1976-02-19F_ahrdzar_v 197 1976
049
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County Virginia was held on
February 19, 1976 at 9:00 A. M. in Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T
Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and William S. Roudabush. Absent: None.
Officers/Present: C~unty Executive, J. Harvey Bailey; County Attorney, George R. St.
John; Deputy County Attorney, James Bowling; Deputy County Attorney, Frederick Pavne; and
Director of Planning, Robert Tucker.
Agenda Item No. 1. The m~eting was called to order by the Chairman.
Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of minutes; November 20 (day), December 10, (afternoon) and
December 18, 1975. Dr. Iachetta noted the following corrections. For November 20, page 389,
minute book 13, strike the words "the matter". On page 401, strike "Carwile" add "Fisher".
On page 437, change the speI!ing of "delth" to "dealt". Motion was then offered by Mr. Henle·
seconded by Mr. Roudabush to approve these minutes with corrections as noted. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Agenda Item No. 3a. Highway Matters: Corvi!le Farms Road (deferred from December 18,
1975). Mr. Fisher noted that since the December meeting, the County Attorney had written to
Mr. H. H. Tiffany stating that if the road in question is not completed and ready for accep~ /
tance into the State Secondary System of Highways on or before the third Thursday in February
it would be necessary for the Board to take some action against Mr. Tiffany to insure such
completion.
Mr. Charles Perry, Assistant Resident Highway Engineer, was present. He said Mr. Tiffan'
had called him soon after receipt of that letter. However, Mr. Perry had not been in his
office and he has been unable to get in touch with Mr. Tiffany since that time. Before the
Board took the action noted, the Highway Department had furnished to Mr. Tiffany a list of
the items which need to be completed and the necessary paper work needed in order to have thi:
road taken into the State Secondary System. It is mainly a matter of touch up work.
Mr. Tucker noted that the County presently holds two bonds, each $3,150 for two differen~
sections. Mr. Roudabush asked if the road can be taken into the System without same being
requested by the property owner. Mr. Bowling said he felt in this case i~would be better to
have Mr. Tiffany's formal request on record. Mr. Payne said a suit can be brought, if that
is the desire of the Board. The County would get the money from the bonding company and hold
the cash to do whatever is necessary to bring this road into the system. Mr. Dorrier said he
had noted from previous minutes that a suit had been initiated, work was performed and then
the case was nonsuited. He asked if that could happen again. Mr. Payne said it is possible.
The County Attorney had filed a suit in the General District Court. Between the time the
suit was filed and a date set for the hearing, representatives from the Highway Department ha~
viewed the road, said same was adequate to be taken into the system, and the case was then
nonsuited.
At this time, Dr. Iachetta offered the following motion: Action is to be instituted by
the County Attorney on the road bond presently being held by the County for this road project
and the owner notified of such action; the proceeds of the bond are to be used to complete
the work necessary to bring the road to a standard so same may be accepted into the State
Secondary System of Highways; any necessary performance bond shall be established from
residual funds; arrangements should be made to have this road accepted into the State System
as of July 1, 1976. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following
recorded vote:
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta ~nd Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Agenda Item No. 3b. Resolution: Fence Road, The Pines Subdivision. The applicant was
not present and this matter was ordered carried over to the March meeting.
Agenda Item No. 3c. Bennington Road Turn-around. Present to request that this turn-
around be taken into the State Highway System was Mrs. Mary Lou Matthews, a Mrs. Johnson and
Mr. Dave O'Brien. Dr. Iachetta said he had talked to the Resident Highway Engineer about
this matter yesterday. As far as can be determined, it was built principally as a cul-de-sac
Mr. Warner felt it should be taken into the System, however was noY sure that the roadway has
ever been put to record. After a short discussion, the staff was ordered to investigate this
matter and make a report to the Board.
Mrs. Matthews also mentioned a problem with a drainage easement on her property. The
staff was also ordered to investigate this matter.
Agenda Item No. 3d. Route 637. Mr. Fisher noted that he had been discussingthe plan
for the realignment of Route 637 and the way it affects the entrance to Purinton Farm. Mr.
Purinton questioned whether the right-of-way needs to be as far to his side of the road as is
shown on the plan. Mr. Fisher said he realizes there is the problem of constructing a new
bridge, but asked if there is any way to move the right-of-way so as to save s~me of Mr.
Purinton's trees. Mr. Perry said the Highway Department is trying to go on a minimum plannin
construction project, therefore there is not sufficient information on the plans to gmve a
definite answer at this time. He said he would investigate the matter and make a report to
the Board at a later date~.
Agenda Item No. 3e. Route 631: Realignment of Road. Mr. Tucker said that Route 631
south of the City of Charlottesville ultimately goes to Old Lynchburg Road. There are
problems with development in the area because of a bad hairpin curve. The Highway Department
has indicated their willingness to make a study for the realignment of 631 at no cost to the
County. The Planning Commission and the Planning Staff reeommend that this be done so the
study can be used as a guide in approving future development in the area.
Mr. Perry said property owners in the area'have been to the Highway Department to talk
about plans for development. The existing alignment of 631 is poor and a plan should be
developed for ultimate alignment of this route. The District Office will make the study.
February 19, 1976
development is carried out according to that plan. If the study is conducted and the Board
does not adopt same, nothing will have been achieved.
Mr. Roudabush said he is familiar with the area, the road is in extremely bad shape. The
study wou~d be helpful and might be used with the major street plan in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Dorrier said he had met with residents in that area. They asked him to get up a
petition to get the road straightened all the way to RouTe 708 near Walton School. A lot of
residents use this road for traveling into town. He then offered motion to request the High-
way Department to study Route 631 and to present the Board with their recommendations. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iache~ta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Agenda Item No. 3f. Route 29 South - Additions and Discontinuance. Mr. Bailey noted
that communication had been received fromi~the Resident Highway Engineer asking that the Board
adopt a resolution for chang~sin the primary system due to the construction and relocation
which took place on the Route 29 South project. Since no public hearing was required on this
matter, motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following
resolution:
WHEREAS, certain changes have resulted in the Primary
and Secondary Systems due to relocation and construction on
Route 29 South (Projects 0629-002-111,C501 and
6029-002-112,C501); and
WHEREAS, no public hearing is required in this matter;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the following
sections, as indicated on sketch presented to this meeting
and made a part of the Board's permanent file, be discontinued
from the Primary System pursuant to Section 33.1-144 of the
Code of Virginia:
Section 1 - length 0.28 mile
Section 2 - length 0.30 mile
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following sections be
discontinued from the Secondary System pursuant to Section
33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia:
Section 3 - length 0.05 mile
Section 4 - length 0.02 mile
AND, FURTHER RESOLVED that the following sections be
added to the Secondary System:
Section 5 - length 0.04 mile
Section 6 - length 0.02 mile
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Agenda Item No..3h. Other Highway Matters Not On The Agenda From The Board.
It was brought to the Board's attention that the Annual Highway Hearing must be held
sometime in the near future. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley
ordering the Clerk to advertise this hearing for March 31, 1976, at 7:30 P. M. in the
County Courthouse. The motion carried by the following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Mr. Roudabush said that Route 769 is an unpaved connection between Route 29 North and
Key West Subdivision. He asked if the Highway Department has any plans to pave this road in
the near future. Mr. Perry said nothing is scheduled in the smx year plan for roads.
Mr. Roudabush said that several people living on Rio Road have asked if Rio Road could
not have a center stripe from the Vocational Technical Center to the City limits. Mr. Perry
said he would check this since the Federal Government has supplied funds to the Highway De'
ment to stripe hard-surface~roads which have an 18-foot width. Motion was then offered by Mr
Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, this Board has received a request from citizens who live on
Rio Road (Route 631) that white lines be painted on said road from the
Vocational Technical Center to the City limits;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby concur in this request and hereby
asks the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to give their
urgent consideration to installing a centerline on Rio Road between the
Vocational Technical Center and the City Limits.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Mr. Henley noted that Route 810 running over to Route 680 at Mechums River is full of
potholes. He noted that water also stands on the roadway when it rains and the road will be
mmpassable during the winter time.
February 19, 1976
Mr. Fisher noted that a citizen had complained that there is dust on the reser~oim moad
leading to Camp Holiday Trails.
Mr. Roudabush commended the Highway Department for the work they have done in cleaning
up trash piles along the highways.
Dr. Iachetta asked if there is any money in the Highway budget for cutting brush to
improve visibility. Mr. Perry said yes.
Mr. Bailey said the users of Route 637 South have complained that maintenance is not
being carried out. Mr. Perry said the Highway Department has had a problem with the weather
first being cold and then warming.
Mr. Bailey noted that the Board had received a copy of the 68th Annual Report of the
Virginia Highway and Transportation Commission For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1975. This
report is on file in the Clerk's Office.
Mr. Bailey also noted receipt of a letter dated February 10, 1976, from the Highway
Department regarding new location of Route 640.
As requested in resolution by your Board on January 15, 1976, the follow-
ing addition to and abandonment from the Secondary System of Albemarle
County are hereby approved, effective February'.10, 1976.
ADDITION LENGTH
Section 2 of new location Route 640 (Project
0640-002-134, C-501) From: Route 231 To: 0.06
miles N.W. of Route 231.
0.06 Mi.
ABANDONMENT
Section 1 of old location Route 640, From:
Route 231 To: 0.07 Miles N.W. of Route 231. 0.07 Mi.
Mr. Dottier requested that the Highway Department conduct a traffic count on Route 622
as soon as possible. Mr. Perry noted that these traffic counts are taken every two years and
the Highway Department does try to keep to this particular schedule.
At 10:30 A. M. the Board took a short recess and when they reconvened began with Agenda
Item Number 4, Continuation of a public hearing on the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and
Development Ordinance; an amendment to provide for maintenance performance bond in lieu of
construction bond. (This public hearing was deferred from January 28, 1976.)
Mr. Tucker said the Board had asked that the criteria for requiring a maintenance bond
be refined. The amendment as presented today is more easily administered and more equitable.
8RDINANCE AMENDING AND READOPTING SECTION 3-8-1 OF THE ALBEmaRLE
COUNTY LAND SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
that Section 3-8-1 of the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and
Development Ordinance is amended and readopted as follows:
Section 3-8-1.
Ail required improvements shall be installed at the cost
of the subdivider. Where cost sharing or reimbursement
agreements between the County of Albemarle and the subdivider
are appropriate, the same shall be entered into by formal
agreement prior to final plat approval and shall be subject
to inspection and acceptance by the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation. Easements and lines for water
and sewer services shall be subject to approval by the
Albemarle County Service Authority; drainage easements shall
be subject to approval by the Albemarle County Engineer. In
cases where specifications have been established, either by
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for
streets, etc., or by this ordinance, such specifications shall
be followed. Portions of the subdivider's performance bond
may be released by the Agent for the governing body, after
the completed construction or improvements have been inspected
and accepted as being in compliance with approved plans by the
County Engineer, the Agent for the governing body, and/or by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, as required
by law. After final completion of a road constructed for
inclusion into the State Highway System, the Agent for the
governing body may release the total construction bond provided
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has
approved final construction of such road and, provided further,
that bond in favor of the County of Albemarle, with security
sufficient to ensure that such road shall be maintained to the
standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
until such road shall have been accepted into the State Highway
System, is postedwith the County. The amount of the maintenance
bond shall be determined by the following criteria in conjunction
with Appendix A, Section 3-7, Geometric Design Standards, of
this ordinance:
Class A: $500 minimum up to 200 linear feet plus $2 per linear
foot thereafter;
Class B:' $500 minimum up to 200 linear feet plus $2.25 per linear
foot thereafter;
Class C: $500 minimum up to 200 linear feet plus $3.50 per linear
foot thereafter.
Ail improvements shall be in accordance with the requirements
set forth in this ordinance.
No one from the public spoke for or against this amendment. Motion was offered by Dr.
Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the ordinance as set Out above. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Agenda Item No. 5. Queen Charlotte Dog Leash Law. Miss Donna Asher presented a petitior
requesting that Queen Charlotte Subdivision be included under the County's Dog Leash Law.
Motion to set a public hearing on this matter for March 10, 1976, at 7:30 P. M. in the
Albemarle County Courthouse was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried
by the following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Agenda Item No. 6. Pay/Classification Plan. Mr. Michael Carroll was present and pre-
sented to the Board a memo dated February 13, 1976, requesting changes in certain schematic
classes, salary grades, and experience requirements for a variety of positions. Mr. Fisher
asked if he were requesting that these changes be made immediately or at July 1. Mr. Carroll
said he was requesting that these changes be made as of March 1, as they are mostly academic
changes in the plan. They are the relationship of one class to another within the different
classes. There are some places in the plan where the relationship is not correct and some
changes need to be made. This is the situation for both the real estate and the planning
groups, however it is just the opposite in the case of the license inspectors where the salar~
is too low and he would request an immediate change. For those who would receive a salary in-
crease immediately, the cost would be $2,148 for the period March 1 to June 30, 1976. Mr.
Fisher then called on the Personnel Committee for remarks.
Mrs. David said she and Mr. Henley had met with Mr. Carroll. Since that time, the Board
has appointed a new County Executive. There are areas that Mr. Carroll has indicated the new
County Executive should review, particularly that of Personnel Analyst~_ Management Analyst
and the Assistant to the County Executive, the new position in Social Services and a grade fo~
a Housing Coordinator. She felt it would be better to defer the whole consideration of this
matter until the new County Executive has had time to get acquainted with the Pay Plan and
make recommendations on these changes. She said Mr. Carroll had mentioned the fact that
candidates have been interviewed for the position of Housing Coordinator.
Dr. Iachetta said he felt after talking to Mr. Agnor that he would prefer to have an
opportunity to review the Pay/Classification Plan before making any recommendations.
Mrs. David then offered motion to defer action on the recommendations for changes in the
Pay/Classification Plan until the new County Executive has had an opportunity to consider the~
changes. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier., Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Mrs. David said in view of the action just taken on the Pay/Classification Plan, she
would offer motion to defer the employment of a Housing Coordinator and to ask Mr. Carroll to
let the applicants know of the action .taken by the Board and also saying that their appli-
cations will be kept on file. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the
following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. Personnel Rules. Mr. Carroll recommended the following changes in
the personnel handbook.
Maternity Leave. Time lost due to disabilities caused or contributed
to by pregnancy, miscarriage, abortion, child birth and recovery therefrom
are chargeable to the employee's sick leave account.
Rules governing use of maternity leave are the same as those governing use
of sick leave and leave for extended disability, as appropriate, with the
following qualifications:
An employee may continue to work as long as her doctor permits. At
any time during the pregnancy that an employee and/or her physician
are aware that her and/or her unborn child's health is likely to be
endangered by her job, she shall immediately make that fact known in
writing to her department head.
By the end of the sixth month of pregnancy and at such other later
times as deemed necessary by the department head, pregnant employees
shall submit to their department head a doctor's statement certify-
ing the employee's present ability to do the job as well as the
probable date the employee must cease work fo~ health reasons.
When the employee is prepared to return to work, her ability to do
the job must be eemtified by a physician.
Leave for Extended Disability. As soon as an employee and his
physician have determined that an employee is likely to be absent from
work for more than 30 working days due to serzous injury, illness or
other disability, not related to the performance of duties, that fact
must'be made known to the employee's department head. In some situations,
when the employee has notified the department head of the disability before
the leave commences, the department head may request a .doctom's certificate
February 19, 1976
of the employee's ability to perform the work assigned.
At the earliest possible date before the commencement of that leave, the
employee will notify the department head of the probable dates of the
commencement and termination of that leave.
0nly that time during the employee's extended disability so certified
by a physician as disabling may be charged to sick leave as accrued.
Other time may be taken as annual leave,compensatory time or leave
without pay.
If at any time before or during the disability leave the employee
determines that he will not return to work, or will be delayed in his
return, he must make that fact known to his department head. Employees
who resign prior to the commencement of the disability are not entitled
to sick leave pay.
When the employee is prepared to return to work, his ability To do the
job must be certified by a physician.
When a disability requires an employee to be absent without pay for more
than ten working days, the department head and the County executive, or
his designee, will determine how the employee will be replaced during the
absence. Every effort will be made to reinstate the employee in his former
position when he returns. However, if this cannot be accommodated, the
employee will be given every consideration for other compatible openings,
when they occur.
Leave Without Pay: Certain circumstances may warrant the granting
of leaves of absence without pay. Ail requests must be agreed upon by
your department head, the county executive and the board of supervisors,
and requests must be presented in writing. When an employee is granted
a leave of absence without pay in excess of ten working days, no leave
will accrue for that period. No contribution will be made by the County
towards the employee's insurance benefits. A leave of absence without
pay in excess of 20 days shall cause a like change in the employee's
anniversary date.
Holidays: Other holidays are granted by special proclamation of the
Governor and/or Board of Supervisors. Full-time employees are eligible
for holidays with pay as soon as they begin work. If a holiday falls on
a Sunday, the folloWing day will be observed as a holiday. If a holiday
falls ~on a Saturday,' the previous day will be observed as a holiday. If
a holiday falls within your vacation, you are entitled to a free leave
day within 12 months of the date of the holiday.
Motion was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve the changes as s
out above. The motion carried by the following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iaehetta and Roudahush.
Nays: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Compensation: Soil Erosion Control Advisory Committee. Mr. Hartwel[
Clarke, Zoning Administrator~waa present. He said this committee now receives only $5.0 a
month for the work they perform; usually three hours each Friday with trips to on-site
locations. He did not feel this ms a reasonable figure and recommended that compensation be
set at a higher rate. Mr. Bowling noted that ~this Board is now covered by the Equalization
of Pay Ordinance, Section 2-53 of the Albemarle County Code. That section of the Code carrie~
a $50 a month limit, however, Section 4-9 of the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Ordinance states that the Board of Supervisors may set compensation for this committee by
resolution. In order to make this change the Board would have to advertise for a public
hearing to delete the Soil Erosion Committee from the Equalization of Pay Ordinance. Motibn
was offered by Mrs. David to set this matter for a public hearing on March 18, 1976, at 10:00
A. M. in the Board Room of the County Office Buildings, also noting that the staff should draf-
a resolution setting compensation at a higher rate and returning that resolution to the Board
on March 18 for consideration. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the
following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Legislative Matters. The Clerk mentioned that House Bill 67, which
will be known as a Virginia Public Records Act if enacted, will require a considerable ex-
penditure. Archival quality ink and papers will be needed for preservation, and additional
storage for records will be required. Although the intent of this act may be good, it would
be better if enactment could be set off for a fe~ years. Motion was then offered by Mr.
Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the ~oll6wing resolution.
WHEREAS, this Board has reviewed House Bill No, 67
(Virginia Public Records Act); and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County feels that implementation
of this Act will place an undue financial burden on local
governments and create a particular burden on Albemarle
County which is experiencing difficulties with space; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has already taken steps to
safeguard its records through %he use of microfiliming of
the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the Clerk to
the Board of Supervisors and certain tax records;
Februarv 19~ 1976
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virqinia, does hereby
express its concern that the scope of this bill is too
encompassing and asks that same be either reconsidered or
the implementation date extended.
FURTHER, the Clerk to the Board is hereby directed to
send copies of this resolution to the Honorable J. Harry
Michael, Jr., the Honorable Thomas J. Michie, Jr. and the
Honorable James B. Murray.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Mr. Fisher noted that House Bill 606, which amended the State code to call for delivery
of the land book to the Department of Taxation by September 1 was opposed by Mr. Ray Jones.
Mr. Jones noted that the date has been moved to October 15. He has talked to Stuart Connock,
the State Tax Commissioner, and been advised that the Department of Taxation will continue to
use the same procedure as in the past. If the County needs to have the dead line extended
and can justify the request, an extension will be granted.
Mr. Fisher said that he had received a stack of legislative materials approximately three
quarters of an inch thick. He asked if any of the Board Members would like to revmew these.
Mr. Henley said he had read over a stack, but did not know the points of all and was hoping
someone would explain these. Mrs. David said everyone is feeling the absence of one member
of the staff who did the briefing job on legislative matters. This was very helpful and she
felt this was the moment to indicate a need for that part of the staff.
Mr. Fisher noted that House Bill 676 concerns holding a referendum in an area proposed
for annexation; House Bill 678 relates to preparation of local budgets; House Bill 681 relates
to employment of counsel to defend the governing body or employees in certain procedures; and
House Bill 700 relates to an industrial revenue bonding authority.
Agenda Item No. 11. L E A A Grant Funds. Mr. Ray Jones and Mr. Albert Shank, Jail
Administrator, were present. Mr. Jones said the City of Charlottesville is currently holding
$37,135 in L E A A Grant Funds for the Joint Security Complex. The Jail Board, on January 14,
1976, approved the use of $11,559.10 from these funds; for equipment; $7,613 and for uniforms,
$3,946.10. Since that time, it has been found that the grant cannot be used to purchase unm-
forms. Therefore, the request is to purchase the following equipment: 14 fans, air circulat-
ing fl6or, free standing; 1 fan per cell block, $2,044; unit life support, self-contAined
breathing with compressed air bottles, rated au one-hour capacity, two at $750, for a total of
$1,500; 1 steam table, electric with four compartments $820; one 60-quart mixer equipped with
accessories, $2,399; one toaster institutional rotary, $375; 1 blended-chopper, $295; two
40-quart pots, $180, for a total of $7,613. The life support equipment was recommended by the
Fire Marshal and the kitchen equipment was recommended by the State Dietician. After purchase
of this equipment, the remaining funds will be turned over to the two governing bodies.
Dr. Iachetta asked if anyone had checked the maintenance cost for 14 fans. Mr. Shank
said the entire jail is ~ot air-conditioned and in the summer some areas get to about 130
degrees. The Jail Board felt it would help to put one fan in each cell block for ventilation.
Dr. Iachetta felt it was a bad engineering solution to the problem, but felt it might be the
best solution available with the money. He then offered motion to approve the use of these
funds for the equipment as set out above. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried
by the following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Agenda Item No. 12a. Special Appropriation: Land Use. Mr. Jones said the amount allo-
cated in the current budget zs inadequate for two reasons. 1) The State Division of Forestry
did not pay the Field Examiner this year. Last year the State paid the entire cost for this
person; There were 295 applications for forestry in 1976. The cost for this field examiner
was not anticipated in the budget, and amounts to approximately $2,000. The total number of
acres for 1976, designated as forestry is 31,667 acres. 2) The number of applications this
year is twice that anticipated. There were 796 parcels or 77,I73 acres applied for in 1976.
Of this number, 68 parcels and 6,687 acres involve reapplications on 1975 due to change in
acreage or ownership. This work load adds about three months work for the two field examiners
Mr. Jones said after reviewing the current budget and making adjustments'in several codes, the
land use category will be short about $4,170 and he requested an appropriation of $4,100. He
also noted that as of January 1, the revenue from the land use tax filing fees had exceeded
the budget estimate by $4,231.
Mr. Dorrier asked ff the Land Use Office is supposed to be self-sustaining. Mr. Jones
said it was in 1975 and it will be in 1976, but after this year it will not be. Motion was
then offered by Mr. Henley to adopt the following resolution.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia that Sn,100 be, and the same hereby is, transferred from the
General Fund to the General Operating Fund and coded to 2-A 109 for
salaries in the Land Use Office.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded
VOte.
Ayes:
Nays:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12b. Special Appropriation: Sheriff's Department. Mr. Jones said on
December 23, 1975, a County deputy was involved in an accident which resulted in total loss t¢
a County vehicle. The I N A Insurance Company paid $1,00t.23 as damages, and Cosner Brothers
paid $500 for salvage on a 1974 Plymouth. The checks were processed as miscellaneous revenue
for the County. In order for the Sheriff to purchase a replacement for this car, an appro-
priation of $1,501.23 is needed. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the
February 19, 1976
following resolution.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $1,5gl.23 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the General Fund and transferred to the General Operating Fund and
coded to 6-A 215A, for replacement of a vehicle in the Sheriff's
Department.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded
vote.
Ayes:
Nays:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Refunds: Personal Property Taxes 1975. Motion was offered by Mr.
Dorrier to adopt the following resolution.
WHEREAS, the Director of Finance of Albemarle County, Virginia
has appeared before this Board and certified that the following errors
have been made in the assessment of Personal Property taxes;
!. Claude B. Cliborne, ticket number 102309
is due a refund of $32.90, because the
taxpayer did not move into Albemarle County
until after January !, 1975. Taxes were paid
to the County of Chesterfield.
2. Robert L. Jones, ticket number 106560, a
refund of $37.60. The taxpayer was assessed
for 1975 taxes on a 1970 Mustang which~had been
sold in 1974.
3. Linda Yvonne Coradi, ticket number 102583,
a refund of $137.71, 1974 M G B was assessed
and taxes were paid to-the City of Williamsburg.
WHEREAS, the County Attorney has examined supporting evidence
and consents that such assessments were erroneous;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to the Code of
Virginia, Section 58-1142, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia does hereby direct the refunds as s~t out above.
vote.
FURTHER, all supporting papers verifying this request are to be
filed in the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded
Ayes:
Nays:
Mrs. David.and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roud~bush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Public Service Taxation Ratio~_~1976. Mr. Fisher said he had asked
the DirectOr of Finance to make a short report on this matter since he was concerned that
parts of this procedure were not understood by eitherhimor the other Board members. Mr.
Jones said he would explain the procedures for assessment of public service corporations.
Title 58~.Sections 58-503 through 58-685, set forth the manner mn which Public Service
Corporations are assessed and delegates responsibi!i~y for assessment to the State Cot~
Commission. This covers properties such as railroads, p~wer companies, telephone companies,
pipeline companies, water companies and telegraph companies. Each public servmce company
submits a report bi-annually to the State Corporation Commission. The State Corporation
Commission then reviews and audits this report and sends a document to each locality in the
S~ate of Virginia setting forth what each public service corporation is to be assessed in
locality. The Bemiss Bill passed and went into effect on January 1, 1966. The purpose of
this bill was to equalize the assessments of public service corporations, State-wide. The
bill had three stipulations: 1) If the locality segregated public service into real estate
and personal property, then the personal property could not exceed the assessment effective
January !, 1966, at a later time. 2) Each year, 5% of that assessment of record on January
1966, with the State Corporation Commission, (which at that time was based upon 40% of the
replacement cost of the property), would convert to the l~cal ratio of 5% per year over a
twenty-year period. That meant that not only the existing properties of record on January 1,
1966, but additional properties, new construction, repairs, etc. would go on at the local
ratio, which for the past few years has been 12 to 13%. Mr. Jones said a study was done by
Albemarle County in 1967 which showed that the County should increase its assessment ratio
from 15% up to at least 50%, ten years into this bill or there would be a reversary action.
Recently, he had received a report from the Sales Study Ratio Department of the State Depart-
ment of Taxation, which was based on taxable properties of record in Albemarle County for the
year 1974, the year in which the roll back was effective. He felt this study was based on
deteriorated values. In making this review, the Department of Taxation studied an average of
2% of all parcels in the State. The report is broken down into six classes: 1) Single-
family residential for urban areas; 2) Single-family residential for suburban areas; 3)
family residential; 4) Commercial industrial; 5) Agricultural of less than one hundred
acres; and 6) Agricultural of more than one hundred acres. They have two measures which
set forth. 1) The index of equality, which also is called a coefficient of dispersion. Th~
shows a spread of the individual appraisals around the median ratio; and 2) is a regression
index, which is a measure of how lower cost housing related to higher cost housing. The re-
gresszon index should have a ratio of 1%. The index of inequality should have about 10% on
residential property and 15% on acreage. Albemarle County, for the year 1974, for single-
family residential, had a median ratio of 11.2%, but had an index of inequality of 21% and a
regression index of 1%. Mr. Jones said that he wrote to the State Dep'artment of Taxation and
requested a review and a study based upon 1975 values so the County would not be penalized by
the assessment of public utilities. The State Department of Taxation honored this request an~
changed the median ratio from 8.7% to 14%. In essence, this means a 30% increase and prevents
a 30% decrease in assessment for public utilities. Mr. Jones then presented to the Board a
comparative value study for years 1966 and 1975 based on assessed value.
O56
February 19, 1976
BASED ON ASSESSED VALUES*
Personal Machinery
property Real Estate and Tools
1966 $ 8,634,670
1975 29,753,104
Percentage
Increase 344
$ 24,505,670
112,493,049
$ 1,424,560
3,467,410
Public Service
$ 10,553,250
12,993,876
Total
$ 452118,150
158,707,439
459 243 123 284
Percentage of Total Tax Base
1966 19.1 54.3 3.2 23.4 100.0
1975 18.7 70.9 2.2 8.2 !00.0
*Original Levy Per Book excluding exonerations and supplements
Mr. Fisher asked what changes in taxes have taken place over this period of time. Mr.
Jones said there was a change in the utility tax, a change in the automobile !~cense tax and
a 1% sales tax was added during this period. Mr. Fisher asked if this meant that the percent-
ages on the chart are percentages of property taxes, but not as a percentage of total tax
revenue. Mr. Jones said that was true. He said going from 8.7% to 14% showed that the CoUnt~
did need to have the reassessment. The County will also get a better coefficient of dispersioi
and a better index of regression in the future with a two-year spread on assessment. Dr.
Iachetta said the only trouble with this is that the County must still raise whatever money is
needed to run the government.
Agenda Item No. 1Sa. Appointment: County Auditors. Mr. Jones said for'~the past several
years, the Board of Supervisors has waited until late spring to appoint an auditQ~ t~e
upcoming audit of the fiscal year. This late appointment does not allow the appointed firm
adequate planning time to'staff for the workload. There is some work that should be done
prior to June 30th. If the entire work is performed after June 30th, the audit is late. In
order to prevent this, he suggested that the Board choose a firm early in the year and set a
deadline for completion of October 15th or November 1st. This will allow almost four months
after the close of the fiscal year to perform the audit, present it to the State Auditor for
approval, and print the final edition. The firm of Dulaney & Farmer has been performing the
audit for the past several years. They have assisted in the preparation of varmous schedules
filed with the revenue sharing suit, and have made no charges for their services on this court
case. Mr. Jones said he recommends that the Board consider the continuation of Dulaney &
Farmer as the County Auditors.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to appoint the firm o~
Dulaney & Farmer as the auditors for the 1975-76 annual audit~, and to set a date of November
for completion of this audit and delivery of same to the Board of Supervisors. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
At 12:22 P. M., the Chairman requested an executive session to discuss personnel matters
Motion to this effect was offered by.Mrs. David, seconded by Dr. Iaehetta, and carried by the
following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
The Board reconvened at 1:40 P. M.
(No-te: Remaining items under Item #15 discussed la~er in the ~i.~]had asked members
Agenda Item No. 16. Fire StaYion Committee. Mr. Fmsher samd
of the old Fire Station Committee to make an updated report to the Board of Supervisors.
Present were Messrs. Lloyd F. Wood, Jr., Julian Taliaferro, Calvin Moyer and Roger Baber. Mr
Wood said the Fire Station Committee had presented a formal report to the Board of Supervisor~
on March 5, 1975. The committee found that there ms a void in the fire system in regards to
response time from the City limits to the Rivanna River on the north, west past Albemarle
High School, and east to the City limits at Greenbrier Subdivision. There is a lot of high
density development in the area around Hydraulic Road. The committee decided that the best
location for a Fire Station would be in the Route 29 North Rio Road intersection. Monthly
reports kept show that the response time to a fire in this area is now eight to ten minutes;
flash-over time is about five minutes. In the report made last year, the committee tried to
show how a two-bay station located in this area, would complement already existing City and
County operations. A small committee of the total membership has tried to find a site of
about two acres in this area. The price of land is very high so the committee tried to get
some acreage donated, but has not been successful. Mr. Wood said this fire station would
benefit the community as a whole and the overall fire fighting capabilities of the County.
Mr. Fisher said the direct costs of this recommendation are not just the cost of the sit
and the building, but the cost to equip an~ man a fire station seven days a week. Mr.
Taliaferro said personnel costs are the major consideration. These would probably cost
$150,000 a year for a three-man company. Mr. Fisher asked if this would be in addition to th.
County truck, now located at the City Fire Station on Ridge Street. Mr. Taliaferro said that
is a one engine company. It is responsible for fire fighting in the County, but is insuffi--
cient in terms of insurance rating. The County truck answers a call. If they need help, the
City sends another truck. It makes the response time much longer. Last year, the City made
about 70 runs into the County. They do not charge for these services.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the fire truck comes from the Route 250 Bypass station. Mr.
Taliaferro said no; that is a common misconception. The truck comes from the Ridge Street
Station and runs past the Route 250 station because the County pays for only one engine. Mr.
Dorrier asked if it would not be cheaper to buy another engine th~n to build another station.
Mr. Henley felt the closest engine should answer the call.
Mr. Fisher said the County has a number of volunteer fireman who have been doing a fine
job for many years. The County has been fortunate that City Council has been willing to have
this cooperative arrangement without any forma~ written agreement. He asked what the volun-
teers ~hink about the possibility of the County constructing and manning a fire station. He
does~ant this to have a negative effect on present services. Mr. Baber said the people in
Crozet are not in favor of a paid fire station. Mr. Fisher asked if fire protection for the
high density urban area could be handled by volunteers. Mr. Baber said no. He did not thinkl
even engine number 10, with paid personnel, could handle a fire by themselves. The committee
tried to work out a way to give the area around the City of Charlottesville the best fire
protection. The majority of the committee members were in favor of construction of a fire
o57
February 19, 1976
station on Route 29 North. They are also in favor of contracting some services with the City
Mr. Henley asked if it would be possible for a volunteer fire company to organize in that
area, if the County bought the land and helped them to get organized. Mr. Baber said he did
not think it would be possible in this area. The committee had several other ideas which
have not been thoroughly discussed. Mr. Baber said he would like to see the committee meet
again.
Mr. Fisher said he questions whether the urban area should have a separate County pro-
fessional fire company or whether this should not be part of a unified service and the County
participate only as necessary. Mr. Taliaferro said he did not see how the County could
separate out on their own without building two stations since the level of fire protection
in the urban area is Lnadequate at this time.
Dr. Iachetta said there is a definite need for fire protection in the urban areas and
a solution is needed quickly. Mr. Dorrier said the people in Scottsville are concerned about
the cost of this station. Although they do not deny there is a need for same, they do not
feel the whole County should pay. They think that if the residents need this service, they
should pay for it themselves.
Mrs. David said this question is a lot like schools. A lot Of people do not have chil-
dren, but they provide this service to the whole community. Fire protection and police
protection are similar situations. She asked if the iCounty can have any type of dual taxing
structure so people in the urbanized areas can carry a larger share of the cost for this type
of protection.
Mr. Roudabush said his district has a large rural area and a large urban area. He does
not take any position on this matter at this time, other than to say that the fire protection
is needed and he hopes a decision can be made soon. There are two volunteer fire companies
in his district who do a top notch job, and he hopes that spirit will continue. He felt the
Board should work with the City and the volunteers to arrive at a sblution.
Mr. Henley said the one truck which the County supports, costs more than all of the
volunteers in the County. He felt the Board should work out some arrangement with the City
because he did not feel the County can afford to build fire stations all around the City
limits.
Mr. Fisher said in the rural areas where people are not moving often, they have banded
together to Provide-their own fire service at a minimal cost to the County. He personally
wants to be assured by the volunteer companies that they know what the County is considering
and that it has to be done. He said there may be a better way to solve this problem that
has not been explored and suggested that the committee look at other possibilities.
Dr. Iachetta suggested the possibility of service districts. Mr. St. John said in order
to form a service district, there must be two governing bodies. The City and the County
would have to unite to form a service district to provide this fire service but he did not
think that under Virginia Law there can be a two-tier tax structure. Mr. Dorrier asked Mr.
St. John if he would research this question further.
Mr. Moyer said as a point of order, he h~d been paying taxes for thirty years, and has
no children. There are 15,000 people in the five mile radius around the City who need fire
protection although he realizes that the volunteer fireman have a valid comPlaint.
Mr. Fisher asked that the committee continue to look at long range plans for f~re pro-
tection.
Agenda Item No. t7. Report: State Office of Recreation. Present was Mr. Glen Miesch,
who presented to the Board a study entitled "Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Appraisal"
prepared by the Office of Recreation, Division of State Planning and Community Affairs, and
dated January 1976. After the presentation, Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. Miesch for the report,
and said that some of the recommendations contained on pages 35 through 41 may be carried out
in the next year or two. Also present from the Parks Committee were Mrs. Kathleen Burney
and Mrs. Mary Banks.
Agenda Item No. !Sb. Appointment: Parks Committee. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabus]
seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to appoint Mrs. Jean W. Craig, Earlysville, Virginia, as a member
of the Parks Committee. The motion carried by the following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Agenda Item No. !$c.
to another meeting.
Appointment:
Economic Development Commission.
Order carried over
Agenda Item No. lsd. Appointment: Advisory Committee-- South Rivanna River Reservoir
Study. Mr. RQudabush suggested the name of Mr. Albert Yancey, III, who lives in Key West
Subdivision, is an agent for State Farm Insurance, has expressed concern about the reservoir,
and is willing to serve whatever amount of time is needed.
Mr. Fisher said he thought the Board should first decide what type of person they want
to appoint to this committee. He had thought the Board would appoint either a technical
specialist, the County Planner, or a consumer.
Dr. Iachetta said if the person is going to be non-staff or a non-technical person, they
might ask an active consumer group to recommend someone. Mr. Fisher said this matter has
been dragging for a long time and is still not resolved. Since the Board does have a
volunteer, they need to decide what type of representation they want.
Dr. Iachetta said Dr. James Moore is a professional mechanical engineer. He lives on
the system, so he is a cor~sumer, and he is also a member of the County Planning Commission.
He has spoken to Dr. Moore and he is willing to serve. Mrs. David said she would like to
have seen someone with technical background, but since no one with those qualifications had
come forward she would support Dr. Moore as .a combination of consumer/~lanning commissioner
and citizen. Mr. Dorrier said he favored a consumer as the best person to appoint since ther~
are already technical people on the committee. Mr. Fisher then suggested that the Clerk call
the roll and each Board member vote for the candidate of his choice. The vote was as follows
Mrs. David, Dr. Moore; Mr. Dorrier, Dr. Moore; Mr'. Fisher, Dr. Moore~ Mr. Henley, Dr. Moore~
Dr. Iachetta, Dr. Moore; and Mr. Roudabush, Dr. Moore.
Agenda Item No. lSe. Appointment: Community Action Board. Mr. Fisher said that Mr.
05,8
Februar19v__~1976
Harold Brindley, III, who is an employee of the County Social Services Department, has
volunteered to take this appointment. Mrs. Karen Morris, the Director of Social Services,
endorses the idea. Motion was then offered by Dr. iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to
appoint Mr. Brindley as an Albemarle County representative on the Community Action Board.
Motion carried by the following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Agenda Item No. 15f. Appointment: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission,
Regional Housing Committee. Mrs. David offered the name of Williston L. Clover as the
technical member of the committee.. Mr. Roudabush offered the name of Wilbur Tinsley. He
said he could represent the low income area, and his background as a former member of the
Albemarle County Planning Commission would be useful zn recognizing conflicts of zoning.
The foregoing motions were seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded
vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Agenda Item No. 15g. Appointment: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Drug
Abuse Council. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Ms. Jane M. Saunier, Acting Drug
Abuse Planner, saying that Mr. Dennis W. Graves had volunteered to serve this vacancy. Motio~
was then offered by Mr. Dorrier to appoint Mr. Graves as a member of the Drug Abuse Council,
for a term to expmre on June 1, 1977. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried
by the following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Agenda Item No. 15h. Appointment: Comprehensive Plan - Consultant Selection Committee.
Mr. Fisher said he had received a note from Mr. David Carr, Chairman of the Albemarle County
Planning Commission, stating that he had appointed Mr. Peter Easter, Mrs. Ellen Craddock and
himself as Planning Commission members to serve on the committee. Mr. Fisher then appointed
Mr. Roudabush and Mrs. David to serve as Board members. He asked that Mr. Cart act as
temporary chairman Of the committee and call the first meeting.
Not Docketed.. Mr. Fisher noted that he had received a letter from Mr. Lloyd F. Wood, Jr
resigning as a member of the Albemarle County Highway Safety Commission. Motion was offered
by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, thanking Mr. Wood for. his service on this committ~
and ordering that a letter to this effect be sent from the Board. The motion carried by the
folIowing recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to appoint Mr. Edwar¢
W. Lang as a member of the Albemarle County Highway Safety Commission, to serve out the un-
expired term of Mr. Wood; said term to expire December 31, 1976. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Not Docketed. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David to adopt the
following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, pursuant to the Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-595, Guy B.
Agnor, Jr. is hereby appointed County Executive of Albemarle County
effective April 1, 1976.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Agenda Items No. 16 & 17 discussed earlier in the meeting.
Agenda Item No. 18. Resolutions: Attorneys. Mr. St. Jo~h'n read into the record
following resolution for consideration.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County~ Virginia, that as of February 1,
1976, Herbert A. Pickford, Esquire, is employed by
the County of Albemarle as counsel for Hartwell P.
Clarke to defend the said Hartwell P. Clarke, Zoning
Administrator, in the civil suit now pending in the
United States District Court for the Western District
of Virginia under the style of united Land COrporation
of America, et ~al v. Cl~arke and 'S't'. 'John.
the
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt the resolution
as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, .to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that as of February 1, 1976, Francis McQ.
Lawrence, Esquire, is employed by the County of Albemarle
February 19, 1976
to act as counsel for George R. St. John, the County Attorney,
to defend the said George R. St. John in the civil suit now
pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia under the style of United Land Corporation
of America, et al v. Clarke and ~St. ~John.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Agenda Item No. 19.
received as information.
Report of the County Executive for the month of January, 1976, was
Agenda Item No. 20. Statement of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff's Office
and the Office of the Commonwealth Attorney for the month of January, 1976, were received.
Upon motion by Mr. Dottier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, these statements were approved as read.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Agenda Item No. 21. Statement of Expenses for the Regional Jail for the month of
January,1976, was received. Upon motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, the state-
ment was approved as read. The motion carried~by the following recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Agenda Item No. 22. Regional Jail Report for the month of January, 1976, was received~
along with summary statement of prisoner days, maintenance costs, statement of the jail
physician, paramedic salaries and classification officer. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconde
by Mr. Dorrier, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Agenda Item No. 23. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of
December~ 1975, was received in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
Agenda Item No. 24. Claim against the Dog Fund was received from Mr. N. J. Crawford for
one heifer killed by dogs on October 25, 1975. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mrs.
David, Mr. Crawford was allowed $55.00 for this claim. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote.
Ayes: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Nays: None.
Abstaining: Mr. Dorrier.
Agen~da Item No. 25.
February 4, 1976.)
Continuation of discussion:
Moratorium Ordinance.
(Continued from
Mr. Tucker said three different proposals have been developed from Mr. Roudabush's
suggestions. The FIRST PROPOSAL makes a major change in Item 2b of the ordinance adopted as
an emergency measure on January 14, 1976. This section is now proposed to read:
b. Immediate Drainage Area: The term "immediate drainage area" shall
be construed to mean that portion of Albemarle County lying within the water-
shed of the South Rivanna River (1) bounded by an arc having a radius of
five (5) miles as measured from the water supply intake pipe of the said
reservoir and (2) lying within 500 feet of the edge of the Reservoir at
normal pool or within 500 feet of the centerline of any perennial or inter-
mittent stream flowing directly into the Reservoir. In addition, any area
having a slope mn excess of 15% which is immediately adjacent to the 500 foot
boundary line as herein defined shall be deemed to be included within the
"immediate drainage area". A map labeled "South Rivanna Ri~er Reservoir
Immediate Drainage Area", showing the boundaries as herein described, is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Also, Section 7, Effective Date has been changed to read:
This ordinance shall take effect upon enactment and shall remain in
effect until repealed by the Board of Supervisors; provided, however, that
this ordinance shall terminate and be of no further effect on and after
January 1, 1977, unless the same shall theretofore have been reenacted
in accordance with law.
Under the SECOND PROPOSAL the same changes were made in Section 2b and Section 7.
Section 4a entitled Exemptions was also changed to read as follows:
a. the construction, repair, enlargement, or other activity other
than road building, relating to any single-family detached dwelling
located upon a lot having a minimum area of one (1) acre; provided that
no such activity shall be permitted within 200 feet of the edge of the
reservoir at normal pool nor within 200 feet of the centerline of any
perennial or intermittent stream flowing directly into the reservoir;
February 19, 1976
The THIRD PROPOSAL is an amendment to the existing Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Ordinance and reads as follows:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that
Section I of Appendix A to the Albemarle County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Ordinance be, and it hereby is, amended as follows:
RESTRICTIONS ON DEVELOPMENT IN THE WATERSHED OF THE SOUTH RIVANNA '~-
RIVER RESERVOIR
A. Land in the watershed of the South Rivanna River Reservoir may
be developed as provided by law except as otherwise restricted in this
section.
B. No building, grading or excavative activity except such activity
as shall be necessary for the construction and/or installation of utilities
and/or roads shall be permitted under the following conditions:
1. on slopes of 15% or greater within the immediate drainage
area of the reservoir as hereinafter defined; or
2. on slopes of 25% or greater anywhere else in the watershed.
C. For purposes of this section, the term "immediate drainage area"
shall be deemed to include that portion of the watershed of the South
Rivanna River Reservoir (1) bounded by an arc having a radius of five (5)
miles as measured from the water supply intake pipe of the said reservoir
and (2) lying within 500 feet of the edge of the reservoir at normal
pool or within 500 feet of the centerline of all perennial and intermittent
streams flowing directly into the reservoir or any portion thereof. A map
labeled "South Rivanna River Reservoir Immediate Drainage Area", showing
the boundaries as herein described, is attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference as Exhibit II.
D. The location and design of roads shall follow topography wherever
possible in order to minimize excavation and embankment.
Fisher: I have not had a chance to review these proposals. The main difference between
the first two is allowing single-family dwellings between 200 and 500 feet from the waterline~
Tucker: Yes.
Fisher: If a road does not have to be built?
Payne: The first two proposals are basically the same as the existing temporary moratorl
emergency ordinance you enacted. The emergency ordinance prohibits the issuance of soil
erosion and building permits within the designated area and then gives certain exceptions,
such as single-family dwellings where no road building is needed, certain engineering activitJ
relating to soil erosion control which are exempted by the soil erosion enabling statute, any
activity that is necessary to preserve the public safety, health and welfare; and emergency
repairs. The first proposal has the effect of keeping the moratorium exactly as it now is,
except that it narrows the scope of the ordinance to this 500 foot strip plus the steep
slopes. The second proposal eliminates the exemption for single-family homes within the 200
foot strip.
Dorrier:
matter.
Before you go any further, I am abstaininq from discussion and vote on this
Roudabush: After seeing the 15% slopes on a map, I think my suggestion would be difficul
for the staff to enforce. It will be hard to define these areas without going out on the
ground and doing some exploration to determine slopes, etc. I am adjusting my thinking a~d
now feel it would be easier to enforce the ordinance by defining a line some definite distanc~
from the reservoir rather than adding these other provisions.
Tucker: The Planning Department would have to require each applicant to furnish a slope
analysis on his property.
iachetta: To do what you intended, you would have to have a greater distance in order
to encompass the 15% slopes, at least in the areas around the normal Pool.
Roudabush: After seeing the map, I am not so sure you would. I think the 5.00 foot line
is sufficient. If you double that distance out from the streams of the reservoir, you get
almost back to a complete moratorium. The additional width does not sound like much until
you apply it to the total perimeter of the reservoir and add the tributary streams.
Iachetta: If there is any legitimacy to the idea of the 15% slopes, then you have
excluded about one-half of the areas close to the pooling places and also back at the headwat~
where steeper slopes are involved.
Roudabush: This area is almost totally 15% slopes, so the major part of the steep areas
are included in the 500 foot line.
Fisher: We have received information from a number of people and State agencies saying
there is a basis for including the 15% slopes, but no one has ever said that an "x" number of
feet is a reasonable buffer zone. There is apparently no statutory definition for the 500
feet and I want to know where this recommendation comes from other then the fact that this
Board might find it to be reasonable.
Iachetta: I have been looking at this contour map. If you start with the premise that
has been given some credibility in the testimony of experts that the most critical areas are
those closest to the normal pool, plus the 15% slopes, then the 500 foot boundary delineated
is not adequate. It excludes too much of the 15% or greater slope. Back at the gauging
~~n n~n~. which is about four miles from the intake, there are quite a bit of 15% or
um
es
?s
061
February 19, 1976
the higher slopes, (on the assumption that the slope is the problem and not just the proximit
to the pool), then statistically you might argue for a boundary that includes a high fra(
percentage of the slope that is considered to be the criteria.
Bailey: I also think it is arbitrary if only one type of activity is excluded on these
15% slopes. If that land were open and cultivated, that would probably produce more distress
to the waters than building on the land.
Iachetta: I have given some thought to that aspect. It seems to me that we have used
the term "agricultural land" rather loosely. I have walked some of those slopes. It seems
to me that the area we are trying to delineate is not agricultural and is not likely to be
agricultural.
Bailey: If it remains in woods, that would be fine.
Iachetta: The runoff from the woodlands represents natures least impact on the water
supply. If you convert that land to agricultural or some other activity, that would be more
detrimental.
Bailey: Good agricultural land grows crops.
it.
Iachetta:
That is not crop land.
Mountain goats would have trouble grazing on some of
Roudabush: The map on the wall is not entirely accurate as far as slopes are concerned.
When you go out on the ground to determine if the slope is accurate, you may find areas that
are perfectly flat contained in an area defined as critical.
Fisher: Do the Board members want to open this question to the public again and get
comments on this proposal?
Roudabush: I would prefer ~not to unless it is going to be readvertised and a full
scale public hearing held.
Frances Martin; Can I ask a question?
Fisher: Okay.
Martin: Will this proposal permit storm drainage from outside of the 500 foot boundary
to be piped across the boundary into the reservoir or drainage area?
Roudabush: That is not addressed directly.
Payne: The Board should bear in mind that whatever is adopted, it does not involve
land-disturbing activities. If it does, then it falls into the existing soil erosion
ordinance and there are controls on it including the controls which were adopted last fall
in the form of guidelines on the 25% slopes, etc. If no land-disturbing activity is involved
~it probably would not cause any adverse effect on the reservoir, in that case, all of the
storm water runoff would be reviewed under the soil erosion ordinance. That review should
take inHo account what kind of runoff you will get. If there is enough, it would require
the building of some structure to take care of that runoff.
Bailey: Are you suggesting that any development behind the "red" line should make
provisions for the ultimate disposition of storm waters into the drainage basin? The Soil
Erosion Advisory Board might want to insist that the water be taken down off of the steep
slopes at the same time.
Payne: if the runoff is such that it requires structures to be built, it is likely to
be covered by the Soil Erosion Ordinance. In that case, a structure to pass it through this
moratorium area would be prohibited because the County cannot issue an erosion control
permit.
Iachetta: Suppose something that is allowed under the ordinance is done outside of
this area that creates a localized rate of runoff so there is a higher velocity flow of
water over the ground into the area we are trying to protect? It seems that is left out of
the ordinance as now written.
Payne: The problem of down-stream runoff should be addressed in the soil erosion
permit. The whole thrust of the Soil Erosion Ordinance is to protect downstream properties.
This problem is within the legitimate scope of their review.
St. John: There is no way to have any development in this area unless provisions are
made for water to be piped through this area to the wa~er.
Bailey: It is envisioned that a developer working in the area not restricted would put
the water into the closest natural water course.
St. John: He would have to comply with soil erosion measures. If the water were
polluted, he might be required to have a settling basin or even a filtration plant. We
never envisioned an absolute prohibition against any artificial flow of water across these
areas.
P'ayne: In the case of natural drainage from the site~ the County gets the opportunity
to control what happens to that; to make sure that the velocity is slowed down and there is
treatment. Structures designed to prevent erosion are permitted under Section 21-!(c) of
the State Code.
Fisher: Is defining where intermittent streams begin, subject to interpretation?
St. John: Someone has to draw a line on the map so a landowner can look at the map and
tell if his property is included.
February 1976
Roudabush: Look at PROPOSAL THREE, Paragraph C. Strike out the words "lying within
500 feet of the edge of the reservoir at normal pool or within 500 feet of the centerline of
all perennial and intermittent streams flowing directly into the reservoir or any portion
thereof." If this were adopted as an amendment to the ~existing Soil Erosion Ordinance, it
would impose the restrictions Dr. Iachetta discussed concerning 15% slopes entirely within
this five-mile area.
Iachetta: If you go to the beginning of the pooling point, as opposed to the arbitrary
five miles we chose originally, not very much of the important pooling part of the reservoir
is excluded.
Payne: The guidelines of the Soil Erosion Ordinance can be amended and some variation
of the moratorium ordinance could also apply to the 15% slopes within the five-mile arc and
the 500 feet.
Iachetta: Under PROPOSAL TWO, if you leave out the part about the 500 feet and the
centerline of intermittent streams, you are back to needing a topo on each parcel to establis
whether the slopes are 15% or greater.
Roudabush: Under this ordinance, you have to submit a site plan.
everyone who does land surveying to submit an accurate topo map.
This will require
Fisher: I would suggest that the Board members look at the maps and schedule another
meeting for next Wednesday afternoon.
At this time, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to defer
further discussion of this ordinance until February 24 at 2:30 P.M. in the Board Room. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Dorrier.
Agenda Item No. 26. Discussion--Personnel Matters. Mr. Bailey said he had mentioned
to the Board on February 11, 1976, that Mr. Michael Carroll, the employee acting as personnel
director, has tendered his resignation as of February 27, feeling he has no future with the
Count~ since this position has never been graded into the County's Pay/Classification Plan.
Mr. Fisher said he ~has discussed this matter with some of the Board members and it is the
general feeling that the. new county executive may want to make some changes in that field
and they. prefer to wait before making a decision. Mr. Henley asked if the secretary in this
office could not handle the taking of applications. Dr. Iachetta said in discussions with
Mr. Agnor, he got the impression that Mr. Agnor has some thoughts about this position that
are different from what has been suggested. Mr. Dorrier said he has questions about the
position of "personnel analyst" and until these questions are resolved he is not ready to
vote on the question. (No action was taken.)
Agenda Item No. 27. Resolution: Sale of Well Lots. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta
seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the following resolution (noted as received by the Board
on February 19, 1976, and signed by Dr. Iachetta):
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is the owner of several well
lots formerly used for the production of water to the citizens of
Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, these lots are described on the Albemarle County Tax Map
as follows: Section 60C-D, Parcel lA; Section 60C-F, Parcel 16A;
Section 60C-F, Parcel 14A; Section 60C-F, Parcel 15A; Section 60C-F,
Parcel 16B, (Colthurst Farm); Section 59A-C, Parcel 2lA; Section 59A-C,
Parcel 18B, (Flordon); Section 59C2-1, Parcel 52A; Section 59C2-1, Parcel
18A; Section 59C2-1, Parcel 33A; Section 59C2-2, Parcel 24A, (West Leigh);
Section 61M-l, Parcel 16; Section 61M-.6, Parcel 2; Section 61M-4,
Parcel 11, (Berkeley); Section 45C-C, Parcel 71; Section 45C-E, Parcel
38A1, (Woodbrook); Section 46A-E, Parcel 37, (Westmoreland); Section
61-Z-3, Parcel 3, (near Branchlands); and
WHEREAS, these well lot parcels are not now used for public purposes
and there is no probability that they ever will be, and that the public
interest and necessity may best be served by the conveyance thereof; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Service Authority desires that right-
of-ways be granted to it on those well lots described on the Albemarle
County Tax Map as Section 59A-C, Parcel 18B; Section 45C-E, Parcel 38A1;
and Section 61-Z-3, Parcel 3, which right-of-ways for utility purposes
should be twenty (20) feet wide and granted to the Albemarle County
Service Authority prior to the sale of the lot; and
WHEREAS, these well lots have been appraised, as set forth in a
memorandum from William S. Bradshaw, Supervisor of Assessments, to
J. Harvey Bailey, Acting County Executive, dated January 21, 1976, a
copy of which is attached to this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires that these well lots be sold as follows:
those lots which are non-conforming lots as defined by the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance shall be put out for pri~ate bids by adjacent
property owners. A condition of the sale of any non-conforming well lot
shall be that the purchaser of the lot shall not use the tract of land
as a building lot, unless the tract of land is joined with such other
land that it is no longer a non-conforming 10t as defined by the then
current Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Those well lots which are
full size lots and which conform to the present Albemarle County Zoning
February's. 19, 1976
863
Ordinance shall be offered for sale in a newspaper of general circulation
in the County and through other methods of advertising by solicitation
of bids from the general public. Those well lots described on the
Albemarle County Tax Map as Section 59A-C, Parcel 18B; Section 45C-E,
Parcel 38A1; and Section 61-Z-3, Parcel 3, shall be sold subject to a
twenty (20) foot utility right-of-way granted to the Albemarle County
Service Authority. Albemarle County shall reserve the right to reject
any and all bids. Finally, the sale of any well lot is subject to the
approval of the conveyance by the Judge of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County that the sale of certain well lots ow~ned by Albemarle
County is hereby approved as follows:
1. Those lots described on the Albemarle County Tax Map as
Section 61M-l, Parcel 16; Section 61M-6, Parcel 2; Section 61M-4,
Parcel 11; Section 45C-C, Parcel 71; Section 45C-E, Parcel 38A1;
Section 46A-E, Parcel 37; and Section 61-Z-3, Parcel 3, shall be
offered for sale to the general public to the highest bidder through the
solicitation of bids in a newspaper of general circulation in the
County and through other appropriate methods of advertising. The County
reserves the right to reject any and all bids. In addition, sale of
lots described on the Albemarle County Tax Map as Section 45C-E,
Parcel 38A1 and Section 61-Z-3, Parcel 3 shall be offered for sale
subject to a twenty (20) foot utility right-of-way and easement to
be granted to the Albemarle County Service Authority. The sale of
said well lots shall be conditioned on the authorization of the
conveyance by the Judge of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia.
2. Those well lots described on the Albemarle County Tax Map
as Section 60C-D, Parcel lA; Section 60C-F, Parcel 16A; Section 60C-F,
Parcel 14A; Section 60C-F, Parcel 15A; Section 60C-F, Parcel 16B;
Section 59A-C, Parcel 2lA; Section 59A-C, Parcel 18B; Section 59C2-1,
Parcel 52A; Section 59C2-1, Parcel 18A; Section 59C2-1, Parcel 33A; and
Section 59C-2, Parcel 24A shall be offered for sale to the adjoining
property owners of said well lots through the solicitation of private
bids from said adjacent property owners. The high bidder of each of
these well lots shall covenant in the deed of conveyance that he shall
not use said well lot as a building lot, unless said tract of land is
joined with other land such that it is no longer a non-conforming lot
as defined by the then current Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. That
well lot designated on the Albemarle County Tax Map as Section 59A-C,
Parcel 18B, shall be offered for sale subject to a twenty (20) foot
utility right-of-way and easement to be granted to the Albemarle County
Service Authority. Albemarle County reserves the right to reject any
and all bids. The sale of any well lot shall be conditioned on the
authorization of the conveyance by the Judge of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 28. Adoption of Board's Rules of Procedure. Motion was offered by Dr
Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David to adopt as the .Board's Rules of Procedure the following:
~RULE~OF~!PROCEDURE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
A. Officers
Chairman. The Board shall, at its first meeting after e~ection,
~e'of its number as Chairman, who, if present, shall
preside at such meeting and at all other meetings during the term
for which so elected. (Virginia Code ~ection 15.1-528)
Vi~c'e-Chairman. The Board shall, at its first meeting after
election, also elect one of its number as Vice-Chairman, who
shall preside at meetings in the absence of the Chairman and
shall discharge any other duties of the Chairman during his
absence or disability. (Virginia Code Section 15.1-528)
cTerm~f Office. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be elected
for one-year terms; but either or both may be re-elected for one
or more additional terms·
B. Clerk and Deputy Clerks
The Board shall, at its first meeting after election, designate
a Clerk and one or more Deputy Clerks, who shall serve at the
pleasure of the Board and whose duties shall be 'those set forth
by Virginia Code Sections 15.1-531 and 15.1-532 and resolution
of the Board as adopted from time to time.
C. Meetings
Annual Meeting. The first meeting held after the newly elected
members of the Board shall have qualified, and the first meeting
064
February 19, 1976
De
held in the corresponding month of each succeeding year shall be
'knOwn as the annual meeting. At such annual meeting, the Board
shall establish the days, times, and places for regular meetings
of the Board for the ensuing twelve months. (Virginia Code
Section 15.1-536)
e
Regul'ar' Meetings. Except as otherwise provided by law, the Board
shall meet in regular session not less often than once each month
upon such day or days as has been established. Provided, however,
that the Board may subsequently establish different-days, times,
or places for such regular meetings by passing a resolution to
that effect in accord with Virginia Code Section 15.1-536. Pro-
vid~ed, also, that when the day established as a regular meeting
day falls on a legal holiday, the meeting shall be held on the
next following regular business day, without action of any kind
by the Board. (Virginia Code Section 15.1-536)
Special Meetings. A special meeting of the Board shall be held
when requested by two or more members thereof, such request to
be made in writing, addressed to the Clerk of the Board, specifying
the time and place of the meeting and the matters to be considered
thereat. Upon receipt of such request, the Clerk shall transmit
this information in writing to each member of the Board and to
the County Attorney, by registered mail, not less than five days
before the day of such meeting. Provided, that in lieu of regis-
tered mail, such notice may be served by the Sheriff of the County.
Provided, further, that no matter not specified in the notice
shall be considered at such meeting unless all members of the
Board are present. (Virginia Code Section 15.1-538; Virginia
Code Section 15.1-9.1:1)
The Clerk shall also notify the general news media of the time
and Place of such meeting and the matters to be considered.
Order of Business
The Agenda shall be established by the Clerk of the Board in
consultation with the Chairman.
Quorum
A majority of the members of the Board present at the time and
place established for any regular or special meeting shall con?
stitute a quorum for the purpose of adjourning such meeting from
day to day or from time to time, but not beyOnd the time fixed
for the next regular meeting. (Virginia Code Section 15.1-536)
Voting
Ail questions submitted to the Board for decision shall be pre-
sented by appropriate motion of a member, seconded by another
member, and determined by a voice vote of a majority of the
members present and voting; except that in the case of any matters
involving the appropriation of any sum exceeding $500.00 a majority
of the total membership shall be required. The Clerk shall record
the name of each member voting and how he voted. Whenever any
member wishes to abstain from voting on any question, he shall so
state and his abstention shall be announced by the Chairman and
recorded by the Clerk.
Since the Board has elected not to provide for the appointment
of a tie-breaker, any tie vote shall defeat the motion, resolution,
or question voted upon. (Virginia Code Section 15.1-540)
e
Matters requiring public hearings shall not be subject to vote by
the Board before such public hearing has been held; provided that
nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the deferral or con-
tinuance of consideration of any matter prior to the holding of
such public hearing.
Amendments to a motiOn, unless accepted by the member making the
original motion and the member seconding the same, shall be subject
to vote by the Board before any action is ~aken on the original
motion.
Discussion of any motion may be terminated by any member's moving
the previous question, whereupon the Chair shall call for a vote
on the motion and, if carried by a majority of those voting, shall
then call for a vote on the original motion under consideration.
A motion of the previous question shall not be subject to debate
and shall take precedence over any other matter.
After a vote has been taken on a matter before the Board, any
member may move for its reconsideration, provided such motion is
made at the same meeting or an adjournment thereof at which the
matter was originally acted upon. The effect of the motion to
reconsider, if adopted, shall be to place the original question
in the exact position it occupied before it was voted upon.
?
February 19, 1976
0'6 5
Any vote previously taken by the Board, with the exception of
zoning matters (which shall be subject to reconsideration Only
as above stated) and ordinances, may be rescinded by a majority
of the total membership of the Board.
G. Am~endment 't'o'~a'nd'Su'spension of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be amended by majority vote of the Board
at the next regular meeting following a regular meeting at which the
motion to amend is made. By majority vote of those Board members
present and voting, these rules may be suspended on any matter before
it.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 29. Set hearing date on an ordinance to adopt the Code of Albemarle
County of 1975. Mr. St. John said the County Code has been recodified by The Michie
An ordinance for adoption of the new Code must be introduced at least 60 days before
adoption. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to accept the Code of Laws of Albemarle
County, Michie Company, 1975, for adoption. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iahcetta and Roudabush.
None.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to advertise the adoption of this code for a
public hearing on April 21, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse; the
business and professional license tax code contained therein to be advertised in full, onc~
a week for four weeks. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the vote
follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 30. Other matters not on the agenda.
Dr. Iachetta said he had received inquires from parents of children at the Hollymead
School who are trying to convert the ballfield for Little League use asking if the County
can give any assistance with grading. He told them he did not know where such funds would
come from. Mr. Henley said the property belongs to the School Board and they should make
their inquiries to the School administration,
Mr. Fisher said when Mr. Bailey was appointed as County Executive on an interim
basis, no consideration was given to compensation for the additional duties required of hi~
in filling this position. He then recommended that the Board make a temporary salary
increase for the months of February and March at the rate of $29,000 per year, in partial
consideration for the time and effort required above and beyond Mr. Bailey's normal duties
Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by MrS. David, and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Bailey said when he was first appointed, he had been questioned about salary. He
explained that he had never asked for an increase from the Board and they had always treat~
him fairly, in fact had usually given him more than he would have asked for. Mr. Bailey
said, of course, the Board may have put his faith to a test this time.
Mr. Fisher said the record should show that by the time the new county executive
assumes this job, Mr. Bailey will have held this position for some six and one-half months
and has done an outstanding job.
Mr. Fisher said when the Board voted to appoint Guy B. Agnor, Jr. as County Executive
they had neglected to set his salary. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded b
Mr. Dorrier, to set Mr. Agnor's salary at an annual rate of $29,000 per year beginning on
April 1, 1976. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher reminded the Board that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority will have a
meeting on February 23 at 2:00 P.M. in City Hall to present their engineering design for t
Crozet interceptor line.
At 5:45 P.M., motion was offered by D.r. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, to adjourn
this meeting until February 24, 1976, at 2:30 P.M. in the Board Room. The motion carried
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.