1977-06-29NJune 29, 1977 (Night-Adjourned from June 16, 1977)
Z36
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on June 29, 1977, at 7:80 P. M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville,
Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from June 16, 1977.
Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush.
Absen~t: None.
Officers present:
St. John.
County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; and County Attorney, George R.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order az ?:34 P. M. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: An ordinance to re~enact Article II, Chapter 7
of the Albemarle County Code, Sections 7-10 through 7-14 entitled "Protection of Water in
South Rivanna River Reservoir". The purpose of this public hearing being for the Board to
consider re-enacting this ordinance for the period July 1, 1977, through September 30, 1977.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in The Daily Progress on June 15 and June 22,
1977. )
Mr. Fisher noted that this ordinance is identical to the one adopted earlier in the
year; this readoption having an expiration date of September 30, 1977. This would continue
the same ordinance in effect, in the same area of the County, in order to allow the Board
and County Staff time to work on an ordinance which will be put in effect on a permanent
basis.
At this time the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Francis Fife, City
Councillor, who read into the records the resolution adopted by the City Council on May 23,
1977 and set out in full on page 216 , Minute Book 15. Mr. Fife said although the Board
may not want to do what City Council has requested, Council does request consideration of
some sort of joint action. They do recognize that most of these matters are under the
County's legal powers. It might be better for the City and the County if City Council was
able to join with the County in looking over proposals. The Board may not want to consider
doing these things through the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, but City Council recommen-
ded this due to the fact that if it is done through the Rivanna Authority, the people who
use the reservoir will be the ones paying for it.
Mr. Joe Wright asked how long the County had been waiting for the Betz Report. Mr.
Fisher said it was due last October. The final report was received yesterday. Now there
is considerable work to be done, not just on development standards~but on other forms of
pollution in the watershed. Mr. Wright said he had hoped that this temporary delay in the
moratorium would not be needed and had hoped the Board would have the Betz Report and be
able to place sufficient restrictions mn a new ordinance to protect the water supply. He
asked that the Board consider a 30-day e~tension rather than a 90-day extension. He said
the delay has become a hardship on people in the County. Mr. Fisher said he agrees with
the concerns expressed. About 13 days ago, the Board took action to try and deal with the
full problem of pollution.
Ms. Ruth Wadlington, League of Women Voters, said they support the Board in the ex-
tension of the moratorium. It is too important a matter to drop without taking some
remedial steps. They hope the Board can come up with something within 90 days~and are glad
to see the expression of concern on the part of the City.
Mr. Wendell Wood asked that the moratorium not be extended.
pointed a finger at developers.
He said Betz has not
At 7:51 P. M., with no other citizen rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Roudabush said he agrees with Mr. Wright and Mr. Wood on the delay, but if the
Board resolves the question on a permanent basis without looking into long-range effects
on the reservoir they might adopt something which is hard to-modify in the commng months
or years. Mr. Roudabush said he is hopeful that the Board can, in 90 days, with the staff
working as rapidly as they can on a new ordinance, abolish the moratorium or make an
acceptable substitute..
Dr. Iachetta said it has been the Board's intent to put into place a permanent
ordinance; 30 days is not a practical extension of time, because of public hearing notices
alone. In reference to the Betz study, there were a number of things the Board did not
know before which the study sets out. Specifically, it gives items that must be reduced
and the Board did not have that number before. The study does not point a finger at any-
body. The County has to draw UP a Land Use Management Plan that has as its objective the
reduction of phosphorus input to the reservoir by 60 to 80 percent of what is presently
happening. Point sources are identified~ the problem is nonpoint sources. Dr. Iachetta
said the Board has asked the staff to proceed with formulating relatively new and unused
land use management practices in this watershed. He is sorry that this whole process is
inconvenient to a significant number of people, but although the community has not been fast
L~ cgm£ng to grips with the problem, the Board needs to proceed cautiously and be sure that
what is being put into place is workable in order to treat all with-fairness.
Mrs. David said she agrees with the people who want the City-County cooperation, but
she does not see how reasonable people expect the Board not to do this extra bit to get the
technical information necessary to have a good answer to the problems.
Mr. Dorrier said there are some statistics in Mr. Bailey's report which he would like
to quote, namely that approximately 2,400 acres in the watershed will be developed between
1975 and 1995. Even if controls are developed to control the amount of phosphorus entering
the reservoir, the?most that can be controlled is five to six percent. This leaves 94 per-
cent of phosphorus entering'from other sources. The developers may be correct in their
assumptions that development is really causing only a small percentage of the pollution.
June 29, 1977 (Night-Adjourned from June 16, 1977)
Mr. Bailey's report also notes that 32 percent of the annual phosphorus loading comes from
undeveloped land; 27 percent from agriculture; and 16 percent from presently developed land.
Mr. Dorrier said he' was not sure the Board was moving in the right direction in developing
these standards for development. He agrees that the Board should impose restrictions, but
does not think that the developer should be singled out and felt the Betz Report indicates
that developers are not the main cause of pollution.. Mr. Dottier said he would like to see
a committee set up between the County and City to formUlate guidelines along these lines,
working simultaneously with Dr. Grizzard.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to comment On Mr. Bailey's report. Mr. Bailey said the
purpose of the report was to show that the County must work not only on the.transition of
land from one use to another but on existing land uses throughout the watershed. He made'
it clear that his intent was to show that the control of runoff from development alone was
not going to solve the problem. The question before the Board tonight, at this time, is
whether or not to continue the present ordinance in effect.
Mr. Dorrier said he was in favor of continuing the ordinance but thinks that the
Board should set up this committee with the City. It is a joint problem and the Board may
receive some joint funding of the solution.
At this time, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt an ordinance to amend and
re-enact Article II of Chapter 7 of the Albemarle County Code as set out below:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that
Article II of Chapter 7 of the Albemarle County Code be, and hereby is,
amended and re-enacted as follows:
(1) Article II. Protection of Water in South Rivanna River Reservoir.
Sec. 7-10 Purpose of article.
The purpose of this article is to protect against and minimize the
pollution and eutrophication of the South Rivanna River Reservoir resulting
from development in the drainage basin thereof on an interim basis pending
the completion of studies designed to determine the effect of such develop-
ment upon the reservoir. It is hereby found by the board of supervisors as
a matter of legislative determination that this article is necessary to
prevent pollution of the reservoir and to protect health, safety and welfare
of the people of the county.
Sec. 7-11 Definitions.
For the purposes of this article, the following terms shall be defined
as follows:
Development. Any construction, external repair, land disturbing
activity, grading, road building, or other activity resulting in a change
of the physical character of any parcel of land, except as herein otherwise
expressly provided.
Immediate drainage area. That portion of the county lying within the
watershed of the South Rivanna River: (1) Bounded by an arc having a radius
of five miles as measured from the water supply intake pipe of the reservoir
and (2) lying within five hundred horizontal feet of the edge of the
reservoir at normal pool or within five hundred horizontal feet of the
centerline of any perennial or intermittent stream flowing directly into the
reservoir. In addition, any area having a slope in excess of fifteen percent
which is immediately adjacent to the five hundred foot boundary line as
herein defined, shall be deemed to be included within the immediate drainage
area. A map labeled "South Rivanna River Reservoir Immediate Drainage Area",
showing the boundaries as herein described,'is incorporated herein by re-
ference and copies of such map are on file in the office of the zoning
administrator.
Permit. Any building permit, erosion control permit, or flood plain
permit which is required to be zssued by any board, committee, officer,
employee or other agency of the county as a prereq$isite to any development.
See. 7-12. Issuance of permits.
No permit shall be issued for any development in the immediate drainage
area.~)f the South Rivanna River Reservoir until such time as the board of
supervisors shall have determined that such development will have no substantial
adverse effect on the reservoir or on the quality of the water therein.
Sec. 7-13. Exemptions.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following shall be
exempt from the effect of this article:
(a) The construction, repair, enlargement, or other activity, other
than ~oad building, relating to any single family detached dwelling !oeated
upon a lot having a minimum area of one acr~; provided, that no such activity
shall be permitted within two hundred horizontal feet of the edge of the
reservoir at normal pool nor within two hundred feet of the centerline of any
p~rennial or intermittent stream flowing directly into the reservoir;
(b) The repair or reconstruction of any structure which repair or
reconstruction is necessitated by forces beyond the control of the owner of
such structure, which repair or reconstruction shall be necessary to prevent
June 29, 1977 (Night-Adjourned from June 16, 1977)
238
reconstruction will, in the opinion of the board of supervisors, have
no significant impact on the quality of water in the South Rivanna
River Reservoir;
(c) The tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horti-
cultural or forest crops or products or engineering operations under
section 21-2(c) of the Code of Virginia, as amended;
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the
issuance of any permit for any land disturbing activity as defined
in article I of this chapter; provided that, notwithstanding any
provision of law to the contrary, any activity necessary for the
elimination of any condition which constitutes a d~nger to the public
health, safety and welfare may be carried out as otherwise provided
by law.
Sec. 7-14. Construction of article.
This article is declared to be remedial in nature and protective
of a paramount public interest and shall be liberally construed to
effectuate its purpose.
Sec. 7-15. Duration of terms of article.
This article shall take effect upon February 25, 1976, and shall
remain in effect until repealed by the board of supervisors; provided.,
however, that this article shall terminate and be of no further effect
on and after September 30, 1977, unless the same shall have theretofore
been re-enacted in accordance with law.
(2) Section 7-16 of the Albemarle County Code is hereby repeaIed.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mrs. David and carried ~y the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Yms. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher said at this time the Board needs to continue their dis-
cussion which began two weeks ago with Dr. Grizzard. At that time, the Board. discussed
the procedures that might be taken to come up with a Management Plan for the watershed.
Dr. Grizzard was requested to draft two proposals; one with him primarily doing all of the
work drafting the ordinance and working on the Management Plan for the nonpoint source
pollution that exists in the watershed; and two, the County staff~and the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority staff doing a good bit of the work with special help from Dr. Grizzard.
Mr. Fisher said he understands that nothing has been received in writing to .this date.
Mr. Agnor said the staff has completed its work as far as it can in drafting an
ordinance and an appendix to that ordinance containing technical data. It was at the
request of the staff that professional help was sought from Dr. Grizzard. The staff re-
cognizes that they are working in a technical area as well as an uncharted area in dealing
with nonpoint source pollution. Since the Board met with Dr. Grizzard on June 16, Dr.
Grizzard was to review the data collected for the Betz study. From that data he was to
send the County 'the two proposals referred tO above. The data was not received by him
from Betz until Wednesday of last week. It was his intention to have a proposal in Mr.
Agnor's office on Friday but he called yesterday to say that he had spent the weekend
examining the data and was not yet prepared to send a proposal. Since his review of the
data, he wants to make the proposal in a different manner. Dr. Grizzard cannot be employed
as a consultant to Albemarle County without working through a consulting firm. This is a
ruling that V.P.I.-S.U. requzres of its staff. He is unable to respond as an individual,
but is prepared to make a proposal through a firm in northern Virgini~ That is one reason
for the delay. More important is the fact that he wants to make a two-part proposal. He
would prepare a Watershed Management Plan of a interim nature based upon the Betz Report
and the data collected for same. He would propose that additional data be co~lected for
a long-range permanent plan to be enacted in about a year from now. Dr. Grizzard has
different ideas on the methodology of collecting data. He feels this different methodology
would provide more refined data than is provided in the data that he has reviewed in the
Betz Report. Mr. Agnor said when he had heard this proposal he asked Dr. Grizzard n~t to
proceed mn preparing a proposal until he discussed this with the Board. Mr. Agnor asked
if the Board would like to have his recommendation at this point. The answer was yes. Mr.
Agnor said when it was recommended and requested by the staff that someone oversee its
work, it was felt that-a consultant would have an objective point of view, perhaps a
different point of view from the people who did the Betz study. Mr. Agnor said his re-
action to Dr. Grizzard's proposal to do an interim water management study and then ultimate-
ly a long-range one, is that data collection could go on for m~ny years. This fact has
been discussed in Board meetings. Mr. Agnor said he would recommend that the Board not
accept Mr. Grizzard's proposal, but that the Board go back with specific times frames to
Betz Engineers and with them having collected the data and having complete familarity with
it, review the work that the staff has done on the draft ordinance. He recommended that
he be authorized to contact Betz Engineers and explain the proposal, say that the work
must be completed in four to six weeks, with a finished product ready for public review
and public hearing in the latter part of this 90-day period.
Mr. Fisher asked how this could be guaranteed for a firm that had been eight months
late in producing a report. Mr.' Agnor said he knows that Dr. Browne has been just as
frustrated in many ~ays and concerned about the delays as everyone else, although he has
been~ble to handle these even within his own organiZation. He would hope that Dr. Browne
would be able to improve his track record and not have this happen again. Mr. Fisher asked
if there was any way this could be done by the County staff and the staff of the Rivanna
Authority so the County is not dependent on somebody else's work schedules. Mr. Agnor acid
he thinks it can be done, but he is concerned that the staff does not have the technical
June 29, 1977 (Night-Adjourned from June 16, I977)
expertise that is involved in this type of work. From that standpoint he is thoroughr!y
concerned that if the work of the staff was ehallenged,~it would be difficult for the County
to defend it without having technical advice from a consultant.
Dr. Iachetta said he thinks this part of the problem is different from the preparation
of the final report on a year's work of data collected. He understood that the hydrological
data collected had to be meprocessed through the computer a number of times in order to get
the reduced data in a form which was acceptable. In this case, the Board will be request-
ing the firm to respond to a proposed ordinance that the staff has drawn. There is a
specific document on which~comment~s~i can be made. Dr. Iaehetta said he understood Dr.
Browne and Dr. Grizzard both to say there are certain things that are known to work in the
way of structures and devices. He would assume that Dr. Browne's information came from
the same literature sources as that of Dr. Grizzard. The Board is not talking about ~he
Land Use Management Plan, but an ordinance to replace the ordinance just adopted. Dr.
Iachetta said if the Board establishes a group directed toward putting together this
ordinance using County staff, plus some help from the Rivanna Authority s%aff, with Dr.
Browne as the technical person, the Board should be able to get a document within the time
frame.
Mr. Fisher said he did not think it should take four to six weeks just to review what
the staff has already drafted. Mr. Roudabush said it may be that the staff is so far off
target that the ordinance may have to be started over at the beginning.
Dr. Iachetta said what concerns him is the interpretation Mr. Dorrier has put on Mr.
Bailey's comments. In ~ne sense, what he said is right, but there is another aspect.
Thirty-two percent of what presently gets into the reservoir comes from undeveloped land,
but for every acre that is turned to a new use you multiply that acreage contribution by
a factor of seven. How many acres of the watershed are now developed and yet they contribute
16 percent of the total input. That is the kind of problem that must be dealtwith. Mr.
Fisher said he was concerned that when the Board gets into suggestions on undeveloped and
agricultural land that farmers and other people in the watershed have an opportunity to
make comments. An Advisory Panel has been working through the Rivanna Service Authorit~
on the Betz Report. This panel was composed of a representative from agriculture, industry,
home building, City and County Planning Commission and Regional Planning staff. A group of
this type might help with the review of the ordinance before it goes to a public hearing.
Mr. Roudabush agreed and said he felt it would be a good idea to have such a group review
the information before it goes to public hearing. Dr. Iachetta said this ordinance is
technical and the Board wants input from technical people. If the Board puts together a
group of people who have expertise of this type and then have a public workshop, it might
be a better approach than having a committee.
Mrs. David said the Advisory Panel mentioned by Mr. Fisher sounds like the kind of mix
that the Board wants and if that group of people could participate actively in the workshops
with the technical people that might be the way to arrive at the proper ordinance. Dr.
Iachetta said this Board has already agreed in principal to a joint approach and it might
be desirable to appoint an overview committee of one person from this Board, one person
from City Council and one from the Rivanna Authority that could work with County s'taff and
the consultant in developing the materials for the first workshop. Mr. Dorrier agreed with
Dr. Iachetta's proposal but said there should probably be more than one from each of these
Boards; maybe two or three. Dr. Iachetta said the bigger the committee, the longer it
takes to arrive at a decision.
Mr. Agnor said when the Rivanna Authority appointed their Advisory~Panel for the Betz
study, they had kept the number to a seven member panel, trying to keep it representative
cross-sectionally, but also small. There would be gains in time by using that group
because of their acquaintance with what is already in the Betz Report.. This would also fit
with the City's idea of using the Rivanna Authority as the vehicle for helping to develop
the performance standards. Mr. Fisher said the report on the reservoir was done by contract
with the Rivanna Authority directly with Betz Environmental Engineers. Mr. St. John said
it will be the Board's responsibility no matter which draft of the ordinance is used. If
using the Rivanna Authority as a contracting agency to draft the regulations and present
them to the Board is the most feasible way to do this, there is no legal reason why it can-
not be done in this manner. A proposal of this type would be sUbject to acceptance of the
responsibility by the Rivanna and ratificatinn by the City. Mr. Fisher asked the record
to show that Mr. Fife was shaking his head in agreement. He asked if the work could be
completed within 40 days. Mr. Agnor said if what the staff has done to this point is
reasonably acceptable and only needs refinement, it can be completed within 40 days, but
the staff does need some input from technical people, plus citizen reaction.
For the record, Mr. Agnor presented to the Board the final copy of the Betz Environ-
mental Report on the reservoir which was received yesterday, June 28~ He said there are
no more changes to be made in the report, but there is a second volume which is the raw
data which is not being distributed because it was felt that this type of information was
of interest only to people dealing with the technical aspects of the report. The report
is dated June 1977.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Board were interested in requesting the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority to immediately undertake to negotiate a contract with Betz Environmental
Engineers to review the staff's work on the ordinance and to return the ordinance in a form
suitable for the Advisory Panel to review within 40 days from July I. Dr. Iachetta offered
motion to this effect, and the motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush. ~Mr. Dorrler asked if
this is an open ended motion on funding for this contract. Mr. Fisher said the intent of
the motion is that the funding of the work to be done by Betz will be paid for by the
Rivanna Authority.
Mr. Henley said he had some questions about who the advisory committee will be and if
they can do the watershed management plan. He did not feel the committee mentioned by Mr.
Fisher had enough representation for the many uses in the watershed. In other words
non-point pollution sources such as forestry and agriculture.
June '29, 1977 (Night-Adjourned from June 16, 1977)
24¸0
Dr. Iachetta asked if this Board should go on record as to whether or not it is will-
ing to sUpport this. contract financially. He asked if the County is expecting Rivanna to
pay for the entire contract. Mr. Fisher said that is the intention. If this recommenda-
tion is not accepted by the Rivanna Authority, the Board will have to dlseuss this further.
Mr. Agnor said the Concept is that the users of the water are participating in the cost
rather than the taxpayers of Albemarle County alone.
Mr. George Williams of the Rivanna Authority said he would have to call a meeting of
his Board as soon as possible to be sure that they are willing to undertake this responsi-
bility. Mr. Fife ~aid this motion is agreeable to City Council. He feels the Board of
Supervisors will be in a be~ter position doing it this way than by themselves. He also
recognizes that the major users of the service are now living in the City.
At this time, roll was called and the motiOn carried bY the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS'
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iaehetta said he felt the Board should proceed to set up a committee composed of
members of the Board of Supervisors, Rivanna Authority and City ~Couneil to be charged with
the long-term interaction and development of a Land Use Management Plan. The committee
should also include Mr. Agnor and Mr. Hendrix. This would give a five-person body to work
on how the three entities are going to work together in the future.
Mr. St. John said in the motion just adopted, part of what the Betz people are to do
is make a response to the ordinance which has already been drafted and then turn it over
to the advisory panel. Before the Board goes into discussion of long-range solutions, he
felt it should he.cleared up as to who this advisory panel is andWhat they are supposed
to do when Betz turns over their recommendations to them. Mr. Fisher said'he should clarify
his original statement. Ail of the appointees to the Advisory Panel of the Rivanna
Authority were appointed by the Rivanna Authority itself. It is his understanding that some
of these people were appointed because of the offices they held in their respective
organizations. He suggested that some of these people could be kept on the committee for
continuity and possibly find some new people in similar positions. Mr. St. John asked if
it were the intent to leave the representation on the panel up to the Rivanna Authority.
Mr. Fisher said it se~ms that decision will~ still rest with the Rivanna Authority. The
Board might make suggestions if it is felt changes should be made. The composition at the
present time is Dr. Quarles, Chairman of the Rivanna Board; Edgar Garnett, representing
agriculture; Warren Judge~of Sperry Marine Products, representing industry; Leroy Bruton,
home builders; Mrs. 0'Bbien, City Planning Commission; Dr. Moore, County Planning Commission
and Bob Abbott, Planning District Commission.
Mr. Roudabush said he felt it might be premature to talk about a steering committee to
work on a watershed management study that will be done in the future. There may be too
many committees Working at one time and something may emme to light in this first phase that
might change the thinking on the second phase. Mr. Fisher said the primary objective at
this .time is to arrive at the proper ordinance. That has to be the only major objective
for the next few weeks.
Dr. Iachetta said his reason for wanting to establish a joint committee of the two
political subdivisions is that the second phase obviously involves'whatever is done on the
first phase. This Advisory Panel would not be able to function until they get some input
from the ~ivanna stUdy. They need that and ought to be a part of the process as well. The
long-term monitoring program involves the Board on how it will be funded, how it will be
regulated, etc. Mr. Dottier felt the Advisory Committee should have representatives from
the Board, the City and Rivanna since the governing bodies need to have a small committee
to overview ~the final product~ Mr. Fisher said he could not see what this group will do
right away. The Rivanna Authority is composed of the City Manager, the County Executive,
the City Director of Public Works, the County Engineer and Dr. Quarles. The committee that
is being discussed would probably have Dr. Quarles, the City Manager and the County
Executive; three of the pe6ple already on the Rivanna Board. Dr. Iachetta said the City
Council has a desire to be involved in establishing the performance standards and develop-
ing a monitoring program. The standards are going to be a part of the ordinance. If the
Board is going to have concurrent interaction with Council relative to performance standards
it seems this would have to start with the first phase. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Fife how he
feels the City can best interac~ in this work beyond what has been proposed with1~the Rivanna
Authority. .
Mr. Fife said he felt the first part of the p~oblem has already been handled by referr-
ing it to the Rivanna Authority~and then to the Advisory Committee already established. As
far as the second step is concerned, he would have to think more about that. Mr. 'Fisher
asked that Mr. Fife discuss this with City Council and let the Board have a response by
next WedneSday~ Mr. Fife said ~f he understands correctly, the Board is asking how the City
Council would prefer to carry oDt some of the suggestions they have made regarding permanent
performance standards and monitoring for the watershed. Mr. Fisher said yes, and the
degree of involvement of individual members of City Council.
Mr. Dorrier asked ~r Agnor exactly what problem Dr. Grizzard had with the Betz
methodology for collecting runoff samples. Mr. Agnor said during a storm, Betz had people
go out and take Samples from certain stations in the watershed. This activity could not be
planned ahead and had to'be done whenever such occurred. Dr. Grizzard prefers that during
a storm event, a series'of samples be taken from every station rather than just a single
sampling station. Dr. Grizzard would prefer to take the samples when the flrst flush arrive~
at the station as well as samples after the first flush passes throUgh. This is a rather
extensive sampling program.
Mrs. David said she gets the impression that the ordinance, being proposed is a whole
new ordinance to control runoff as distinct from soil erosion control. That bothers her
because it seems as though this is setting up a whole new bureaucracy. She would rather
see this handled as an extension of the soll erosion control. Dr. Iaehetta said it is the
other way around; watershed management requires soil erosion control. Mrs. David said she
JUne 29, 1~77 (Night-Adjourned from June 16, 1977)
does not want to see another set of inspectors and controls because it all seems to be part
of the same problem. Mr. St. John said the answer to this will not be known until it is
known what is required. At the present, no one knows the qualification of the people who
will be required to monitor this ordinance. If the Rivanna Authority is responsible for
monitoring, it will have to be separate because they cannot be responsible for ordinary
soil erosion control throughout the County.
At 9:02 P. M., Mr. Fisher declared a recess. The Board reconvened at 9:14 P. M. and
picked up with Agenda Item No. 2. Appropriation: School Board. Mr. Agnor noted the
following memo from Clarence S. McClure, Superintendent of Schools.
June 29, 1977
TO: Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance
FROM: Clarence S. McClure, Division Superintendent
SUBJECT: Advance of Funds
According to the information that you supplied me yesterday, it
appears that the school fund balance may be showing a deficit of
approximately $165,000 as of June 30. This is due to delayed reimburse-
ments by the state on certain educational programs. We received a
memorandum today dated June 24 (copy attached) that $250,218.25 was
being forwarded as reimbursement on school programs for the current
fiscal year.
Although there are overexpenditures in several energy related
costs of approximately $180,000, it appears that unexpended balances
in other functions that may be transferred at a later date will ade-
quately cover this overexpenditure. I have been aware that energy costs
would exceed our appropriation for several months and certain purchases
and expenditures have been deliberately held to the lowest possible
level to compensate for these anticipated overexpenditures.
I hereby request that the Board of Supervisors take the necessary
action to advance the school operating fund $165,000 in order that the
fund will not show a deficit balance on June 30 if the state funds are
not received by then.
Thank you.
Motion was offered by Mrs. David to advance $165,000 from the General Fund to the
School Operating Fund, if needed, on June 30, 1977; said funds to be returned to the General
Fund upon receipt of State monies. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs.~ Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Dr. Edward Hook, Virginia
Council on Health and Medical Care Incorporated, in which Dr. Hook-said that the Council is
developing a budget for 1977 and they requested that the Board share in expenses necessary
for operation of the Council. Dr. Hook suggested a contribution of $!00. He gave this
letter to Mrs. David for a recommendation.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a packet of materials from the National Association of
Counties dealing with the annual meeting to be held in Detroit in July.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Piedmont Virginia College dated June 17, 1977
inviting Board Members to attend the final meeting of the business teehno!ogies division
faculty and members on June 30, 1977, at 6:0O P. M.
Mr. Roudabush requested that the July 6 agenda carry an item for a resolution declar-
ing Albemarle County a disaster area.
Mrs. David noted materials received from the Virginia Association of Counties in which
there is included a legislative proposal on conditional zoning. Mrs. David said there will
be four different hearings around the State on this legislation and she will try to attend
the meeting in Richmond on July 20th. She also noted that the Virginia Association of
Counties wants the Board's legislative proposals for the 1978 session of the General
Assembly by September 1; with these proposals being predicated on a biennial bases.
June 29, 1977 (Night-Adjoumned from June 16, 1977)
Mr. Fisher said he had been in Richmond today working on House Document 17. There are
a number of problems which have been identified by counties. Through an oversight, such
items as powers of eminent domain, powers to lease and sell propemty and powers to transfer
funds from one account to anothem, have been deleted from this new legislation. The way it
is presently written it would eliminate staggered Germs of elections for counties but
provide for those in cities and towns. It also will require that all accounting systems be
the State accounting system. Theme are still a lot of things t° be worked out on House
Document 17.
Claims against the County for the month of June 1977 were examined, allowed and
certified to the Director of Finance for payment and Charged against the following funds:
General Fund
School Fund
School Construction Capital Outlay Fund ~
Joint Security Complex Fund
General Operating Capital Outlay Fund
Town of Seottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account
TOTAL
$ 480,656.95
1,977,249.88
328,009.11
51,689.28
16,778.50
108.88
12,249.44
$2,811,786.99
At 9:90 P. M., at the request of the Chairman, motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush,
seconded by Mrs. David to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
At 10:80 P. M. the Board reconvened and immediately adjourned the meeting which had
begun at 7:80.
~ - -C~irm,an ~