - Old location of Route 29, east of the new location, from
the new location at Station 203+00 northeasterly 0.49
mile to the new location at Station 232+00.
Sections 3 and 4 - Old location of Route 29, west of the new location, from
the new location at Station 236+75 northeasterly 0.13
mile to the new location at Station 243+55~.
Sincerely,
(signed) Leo E. Busser, III, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer"
Route 22: Mr. Agnor read the following letter into the record:
"December 15, 1978
Route 22
Albemarle County
Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
202 County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Miss Neher:
This will acknowledge the letter dated November 13, 1978 from the Deputy Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors concerning the Board's request for a reduced speed
limit along Route 22 between its intersections with Route 250 and Route 231.
The Department has determined that the speeds through this area exceed the 45
miles per hour speed limit requested by the Board. This being the case, it
appears that only accident data would justify reducing the speed limit through
this section. This data will take some time to compile and review. The infor-
mation has been requested; and once we have had an opportunity to review it, I
January 10, 1979 (Regular-Day Meeting)
.119
will respond more fully to your request.
Yours truly,
(Signed) D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer"
Agenda Item No. 4. Request for additional game warden. Mr. Agnor reported receipt of
a petition written by Ms. Emma Frances Baber, signed by many people who live in the
Howardsville area requesting additional help for the game warden in the County. Mr. Agnor
then read his memorandum on the subject to the Board:
"To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Board of Supervisors
Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive
January 5, 1979
Petition on Game Warden
I have discussed with Sheriff Bailey and Sgt. Ray Walker, Game Warden, the matters
raised in the petition addressed to the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries,
drafted by Ms. Emma Baber of Howardsville. i have also talked with officials in
the Richmond Office of the Game Commission, Who are familiar with the problems in
Albemarle. My discussions centered on the question of what could the County
government do most effectively to support the petition and attempt to resolve or
relieve some of the problems.
Sgt. Walker predicated his participation in the discussions on the understanding
that he is not complaining about his work load, and responded positively to
questions in a very helpful manner. The situation is as follows:
Albemarle is classified as having three full time wardens available to the total
county area. Sgt. Walker is assigned exclusively to Albemarle. Mr. Hackworth is
assigned to the northern part of Albemarle and most of Grey, County. Mr. Brantley
is assigned to the southern part of Albemarle and most of Nelson County. Addi-
tionally, two part time deputy wardens assist Sgt. Walker, principally on
Saturdays, holidays or special investigations.
Mr. Hackworth and Mr. Brantley live in two adjacent counties, and essentially
concentrate their work in those counties. Sgt. Walker se~ves Albemarle, but his
rank requires him to serve elsewhere in the Thomas Jefferson District on periodic
special assignments. The District spreads from Alleghany to Albemarle Counties
and from Augusta to Warren Counties (Winchester area~. Sheriff Bailey's deputies
reinforce the work in Albemarle as needed or requested by Sgt. Walker, but this
~upport has its limitations. Lastly, one of the Albemarle Dog Wardens, Mr.
Drumheller, on his own time, assists Sgt. Walker, mostly at nights, primarily
because of his willingness to do so and his interest in the work.
Although the territorial assignment records indicate Albemarle has three game
wardens and two part-time deputy wardens, practically speaking, there is one
warden, two part-time deputy wardens, with support from Sheriff deputies and a
dog warden. The assignment of personnel, like most agencies, is calculated on
normal time periods and not peak periods, such as the hunting season. In
Albemarle the big game season runs from the third Monday in November to January 5,
which is the similar period for peak work loads of all wardens in this area. It
is the same time period, of course, when the perennial problems and complaints
multiply.
I discussed the idea of employing a number of part-time deputy wardens for the
hunting season, as well as adding full time warden(s) for the year-round assignment.
Sgt. Walker was not in favor of increasing the number of p~rt-time wardens because
of the extremely sensitive nature of the work, requiring extensive training and
experience. Enforcing game laws is similar to law enforcement involvement in
domestic quarrels, and part time employees cannot be utilized effectively. Sheriff
Bailey agrees that part-time wardens are not the answer. Additional full time
warden(s) would be more effective, but the need must be established on normal
requirements, not abnormal ones, with the realization it will relieve some of the
hunting season problems, not fully resolve them.
Albemarle county should not examine this need, or be involved in the determination.
The County should formally request the Game Commission to make that study, and
route that request through the representative on the Commission who represents
this area. A commissioner is appointed from each congressional district, and the
Seventh District Commissioner is Mr. William H. West of Millwood, Virginia. It
is recommended that the Board adopt a resolution, directed to the Commission,
requesting that the need for additional warden(s) be studied with .the report of
that study and its results returned for the Board's information. It is also
~recommended that Mr. West be invited and requested to meet with the Board to
discuss the matter prior to the study being completed."
Mr. Dorrier said he had not had t~o' many telephone calls this hunting season, but did
see a need for additional wardens since the County was growing so rapidly. Mrs. Baber was
present and explained the petition. (Copy on file in the office of the clerk to the Board.)
Dr. Iachetta said he has ~een violations take place, and h~s not been able to do anything
about it because the warden was not available. Sheriff Bailey reported trying to help the
warden whenever possible but that it is sometimes impossible due to lack of manpower.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Virginia Game Commission is hereby requested to
study the necessity, justification, and feasibility of assigning one or more
additional full time game wardens to this county; and
January 10, 1979 (Regular-Day Meeting)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Game Commissioner representing this area,
is hereby invited and requested to meet with the Board of Supervisors and local
wardens, to discuss this matter at a convenient da~e.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to request Mr. William H. West, Seventh District Conzmis-
sioner, to attend a Board meeting to discuss the hunting problems of Albemarle County in
greater detail and invite Mrs. Baber to also be present at that time. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT.~, Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: An ordinance to vacate a portion of plat of
Section 3, "Meriwether Hill", shown on a recorded plat as a portion of a public street known
as "Leeds Lane", reserving certain rights; this property is shown on a plat recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court in Deed Book 510, Page 206." (Notice of this public
hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on December 27, 1978 and January 3, 1979.)
Mr. Tucker noted that this public hearing was ordered from a presentation made at the
December 13th Board meeting (see Minute Book 17, page 85). Mr. Richard Shannon and Mr.
Robert Herbert, property owners on Leeds Lane, requested that this road be vacated to public
use. Although there are four lots which front on Leeds Lane, only lots 27 and 10 use Leeds
Lane for access. This portion of Leeds Lane is the only road in Meriwether Hills which is
not in the State system. When the original plat for Meriwether Hills was approved it showed
a temporary turnaround in the area of lots 27 and !0 since it was felt that at some time in
the future this road might be extended into adjoining properties. Mr. Tucker said he
understands the property owners on Leeds Lane are willing to enter into a private roads
agreement for maintenance of the road if same is abandoned to public use.
Mr. Henley opened the public hearing. First to speak was Mr. Richard Shannon, one of
the petitioners. He said the turnaround, if built, would take up most of his front yard..
He sa~..~aintenance of the road would be minimal. Mr. Wal~er Cushman, developer of
Meriwe~her Hills, has agreed to deed the right of way in this road to the property owners
for the sum of $I.00.
Mr. Richard DeMong, owner of Lot 9, said his driveway just barely touches Leeds Lane.
He would prefer to see a road maintenance agreement before the road is abandoned. Also, if
Leeds Lane is never to be connected to Route 678, he saw no reason to abandon the road at
this time. At some time in the future, he might like to change his driveway and have exit
from his property onto Leeds Lane instead of Le~is Street.
Mr. Tom Albro was present to represent Mr. Rona~d Smullen owner of the tract of land
which adjoins Meriwether Hill Subdivision at the end of Leeds Lane. His client does not
want to connect Leeds Lane through his property to Route 678, but is afraid that if this
road is abandoned, he will loose adcess to three lots on his property at this point. If
Mr. Smullen ever came forward to subdivide, that would be the time to protect the adjoining
property owners. Mr. Smullen is willing to bring Leeds Lane up to State standards at the
time he develops his property.
Mr. Shannon asked when Mr. Smullen plans on developing his property. Mr. Smullen said
he has been working on temporary plans with Mr. Roudabush"s firm and he is ready to go as
soon as the plans are drawn. Mr. Roudabush said he woUld abstain from any further
discussion since he did not realize his firm was responsible for plat work for Mr. Smullen.
Mr. Robert Herbert, one of the petitioners, was also present. He said that Leeds Lane
needs some maintenance at this time. He likes the area the way it is at this time.
Mr. DeMong said he had talked with Mr. Gerald Trainer, owner of the fourth lot on this
street. Mr. Trainer did not really object to the use of the~:o-~d by three or four more lots,
if that is all that will be developed in Mr. Smullen's subdivision, but would prefer that
the area stay as it is.
The Board finding that there was no consensus among the property owners as to the
abandonment of the road or a private road maintenance .agreement, this matter should be
deferred.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer any action on
this until February 14, 1979, so the owners can reach a decision on what they wish to be
done. Roll was called and the motion carried by the folloWing recorded vote:
AYES:~ Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom..
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Roudabush.
- At the suggestion i°£ the County Attorney, motion was offered by Dr. !achetta, seconded
by Mr. Dorrier, to close the public hearing on the just discussed road abandonment. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Do?rier, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Roudabush.
January 10, 1979 (Regular-Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 9. A. W. Dawson Final Plat Appeal. (A plat showing Tax Map 118, a
portion of Parcel 27, Scottsville District, drawn by Robert L. Lum, Land Planning-Surveying,
Palmyra, Virginia, dated November 13, 1978. )
Mr. Tucker reviewed the staff report on this plat as follows:
Location: West off Route 630 near Schuyler
Acreage: 9+ acres
Zonin_~: A-I, Agricultural
Proposal: Division of 9+ acres to be joined to an adjacent property leaving 149+
acres residue.
Staff Comments: Staff has received two letters of opposition to this division
from adjacent landowners. They seem to be concerned with development
taking place in the area. The nine-acre parcel, however, is to be
added to an adjacent parcel and is not a separate building lot as
noted on the plat.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Waiver of scale required.
2. Waiver of pipestem lot required.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on December 21, 1978, approved the plat subject
to the following conditions:
1. Waiver of scale granted.
2. Waiver of pipestem lot granted.
3. Change Deed Book reference of John Arbaugh property to 463-571.
Mr. Dorrier then reviewed his letter to Mr. Tucker dated December 28, 1978:
"December 28, 1978
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Director of Planning
Albemarle County
414 East Market Street
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
Re: A. W. Dawson - Final Site Plan
Dear Bob:
On DecemDer 21, 1978, the Planning Com~r~ission considered a subdivision review of
the A. W. Dawson property located on Route 630 in the Scottsville Magisterial
District. An adjoining neighbor, William F. Reid, has raised some questions
concerning a right-of-way on the Dawson property which is to run parallel to the
30-foot right-of-way granted to Mr. Arbaugh on March 31, 1977. In a letter dated
December 23, 1978, to your office, he raises certain questions concerning this
right-of-way. Therefore, I request that this subdivision plat be called up to
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for review. I also request that Mr.
Reid and Mr. Arbaugh and Mr. Dawson be notified of the date of the hearing. For
the review before the Board of Supervisors, I would request that Mason Caperton
be present in order to answer any questions which Mr. Reid may have.
Thank you for your efforts.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr."
Mr. Reid said the property has been resurveyed, and it has been found that the plat
used as a basis for decision by the Planning Commission, was grossly in error.
Mr. St. John recommended this matter be sent back to the Planning Commission. Motion
was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to send this plat back to the Planning
Commission, and upon their decision, they are to notify the Board of Supervisors of the
outcome. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 5. Request for street lights in Batesville.
receipt of the following letter:
"July 27, 1978
Mr. Agnor reported
Mr. J. Harvey Bailey
County Engineer
414 East Market Street
Charlottesville, Va.
22901
Dear Mr. Bailey:
The property owners located on State Rt. 692 near the intersection of State Rt. 635
(north), would like to request that the County install two street lights at this
intersection due to vandalism problems of property owners and also the "Batesville"
sign. (The Highway Department has had to put this one sign back three times in the
January 10, 1979 (Regular-Day Meeting)
There is an existing watchlight on pole QL65 paid for by Kent Houchens. He would
like this turned toward the intersection and used as one of the street lights in
this request to be paid for by the County.
The other light would be located on p~le .QL45.
We would be very pleased if you could honor this request.
Sincerely,
Aforementioned Property Owners,
(Sighed) (Mrs.) Evelyn Nay
(Signed) Charles T. Page, Jr.
(Signed) Kent Houchens"
Mr. Agnor then presented the following information from the County Engineer:
"December 13, 1978
To: Guy B. Agnor
From: J. Harvey Bailey
Subject: Street Lights - Batesville
· ne uounty Engineering Off$ce has processed an aPplication by citizens in Bates-
ville to install (2) 7,000/mercury vapor street lights at the intersection of
State Routes 692 and 635, in Batesville. The proposal includes the removal of
1 private watchlight, with a~replacement street light and longer fixture arm on
the same pole. I recommend the Board of Supervisors approve the request and
authorize the installation of the lighting.
Attached to this memo is a copy of the citizens written request and a layout
sketch. Plans for this layout were prepared by VEPC0. Locations reviewed by
the Highway Department were found to be in order. Ail affected property owners
have been contacted by mail and no objections voiced as to these placements.
The cost estimate involves no initial installation cost. The cost of the proposed
system will be $11.68 per month based on October, 1978 rates."
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to accept the recommen-
dation of the County Engineer for two street lights at the intersection of State Routes 692
and 635. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Agnor presented
Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 6. Consideration of Lease--Ram Property Dwelling.
the following lease agreement to the Board for their consideration:
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this llth day of December, 1978, by
and among the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, hereinafter referred to as the C~ty,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, referred to as the County, and FRANK GIBSON, hereinafter refers,-
~d to as the Tenant.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City .and County have'jointly purchased the Ivy Creek Natural
Area; and
WHEREAS, the Tenant was living in a house on the property at the time of
the purchase; and
WHEREAS, the City and the CoUnty desire to allow the Tenant to continue to
live on the said property;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits contained herein,
the parties hereto do agree as follows:
1. The Tenant may reside in the existing house on the property for a period
of one (1) year from the date of this agreement.
2. The Tenant shall pay all utilities but shall not pay any rent for as
long as he resides on the property.
3. The Tenant shall perform those duties that are designated by the Directors
of Parks and Recreation for the City and County for fifty hours per month for as
long as he resides on the property.
~. This agreement may be terminated by any party provided written notices of
such intention are given to the other two parties at least thirty (30) days in
advance of the proposed date of termination.
Mr. Agnor noted this is an interim measure until all future plans for the Rann Preserv~
can be worked out with the City of Charlottesville. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta
authorizing the Vice-Chairman to sign the lease agreement as presented. Motion was seconded
by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
January 10, 1979 (Regular-Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 10. Request from O.A.R.
(Mr. Fisher arrived at 11:13 A.M. and assumed his duties as Chairman.)
Miss Anne Singletons Director of The Offender Aid and Restoration Program of Charlottes-
ville/Albemarle County, read the following statement to the Board:
"Many pepple have come to you with concerns and problems this morning.
my case is no different.
Unfortmnately,
As you are no doubt aware, the recent developments in C.E.T.A. have had significant
impact on several community programs in the county. O.A.R. is one of those programs.
It is unfortmnate that this turn of events should occur at this time. In the O.A.R.
1979-80 budget, which is currently under review by both the City and County, I had
begun to absorb heretofore C.E.T.A.-subsidized personnel into the local funding.
Not knowing whether favorable or unfavorable action will be taken on the 79-80
budget makes my case this morning that much more difficult.
O.A.R. has three C.E.T.A. positions that we have been notified will not exist after
January 31. These positions comprise the heart of the services that O.A.R. offers.
The pre-release program has served the city and county courts for three years and
in that time, over 200 newly arrested persons have been interviewed, researched and
recommended for either release on their personal recognizance or having their bond
reduced. The employment program has saved thousands of tax dollars by finding jobs
for ex-offenders and not welfare. The volunteer program recruits community people
to help us and takes the O.A.R. message to churches and other organizations.
O.A.,R. provides a unique service in Albemarle County. For the past eight years, we
have demonstrated that community corrections can work. We stand as a national
example. We believe it is in the county's best long-term interest to seriously
explore every available alternative to insure that O.A.R. cmntinues to provide
these services. We are ready to help and I am ready to answer your questions."
Miss Singleton noted that the programs to be directly effected by the elimination of the
C.E.T.A. funds would be "Alternatives to Pretrial Detention, Volunteer-Offender One to One
Program,j Community Education/Public Relations, and Job Development". Following a brief
discussion, Board members were in agreement that they did not wish to make any appropriation
until they heard from other organizations concerning the cancellation of some of their C.E.T.A
supported positions, and were able to bee the total picture.
Agenda Item No. 7. Authorization for Option -- Esmont Health Center.
presented the following memo from Mr. Russell Otis dated January 4, 1979:
Mr. Agnor
"In response to your request, I have gathered the following financial data relative
to the Esmont Health Clinic. Two different assessments have been conducted, a
meeting with Dr. Prindle on the proposed site has been held, and Bob Vaughn and I
visited the site to estimate the cost of requested modifications t% the existing
building.
Bill Bradshaw provided me with an appraisal of the property in question, which
estimated it's value at $24,800. Mr. Bradshaw's appraisal was based on a study
of the property and the results of the sales of three comparable properties which
ranged from $22,500 to $31,000.
On December 13, 1978, William C. Porter of Porter Associates, appraised the value
of this property at $26,500 using a combination system of calculating replacement
costs of the building and the sale of comparable buildings in the area.
I would remind you that Dr. Thompson had set a price of $25,500 on the property,
and further that under the acquisition regulations of the United States Department
of Housing and Urban Development, the county is obligated to offer the seller an
amount at least equal to the independent appraisal.
After discussing with Dr. Prindle the modifications which he deemed necessary to
the building, Bob Vaughn and I went to inspect the house and estimated the cost
of these changes. The cost of these changes when added to the purchase price of
$26,500 still fall well within the $45,000 allocated by HUD for?this purpose.
Because of the suitability of this site to the Health Department and to area
citizens, plus the fact that the costs are within our means, I would recommend
that the county follow through with an offer for purchase or an option to buy
this property."
Mr. Agnor recommended that the Board authorize the signing of an option to purchase the
property at $25,500. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom, to authorize the County Executive to sign the option. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. il. Real Estate Assessment and 1978 Assessment/Sales Ratio.
Mr. Agnor presented the following information to the Board regarding the 1978 reassess-
ment, effective January 1, 1979:
"To:
From:
Date:
Board of Supervisors
Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive
January 5, 1979
January 10, 1979 (Regular-Day Meeting)
The 1978 Reassessment, effective January 1, 1979 is summarized for your information,
as follows:
Land
Buildings
Total Regular Assessment
New Construction
Increase in Assessment
Land Use Deferrals
Increase in Tax Base
Jan. 1, Jan. 1,
1978 1979
444,678,'670 515,595,110
552,327,840 601,170.,700
$997,006,510 $1,116,765,810'
_ 29,615,100
1,087,150,710
163,452.,060
$ 923,698,650
997,006,510
128,631,050
$8'6'8,3'75,460
$ Increase Increase
70,916',44'~ + 16.0
48~842,860 + 9.0
+ 119,759,300 + 12.0
29,615~100
$ 90,144,200 + 9.0
34,821,010 + 27.1
$ 55,323,190 + 6'.4
Attached also for your review is a report on the 1978 Assessment/Sales~Ratio Study
conducted by the Real Estate Department."
"To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Guy Agnor, County Executive
William S. Bradshaw
December 22, 1978
1978 Assessment/Sales Ratio Study
The attached tables summarize the results of the 1978 Real Estate Assessment Sales
Ratio conducted by the Real Estate Department. The study compares assessed values
to the selling prices of bona fide sales of real property to obtain an indication
of the existing assessment/sales ratio.
In my opinion, the results of the study are excellent. Just to refresh your memory,
I will explain the statistical terms used, which are the same as used by the State
Department of Taxation.
"Two statistical measures used in the study to measure the uniformity of
assessments are the index of inequality and the regression index. The
index of inequality measures how closely the individual ratios are array-
ed around the median ratio. Statistically, it is defined as one-half the
difference between the ratio of the first and third quartile values over
the median ratio, in other words, it measures the spread of the ratios
relative to the median. The closer the ratios are grouped around the
median the more equitable is the assessment of property, because properties
will be assessed at similar ratios. Experts feel that an index of
inequality of 10 p~rCent indicates a good distribution of assessments for
residential properties, while a 15 percent level is acceptable for
agricultural properties because of the greater diversity in their value.
The regression index is a statistical measure used for the single family
residential classifications to gauge the relationships in the ratios of
differently valued properties. It is defined as the mean ratio divided
by the sales weighed average ratio. A value of 1.00 indicates a uniform
relationship between assessed values and selling prices of properties of
different values."
Type of Property
Residential (under 5 acres)
No. of Sales
Median
Index
of
Inequality
Regression
Index
404 92% 4.9% .99
Class 2 B (5 to 20 acres)
52 92% 10.9%
Multi-Family 4 90% 6.66%
Commercial & Industrial
Class 5 (20 to 200 acres)
26 100% 4.5%
28 95% 8.4%
Class 6 (over 200 acres)
12 93% 7.0%
Aggregate 526 94% 7.1%
This was for the Board's information only and no action was taken.
Agenda Item No. 12. Wingate Appraisal Service Proposal for 1980 Reassessment.
Agnor presented the following information:
"To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Guy B. Agnor, County Executive
William S. Bradshaw
November 14, 1978
Wingate Appraisal Service - Bid Proposal for Reassessment 1980
Attached is the bid proposal submitted by Harold Wingate~ Wingate Appraisal
Service, Roanoke, Virginia, in assisting with the reassessment to be conducted
during the year of 1980. This reassessment will become effective January 1,
1981.
His contract is for $72,000 for 9,000 parcels of land or $8.00 per parcel.
The help during 1980 will be the fifth time the Wingate firm has worked for
Albemarle County. His experience is of great value to me and the department.
A good example recently, was the Morton Frozen Food suit in November ~f 1977.
His testimony, along with others,...was of extreme help to the judge in render-
ing his decision. His ideas and experience are also beneficial to me and the
appraisal staff.
Mr.
January 10, 1979 (Regular-Day Meeting)
The following is the amount of his contracts for services used in the past and
for 1980:
1974 11,000 parcels $100,000 ($9.09)
1976 9,000 parcels 70,000 ($7.78)
1978 9,000 parcels 76,500 ($8.50)
1980 9,000 parcels 72,000 ~$8.00)
As you can see from the above proposals, the 1980 quote is less than 1978. We
have agreed as long as his work is completed by October 1980 (contract states
November 1980), his work within Albemarle County can be done on his time
schedule. This is a great help to him in placing and schedul&ng his work in
other localities."
"November 10, 1978
Mr. William Bradshaw, Director
Real Estate Assessments
County of Albemarle
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Mr. Bradshaw:
Pursuant to our several discussions, it is our understanding you are desirous
of a proposal, for assistance with the 1980 Reassessment, covering the appraisal
Of 9,008 parcels of real estate.
We are in a position to complete appraisals on the 9,000 parcels by November 30,
1980. This would include appraising any locally taxable commercial and Industrial
properties in the County, as well as assistance, without additional c~arge, during
two weeks of public hearings. We would also supply any needed court ~e'stimony for
a period of two years following the Reassessment, without additional charge to the
County.
The County will be expected to furnish all necessary clerical assistance and
office space. We will supply appraisers to the County, who are thoroughly
qualified to carry out their assignment in a manner consistent with good appraisal
practice for this type project. A qualified appraiser will also appraise the
commercial and industrial properties.
We understand the 9,000 parcels will include approximately the same ratio of
subdivisions to acreage parcels as we appraised during 1978. In the event the
County should desire appraisals on more than 9,000 parcels, we will appraise any
additional parcels for a fee to be agreed on by our firm and the County.
Our total fee for this service, in aocordance with the above specifications,
would be
SEVENTY-TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS
($72,ooo)
This fee is based on the understanding that all sketches and descriptive data
presently in the County files will be available to our personnel. This is
further predicated on the assumption that the County clerical personnel will
transfer any needed descriptive data to new appraisal cards, if new cards are
used by the County.
We would prefer to be paid as the work progresses, based on the number of
parcels completed, in relation to the total contract.
Due to planning our 1980 work schedule, we will need an acceptance or rejection
of this proposal by May 1, 1979.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal, and should you have any
questions, we will discuss them at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
WINGATE APPRAISAL SERVICE
(Signed) Harold C, Wingate, SRA, ASA"
Mr. Agnor then recommended the bid proposal submitted by the firm be accepted by the
Board and signed by the County Executive. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by
Mr. Dorrier to accept the recommendation of the County Executive. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher asked if any response had eve~ been received from the State Department oH
Taxation regarding the study of the 1976 Assessment/Sales Ratio. Mr. Agnor noted that no
response was ever received. It was the consensus of the Board that such a study again be
requested from the State.
Agenda Item No. 13. Appoint Auditors for 1978-79 Audit. Mr. Agnor recommended the
firm of Du!aney and Farmer be reappointed as auditors for the County's 1978-79 fiscal year.
He said their estimate for this audit is $25,000. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to accept the recommendation of Mr. Agnor, and reappoint the
January 10, 1979 (Regular-Day Meeting)
firm of Dulaney and Farmer for the 1978-79 audit. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Contract: Recovery of indirect 'costs of certain federal programs.
Mr. Agnor summarized a memorandum from Mr. Ray~Jones dated January 4, 1979, regarding cost
recovery as follows:
"About six cities and fourteen counties in Virginia have engaged Griffith and
Associates. to perform a cost analysis study o~ the prior fiscal year's operation
to recover indirect costs of certain federal programs and grants. Indirect costs
are not reimbursable unless an analysis or cost accounting is performed. Albemarle
County's major recoveries would be in the Welfare and CETA Programs.
The cost analysis will distribute such functions as bookkeeping, payroll, purchas-
ing, personnel, etc. A preliminary estimate for Albemarle County is from $15,000
to $20,000. The consultants only get paid if there is a ~ecovery. In other words,
if there is no reimbursement, nobody gets anything. Also, there are no local
costs involved. However, I am confident that the County will get some money.
Attached is their standard contract which I respectfully request your official
action to designate Mr. Agnor to execute on behalf of the County."
He said the contract would be subject to review by the County Attorney's office before
acceptance by the Board if they wished to engage the firm of Griffith and Associates, Ltd.
to conduct the analysis.
Following some discussion among Board members, mot~n was o~fered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Mr. Roudabush, authorizing the County Executive to enter into the agreement with
David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd., subject to approval by the County Attorney's Office.
Mr. Fisher stated he hoped this would be a one time thing, and that in the future our own
personnel could handle a similar analysis. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE
PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES
TO ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 10th day of January, 1979 and effective
immediately by and between David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd'. (hereinafter
called the "Consultant") and the County of Albemarle, State of Virginia (here-
inafter called the "County"), WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS, the County has programs which it operates with Federal funding,
and
WHEREAS, the County supports these programs with support services paid
from County appropriated funds, and
WHEREAS, the State of Virginia, Division of Social Services and the
Virginia Employment Commission will pay a fair share of these costs if
supported by an approved cost allocation plan, and
WHEREAS, the Consultant is staffed with personnel knowledgeable and
experienced in the requirements of developing and negotiating such governmental
cost allocation plans, and
WHEREAS, the County desires to engage the Consultant to assist in develop-
ing a plan which conforms to Federal requirements and will be approved by their
representatives
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
1. Employment of Consultant. The County agrees to engage the Consultant
and the Consultant hereby agrees to perform the following services.
2. Scope of Services. The Consultant shall do, perform and carry out in
a good and professional manner the following services:
A. Development of a central services cost allocation plan which
identifies the various costs incurred by the County to support
and administer Federal programs. This plan will contain a de-
termination of the allowable costs of providing each supporting
service such as purchasing, legal counsel, disbursement pro-
cessing, etc.
B. Negotiation of the completed cost allocation plan with the
representatives of the State of Virginia. These negotiations
must be successfully conducted on the County's behalf before
any compensation is due the Consultant.
C. Assistance in preparing the initial claims to the State of
Virginia for recovery of funds due the County. Consultant
will also monitor the progress of claims through the State
to insure the County receives all recoveries due it.
January 10, 1979 (Regular-Day Meeting)
De
Prepare indirect cost proposal for the Division of Social Ser-
vices and the Virginia Employment Commission, CETA Division.
3. Time of Performance. The services to be performed hereunder by the
Consultant shall be undertaken and completed in such sequence as to assure
their expeditious completion and best carry out the purposes of the agreement.
Ail services required hereunder shall be completed by the agreement. All
services required hereunder shall be completed by June 1~ 1979 . The
cost allocation plan will be available by April 15~ 1979 for your review
and our negotiation with Federal and State representatives.
4. Compensation. The County agrees to pay the Consultant a sum not to
exceed Eight Thousand and -- Hundred Dollars ($8,000) for all services
required herein, which ~hall include reimbursement for expenses incurred.
Consultant agrees to complete the project and all services provided herein
for said sum.
5. Method of Payment. The Consultant shall be entitled to payment in
accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. The Consultant agrees to
undertake this engagement with the following advantages to the County. First,
the Consultant will not require any compensation for services until a cost
allocation plan has been prepared and is acceptable as a basis for filing
claims. Second, Consultant's fees are to be paid from recoveries paid by
Federal programs (such as Welfare and CETA) to ~e County during the initial
plan's effective period. Recoveries due solely from the plan will be shared
equally by the County and the Consultant until Consultant's fees are paid in
full. Then all additional funds are paid to the County. Payment to Consultant
will be made within two weeks of receipt by the County of Federal funds
realized solely from the plan.
6. Changes. The County may, from time to time, require changes in the
scope of the services of the Consultant to be performed hereunder. Such
changes, ~hich are mutually agreed upon by and between the County and the
Consultant, shall be incorporated in written amendment to this agreement.
7. Ser~±ces and Materials to be Furnished by County. The County shall
furnish the Consultant with all available necessary information, data, and
material pertinent to the execution of this agreement. The County shall
cooperate with the Consultant in carrying out the work herein and shall
provide adequate staff for liaison with the Consultant and other agencies of
County government.
8. Termination of Agreement for Cause. If, through any cause, the
Consultant shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper manner his obligations
under this agreement, the County shall thereupon have the right to terminate
this agreement with or without cause, by giving written notice to 'the Con-
sultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at
least five (5) days before the effective da~e of such termination.
9. Information and Reports. The Consultant shall, at such time and
in such form as the County may require, furnish such periodic reports con-
cerning the status of the project, such statements, certificates, approvals,
and copies of proposed and executed plans and claims and other information
relative to the project as may be requested by the County. The Consultant
shall furnish the County, upon request, with copies of all documents and
other materials prepared or developed in relation with or as part of the
project. Working papers prepared in conjunction with the cost allocation
plan will be turned over to the County for safekeeping.
!0. Records and Inspections. The Consultant shall maintain full and
accurate records with respect to all matters covered under this agreement.
The County shall have free access at all proper times to such records, and
the right to examine and audit the same and to make transcripts therefrom,
and to inspect all program data, documents, proceedings, and activities.
11. Accomplishment of Project. The Consultant shall commence, carry
on, and complete the..project with all practicable dispatch, in a sound
economical, and efficient manner, in accordance with the provisions thereof
and all applicable laws. In accomplishing the project, the Consultant shall
take such steps as are appropriate to insure that the work involved is
properly coordinated with related work being carried on in the County.
12. Provisions Concerning Certain Waivers. Subject to applicable
law, any right or remedy which the County may have under this' Contract
may be waived in writing by the County by a formal waiver, if, in the
judgment of the County, this contract, as so modified, will still conform
to the terms and requirements of pertinent laws.
13. Matters to be Disregarded. The titles of the several sections,
subsections, and paragraphs set forth in this contract are inserted for
convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or
interpreting any of the provisions of this contract.
14. Completeness of Contract. This contract and any additional or
supplementary document or documents incorporated herein by specific ref-
erence contain all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties hereto,
and no other agreements, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of
this cnntract or any part thereof shall have any validity or bind any of the
parties hereto.
15. County Not Obligated to Third Parties. The County shall not be
obligated or liable hereunder to any party other than the Consultant.
January 10, 1979 (Regular-Day Meeting)
16. When Rights and Remedies Not Waived. In no event shall the making by
the County of any payment to the Consultant constitute or be construed as a
waiver by the County of any breach of covenant, or any default which may then
exist, on the part of the Consultant, and the making of any such payment by the
County while any such breach or default shall exist in no wise impair or prejudice
any right or remedy available to the County in respect to such breach or default.
17 Personnel The Consultant~represents that he has, or will secure at
his own expense, all personnel required in performing the services~under this
agreement. Such personnel shall not be employees of or having any contractual
relationship with the County. Ail of the services required hereunder will be
performed by the Consultant or under his supervision, and all personnel engaged
in the work shall be fully qualified to perform such services.
18. Consultant LiabilitY If Audited. The Consultant will assume all
financial and statistical information provided to the Consultant by County
employees or representatives is accurata and complete. Any subsequent dis-
allowance of funds paid to the County under the pIan is the sole responsibility
of the County. Consultant will, however, provide assistance to the County
should an audit be undertaken of County indirect costs.
19. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports reqUired by this
agreement shall be sufficient if sent by the parties in the United States mail,
postage paid, to the address noted beloW.
County of Albemarle, Virginia
200 County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Vir~inia
David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd.
1932 Burr Oak Drive
Glenview, Illinois 60025
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and the Consultant have executed this agree--
ment as of the date first written above."
Agenda Item No. 15. Appropriation. Mr. Agnor reported that on October 16, CAC-3
received reimbursement of $80.00 for the sale of a trash container to Pepsi-Cola Company.
Shortly thereafter the $80.00 was deposited into County funds under the miscellaneous
refunds account. In order for CAC-3 to have these funds available for expenditure, an
appropriation is needed. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta,
to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $80~00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and
coded to 18A.1-20e, Miscellaneous - Clean Community Commissioh.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mesa:rs. Dorri~r, Fishe~, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Lottery Permits. Mr. Agnor presented the following five lottery
permit requests to the Board for their approval:
a) University of Virginia, University Union
b) Thomas Jefferson Civitan Club
c) East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department
d) Camp Saponi Limited
e) Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department
Mr. Agnor noted approvals should be contingent on all organizations filing their
financial report for the 1978 calendar year before receiving their permit for 1979. Dr.
tachetta was opposed to the wording in the request from the University Union regarding
bingo "a~y day except Sunday". He said this could imply more than the allowable once a
week. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve all the
above lottery permits, amending the request by the University Union to read bingo one day
a week. Also, all approvals contingent upon receiving financial reports for the previous
year. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded~vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 17A. Appointments. Equalization Board: Mr. Fisher asked for names
to be placed in nomination for this Board. Mr. Henley nominated Mrs. Ethel Kindrick;
Dr. Iachetta nominated Mr. E. Shannon Shirley; Mr. Roudabush nominated Mr. T. Ryland Moore,
Jr.; and Mr. Dorrier nominated Mr. F. Pierson Scott. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not have a
name to place in nomination at this time. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by
Mr. Dorrier, to appoint the above four nominees for the calendar year 1979, and place this
item back on the agenda for a nomination by Mr. Lindstrom. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 17B. Appointments: Industrial Development Authority: Mr. Fisher
said the terms of Mr. Frank W. McCulloch and Mr. Donald A. Holden are due to expire on
January 19, 1979. He also noted that he had received a letter from Mrs. Norma Diehl
January 10, 1979 (Regular-Day Meeting)
129
resigning as of January 2, 1979, in order to avoid a conflict of interest since she is also
a member of the Planning Commission. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr.
Iachetta, to reappoint Mr. Holden and Mr. McCulloch to another term expiring on January 19,
1983. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 18. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff and
Commonwealth's Attorney for December, 1978, were presented.~On~>motion by Mr. Roudabush,
seconded by Mr. Henley, these statements were approved as presented. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 19. Statement of Expenses for~Dhe Regional Jail for December, 1978,
was presented. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, this statement was
approved as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 20. Regional Jail Report, (Department of Correct~ons). Statements of
expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Regional Jail for the month of
December, 1978, along with summary statement of prisoner days, and statements of salaries
of the ~ail physician and paramedics were presented. Upon motion by Mr. Roudabush, seconded
by Dr. Iachetta, these statements were approved as presented. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 21. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of
November, 1978, was presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
At 12:25 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared recess for lunch.
1:39 P.M.
Meeting was reconvened at
Agenda Item No. 23. Industrial Development Authority. M~. D~nald Holden, Chairman
of the Authority, was present, along with 'the petitioners Adolph O.~.~isch, Mr. Richardson,
Mr. John W. Crews, Mr. Little 'and Mr. Harry Frazier of Hunton and Williams.
Mr. Holden said since the initial presentation on this subject (see minute book 17,
pages 89-90) the Authority has received a revised draft of the bond statement and a final
draft of the feasibility study. There are n~sub~S~a~a~changes in the feasibility
study and it shows the same debt service coverage as originally shown. An indenture lease
is being prepared by Hunton and Williams. On January 5, 1979, the Authority passed a
resolution ratifying their original resolution of December 20, 1978, requesting approval
by the Board of Supervisors for the financing and location of the project. Mr. Holden
then presented the following additional information:
"The basic documents for this financing consist of a Lease between the
Industrial Develgpment Authority of Albemarle Comnty, Virginia, and Eldercare
Gardens, a Virginia limited partnership, and Indenture of Mortgage and Deed
of Trust between the Authority and National Bank and Trust Company, as Trustee,
and a Guaranty Agreement between Eldercare Gardens and the Trustee.
The Lease contemplates that the Authority, acting through Eldercare
Gardens as its agent, will have the Project constructed and equipped and pay
the costs thereof from the proceeds of the Bonds. The Authority will lease
the Project to Eldercare Gardens for a term expiring upon )yyment of the
Bonds, which is expected to be January 1, 2009. Eldercare Gardens will pay
annual rent to the Trustee on behalf of the Authority in amounts sufficient
to pay semiannual interest on the Bonds and annual installments of principal
beginning in 1983. Eldercare Gardens is also obligated to pay all expenses
of the Authority relating to the Project. The Lease is a "net lease"
requiring Eldercare Gardens to pay all expenses of maintaining the Project
and to pay all utilities, taxes and insurance. Eldercare Gardens will be
required to pay local real estate taxes in the same amounts as if it rather
than the Authority were the legal owner. The Lease also gives Eldercare
Gardens the option to buy this Project for $100 upon payment of the Bonds.
The Lease contains financial restrictions on the withdrawal of monies from
the partnership, provisions relating to casualty losses and condemnation,
and provisions relating to default.
The Indenture provides for issuing and securing the Bonds. The
Indenture contains the details for the Bonds, the form of the Bonds and a
statement to the effect that payment of Bonds is limited to the revenues
and receipts to be derived from the Lease and that neither the Authority
nor the County is liable in any way for payments of principal or interest.
Most of the bond proceeds are to be deposited into a construction fund and
disbursed by the Trustee upon receipt of appropriate requisitions. $300,000
of the bond proceeds are to be deposited into a reserve account which is to
be built up over a period of five years to the maximum amount of principal
' 130
January 10, 1979 (Regular-Day Meeting)
and interest payable to the Bonds in any future year. This reserve account is to
be used in the event of failure of Eldercare Gardens to pay rent So that even if
Eldercare Gardens fails to pay any rent for as long as one year the Bonds will not
go into default, thereby affording an opportunity for the Trustee to find a new
tenant or otherwise protect the interests of bondholders. The Indenture provides
that the Bonds may be redeemed prior to maturity upon the occurrence of ~ertain
events and must be redeemed if interest~ on the Bonds is no longer subject to
exemption from Federal income taxation. The Indenture contains elaborate provisions
for the protection of bondholders, including limitations on investment of monies
held by the Trustee, definitions of events of default and remedies available on
default, d~ties of the Trustee and provisions for amendment of the basic documents.
The Indenture includes a statement to the effect that no covenant, agreement or
obligation contained in the IndentUre shall be deemed to,be a covenant, agreement
or obligation of any present or future director, officer, employee or agent of the
Authority in his individual capacity.
The Guaranty Agreement provides that Eldercare Gardens sha!l~pay principal
and interest on the Bonds in the event ~at its payment of rent under the Lease
are insufficient for this purpose. The primary purpose of the Guaranty Agreement
is to afford added protection in the event of bankruptcy of the partnership."
Mr. Roudabush wanted to be sure that approval of this project by the Board would not
imply approval of any site plan or zoning approval or any other actions required by other
boards and commissions. It was agreed that the resolution to be presented would be couched
in terms required by t~County Code.
-Mr. St. John said the minutes should reflect the Board's understanding that at any-
time during the lease, the ~assee can buy this property from the Authority by paying off
the bonds, also, after the bonds are paid off, the lessee can buy the property from the
Authority for $100.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the follow-
ing resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
hereby gives ~ts approval in accordance with Sections 2-50 and 2-51, Chapter 3,
Article IX of the Albemarle County Code to the financing by the Industrial
Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, of a 180~bed nursing home
facility for Eldercare Gardens to be located near Hydraulic Road in Albemarle
County approximately one mile from the Charlottesville city limits, all as
outlined in the Authority's resolutions of December 20, 1978 and January 5, 1979.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 27. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor noted that the Airport
Board has been advised by thegState Corporation Commission that the Civil Aeronautics Board
is holding meetings regarding air carrier service to small community airports such as the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport. Questionnaires are to be filled out and sent to the
State Corporation Commission, who will take all from around the state, and compile them into
one statement to be presented at meetings of the Civil Aeronautics Board during February and
March. He noted if any of the Board members or the public had input toward this statement,
it would be welcomed.
Mr. Agnor noted receipt of notification of application of the Potomac Edison Company
to revise its tariffs. This to be D'rought before the State CorPoration Commission on
December 22, 1979.
Mr. Fisher reported that the Virginia Association of Counties Executive Board has
endorsed a compmomise agreement on the 'annexation funding issue. He noted that it will be
presented to the 'General Assembly tomorroW.~ Also', House Bill 63 has been modified and
separated into eight' separate bills. Mr. Fisher sgid he spoke to Mr. Thomas Michie and
related the 'eSsence of the. resolution adopted bY the iBoard at their last meeting stating~
that Albemarle 'County wished to retrain their present form of government.
Mr. Agnor noted that a meeting is to be held by Charlottesville City CoUnci! regarding
the deletion of funding by the CETA program. He asked if the Board wished to attend. Mr.
Fisher said he did not favor having the entire Board attend such a meeting, but said he
would attend to hear the requests presented.
At 2:25 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a brief recess. Meeting was reconvened at 2:35 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 24. Watershed Management Plan COmmittee Report. Mr. Edgar Garnett,
Chairman of the Committee, was present. He said the committee has reviewed the report w~ich
Dr. Frank Browne, Consultant, will present.
Dr. Browne then gave the following report:
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Progress Up to July, 1978 is Reseribed in the progressi!~report submitted to the
Board of Supervisors in July, 1978. This report presents a summary of the total
progress of the watershed management committee and a projected schedule of completion
dates.
January 10, 1979 (Regular-Day Meeting)
Throughout the work of the Committee, the State Water Control Board has shown
an interest in it's work as evidenced by their participation on the Committee
and their financial assistance via the statewide 208 program. At the present
time, the County of Albemarle has submitted two proposals for funding assistance
to the State. The first proposal requesting $15,000 to assist in developing the
watershed management plan, was officially approved by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on November 28, 1978. The second proposal, requesting
$77,100 to assist in the implementation of the management plan, has been approved
by the State and submitted to the EPA as part of their FY 1979 funding request.
2.0 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN PROGRESS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The initial watershed management plan outlined presented to the Committee on
March 14, 1978 consisted of four phases. The progress of these phases are
summarized below:
Phase Description % Complete
1 Review of Generalized Watershed Management Plan 100
2 Collection of Data on Watershed Characteristics 65
3 Analysis and Evaluation of Watershed Characteristics 10
4 Development of Detailed Watershed Management Plan 0
2.2 PHASE 1 PROGRESS
Phase 1 consisted of reviewing the generalized watershed management plan presented
in the 1975 Water Quality Management Report performed for the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority. Based on this review, specific committee tasks and assignments
were developed and presented to the Committee.
2.3 PHASE 2 PROGRESS
Phase 2 consists of 11 tasks; the initial outline contained 9 tasks but 2
additional tasks were added by thB Committee. Progress of the various tasks are
presented below:
Task i Reservoir Management -
Task 2 Water Supply Treatment -
Task 3 Point Source Control - 90% complete. The committee now has two reports
giving an update on point source discharges including Morton Frozen Foods.
Task 4 Non-Point Source Control - Development - 90% complete. The committee has
requested a list of developed properties in the watershed and a report on the
effectiveness of the Run-Off Gontrel Ordinance. Last month the committee had a
report on building activities in the watershed during the time the Run-Off Control
Ordinance has been in effect. As part of the &ocal matching funds, two part-time
persons were hired to work for the County Engineer's Office and they have looked
at each subdivision by sub-basis~ and evaluated the number of lots, the size of
lots, the number of houses already constructed, how many houses can be built under
approvals given, the type of roadways in these developments and if there are any
pollution problems. They have also looked at apartment complexes and trailer parks.
Task 5 Non-Point Source Control - Streambank - 10% complete.
were made to identify areas for streambank erosion problems.
A number of maps
Task 6 Non-Point Source Control - Roadway - 80% complete. Ail stream crossings
in the County have been identified and a survey made of these crossings (about
200). A priority ranking system was developed and each crossing was assigned a
number depending on slope and type of crossing. Priorities were then broken into
basins add then sub-basins.
Task 7 Non-Point Source Control - Cropland - 20% complete.
Task 8 Non-Point Source Control - Pastureland - 20% complete.
in the process of making an in-depth land use inventory.
The committee is
TaEk 9 Watershed Monitoring - A committee report has been written on these tasks.
At this time, they are about 90% complete. The report goes beyond the Betz report,
but incorporates many of the recommendations in that report into an action program.
Originally, it had been thought that the monitoring would be done on an annual
basis, but now it is felt that it might be done every couple~f~years on a more
in-depth basis by doing just one of the sub-basins. The monitoring program has
been included for 1979 funding to the State Water Control Board. If this program
is approved, the Federal government will pay $3.00 for every $1.00 of local funds
spent.
Task 10 Non-Point Source Control - Forestry - 100% complete.
activities in the area has been completed.
A report on the basic
Task 11 Watershed Questionnaire, was added on the suggestion of Mr. Thomas Mizell,
the State Water Control Board's representative on the Committee. A draft question-
naire was prepared to obtain the views of a cross-section of the watershed population
on watershed problems and potential solutions. The results of the questionnaire will
be helpful in selecting management practices that should be applied in the watershed.
January 10, 1979 (Regular-Day Meeting)
Much of the prog.ress made in Phase 2 was due to work performed by Committee
members in response to specific responsibilities set up in Phase 1. Part of the
work accomplished in Phase 2 was performed by a field assistant employed on a
part-time basis.
2.4 PHASE 3 AND 4 PROGRESS
Phase 3, analysis of watershed characteristics, has just begun and progress
should increase now that much of the field data and EPA funds are now available.
Phase 4, development of a detailed watershed management plan, will be started
when the data analysis phase is completed and the State 208 Best Management
Practice (BMP) Manuals are available. First drafts of these manuals will be
available by late January.
3.0 PROJECTED SCHEDULE
The projected schedule for completion of the Watershed Management Plan is
provided below:
Phase Description
Projected
Completion Date
1 Review of Generalized Watershed Management Plan Complete
2 Collection of Data on Watershed Characteristics March, 1979
3 Analysis and Evaluation of Watershed Characteristics May, 1979
Development of Detailed Watershed Management Plan June, 1979
It should be noted that the watershed management plan should be a flexible document
subject to change based on technical, social and economic factors that might arise
in the future.
Watershed management is a continuing process; as more is learned as various BMP's
.are implemented and additional watershed data are obtained, the management plan
may need to be revised and updated.
Mr. Fisher commented that he hoped Dr. Browne would keep the Board informed of the
committee's progress, especially with the work presently in progress on the revised zoning
ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 27. Mr. Bryan Sample of Stainback and Scribner reported to the Board
that he needed their opinion on the windows to be used at Lane. He said when the interior
ceilings are lowered from 12 feet to nine feet, it will interfe~with the present windows.
He also noted that the windows are in poor repair, crea~e a glare problem, create problems
with the proposed air conditioning system, and are not energy efficient. He proposed
smaller, thermal insulated windows. Board members agreed that the smaller windows are much
better than what are presently in the building. Mr. Sample also reviewed some of the other
tentative plans for the building, which seemed to meet with favorable response.
Agenda Item No. 26. Public Notice for Zoning Ordinance. A very lengthy discussion
among Board members was held regarding the method and time of notifying the public about
the proposed revised zoning' ordinance. Possible ways of notifying the public ranged from
very detailed individual notices mailed directly to each property owner showing the present
type of zoning on his land, and the proposed zone if the revised ordinance is adopted.
Other methods were a general notice mailing to all property owners, or the normal advertise-
ment in the local newspaper-tWo weeks in advance of a Public meeting.
Beside the method of notification, Board members also discussed the number of meetings
they wished to hold to inform the public about the ordinance. This type of meeting would be
for the information and education of the public only, ~nd would not be a legal public
hearing as such. Some Board members were in favor of meetings in each magisterial district,
and others preferred only three meetings in central regions around the County.
Motion was initially offered by+-.Dr. Iachetta, seconded'by Mr. Dorrier, that any meet-
ings or notification regarding the revised zoning ordinance should be delayed until a
specific recommendation is received from the Planning Commission, saying that if the Bo~d
holds meetings prior to receiving this recommendation, it would "short-circuit" the Planning
Commission's duties and recommendations. Mr. Lindstrom o~fered an amendment to Dr.
Iache'tta's motion that the public hearing scheduled for January 24, 1979, be cancelled, and
the Planning Commission be urged to forward their recommendation to the Board of Supervisors
before the end of March.. This amendment to the motion was accepted by Dr. I~chetta and Mr.
Dorrier and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, ~Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Roudabush noted he had received a few requests for an additional zoning map to be
placed in the second floor hall of the County Office Building so people'would not have to
visit the Planning Office to see same. He also said a few reques~had been received for
individual prints of the map. Mr. ~gnor said he checked into having the map reproduced in
quadrants for sale to the public. The cost is estimated at approximately $5.00 per print.
Agenda~ Item No.'28. Adjournment. At 5:04 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested motion to adjourn
this meeting to Monday, January 15, 1979, at'the Ramada Inn at 5:30 P.M. Motion to this effe~
was offered by Dr.~ Iachetta, seconded by Mr~ Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded
vote:
t