Loading...
1976-11-03NNovember 3, 1976 (Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 3, 1976, beginning at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, 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: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order bY the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who introduced students from Jack Jouett School who were present: Cheryl Smith, Cindy Bauerte, Bill Carswell, Jeff Hughes,_Chuck Lawson, and Kevin Kelly. Agenda Item No. 2. SP-80-76. Virginia Jones. To locate a mobile home on 2.0 acres zoned A-1. Property located on north side of Route 601 approximately 1/2 mile west of Route 676. County Tax Map 43, Parcel 44, part thereof. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission had not yet acted on this petition. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, to defer this public hear±ng to November 17, 1976. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. (Clerk's Note: This petition was later withdrawn without prejudice before the Planning Commission and was not presented again for Board action.) Agenda Item No. 3. SP-79-76. Evelyn K. Wood. (Deferred from October 20, 1976.) Mr. Fisher said at the last meeting, the public hearing on this matter was closed, but he had asked that the decision be deferred while he investigated this application for a mobile home permit, particularly to find where the mobile home will be placed on the property. He has been unsuccessful in contacting Mrs. Wood. The applicant claimsYa hardship due to an eczema condition so .Mr. Fisher contacted her doctor and after talking with him feels the condition is chronic and not incapacitating. Mr. Fisher said he has not finished his investigation. He personally does not see any compelling reason to have the mobile home on this property. He said if the Board wanted to make a decision tonight, he would recommend that they follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The applicant was not present. Mr. Henley said he felt the Board should postpone this hearing since the applicant was not present and then offered motion to defer a decision until November 17, with the applicant being renotified of the date. The motion 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. Agenda Item No. 4. Lottery Permit Application. MP~'-Ag~mr presented an aPplication for a lottery permit from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Post #74 of the American Legion. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to approve this application based on the Board's adopted policy for issuance of such permits. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Fisher said he would like to point out that this permit will expire on December 31, 1976. Mr. Mac Moyer, acting for the applicant, said the request is for the calendar year 1977. Mr. Fisher said as he remembers the State legislation, the Board could not grant a permit in advance of the calendar year. He recommended that this matter be deferred for a clarification. Motion to this effect was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 5. October 20, 1976.) SP-68-76. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. (Deferred from Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report on-an application for a public water transmiss line and water storage tank on property described on Page 423, Minute Book 14: "This area is basically residential in character. The transmission line travels under several residential streets. The storage tank is proposed in a rural area. The Comprehensive Plan makes no recommendations concerning the location of water transmission lines. The Water Quality Management Plan does not address water supply facilities. This project is intended to increase water storage capacity for and water pressure to those areas of Crozet served by the public water system. Water would be pumped from the Crozet treatment plant through a 12-inch line to the two million gallon storage tank. The storage tank will be 38 feet in height and 96 feet in diameter." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommends approval by a unanimous vote, with the following conditions: Immediate reseeding of those areas of earth disturbing activity for both the water line and storage tank and immediate restoration of all other areas. .on November 3, 1976 (Night Meeting) Site plan approval of the water storage tank to include a landscaping plan for screening of the tank. Staff would advise the applicant that any alteration in the location of these proposed facilities would require amendment of this special permit which constitutes another special permit application. Work on this project may not begin until special permit approval is obtained. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to give special attention to the resolution of the location of the easement across the Goldie F. Baber property. Mr. Tucker said at the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Baber objected to the location of the line across his drivewayand requested that the line be located on the adjoining property instead of his driveway. Mr. J. H. Bailey was present representing the applicant. He said this line can be relocated so as to relieve Mr. Baber from any disruption of his property. Mr. Bailey then asked that the Board approve this request. -The public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to approve SP-68-76 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commissio The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AyEs: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 6. Discussed later in the meeting. Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: Pilot program for the collection of solid waste. (Notice of this hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on October 20, October 27 and October 30, 1976.) Mr. Fisher said this matter has been before the Board for several months. While campaign last year, some Board members found considerable support for such a system. He then called on Mr. Dennis White,~ staff member, to give a short report on this program. Mr. White sHid the Board had requested in May that the staff make this study for a pilot program on solid waste collection in the rural areas with emphasis on the Rivanna District and the northwestern part of the County. Areas studied were: 1) areas large enough to provide reliable and accurate data on usership of containers; 2) areas far from the County's two landfills at Keene and Ivy; and 3) an area having some physical boundaries so as to regionally restrict the usership of the pilot program to people within the geographical boundary. The area chosen contains 17% of the County's population and about 30% of its land area. The pilot program is geared to substantiate the need for a solid waste system and to reveal the problems and complexities involved in the County's entrance into the field of solid waste collection. The pilot program will consist of centrally located containers in groups of between two and five placed in strategic locations in the pilot area. The County would not own either the collection trucks or the containers. The County would own only a service vehicle. The pilot program is geared to handle only residential household trash and would exclude commerical solid waste. An important part of this program is public relations or citizen awareness. After six months to a year, the formal program would end with a critical evaluation of the data gathered during that period of time. This information would then be given to the Board for further action. Mr. Roudabush asked what alternatives the County would have at the end of the pilot program. Mr. White said there are two options: 1) if the Board finds that the need is not great enough to justify the County's entrance into a supplemental program they could stop the program at that point; or 2) if it is found that the problem is larger than originally realized, the program could be expanded to handle the need. Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing at this time. He said it is not expected that the Board will make a decision tonight, but that this matter will be carried over to November 10. Ms. Darlene Samsell said she felt the Board should authorize a county-wid~ program os none at all. There are 55 counties in Virginia who already have a containerized system and she did not see the need for a pilot program. If such a system is implemented, she would like careful attention paid to two points in the report; constant inspection.and frequent collection. There have ~a. ~ been many questions about what will happen to the.private haulers. She felt that a~y of the private haulers who are presently doing a good job will not lose~ business because of this program. Mr. William Woodworth said littering is a serious problem. If the Board is putting tax money into a pilot program, it might be better to defer and use that money on the basic problem of generation of Waste and the possibility of recovering waste and recycling same. He recommended that the Board concentrate on this aspect of the problem instead of making a cosmetic attempt to solve the problem. Mr. Woodworth said he has had experience with dumpster and the way these are misused is difficult to control. They can be more of a nuisance than a hazard. Ms. Elizabeth Woodworth said dumping of trash on the highways must be combated, but she is not sure that unsupervised dumpsters will cure the problem. Her area~of the County is well served by private haulers. Hauling trash to a dumpster will also 6onsume additional energy when same is in short .supply. She asked how the County would choose a company to haul trash from the dumpsters. Mr. Fisher said if this program is approved, the County wilI bid fo~ this service. Ms. Woodworth said there are a number of haulers in the County who have been established for a number of years. The Board should promote and not impede private business. She then showed to the Board a picture of a dumpster which was in place next to her home in Fairfax County. Col. Carroll Smith was present to represent the Farm Bureau. He said a survey of some farmers in the County shows that they are opposed to the concept of this program. ~e Farm ~r~a~i~e~dthat this type of service should be paid for by the individual wanting the servic He said the Board should explore the concept of resource recovery first and then gear the pick up service to that study. Dr. Iachetta asked !g~h~]i~mb~r~~d~F~m~i~i.~u~a-u~kno~h~a.t.~her~ are two different problems. The waste must be collected and hauled somewhere .... The~source November 3, '1976 (Night Meeting) Recovery Study Commission has asked for bids on a feasibility study, but that is probably three years away. In the meantime, something should be done about this problem. Col. Smith said they feel resource recovery is a number of years away and will require a large capital outlay if the study points toward some specific system of utilization of trash. Consequently they do not see that anything will be accomplished in the immediate future. Ms. Judy Bauerle asked if the Board is considering expanding the system county-wide at the end of the trial period and if so, what effect will the pilot program have on a colle~ system for the suburban area. Mr. Fisher said the Board has not addressed the suburban que at all. He feels there will be an increasing demand for this type of service and. the Board will have to deal with the question of taxation; whether the Board can establish tax district~ and charge a surtax which will permit the suburban area of the County to have a higher level of services which these citizens have requested. At the end of the year, the Board will be faced with: 13 continuing the program in the pilot area only; 2) modifying the program in pilot area; 3) disbanding the program completely; or 4) expanding the program into Qther area~ of the County. Ail alternatives must be explored before making a decision. Ms. Bauer!e asked if the cost of the pilot program will be borne equally by all residents of the County and if the Board decides to provide this service to only selected areas of the County, if tk areas will pay,a tax surcharge or will that cost be borne by the entire County. Mr. Fisher said the proposal at this time is to use Revenue Sharing Funds for the pilot program. This does mean that all residents of the County are paying because those funds can be used for services. Arguments can.be made that there are unequal services in parts of the County, but driving 25 to 30 miles to a landfill from areas where there are no private haulers operating can be called a hardship. i~..,Mr;~ilLarry Brown said he has lived in many places and has been exposed to~dum~S~ers of those areas. He has never seen one that is not ~requently cluttered or a nuisance. He said his private trash collection service in Albemarle is the best he has aver experienced and he would suggest that there are other ways to discourage littering and recommended againsl the proposal. Mr. Charlie Yost asked how the sites for dumpsters were picked. Mr. White said the site~ recommended in the pilot program are those sites where people were receptive to the idea of have a dumpster on their property. Mr. Chuck Rotgin was present to represent Wasteco, Inc., a local, privately-owner hauler Mr. Rotgin said he is opposed to the program in its present form for the folla~ing reasons: 1) It i~ open-ended on costs; 2) six months for a~ibeginning program on a trial basis i~ unworkable; 3) the alternatives outlined in the report are not the best for Albemarle County particularly in respect to the front-end cans. Mr. Rotgin said he felt the Board could have a system custom designed which would work for the County. He feels all areas in the County are either presently served or can be served by private haulers. If this system is implemented, it will hurt the private haulers. Mr. Rotgin then recommended that a committee be appointed to study this matter further and that a decision be deferred for a report from that committee. Mr. Robert Hornbarger said he is a private hauler. About 95% of the pilot area is already serviced by the private haulers. He has not had any complaints from his customers; about 400. He Just bought a new truck which cost $30,000. What will happen if he is put out of business? Mr. Hornbarger said the only area that is not covered is Nortonsville and that is because there is a private dump in that area. Ms. Charlotte Humphries said she does not think the Board can change human nature. Those~people leaving trash on the highways will continue to do so. The County government should not discourage private enterprise. It is fortunate the County has so many private haulers who work for a reasonable fee. She did not like the open-ended costs in the report and felt it would be difficult to stop such a program once started. Ms. Humphries said she does not think the citizens can afford th~s program. Mr. Arthur Starke, a private collector, asked if the Board had considered having private collectors service the pilot area. Mr. Starke said he has many customers who do not pay for the service he renders and he kno~s they will not carry their trash to these containers. There are so many private collectors in the County that one or two of them would be glad to service that area and this might stop the private collectors from under cutting prices. Mr. Edgar Paige asked what method would be used to clean the containers. Mr. White said the contractor getting the bid will have to keep the containers sanitary, sterilized and steamed. Mr. Fisher then read the following letter into the record: "November 2, 1976 As I cannot attend your open meeting on the advisabi!'ity of having Albemarle County assume the responsibility for the collection of trash, I hope you will consider'my view regarding this matter. In this area of Scottsville, we have wonderful trash collection for a reasonable amount. We know we can depend on Mr. Rudolph Hill to pick up the garbage with no mess regularly - it is a real convenience to us and, of course, a business for him and the others who work for him. He represents a black business which is doing well and to deprive him and others like him of their livlihood, is surely wrong. I am sur~, for I have talked with others in various parts of' Albemarle, who have private trash collection~ that private enterprise is doing a very fine job with no cost to the taxpayers who do not want or need the service. Public dumps are located in this County and are being used by those who want to use them - some will always find the highways more convenient! November 3, 1976 (Night Meeting) And this sets up the next problem, for just wait until you establish the various "collection centers" and realize you do not have a couple of dumps, but now have real dumps everywhere over the County with trash all around the various centers. And the cost will be prohibitive. I do not have to remind you that for what private enterprise can do a good job, it will cost the County twice as much for mediocre service and more bureaucrats to administer the program, etc. and here we go again. Let's forget the County going into the garbage business and let business provide this service as it is doing and will continue to do. If there is a need for more sections of the County to be covered, these firms will expand their business to do the job and do it well at far less cost. I say FORGET IT! We pay enough taxes now and you all have enough work to do as it is without adding more misery for yourselves and putting an additional burden on the taxpayers of this County who are already hard-pressed for funds to pay taxes. Thanking you, I am Very sincerely yours, (Signed) Mrs. Bela N. Barnes, Jr." Mr. Fisher then declared the public hearing on this matter closed and said the Board would continue their discussion on November 10. Mr. Henley said he was ready to make a decision tonight. At the last meeting, he had said he would not vote for this program and now the Board has heard a number of reasons-why this program should not be started. Mr. Henley said he has talked with a number of people in his district and they feel their present service is adequate and they do not support this program. He would need good reasons to take over a business that is being satisfactorily serviced by private haulers. Mr. Dorrier said he had first asked that this matter be discussed. When he was running for election last year, he had discussed with citizens the services being received for their tax dollar. It was determined that unless a citizen had children in school, they did not get much for their tax dollar. He wrote to Buckingham County and found that for $3.85 per person, per year, they had 91 containers in operation and-the County Administrator wrote to say that this system had made the County much cleaner. Nelson, Orange and 55 other counties in Virginia are using this system. Mr. Dorrier said he did not want to go into such a program until the costs are nailed down and that Mr. Rotgin's suggestion to appoint a committee may be a good solution at this time. However, the trash problem is getting worse and the problem will not be solved by letting the subject drop. Dr. Iachetta said he has mixed emotions about the proposal before the Board. The program does not address the problem of waste management on a county-wide basis. I~ the Board establishes a pilot program for one year, they establish a pattern which probably cannot be reversed. He was not in favor of funding this program from Revenue Sharing funds feeling that all Federal monies come from the citizens pocket anyway. He said with the limited scope of the program being discussed, he will have to give some serious thought to the problem before voting. Mr. Roudabush said he had similar experiences to those of Mr. Dorrier. Many citizens in the ~reas which are remote from the landfills feel they are being discriminated against. The study presented is good. If the Board should decide against this program at this time, the information contained in the study will be available for future use. Mr. Roudabush said he would not commit himself tonight. At some point in time, the Board will have to find a vehicle by which to transport waste to a resource recovery point. Mrs. David said she would be interested in knowing where all of the people who have indicated they want this service are tonight. She realizes that there is a problem in trying to service an isolated area without going into the urbanized areas and how the costs of such a program should be paid. Mr. Fisher said it is normal at public hearings for the people opposed to come and speak and for the people in support not to speak. Depending on what the news media does with the story, the Board may be bombarded with people in favor of the program. Mr. Fisher said this discussion will be continued on November 10 and at 9:29 P.M. called a recess. The Board reconvened at 9:44 P.M. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: A resolution of intent to amend Section 6-1-13 of the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance and Section 17-5-19 of the Albemarle County,Zoning Ordinance as each of these pertain to sidewalks, curbs and gutter. (Deferred from October 20, 1976.) Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: An brdinance to amend Section 11-9 of'the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. (Advertised on October 20 and October 27, 1976.) Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend Section 11-14 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to provide for placement of individual mobile homes only as a means of interim housing during construction of conventional single-family dwellings. (Advertised on October 20 and October 27, 1976.) Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: To amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to Provide for mobile home subdivisions in all residential zones. (Advertised on October 20 and October 27, 1976.) Mr. Fisher said Mrs. David had asked that she be allowed to make a statement about these proposed amendments. November 3, 1976 (Night Meeting) Mrs. David read the following prepared statement: "Four items on tonight's Agenda -- Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 10 -- prompt me to state "on the record" something I have recently discussed informally with the Chairman and other members of the Board. That is, m~ belief that our existing ordinances, particularly those concerned with zoning and other aspects of land use, are unnecessarily complex and difficult to administer. The amendments before us tonight illustrate what I see as the root of the problem, which is a failure on the part of this Board and others before us to distinguish between policy statements, local laws or ordinances, and the administrative procedures required to insure compliance with adopted policies and ordinances. When all three of these very different things are forced into the legal format of an ordinance, you get fuzzy ordinances and procedural language which baffles and confuses many of the citizens who are expected to comply with them. The way I see it .... Policy Statements should be developed through open workshop sessions and Board discussion, based on staff experience and research, as was done in connection with our recently adopted policy with respect to central wells. These Policy Statements should be handled with ~s much care as ordinances and should be available in loose-leaf form for easy pairing with relevant ordinances and distribution to interested citizens on request. Ordinances should be drafted by the County Attorney and should spell out the source and extent of Board authority to act; the nature of the activity being regulated; delegations of Board authority to other bodies or agents if any; and who must comply with the ordinance and with procedural requirements issued under it. Administrative Procedures and Regulations should be developed by the technical or administrative staff; should ~be written in plain English; and published in a low-cost format which makes wide distribution to the affected citizens feasible. Minor changes in these procedures should be subject to approval by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors upon recommendation of the staff. Major revisions should be developed by the staff with the advice and assistance of committees similar to the recently reactivated Signs .Committee, composed of more or less equal numbers of persons directly affected and others representing broader community concern. Their recommended proposals should also be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. This may be something that should await consideration in connection with the revision and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan which is now under way. But if that is the way we want to go, then I think we should stop tinkering with the existing ordinances and call a halt to the investment of staff time and our time and the time of the Planning Commission on amendments which are not absolutely necessary. I would therefore like to move that we defer action-for one week on Items 6, 8, 9, and 10, with the understanding that in the meantime the Chairman will convene a meeting to include the Chairman of the Planning Commission and one other member of that body he designates; one or more members of this Board; the County Executive; the County Director of Planning; and the County Attorney--to make a recommendation to us on this subject." Mrs. David's motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush.~ Mr. Fisher asked if there was anyone present from the public to speak on these amendments. No one rose. Mr. Fisher said he did not think one week would allow enough time for such a committee to meet twice. Mr. Agnor suggested that these public hearings be deferred until the first meeting in December, but said that the agenda is already extemely full for that meeting. Mr. Fisher suggested having a meeting at 3:00 P.M. on ~ecember 1. Mrs. David then amended her motion to defer the public hearings on agenda items No. 6, 8, 9, and 10 until December 1 at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Mr. Roudabush concurred with the amended motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Rouda~ush. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: AJ ordinance to provide for biennial assessment of real estate at 100 percentum fair market value. (Advertised on October 20 and October 2?, 1976.) Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, said the Board asked for special legislation to allow biennial assessment of property. This legislation passed and Virginia Code Section 58- 778.1 requires the Board to adopt an ordinance to put this legislation into effect. The secon~ part of the ordinance presented is to comply with compulsory State Law in Virginia Code Section 58-760 which states that all reassessments effective after January 1, 1977, must be at a !00 percent ratio. The public hearing was opened. Ms.. Maxine Hunticutt asked if the 100 percent ratio is effective for the whole state. Mr. Melvin Breeden said this becomes effective with the next general reassessment of the County or by 1980. Ms. Hunticutt said she hopes the tax rate will go down. Mr. Fisher said the Board had anticipated this new legislation when they split the tax rate for the 76-77 fiscal year. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. No~ember 3, 1975 (Night Meeting) 443 Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following ordinance as advertised for public hearing and presented to the Board this night: AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE BIENNIAL ASSESSMENT OF REAL ESTATE AT 100 PER CENTUM FAIR MARKET VALUE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Counvy, Virginia, pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 58-778.1 and Section 58-760, as follows: Albemarle County Code - Chapter 8 - Finance and Taxation Section 8-1.1. Article I - IN GENERAL. (a) Ail real estate in Albemarle County shall be assessed biennially for purposes of taxation by the Director of Finance of Albemarle County as af January 1 of each odd year, and all taxes for each even year on such real estate shall be extended on the basis of the last assessment made prior to such year. (b) The Office of Real Estate Assessments-of Albemarle County has conducted a new reassessment of all real property to be applicable on real estate for the tax year beginning January 1, 1977, and shall conduct a new reassessment of all real property biennially to be applicable for the tax year beginning January 1 of every odd tax year thereafter. The Office of Real Estate Assessments may complete such reassessment during an entire two year period, employing the same standards of value for all appraisals made during such period. (c) Beginning with assessments effective on January 1, 1977, all assessments of real estate in Albemarle County shall be made at 100 per centum fair market value. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. David. Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to Provide for the Refund of Any Local Levies Erroneously Paid. (Advertised on October 20 and October 27, 1976.) Mr. Jones said that Virginia Code Section 58-1152.1 allows the Director of Finance to make refunds of levies erroneously paid when there is an obvious error. Every refund must be documented, but it is an imposition on the citizen because of the length of time taken before the Board acts on these refunds. Adoption of this ordinance will allow the Director of Finance to make most refunds without obtaining the Board's approval first. Mr. Fisher felt a report of refunds ~ssued should be given to the Board systematically. The public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the ordinance as advertised. Dr. Iachetta offered an amended motion to adopt the ordinance as advertised, but adding paragraph (d) "Reports itemizing such refunds shall be made to the Board of Supervisors on a quarterly basis." The amended motion was accepted by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mrs. David. (The ordinance as adopted is set out below.) AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE REFUND OF ANY LOCAL LEVIES ERRONEOUSLY PAID BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 58-1152.1, as follows: Albemarle County Code - Chapter 8 - Finance and Taxation Section 8-1.2. Article I - IN GENERAL (a) The Director of Finance of Albemarle County, after diligent investigation and upon being satisfied that he has erroneously assessed a taxpayer with any local levies as provided in Code Sections 58-1141 and 58-1142, shall, if the levies have not been paid, exonerate the taxpayer from payment of so much thereof as is erroneous, and if such levies have been paid, shall refund to the taxpayer the amount erroneously paid, together, with any penalties and interest paid thereon. (b) When the Director of Finance who made the erroneous assessment has been succeeded by another person, such person shall have the same authority as the Director making the original erroneous assessment provided he makes diligent investigation to determine that the original assessment was erroneously made and certified thereto to his local governing body. (c) No refund shall be made in any case when more than two years have elapsed since payment of the amount erroneously assessed. (d) Reports itemizing such refunds shall be made to the Board of Supervisors on a quarterly basis. 444 November 3, 1976 (Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 13.' Public Hearing: An Ordinance to Provide a Fee for Passing Bad checks to the County of Albemarle. (Advertised on October 20 and October 27, 1976.) Mr. Jones said during the tax collection season it keeps one person in his office busy collecting bad checks. The Board requested the General Assembly to pass legislation in order to charge a fee for the collection of these bad checks. This legislation was enacted and also allows a fee to be charged for checks issued to the County on other than taxes. The public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Zachetta, to adopt the ordinance as advertised. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, I~chetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. (The ordinances_as adopted is set out below.) ORDINANCE PROVIDING FEE FOR PASSING BAD CHECKS TO THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, pursuant to Code Of Virginia Section 15.1-29.4, as follows: Albemarle County Code - Chapter 8 - Finance and Taxation Section 8-1.3. Article I - IN GENERAL Any person who utters, publishes or passes any check or draft for payment of taxes, or any other sums due the County of Albemarle, which is subsequently returned for insufficient funds or because there is no account or the account has been closed, shall pay a fee in the amount of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) to the County of Albemarle. Agenda Item No. 14. Authorize Chairman to Sign Contract for HUD Grant (Comprehensive Planning Program). Mr. Agnor said the County made application for a grant for updating of the Comprehensive Plan. The grant was awarded and the staff proceeded with the contract documents and the planning began. When the first invoice was being prepared for the State Department of Intergovernmental Planning, it was found that no agreement had been signed for the Federal funds in the amount of $23,000. Motion was then offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to authorize the Chairman to sign the contract with HUD for these grant funds. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 15. Request to Lift Building Permit Moratorium on Hessian Hills Sub- division. Mr. Agnor said in March, 1975, the Board imposed a "moratorium on all contractor- owned lots in Hessian Hills Subdivision until the roads were accepted into the State Highway System". In August, 1975, this moratorium was clarified to be "Sections 5 and 6 of Hessian Hills owned by Woodlake Corp., Daley Craig, and Daley Craig, Inc., and at the end of Old Forge Road". The County was holding a certified check for the road improvements in Sections 5 and 6 of Hessian Hills. These improvements have been completed and the roads accepted into the State System, and the check has been returned to Mr. Craig. In October, 1975, a subdivision plat was approved for Section 7 of Hessian Hills at the end of Old Forge Road. The plat has not been signed by the County, and will not be signed until the road improvements are made in Section 7, or until a bond is posted for the improve- ments. Effectively, a moratorium on permits and the sale of lots exists in Section 7 with an unsigned and unrecorded subdivision plat. Removal of the moratorium imposed in March, 1975, and clarified in August, 1975, was recommended by Mr. Agnor. Motion was then offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to lift the building permit moratorium as recommended by the County Executive. The motion carried by the followin re~orded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. 'David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher said he had received an Annual Report from the Youth Employmen Service for their 1976 activities. Mr. Fisher said he had received a letter from Mr. Hal Brindley, saying that he can no longer serve as a County representative to the Monticello Community Action Agency Board since he has accepted employment with the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Agnor noted that a letter dated October 21, 1976, has been received from the State Auditor of Public Accounts in which it is stated that the County's audit for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1976, has been accepted by that office. Mr. Agnor asked that an appointment be made to the Land Use Tax Advisory Board at the November 10 meeting as a replacement for Mr. Harlan Manweiller who has resigned. Mr. Agnor noted that a report entitled Fire Protection Study was received and distribute¢ to Board members this date. This will be on the agenda of November 10 for discussion. Dr. Iachetta said there is a group of people who are interested in establishing a fire station for the northern corridor of the urban area. Mr. John Phillips is acting as Chairman and they are canvassing that area to see if there is any interest in establishing a volunteer organization. They will be meeting again on next Monday. November 3, 1976 (Night Meeting) 445 Mr. Agnor said he has established a tentative calendar for review of the 1977-78 County Budget. In talking with Mr. McClure, Superintendent of Schools, he has found that the School Board would like to present their budget to the Board on February 25, 1977. This would give Mr. Agnor only four working days in which to finalize the budget before presenting same to the Board on March 1. Mr. Agnor said he needs to know at this time'if the Board wants the budget balanced before presenting it to them. If so, the School Board must move back their schedule for preparation. Mr. Fisher said he thinks the Board should have the completed budget, with revenues, by March 1, so work sessions can begin on March 16. This was also the consensus of the other Board members. At 10:50 P.M., the meeting was adjourned.