Loading...
1976-07-14~July 14, 1976 303 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 14, 1976, at 9:00 A.M., in the 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 W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and George R. St. John, County Attorney. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:03 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, introduced to the Board Mr. J. Benjamin Dick,. the new Zoning Administrator. In line with an appeal to the Appeals Board of the state Compensation Board, Dr. Iachetta said members of the staff and himself appeared before that Board yesterday and were successful in obtaining additional revenue and personnel as requested. Mr. Fisher read into the record a letter from Mrs. George Coles expressing the familYs., appreciation for the resolution sent to them on the death of Judge Coles. "July 3, 1976 County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia Gentlemen: My children and I wish to express our sincere appreciation for the resolution recently sent to me concerning my husband. His loss is a very great one to all of us. Sincerely, (Signed) Jane Coles" Mr. Fisher ~tso read a letter from Representative J. Kenneth Robinson concerning new legislation which continues revenue sharing through September 19~Oi~A~tetter from the Columbia Gas of Virginia, Incorporated concerning filing of an application for changes in rates, rules, and regulations applicable to gas service was also read. Agenda Item No. 2. Highway Matters. Mr. Charles Perry, Assistant Highway Engineer, i~troduced to the Board Mr. Dan Roosevelt, the new Resident Highway Engineer. Mr. Perry also announced to the Board that he is being transferred effective August 1. Mr. Roosevelt then distributed the secondary road budget for the fiscal year which began on July 1. Mr. Perry suggested that discussion of the budget;be held at the Board's meeting on August 11. Mr. Roudabush said the Airport Acres homeowners have collected $14,000.00 for and upgrading their road. He advised them to wait hoping something better can be~_;~dne. Mr. Agnor then noted two requests received from Mr. Jim Hills for Dr. Charles W. Hurt, to accept roads into the Secondary System of Highways. 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, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following roads in Ivy Farm Subdivision: Beginning at station 0+16.73 on Ivy Farm Drive, a point common to the centerline intersection of Ivy Farm Drive and State Route 658, as shown on the plan and profile of Ivy Farm Road, revised~dated March 4, 1975, as prepared by B. Aubrey Huffman and Associates; thence with Ivy Farm Drive in a southeasterly direction 5,067.01 feet to station 50+~0.28, the end of Ivy Farm Drive in Phase I of Ivy Farm Subdivision. Beginning at station 0+00 on Fox Run Lane, a point common to the centerline intersection of Fox Run Lane and Ivy Farm Drive station 14+28.21, as shown on the plan~a~pr0~ile'.~f Fox Run Lane, revised~dated Amg~t~_t2,1_!9~5,~.as prepared by B. Aubrey Huffman and Associates; thence in a southwesterly direction 1,123.32.feet to station 11+23.32, the end of Fox Run Lane in Phase I of Ivy Farm Subdivision. Jul BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highway~ and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed~a 50 foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easements along these requested additions as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 587, pages 491 to 493A. Motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following roads in Westfield Subdivision: Beginning at centerline station 9+33.5 on Greenbrier Drive, the end of state maintenance, as shown on the plan and profile of Greenbrier Drive revised dated October 8, 1965, and December 8, 1972, as prepared by B. Aubrey Huffman; thence in a northwesterly direction 1,250.13 feet to station 21+83.63, the end of Greenbrier Drive and the centerline intersection of Greenbrier Drive and Whitewood Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easements along these requested additions as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book ~14, page 4OQ. Motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Mr. Agnor presented to the Board a bill received from the Department of Highways for preliminary engineering work on Route 637, south to the Ivy Landfill. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $9,598.33 be appropriated from Revenue Sharing Funds and coded to 47-19.1 for preliminary engineering work on Route 637, the Ivy Landfill road. Motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.~ None. Mr. Fisher noted Mr. Gentry Ray, property owner on Route 637 was present. He has discussed the alignment of Route 637 with Mr. Ray. Mr. Eay~s.~id the current plans are better than the previous but not completely satisfactory. Based upon Mr. Ray's statement, Mr. Roudabush offered motion to approve the alignment for Route 637 from Interstate 64 south to the Ivy Landfill and requested concurrence by the City of Charlottesville and that the plans be given to the Highway Department in order for'them to develop engineering drawings and advertise same for ~id. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Agnor said the Highway Department has requested that proposed improvements to Georgetown Road ~ither be proceeded with or dropped from thee project list. Dr. Iachetta said the Word's are not willing to give the necessary right of way. Mr. Perry asked if the improvement would justify acquiring the right of way through condemnation. Mr. Fisher said since this would come from secondary road funds it would set a precedent for the future. ~he Board felt the problem was sufficient to require this action. Mr. Fisher said traffic has increased since opening of the ramp on the by-pass. Mrs. David said the residents have expressed the need for some effective traffic control device at the intersection of Georgetown and Hydraulic Road. Mr. Perry said three studies have been done on this intersection and none have justified a light. None will be installed Until a study justifies such. Mr. Roudabush suggested a flashing school light. Mr. Perry said he would check into it and noted the completion of the project on Hydraulic Road will help immensely, The road will be tied into a "T" intersection and there will be sufficient site distance for traffic coming onto Hydraulic Road. Dr. Iachetta asked about reducing the speed limit. Mr. Perry said this would have to be reviewed. Mr. Roosevelt did not feel reducing the speed limit would help. Mr. Fisher asked the Board's feelings on 305 July 14, 1976 on Georgetown Road. Dr. Iachetta said Mrs. Word informed him/their willingness to participat i~ n~got~ating the right of way if the whole.road is upgraded' at one time. Mr. Roudabush the~ offered motimn to request the Highway Department not to use secondary road funds to acquire this one section of right of way. Mrs. David seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher was uncomfortable with the motion because funds are available to improve the curve. Mrs. Mary Lou Matthews felt the Situation at Georgetown and Hydraulic is hazardous~and needs to be corrected. Mr. Roudabush asked if the money alloca~ted for the curve on Georgetown can be used at the intersection. Mr. Perry said approval would have to be obtained from the District Engineer. Mo~ion then carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to request the Highway Department to request a reallocation of federal safety funds for a study and for improvements at the intersection of Georgetown and Hydraulic Roads to accomplish the same safety features scheduled for Georgetown Road near the Word's property with the inclusion of a study of the speed limit at this location. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Roudabush requested the Planning Department to investigate the availability of land on the corner of Georgetown Road at Westgate Apartments for possible dedication for this change. Mr. Agnor said a citizen had complained about the centerline on Georgetown Road having no break in it to indicate a left turn onto Old Forge Road. Also, at the intersection of Barracks Road and Georgetown Road, looking eastward, visibility is obstructed by a bank. Mr. Fisher asked if any further action was needed on Route 684, Mint Springs Road, since the Board took action on July 7 to not have a public hearing on this road project. Mr. Perry said there are still differences with property owners about the right of way. If the differences cannot be resolved, then a public hearing will have to be held. Dr. Iachetta asked the status of Four Seasons roads. Mr. Perry said the revised plans have not been received. Mr. Craig has his land surveyor making the revisions. Dr. Iachetta said the homeowners of Jefferson Village have complained again about the drainage problem on the curve on Route 649 at Maple Grove Church. Mr. Perry said the Highway Department plans to pursue the problem. Dr. Iachetta then asked about the striping of Route 649. Mr. Perry said the traffic and safety department is aware of the problem. Dr. Iachetta asked if right of way for Route 643 has been discussed with Mr. Wells. Mr. Perry said he could never get in touch with him. Dr. Iachetta then asked about Bennington Road, which is not built as platted. The Highway Department wants new drainage easements recorded and the turnaround resurveyed. Who will pay for the survey? Mrs~iMary Lou Matthews was present and did not feel the homeowners should pay for the survey because the road~is used by the public. Mr. Roudabush said Mr. Ashley Williams of the Engineering Department has indicated t~at his department can do the work if there are no objections from the Board. Mr. Roudabush said this problem is different than those usually encountered and he would not object. Mr. Agnor felt the deve built the road~ but not according to the plans. Therefore, the property owners are responsib] He was concerned about the survey being done by the engineering department. Mr. Roudabush said the problem developed when the County did not have a planning staff to work on plats. Dr. Iachetta said in addition to the nonexistence of a planning staff, there also was no engineering department available. He said the government would just be correcting a problem of the past. At this time, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to authorize the County's engineering staff to make a survey of the turnaround on Bennington Road in order to resolve this matter. Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher questioned the speed limit coming through the construction area on the 250 bypass. Mr. Perry said the traffic control department has been requested to review the situation. An unidentified homeowner in Four Seasons was present. He felt the prob!em~ith the roads in Four Seasons is a result of faulty planning and he asked that the Board look for procedures to guarantee that a developer completes the job as planned.. Agenda Item No. 3. Appeal: Coggins Motor Company Site Plan. Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, said the appeal resulted from a condition set down by the Planning Commission of requiring a deceleration lane no~th of the entrance and a third lane, of full width, only in front of the auto sales lot, a distance of ap~ 200 feet. Messrs. James Murray, Jr. and Joseph Richmond, Sr., were present representing Mr. Coggins. Mr. Murray said a used car sales lot exists on the site and a trailer sales operation. Very little change will be made in these existing uses. The trailer sales operation will be scaled down in size to accommodate the sale of cars, thus, there will be no expansion of the site, no change in ownership and virtually no change in the use of the 306 July 14, 1976 enough to justify the expense; estimated by the County Engineer at $15,000.00. Mr. Coggins has requested the Planning Commission to approve this Use and restrict the use to him with a condition that if the property is ever sold or transferred, it will be subject to further approvals by the governing body. Mr. Murray said he cannot find any language in the Zoning Ordinance which requires either the construction of a third lane, a deceleration lane, or approval by the Highway Department for this type of site plan. He also cited the Virginia Supreme Court case of the Board of Supervisors of James City County vs. Rowe which he felt was particularly important to this discussion. The James City County supervisor were requiring private property owners, when they came fo~ site plan approvals-along an arterial highway such as this, to construct a fifth lane, a deceleration service road which would be in the front of the properties. This lane was to partially handle traffic created by the existence of a business on the site and to serve general public traffic to other properties unrelated to the property which was required to make the improvement. In considering the facts, exactly like this situation, the Supreme Court ruled that the Supervisors could not require such. The police power of the Board is not that broad. By requiring such, private owners a~e being required to take money out of their pocket to spend for the public benefit and~a~g of property without compensation. Mr. Roudabush asked if the applicant intends to close the entrance currently being used. Mr. Richmond said the Planning Commission required that that entrance be closed. Mr. Roudabush asked if the applicant has agreed to construct the deceleration lane north of the proposed entrance. Mr. Richmond said yes, but requiring a third lane is the question. Mr. Fisher asked the reason for requiring a third lane in front of the property. Mr. Perry said the Highway ~epartm~nt and the Planning Staff realize 29 North is growing commercially. The department feels that in orde~ to handle the increased traffic and provide a safe ingress and egress from a commercial development, the third lane should be required. Initially, the Department was requiring a deceleration lane, but as traffic and commer~&al development increased on 29 it was felt that an acceleration lane is as important as a deceleration lane. The Department recommends this concept because the other alternative is to require a service road which requires additional right of way and is more expensive. This way no additional right of way is required. Mr. Fisher aked if the Highway Department recommends that all developments along 29 have a third lane. M~. Perry said they recommend this third lane all the way to Airport Road on 29. Mr. Dorrier asked why 575 feet was originally requested for the third lane and then amended to 200 feet. Mr. Perry s~id when a~site plan is received it shows the total piece of property. This site plan was received showing only the piece to be developed. The normal requirement is from property line to property line but the applicant is only proposing to develop the portion of the land which the site plan refers to. Thus, the recommendationS-- was amended to cover the portion the site plan covers. Mr. Fisher asked if compliance with the recommendation of the Department of Highways is beyond the powers of the Board. Mr. St. John said Section 17-5-20 of the Zoning Ordinance implies that the B~ard has the power to incorporate into site plan approval the recommendatio~ of the Highway Department.' The recommendations of the Highway Department are one of the most important factors to consider in site plan approval. He asked Mr. Perry if the recommendations of the Highway Department are based on the traffic going in and out of this site. Mr. Perry said it will be to the advantage of the general public but the initial benefit is for the property owner of this development. Mr. St. John said the question is if traffic to and from this site necessitates the requirement of these lanes and Mr. P~rry has said it does. Therefore, the rule in the Supreme Court decision is not ~pplicable because it says a developer cannot be required to dedicate and construct an extra lane or lanes if the need is not generated by the development but to provide a throughway or more traffic lanes. The whole purpose of the case between the James City County supervisors and Rowe was to provide a wider highway with more lanes for traffic going~to and from Williamsburg and Busch Gardens. Mr. Fisher understood it to be for the service~of the commercial developments along the highwaY and this is different since it is not to be a third lane for general through transportation. Mr. Perry said that is correct. The lane~being required 8~Mr. Coggins is to provide his customers with safe egress and ingress. Mr. St. John did not feel the Board's decision should be based on the fact that Mr. Coggins intends to have a small volume business. Site plan approval generally runs with the land. If Mr. Coggins, at some time in the future, wanted to sell the property to a larger business, they could attack such a condition and be successful. Mr. Henley asked about this being required piecemeal and how such a requirement ~ffects existing developments. Mr~Perry~said as~deVe~apment occurs this will establish a third lane. Existing developments may attempt to tie in the gaps if this is imposed on all new developments. Mr. Fisher said the Board must decide if it is going to substitute its judgment on traffic patterns for that of the Department of Highways. The other question is whether the Board is going to review site plans individually or take action to establish a third lane along 29 North all the way to Airport Road. Dr. Iachetta said the present policy on 29 North is disasterous from the point of view of safety. The issue before the Board is to consider a long-term plan for this traffic corridor, but he did not feel a third lane will solve the problems of multiple openings. Mr. Murray asked if the Highway Department had a written regulation requiring a third lane on 29 North. Mr. Perry ~aid no. Mr. Murray asked how many feet are required for the acceleration of automobiles leaving a site. Mr. Perry said the true acceleration lane is geared to the minimum stop and sight distance which is about 500 feet. Mr. Murray asked if the Department had any information as to what extent traffic would increase by the establishment of the used car sales. Mr. Perry did not have any information. Mr. Fisher felt any recommendation would be a general policy for guiding development of the entire area at the time of site plan approval. Mr. Murray asked if a third lane concept is established if action will be taken to tie together gaps where development now exists. Mr. Perry said in most places there is sufficient right-of-way along 29 to allow for a third !~ne. Mr. Murray asked who would have to pay for this right of way. Mr. Perry July 14, 1976 307 said the Dep~rtment would have to if the land is not required in the site plan stage. Mr. Murray asked if additional site plan approval would have to be obtained if there is a major increase in a use. Mr. St. John said an increase in the amount of cars on the property would not require any additional site plan approval. He did not feel a limit can be placed on the number of cars kept on the property. Mr. Murray said Section 17-5-20 of the Zoning Ordinance applies to existing regulations of the Department of Highways and therefore he did not feel ~his section could apply here. This is not a regulation of the Department of Highways. Secondly, the Supreme Court case stated that when a third lane access road is not substantially generated by the proposed development, it is beyond the police power of the Board to require an owner of the property to develop such. He felt there was no evidence in this case to show that this change in use will substantially generate an increase in traffic. Mr. Jim Hill said Route 29 is a federally funded road. Land cannot be condemned or taken without Just compensation or due process of the law. Mr. Murray said the Supreme Court case specifically ruled that requiring a man to spend money is the same as taking property. Mr. St. John said that is if you require him to spend money for a lane the need which is not generated by his own development. Mr. Fisher said if this third lane is built, essentially all of the traffic using it for acceleration will be using it from this used car lot and the mobile home sales to the north. He did not feel any other traffic will be using it for acceleration purposes. Mr. Perry said if that property develops, it will be utilized in the future. Mr. Murray said the third lane would run into the parking lot on the adjoining property. Mr. Perry said if a third lane is established, one would be expecting turning movement in that lane and would remain in the two lane throughway. Mr. Henley felt the third lane concept is a good idea but was uneasy about the ~ of putting it in. He said it should not be done piecemeal and the Highway Department should do it. Mr. Roudabush suggested a tapered acceleration lane being required which wou!d~not be creating a deceleration lane for someone in the future; thus, if an adjustment was ever made on the site plan to make it a full width third lane the person would have to come in for approval. He felt Mr. Coggins should not be allowed to do just anything he wants. Mr. Fisher felt serious consideration should be given to the question of the Board sub its judgment for that of the Highway Department on matters of traffic and transportation. Mr. Dorrier felt any business on 29 North would benefit from a better flow of traffic but felt a tapered lane would create an additional hazard. He did feel the third lane is a good concept. Mrs. David was in agreement with Mr. Henley in that this is not a satisfactory way to achieve something the Highway Department feels is needed. She did not feel this is a safety consideration and could create more hazards. She asked if the deceleration lane would have to be leveled in if the third lane was established. Mr. Perry said people will not use the third lane as a through lane. She felt doing this piecemeal is very hazardous. Dr. Iachetta said the whole corridor is dangerous and felt the problem was caused by multiple openings on an arterial highway. Route 29 North is becoming a city street. Mr. Fisher said the County arid Highway Department have been trying to cope with the present situation. Existing development has made it very difficult to manage Route .29 North from a safety or transportation point of view. Strong steps need to be taken to preserve this as a major arterial highway. What the Highway Department is proposing is something which may be done to improve the traffic pattern. There is no way to do this other than piecemeal. He felt the question is whether the Board wants to accept the recommendation of the Highway Department or substitute its own judgment. With no alternatiw to offer, he could not see the Board subs~i~g~h~'!r~~ht'. Mr. Henley asked if there is any possibility that .the Highway Department will put in the' third lane themselves. Mr. Perry said. this type of proJ'ec't 'has a low prior'it~. The problem would have to become a lot worse before the D~D~t~.a~i~ou'!d under'take 'it. .Mr. Dorrier offered motion to deny the appeal. Wi~,h no second, the motion died. Mr. Roudabush felt the Board was being asked to impose a policy of which they are not sure. For clarification, Mr. Murray said Mr. Coggins is asking to be relieved from Spending money for public improvements. At the same time, he is offering to install the deceleration lane or make it a personal condition. ~. Richmond said the other request is to waive all third lane requirements. Mr. Murray felt no precedent would be set if the Board waived the requirement on the basis that it is not changing the existing ownership or use and did not require a third lane. Mr. Henley asked who else has been required to install a third lane. Mr. Perry said Shopper's World, Albemarle Square, and an industrial park on 29. He noted that everything in the last year and a half has been approved with a third lane~~ Mr. Tucker said a third lane has been required on every development approved on 29 North since the Highway Department~made this recommendation. Mrs. David felt developments adding massive amounts ~of traffic ~2~gdshould be required to install a third lane, but this was a burdensome problem for an individual developer. She offered motion to defer action on this matter until August ll and ask the applicant, the Highway Department and the Planning Staff to come back with a compromise which would not get away from recognizing the desirability of a third lane, but will recognize differenc. between the individual developer~and large operations. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by:~hel]following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: Mr, Dorrier. July 14, 1976 Mr. Roosevelt said there seem to be some basic misunderstandings as to,whose authority the third lane concept is being put into effect and felt ~a meeting should be called to discus the entire concept. Mr. Fisher then appointed Dr. Iachetta, Mr. St. John and Mr. Tucker to meet with the Highway Department and discuss this question. ~ Agenda Item No. 5. Subdivision. Request to lift moratorium on a lot in S~ction 9, Woodbrook Mr. Kendrick Dure, was present, representing Charlottesville Savings and Loan Associatic owners of Lot 8, Block 0, Section 9 in Woodbrook, with a request to lift the moratorium on the issuance of certificates of occupancy. Mr. William H. Grimm, also representing Charlottesville Savings and Loan Association, said in June of 1974, construction funds were advanced to Mr. Cotten. Prior to the completi¢ of the house, Mr. Cotten took bankruptcy. On numerous occasions, Charlottesville Savings and Loan attempted to get Mr. Lindstrom, the trustee, to abandon the property to the lienholders on the basis that there was no equity in the property but were unsuccessful for nine months. For the purpose of foreclosure, Charlottesville Savings and Loan Associati¢ was required to pay all the expenses in connection with maintenance of the sewer line in that section. This amounted to approximately $2,500. No request was made of the other property owners in Section 9 to share the cost. After paying this, they proceeded with foreclosure, bidded in, sold the property, proceeded to expend additional funds to complete the constructi of the home. Now they are requesting release of this lot from the moratorium in order for occupancy permit to be obtained. Mr. Fisher asked the status of the roads in Section 9. Mr. Perry understood the County was trying to get both Sections 9 and 10 accepted at the same time because the trustee of Section 9 has no available funds for the performance bond. Thus, Sections 9 and 10 will be taken in at the same time and the County will act as surety for the Highway Department, since the County is holding a bond from the original developer. Mr. Roudabush said individual owners are now involved and asked if the bond on Section 9 can be used to put up the warranty bond got the Highway Department. Mr. St. John said Equitable is going to do that and recommended that the moratorium be lifted since the County has the money for the bond if Equitable does not post same. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to lift the moratorium on building permit and certificate of occupany permits on Lot 8, Block 0, Section 9 of Woodbrook. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. St. John presented to the Board a drafted agreement between the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States and the County of Albemarle concerning the completion of the roads in Section 10 of Woodbrook. He asked that the County Executive be given the authority to execute this agreement on behalf of the County and to exercise his discretion for inserting dates as to completion of the road. This agreement needs to be amended by adding a sentence that the completion of the roads will be to standards of the State Highway Department by a specific date. Mr. Roudabush suggested inserting in the agreement that any remaining funds from the bond money can be expended for the one year performance bond whenthe roads are completed. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion authorizing Mr. Agnor to enter into the agreement with Equitable and insert specific d~tes as to completion of the roads and request Equitable to agree to use of the bond money for the necessary one year performance road bond after the roads are taken into the system. Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda .Item No. 7. Appropriation: Mental Health. Mr. Agnor said the request is for $12,338.00 to assist with the purchase of a building for the Region X Community Mental Health and Retardation Services at 503 - 16th Street NW. This matter has been discussed several times recently. Mrs. David then offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $12,338.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from Revenue Sharing Funds and coded to ~7-19.3 for the purchase of a building for the Region X Community Mental Health and Retardation Services Board. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 8. Appropriation: Alcoholism Center. Mr. Agnor said this matter had been deferred in order for Mr. Peterson of the Mental Health Agency to offer comments, suggestions and/or recommendations on the establishment of a half-way house and its relation to the mental health program. No response has been received from Mr. Peterson. l, n July 14, 1976 309 Speaking on behalf of the center, was Mr. David Rothwell, President of the Area 10 Alcoholism Council. He said the request is for funding for an intermediate care facility sometimes referred to as a half-way house. Mr. Fisher asked the difference between the Chancellor Street center and the proposed half-way house. Mr. Rothwell said the Chancellor Street center is for the acute alcoholic and the half-way house is a place for the alcoholic to live ~nd merge himself back into society. The majority of the clients will be referred from the center on Chancellor Street and the courts in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Federal and state funds have been received totaling $35,000.00 to finish and refurnish the house. The house is completed but no funds are available for operation. Mr. Fisher noted that the requested funds are fore-operation of the c~nter from June through January only and he will be unwilling-to support any additional funding. Mr.LRothwell said they have positive funding through Title XX because any resident in the facility qualifies for welfare. They will pay 100% of the daily cost for the resident. Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to adopt the following resolution for a one time grant for the Alcoholism Center. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $10,564.38 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from Revenue Sharing Funds for the operation of a half-way house for the Area 10 Alcoholism Center for six months and coded to 47-18B.14. 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. 9. David Morris: Parks Committee By-laws. Mr. David Morris, Chairman of the Parks Committee, said the by-laws were drafted to formalize the procedures of the Committee and are being presented for the Board to review. No immediate action is needed. Mr. Fisher noted one change which was the incorporation of the term "Recreation" and felt recreation programs in the County need to be considered. He was opposed to Article 3, Section 2, Membership, which called for members to be appointed directly by a supervisor instead of the entire board. He felt terms of office should be at the pleasure of the board, not as indicated for a specific period of time. Article VI, Amendments also concerned him because he felt the amendments should be ratified by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Morris did not feel that was the intention of the Committee. Dr. Iachetta suggested the Committee study~the use of schools for recreational facilities. Mr. Morris said this has been investigated and the School Board has indicated facilities, under certain conditions~ are open for public use. Th~.~Committee feels there are resources available in the County for developing recreational facilities. Also, organizing volunteer groups could help. The Committee ~elt senior citizens and handicapped persons need to receive more service. Already included in the by-laws is a provision to invite a member of the School Board to the Parks Committee meetings when matters arise of mutual concern pertaining to using school facilities. Mr. Morris indicated the Committee is working with the City Parks Department. Mrs. David suggested including in the by-laws appointment of a liasion person to work with the Planning Commission. Mr. Morris noted the Committee is making an effort to establish guidelines for the Planning Commission to use for recreational facilities in new community developments. Mr. Fisher said he is concerned about providing access to rivers and waterways in the county. He also felt a limit should be established for attendance at County Parks. Mr. Morris said the Committee is studying this and after a certain number of persons are admitted, all others may be refused entrance. Agenda Item No. 10. Appropriation: Jefferson Area Board on Aging. Mr. Agnor said the request is for $1,258.00 for purchase of a camera to provide identification cards as part of a Senior Citizens Discount Program. Ms. Diane L. Ansley, Executive Director of the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, said speak out sessions were held and a merchant discount program was suggested. The camera needs to be movable instead of stationary so as to facilitate senior citizens with transportation problems. Volunteers will operate the camera and $2.00 will be charged for a card. This charge is to cover the film, mailing lists to citizens and displaying the program in merchant's windows. The price of the equipment is approximately $2,500.00. The city has appropriated their one-half the cost. Discounts will be 10% to 15%. Mr. Fisher felt the camera was too expensive and suggested investigating the cost of other cameras and reporting back at a later date. At 1:00 P.M., the Chairman requested that the Board adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters and litigation. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to this effect which was seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened at 2:23 P.M. Agenda Item No. lla. Appointment: Delinquent Tax Attorney. Mr. Fisher read the following letter into the record: "July 14, 1976 Mr. George Gi!mer ,310 July 14, 1976 Dear Mr. Gilmer: In accepting your resignation as the County's Attorney for collection of delinquent taxes, the Board of Supervisors wishes to express on behalf of all the people of Albemarle County, recognition and sincere appreciation for your work in behalf of the County. The accompanying resolution is an attempt to convey to you and to memorialize in the public record this deeply felt respect and appreciation. The Board of Supervisors is going to give full consideration to your recommendation with respect to a successor. Very truly yours, Lettie E. Neher, Clerk" Mr. Fisher then read the resolution and presented Mr. Gilmer-with a framed copy. (Copy set out in full in June 9, 1976, minutes.) Mr. Gilmer expressed his appreciation for the resolution and the letter. He noted that in all of his work he had received full cooperation from the Board and other departments in the County. He expressed his regret about having to give up the job. _ ......... Agenda Item No. 12. Appeal: Ivy Brook Subdivision Plat. Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, said the adjacent property owners who had filed the appeal and Mr. Ned J. Lemoine, the property owner, have reached a compromise. The Board can act if so desired on the plat. The staff recommends approval. Mr. Ned J. Lemoine said an agreement having been reached,- the parties involved have agreed to withdraw the appeal. The agreement is ~ to reduce the number of lots from five to four and with no further subdivision of any of the lots shown on the plat. Also', no residences shall be built on the south side of the branch as shown on the plat. The parties involved, and himself, have agreed to a new plat dated July 12, 1976, and will cease any further opposition to subdivision of this property and sale of the four lots. Mr. Fisher asked for concurrence from the adjacent property owners. The property owners Mr. J. L. Meem, Mr. Ramsey Martin, Mrs. R. Brent Harrison, and Mr. Herbert G. Tull, III, gave their approval. Mr. Fisher asked if it was appropriate for the Board to approve the subdivision. Mr. Tucker noted this was a less intensive use of the land than originally approve~ by the Planning Commission. Mr. St. John felt action would be appropriate on this matter. The plat should be approved and identifed for the record and the other copy identified officially for the Planning Conmlission. Also, that all other conditions still exist. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion that the Board having heard this appeal and the compromise arrived at by the parties involved, the Board consents to replatting as shown on plat showing lots one through four. Also, having heard the staff report that this meets all their criteria, the Board approves the revision of the number of lots from five to four, as shown on plat by William Morris Foster, dated April 12, 1976, and revised July 12, 1976. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None.. Agenda Item No. 13. Appropriation: CHIP Program. Mr. Fisher said this request was presented as a budget item. At that time, it was suggested this request in the amount of $50,000.00 for improving housing should be taken from Revenue Sharing funds. The program had been renamed the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP). Mr. Agnor said two priorities of the County's Housing Committee were a rehabilitation program and hiring a housing'coordinator. The Albemarle Housing Improvement Program Wil~.~he a Subsidiarylof~the Oha~lottesville Housing~Improvement Program and plans to operate a housin rehabilitation program in the County. The $50,000 requested will be used in the following ways: $15,000 will go directly to the most needy county families to assist in the purchase of materials; $10,000 will be used for revolving construction financing; $1,000 will be used to secure land options on behalf of low-income families participating in the self- help new housing program; and the remaining $24,000 will be used to fund in part the operation of the volunteer-based Albemarle Housing Improvement Program. A housing coordinato will administer the maximum grants of $1,000 per family. This program will be operated OnLy in the County. Tools, equipment, and vehicles are to be used from the Charlottesville p~oEram, Mr. Thomas Hill, county representative for AHIP, will have his own crew doing the work. Mr. Hill, was present and noted a separate account will be kept on the program. said progress reports will be presented quarterly. He Dr. Iachetta offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $50,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from Revenue Sharing Funds for the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program and coded to 47-18B.12. Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: ~uly 14, 1976 Agenda Item No. 14. Special Appropriation: Shop & Office Building, Sanitary Landfill #1. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, presented to the Board three bids which had been received for the building. They were Double C Corporation, $49,679.00; Rittenhouse Brothers, Inc, $51,280.00; and Richard J. Funk, $58,241.00. He said the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act must be included in the contract since Federal Funds will be used. Due to this, an amendment was made to the proposal which added another $1,000.00 making the total $50,679.00. He suggested that 5% for contingencies be added to the contractor's bid price for a total of $52,200.00. The County's share is one-half or $26,100.00. Mr. Agnor Said 'this?was-~fir~I2considered~by~separating the maintenance building from the office building; thus, building two different types of buildings, but estimates showed a lack of savings. So, the original concept, of having an equipment/maintenance area and an office area with the scales in the same building was kept. There will be a central mechanical system to meet the heating, plumbing, and electrical needs. In comparing a pre-fabricated metal building to a block building, it was discovered that a block building could be built as economically as a metal building. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $26,100.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from Revenue Sharing Funds to be used for the construction of a shop and office building at Sanitary Landfill #1 and coded to 47-19.2. Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS :. None. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to accept the low bid of $50,679.00 from Double C Corporation and authorize the County Executive to execute the contract on behalf of the County. Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 15. from June 9, 1976.) Discussion: Central Well Permits (Board's Policy). (Deferred Mr. Agnor said Mr. Walter Cushman was unable to attend the meeting today and had informed him he would like to have the opportunity to discuss this if Mr. Bailey's recommendat are not approved. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to defer this matter until August 11 and inform Mr. Cushman of same. Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 25. T. J. Soil and Water Conservation District: Request to cancel applications for assistance on certain watershed projects. (Discussed out Omf order.) 'Mr. Fisher noted the Board had received a letter dated July 6, 1976, from Mr. D. N. Grimwood, State Conservationist, requesting that applications for Public Law 566 Planning Assistance be withdrawn on the following watersheds: Ivy Creek, Priddy Creek, Buck Island Creek and Stockton Creek. Mr. Fisher suggested this be deferred to a later date due to lack of sufficient information on the matter. As requested, Mr. Henley offered motion to defer this to August 11 and invite appropriate members from the Soil and Water Conservation District to explain the matter in more detail. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 4. Other matters, not on the agenda, from the public. There was no one from the public for any discussion on this item. Agenda Item No. 16. Dr. W. F. Tompkins - Albemarle Nursing Home. Dr. W. F. Tompkins, member of the Board of Directors for the Albemarle Nursing Home, was present and said an endorsement is needed by the County to build a needed community nursing home. The endorsement is necessary because approval by the State Health Department requires such. He:~hen presented a brief history of the proposal. The County Medical Society discussed last year the need for a community nursing home. A committee was appointed to research the problems and the feasibility of a community nursing home. The committee was comprised of a hospital administrator, a member of the staff of ~he Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, doctors, nurses and social workers. A study was conducted at th University Hospital where discharge planning was being performed. This involved cases when local patients could not go home after being discharged. It takes the University Hospital five days to find a place for them. This study documented the fact that hospitals are overcrowded and are unable to place elderly patients in nursing homes. There are only two accredited nursing homes serving Albemarle County, four other counties and the City. July 14, 1976 These are the Cedars and the Towers which are only ones which qualify for ~edicaid money for indigent patients. Two-thirds of their patients are from outside of ~the five counties and the City. A non-profit home was recommended for several reasons. Government regulation~ are so strict that there is not much profit in a nursing home operation. The other reason is getting more volunteers and church organizations into this type of facility. It is felt a community nursing home would have closer liasion with the hospitals. The nursing home is planned for 120 beds and a small day care center of thirty to sixty beds. The day care center would support elderly patients who could not care for themselves during the day but had families who could care for them at night. This way financial burdens could be eased. The Medical Society endorsed the proposal and contributed a thousand dollars to start a non-profit corporation. An option was taken for a facility several blocks from the Martha Jefferson Hospital. There have been many ways investigated for funding but no State or Federal money is available for this type of project. In consultations with three local banki firms, it was found that they will not consider financing more than 80% of the cost. The cost would be 3.9 million dollars for the nursing home facility, the day care center, cost of land, building and start up costs for three months. If this amount can be obtained, cash flow figures show the facility will carry itself if it can be paid off in thirty years. Twenty percent is needed from some source before the banks will make a loan. Mr. Fisher said he is aware of the need for a nursing care facility, but could not assure Dr. Tompkins of any funding from the County. Dr. Tompkins emphasized that this would be a loan; not a gift. The project needs local support. Dr. Iachetta suggested funding might be obtained through the Industrial Bonding Authority if the project is moved into the county. Dr. Tompkins felt a day care center is needed in a central location where.the services of ~octors and nurses are available. (Discussion ended at this point with no ac~mon oemng Taken. Agenda Item No. 27. Claim A~nst the Dog Tax Fund. (Discussed out of order.) A claim was presented from Mr. August Schwarzenboeck for one Holstein Heifer killed. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to approve this claim in the amount of $75.00. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Dorrier (left at 3:35 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 17. Discussion: Roll-back procedures on land use assessment. Mr. Fisher noted this discussion was the result of complaints being received in reference to procedures used for assessment of property under the land use.law. Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, Mr. William Bradshaw, Supervisor of Assessments and Mr. Melvin Breeden of the Finance Office were present to explain the procedures. Mr-. Bradshaw said there h~ve been problems administering the land use tax assessment because applicants do not reapply after making a change in acreage or a change in use from the original application. Code of Virginia requires that an applicant reapply after any change. Several taxpayers were disqualified from the program due to failure to reapply after selling land or building a house. Those who were disqualified claim they did not know they had to reapply~although th rules and regulations governing land use assessment are printed on the back of the applicatio~ form. When the tax bills for~!~5~w~re~ma~ed, another notice was mailed to all persons ~ qualified for the land use assessment. Mr. Bradshaw said because several people were disGualified from the land use assessment program, new procedures for administration will be instituted. Each applicant who has sold land or made a change in use since January 1, 1976, will be notified and given 60 days iln which to reapply. A copy of th~s notice will be retained in the Land Use office. If new application is not received within this period, the applicant will be disqualified from the program for the following year. This change in procedure does not require an amendment to the ordinance, it is simply an administrative procedUre. There followed-a short work session for Board members on the land use tax ordinance presently in effect. Agenda Item No. 18. 1976. Appropriation: Over-expenditures for fiscal year ended June 30, Mr. Jones requested an appropriation for an over-expenditure of the Circuit Court due to a budget underestimate of Judge Berry's salary and the cost of jurors. The requested appropriation was $956.64. Also, a request for an appropriation~for the McIntire Trust Fund in the amount of $681.87. This is a self-sustaining fund on which the proceeds from trust earnings are distributed to middle and senior high schools. The proceeds exeeeded,~ the budget estimate. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, that $956.64 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to the General Operating Fund and coded to 5A-102; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that $681.87 be and the same hereby is appropriated from the McIntire Trust Fund and coded to 180. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motiOn and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley (left at 4:12 P.M.) ~g ~e July 14, 1976 313 ~.~, ~Ee~da~Item2No~9~ Transfers: Fiscal year ended June 30, 1976. Mr. Jones presented the following requests for transfers in the School Operating Fund: From 17I Adult Education To 17Fl Operation School Plant and 17F2 Maintenance School Plant $21,446.84 $14,407.85 7,038.99 From 17Bl-134A1 Instruction Elementary To lTD Pupil Transportation $41,639.12 $41,639.12 Dr. Iachetta offered motion to .approve the requested transfers. the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Roudabush seconded AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 20. Reappropriations. Mr. Jones presented the following requests for reapprop~i~tion of funds: Social Services -- 80C-703.1 Garden Project $~00.00 Sheriff-- 6A-215d 6A-325 6A-215a 6A-420 Repair and Replacement-Radios $3,875.00 Uniforms $ 233.00 Automobiles $3,388.00 Radio Equipment $4,480.00 Fire Department -- 7B-~99 Radio Equipment $11,362.84 Dr. Iachetta offered motion to approve the above reappropriations to be taken from the General Fund. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 20a. Special Appropriations. Mr. Jones presented the following requests for special appropriations: For the Sheriff's operation, $562.00, which will be funded)~y an LEAA grant for costs of the Sheriff and Investigator Higgins attendance at the University of Louisville police training school on homicides. The second request is $15,000.00 from the School Operating Fund for films and materials for the Med~a Center. This will also be funde~.~by a Federal Grant. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $562.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund to 6A~2~, $112.00 and $450.00 to 6A-399a; that $15,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Operating Fund to 17Pb2-305, Instructional Supplies. Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 21. Request to Sell Bicentennial Queen's Medal. Mr. Jones had received a request from Mr. Charles Long, member of the Bicentennial Commission, to sell the Queen's Medal in the Finance Office. Mr. Jones felt some delegation by the Board was needed for this if so desired. The consensus of the Board was that a precedent would be set and other agencies would so request. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to deny the request and Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion. Same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS:' None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 22. Revisions: Pay/Classification Plan. Mrs. David offered motion to approve the following revisions recommended by Mr. Agnor in a memo dated July 9, 1976, said revisions to be effective July 1, 1976. These revisions are as follows: 3J. 4 July 14, 1976 1) Include a deputy finance director position. 2) Include an administrative manager in Social Services. 3) Housing Coordinator; funds included in revenue sharing budget. 4) Clerk Typist I lowered in range; Clerk Typist II raised a range to provide a spread in ranges between I and II. 5) Office Service Manager II, change in range from S-12 to S-13 to equalize the spread for an Office Service Manager I, II, III for ranges 10, ~2,~ and 16 respectively, to 10, 13~ and 16. 6) Renaming Field Representative to Tax Examiner and adjusting.the range from S-II to S-13. A senior examiner at range S-16 for supervisory responsibilities and higher qualifications. 7) Eliminate Junior Buyer at range S-08 and replace with Buyer at range S-ii. 8) Retitle and regrade the entire planning group as follows: Planning Aide lowered in range from S-13 to S-ii.; Planner to be retitled Senior Planner and lowered in range from S-19 to S-18 and one year experience changed to three years experience; Planner for the purposes of experience requirements and staffing between an Aide and Senior Planner at grade S-15 with one year experience. A~praisal~group realigned because trainee range is too high and requirements presently for the other two positions are too low. The changes are: Appraiser Trainee, S-14 with B.A. (was S-16); Appraiser, S-18 with B.A. and 3 years experience (was S-19 with 2 years experience); Senior Appraiser, S-21 with B.A. and 5 years experience (was B.A. with 3 years experience). 10) Changes in Park and Custodial Group. Position of Parks Specialist is vacant and not recommended to be filled; can be borne by Park Manager. Groundskeeper (presently S-05) and Eq~i~n~ Operators (presently S-07), change to S-06 and S-08 so as to improve the grade of these laborer employees. Parks Manager [(presently S-09) change to S-Ii. Building Maintenance and Custodial positions are presently S-05 and S-02; recommended to be changed to S-07 and S-03 with an intermediate custodian position of S-05 added so as to improve the laborer employee's. 11) Retitle Management Analyst to Administrative Assistant/Personnel-Legislative and range remain at S-20. Abandon Personnel Analyst. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 23. Albemarle County Code. Set public hearing date to amend certain sections of the Mrs. David offered motion to advertise for public hearing on August 11, 1976 the following amendments: Section 4-10, Chapter 4, Article II; Section 4-23, Chapter 4, Article II; Section 12-9(b), Chapter 12, Article I; and repeal Sections 12-19 and 12-20, Chapter 12, Article IV. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachettta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 24. Lottery Permit Application. Request was received from the Quarry Shark Club for a lottery permit. Due to a concern about the usage of the funds from the lottery and lack of information, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to defer this request to July 21., 1976, in order for the applicant to be present. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 26. Request for change in the By-laws of the Central Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Center. Mr. Agnor noted request received from the Central Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Center for change in Section 4 of the By-laws due to a conflict with their Charter. Mrs. David offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby concur in request of the Central Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Center for a change in the By-laws as set out below: Section 4 Financin$ and Budgeting The Board shall designate a fiscal agent. The Board shall provide for the manner in which and by whom disbursements may be authorized, provided, that it shall ensure that the disbursement authorization system of the Center shall comply with appropriate State and Federal guidelines. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: July 14, 1976 315 Agenda Item No. 28. Request for leave of absence without pay. Mr. Agnor noted request received from Ms. Lorraine Murray for three days leave of absence without pay. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to approve the request of Ms. Lorraine Murray, seconded by Mr. Dorrier and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES- Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 29. Revisions: Employee Handbook. Mr. Agnor said modifications are needed in the employees handbook. One, is the compensation section which now states "The pay period is from the 16th of the preceding month to the 15th of the current month." He suggested this be changed to "The pay period for full-time employees is from the first to the last day of the month. The pay period for part-time and temporary employees is from the 19th of the previous month to the 18th of the current month." In the employees handbook under "Overtime" the following changes are suggested: 1) The third paragraph should read "For overtime worked from the !st to the 18th of the month, overtime will be paid on the last day of the month. Comp time must be taken before the last day of the month." 2) The fourth paragraph should read "For overtime worked from the 19th to the 31st of the month, overtime will be paid on the last day of the following month. Comp time is to be taken before the last day of the following month." 3) Add "Zoning Administrator" to listing of employees exempted from provisions as set out in the third paragraph of the Employee handbook. On page 4 under Workmen's Compensation, add the following wording after the second sentence "If an employee suffers an accident, such accident should be reported immediately to the payroll department. If the employee is unable to report such accident, it should be reported by the department head." Also, on page 4 under Retirement the fourth sentence should be changed as follows: "The employee contribution is at the rate of 5% of his total salary. The contribution of the County is currently 1.51%, subject to change after bi-annual ~F~]~-study." Dr. Iachetta offered motion to approve the changes in the Employees Handbook ~s~ recommended by the County Executive. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 30.. Appointments. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to reappoint Mr. James R. Butler to the Piedmont Community College Board of Directors, said term to expire on June 30, 1980. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to reappoint Mr. E. V. Echols to the Soil Erosion Advisory Board, said term to expire on July 1, 1977. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. Mr. Fisher noted that the Health Planning Steering Committee set up under the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission was inactive. Mrs. David said a sub-area council is being set up and suggested this be discussed at a later date. Mr. Fisher noted letter received from Ms. Christine W. Rhodes giving her resignation from the Advisory Council on Aging. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to accept her resignation effective August 1, 1976, with a letter being sent expressing appreciation of services rendered. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 31. Report of the Department of Social Services for the Month of May, 1976 was received in accordance with the Virginia State Code Section 63.1-52. Agenda Item No. 32. Regional Jail Report for the month of June, 1976. Statement of costs incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Joint Security Complex for the month of June, 1976, along with statements of prisoner days, paramedic salaries, jail physician and salary of the classification officer were received. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried bv the follow~n~ 316 July 14, 1976 AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and RoUdabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 33. Statement of Expenses for the month of June, t976 for the Director of Finance, Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney and Sheriff's Department were received. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 34. June, 1R76, was received. was approved as read. Statement of Expenses for the Regional Jail for the month of On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier this statement The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 35. Other Matters, not on the agenda, from Board Members. Dr. Iachetta asked if the~pr~bl~ms~.~wi~h~the noise at the Pampered Pet on Berkmar Drive has b~en corrected. Mr. Agnor said the matter has been directed to the Zoning Administrator, Mr. Ben Dick. He is in the process of contacting all parties who have complained to see if there has been any improvement~ After completing that, he will notify the operator and owner, who are two different people, that they are subject to court action. Mrs. David brought to the Board's attention a memorandum she had written several months ago about problems with planning and indicated desire to change the method for appointing Planning Commission members. She had received an ordinance from Mr. St. John on this which indicated the Board could make the changes. She suggested six members of the Commission be appointed to co~tsmminous terms. Mr. Fisher distributed copies of Virginia Supplemental Retirement Systems memorandum which he received. He asked that particular attention be directed to House Bill 640 which permitted employers to pay employees contributions. Mrs. David requested that copies of the Betz studies on the Reservoir be distributed to BOard members as received. At the request of the Chairman, motion was offered by Dr;"Iachetta to adjourn into exec.Utive session to discuss personnel matters. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. The Board reconvened at 5:45 P.M., and upon proper motion adjourned the meeting.