Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1975-06-19
6-19-75 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 19, 1975, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordo~ L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive, T. M. Batchelor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and Deputy County Attornies, James Bowling and Frederick Payne. The Chairman called the meeting to order and the meeting bega~ with The Lord,s Prayer. No. 3. Approval of Minutes. Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Carwile to approve the minutes of the following meetings: March 5, March 6, March 12, March 13, March 18, March 20, March 26, March 27 and March 31 with one correction on page 26, third paragraph, change the word "is" to "if". The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. No. 5b. resolution: Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher to adopt the following BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Engineer, the following road in Phase I of FAIRGROVE SUBDIVISION; Willwood Drive - length - approximately 0.29 miles BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways be, and is hereby guaranteed a 50-foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easements along this requested addition as~recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 539, page 541. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. No. 5c. Request was received from Mr. Vaughan Stewart, Jr. asking the Board to abandon that part of Wakefield Court lying'between his property and that of Mr. Paige Lynch. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to advertise for a public hearing on July 17, 1975, at 9:30 A.M. an ordinance to vacate a portion of the plat of Wakefield Subdivision or ~that portion of Wakefield Court lying on the northwesterly side of Wakefield Road between Lot 1, Block C and Lot 6, Block A. He also requested that the Clerk send letters to the City Planning Commission and the Albemarle County Planning Commission asking for their opinion in this matter. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recOrded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. No. Se. Highway matters not included on the agenda. Mr. Wood requested that the Clerk write a letter to City Council asking the City's schedule for repairs to Hydraulic Road in front of the K-Mart Store particularly in relation to installation of a three-way turn signal at the corner of Hydraulic Road and Route 29 North. Mr. Henley asked for a report on Beagle Gap Road. Mr. Charles Perry, Assistant Resident Highway Engineer, said the Road Viewers had checked this request for an addition to the State Secondary System. Mr. Perry said this request has many problems attached. He has researched the State Code for laws on how new additions are to be accepted. For a certain period of time, any road built in the County could be accepted into the system if these additions were kept to 2% of the County's highway allocation. There is a Code section which now states that any road built after a locality passes~a subdivision ordinance cannot be accepted under the new addition policy. When the County adopted their ordinance, it stated that any road built after that time would have to be built to State standards or it could be built to a non-standard and the plat would carry a notation that it would be maintained by the property owners using same. Beagle Gap Road falls under this new regu- lation.since it'~was platted February 7, 1966. Mr. Batche!or noted that Beagle Gap Road was an old stagecoach road which used to cross the mountain to Waynesboro. Mr. Walter Young subdivided property off of this road and has been trying to get it taken into the State system. It was determined by Road Viewers in the late 1960's that the road was in existence prior to 1948 when the County passed its first subdivision ordinance. They felt the road should be accepted into the system if the property owners would donate the additional right Of way needed. The deeds for the additional right Of way are now ready to be recorded. Mr. Henley said the property owners on Beagle Gap Road do not want the road blacktopped. Mr. Perry insisted that this road would fall under the new policy concerning roads in subdivisions and asked why the County required Mr. Young to include a note on the plat that the road would be maintained by the property owners on the road. Mr. Batchelor said at the time Mr. Young built on this road, the Highway Deartment would not accept the road into the system. Mr. Young wanted to put. his plat to record so the Planning Commission told him he must comply with County regulations in effect at that time. Mr. Wheeler asked the County Attorney to check into this matter. 712 near 6-19-75 Mr. Fisher said he had received two petitions from people living on Route 633 near Heards. petition is for improvements to th~ road and the other petition is against improvements. One Mr. Fisher noted that Route 250 West in front of the entrance to Bellair Subdivision has recentl~ been repainted. Last weekend, there was a three-car accident at this intersection. He asked Mr. Perry for t~e details. Mr. Perry said he was not aware of the accident. This is the time of the year for the Highway Department to request money for safety improvements and money has been requested to install a turn-lane into Bellair. Mr. Fisher asked if a white line could be painted in front of the Gulf Station. Mr. Perry said the Highway Department, state-wide, is painting a centerline on every road that has 18 feet of pavement. He has made this request of the District Office several times, but has had no reply as of this date. Mr. Wheeler mentioned several roads in the Rivanna District. Route 685 off of Route 616 to Route 22 is a dead end road. There is one bad curve on the road where there have been several accidents. The landowners are requesting that this curve be straightened. Route 769 in back of Key West Subdivision needs repairs to the road surface. Route 686 from Route 600 is not hard-surfaced in Albemarle County, but is hard-surfaced in Louisa County. Mr. Wood mentioned the condition of Berkmar Drive. Mr. Fisher asked if plans for improvements to Route 637 from 1-64 to the Zvy Landfill have been completed. Mr. Perry said the plans will be ready within a month. No. 4. E. O. McCue, Jr., request to abandon plat. to the Board: Mr. MeCue presented the following petition The Petitioners, Charles R. Wesner and Gladys R. Wesner, are the owners of parcels of land currently designated as parcels No. 56C-23, 56C-24, 56C-25 and 56C-26 on the Land Maps of Albemarle County, Virginia. Parcels 56C-23, 56C-24 and 56C-25 are lots 23, 24 and 25 in Block B of the subdivision known as Park View Property, the original plat of which is of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 369, page 415. A subsequent Plat of Correction of those parcels is of record in the aforementioned Clerk's Office in Deed Book 461, page 636. Petitioners desire to have vacated that portion of the Plat of Correction of lots 22, 23, 24 and 25 of Block B, Park View Property subdivision of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed Book 461, page 636, so as to eliminate lots 23, 24 and 25 as separate parcels and combine those lots and parcel 56C-26 into one composite parcel. Parcel 56C-26 is the same parcel conveyed to the Petitioners by Alan G. Rosenkrans and wife by deed with plat attached thereto of record in the aforementioned Clerk's Office in Deed Book 385, page 178 except for the conveyance therefrom of~the parcel designated 56C-26A by deed from the Petitioners to Alan G. Rosenkrans and wife with plat attached thereto of record in the aforementioned Clerk's Office in Deed Book 463, page 271. Parcel 56C-23 is the same parcel conveyed to the Petitioners by Alan G. Rosenkrans and wife by deed of record in the aforementioned Clerk's Office in Deed Book 463, page 275, being as shown on Plat of Correction of record in the aforementioned Clerk's Office in Deed Book 461, page 636. Parcels 56C-24 and 56C-25 are the same parcels conveyed to the Petitioners by Alan G. Rosenkrans and wife by deed of record in the aforementioned Clerk's Office in Deed Book 563, page 275, being as shown on the aforementioned plat of Correction. Parcels 56C-23, 56C-24 and 56C-25 are presently zoned R-2; their category under the proposed new zoning ordinance would be R-2. They are subject to Building and Use Restrictions of record in the aforementioned Clerk's Office in Deed Book 406, page 93. They are also subject to the terms of an agreement with the Albemarle County Service Authority of record in the aforementioned Clerk's Office in Deed Book 466, page 262. Parcel 56C-26 is currently zoned R-2; its category under the proposed new zoning ordinances would be R-2. WHEREFORE, your Petitioners request that the Board of Supervisors vacate that portion of the Plat of Correction of lots 22, 23, 24 and 25 of Block B, Park View Property subdivision of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 461, page 636, so as to eliminate lots 23, 24, and 25 as separate parcels and combine those lots and Parcel 56C-26 into one composite parcel. Signed: Charles R. Wesner Signed: Gladys R.Wesner Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher to advertise for a public hearing on July 17, 1975, at 9:45 A.M. an ordinance to vacate a portion of the plat of Park View property as requested by Mr. McCue. The motion carried by the following recorded vote' AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. No. Sa. Road Viewers Report. Mr. Perry said the Viewers had looked at Route 620 near Woodridge. The plat for this property was recorded on May 5, 1959. Since the County had previously adopted a subdivison ordinance, this request does not qualify. The law is very specific on this point. The Viewers also looked at a road in Covesville off of Route 837. There are problems connected with this request. A State road cannot be built on railroad right of way. His office'is~trying to get in touch with Southern Railroad to see exactly where their right of way lies. If this road is moved too far from its present location, the project may be too expensive to consider. Since Beagle Gap Road had already been discussed, it was suggested that the Road Viewers Report be carried over until July 17. 6-19-75 No. 5e. Mr. Wood noted that the railroad bridge near the Fairview Swim Club is in poor condition. Mr. Perry said his office has written to the Southern Railroad about this matter and he will forward a copy of that letter to.the Board. Not Docketed. Mr. Wheeler said the Board has recently discussed the matter of restricted roads. It was decided at that tima to put this matter on the July 17 agenda, but it now seems that it-may be possible, on small lot subdivisions, to set standards different from regular highway standards, that will allow these roads to be taken into the State system. Mr. Wheeler asked that Messrs. Ashley Williams, William Roudabush, and Charles Perry be appointed as a committee to study this matter, with a report due to the Board within 60 days. Mr Thacker said one of the basic reasons for adopting restricted road standards was to allow roads for low-income housing. In discussing this with Mr. Newbill of F.H.A., he found that F.H.A. will not accept restricted roads unless the County undertakes the maintenance of the roads. He then offered motion to appoint the committee re2ommended by Mr. Wheeler. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Carwile. NO. 16~?2. Real~:Est'ate Tax Refunds. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Fisher to adopt the following resolutions. The motion carried by the following :recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thack~r, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: .Mr'. Carwile. WHEREAS, the Assistant Director of Finance of Albemarle County, Virginia, has appeared before this Board and certified that in 1967, the Real Estate Office failed to correct the acreage for Florence C. Clapp, Parcel No. 81-39,38A, in accordance with a plat recorded in Deed Book 436, page 5; and WHEREAS, the plat combined three parcels 8!-38A, 39 and 40 into one tract and reduced the acreage from 16.75 acres to 11.81 acres and this error caused an overtaxing of the property; and WHEREAS, the County Attorney has examined supporting evidence and consents that an error was made; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to the Code of Virginia, Section 58-1142, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby direct a refund of $4.72 for the year 1972; a refund of $4.72 for the year 1973; and a refund of $5.92 for the year 197~ be made to Ms. Clapp. FURTHER, Ail supporting papers verifying this request are to bi!ed in the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. WHEREAS, the Assistant Director of Finance of Albemarle County, Virginia, has appeared before this Board and certified that during roll-back of taxes for the 1973 land book that Parcel 2t-27 owned by Ms. Emmie E. Via, was missed and she paid taxes on the current assessment instead of the roll-back value; and WHEREAS, the County Attorney has examined supporting evidence and consents that an error was made; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to the Code of Virginia, Section 58-1142, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby direct a refund of $38.94 be made to Ms. Via. FURTHER, all supporting papers verifying this request are to filed in the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. No. 17. Claim against the Dog Tax Fund was received from David U. Damon for one (1) ewe, one (1) ram and one (1) doe killed by dogs on May 14, 1975. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Wood, Mr. Damon was allowed $12.0.00 for this claim. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Carwile and Mr. Fisher. Claim against the Dog Tax Fund was received from H. G. Goodell for one (1) brush goat killed by dogs on May 18, 1975. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Wood, Mr. Goodell was allowed $25.00 for this claim. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Carwile and Mr. Fisher. No. 18. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of April, 1975, was received in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52. 20. Report of the County Executive for the month of May, 1975, was received as information. 5-19-75 No. 21. Statements of expenses of the Director of Finance, the Office of the Commonwealth Attorney's, a~dLthe Sheriff's Office for the month of May, 1975, were presented. On motion by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Wood, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Carwile and Mr. Fisher. NO. 22~St.a~ame~t:mf expenses for the Joint Security Complex for the month of May, 1975, was received. On motion by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Thacker, this statement was approved as read. motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Carwile. The NS. 23. Statement of expenses, incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Joint Security Complex for the month of May, 1975, was presented along with statement of the Jail Physician and statement of para-medic salaries. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Wood, these statements were approved as read. The motion passed by the following recorded yore: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. No. 19a. Transfer of Funds. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr.. Thacker, and carried by the following recorded vote, to adopt the resolution which follows: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Carwite. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County. Virginia, that the following transfers in the amount of $23,309.00 be and the same hereby are approved to be made from Code 1F-123 and placed in the following codes: 1Al09- $1,854.00 10El02 - $ 220.00 1Fl09 - 775.00 10El09 - 3,232.00 1~10~ - 1,393.00 72-Z09 - 595.00 6A105- 12,501.00 14-119 - 2,639.00 No. 19b. Special Appropriation. the following resolution: Motion was made by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Wood, to adopt BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $47,374.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from Revenue Sharing Funds and transferred to the General Operating Fund for expenditures incurred in furnishing athletic facilities at Piedmont Virginia Community College; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is made for the 1975-76 fiscal year. The foreDoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT~ Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Carwile. No'. 10. Fire Hydrants (Scottsvil!e). Mr. Kelly Reynolds, County Fire Marshal, was present. The following memorandums were received into the record: "TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: T. M. Batchelor, Jr., County Executive Kelly P. Reynolds, County Fire Marshal Fire Hydrant Progress Report. June 13, 1975 After careful evaluation with the results of our fire hydrant inspection program, I have found that thirty-four percent (34%) of the 493 hydrants are unacceptable for proper fire protection use. I have met with Mr. E. E. Thompson of the Service Authority regarding a program for repairing these deficiencies, but was advised that there are no funds in his department for such maintenance and repairs. In view of these facts, I believe that the funds originally proposed for the installation of new fire hydrants should be rechanneled for the repair of the present ones. When the County is graded for fire insurance rates in October, we will suffer more point losses through deficient hydrants than for the lack of hydrants. The Service Authority states that if they are to be responsible for the repair, maintenance and annual inspection, they should be reimbursed by the County. An annual fee per hydrant should be established to cover such a program. This ~ee would also include payment for the water used in fire fighting activities. If reference to the fire hydrant problem in Scottsville, one alternative would be to install a submersible pump in the James River and provide a separate water main for the fire hydrants. This system would in no way connect with the domestic water supply. I have been able to'obtain-an 1879 map showing the original water main system. It is reasonable to believe that these mains have been changed and repaired throughout the years and might prove too costly to upgrade the domestic distribution system to present fire protection standards. If you choose to allocate funds for the Service Authority to repair the existing hydrants, I believe that the project can be completed in time for our October insurance grading inspection." "TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: T. M. Batchelor, Jr., County Executive Xelly P. Reynolds, County Fire Marshal Requested Fire Hydrant Information June 16, 1975 As you requested during our meeting of June 13, I submit the following information: 1) Fire Hydrants Needing Repair: 34 Dry (*) 79 Need Turning or Raising 30 Frozen Stems and Caps 4 Leaks 11 Won't Drain 6 Wrong Threads 2 Loose from Base Some of the DRY hydrants are turned off at the valve because they are on a high pressure line. The Service Authority wilt advise me of which hydrants are on this type of system and then a program should be established to have them painted a different color. This color coding will enable the volunteer fire companies to immediately identify the hydrants that require special operation. The Service Authority will repair the hydrants for the cost of parts and labor and furnish the County with an itemized statement for each hydrant. The estimated cost of the repairs is unknown. It would be impractical and a duplication/$~fort to have someone go in the field and make repair estimates. Such a needless expense could be used towards actual repair costs. Any hydrants repaired by the Service Authority up to this time are not verified by work orders. 3) In reference to the Scottsville fire hydrant problem, I recommend that the County Engineer begin a study for the comparison of cOsts in replacing the fire hydrant system using the current water sources versus bringing an independent piping system from the James River. Our inspection found the entire fire hydrant system unacceptable for fire protection purposes." Mr. Reynolds also presented to the Board a listing of the fire hydrants in the County which are need of repair, showing their location and the nature of the problem. Mr. Wheeler noted that many of the hydrants listed are in subdivisions and he felt the developers who installed these hydrants should be requested to repair same. Mr. Henley felt the maintenance and operation of fire hydrants should be the responsibility of the Albemarle County Service Authority, even if this would have to be subsidized by the County. Mr. Batchelor said that in most communities the hydrants are maintained by the utility, but costs involved are taken from general funds and not billed back to the customer through the rate structure. Mr. Henley said the people nearest the hydrants are the people-who benefit from reduced insurance rates. There are many people in the far corners of the County who will never receive any benefit from these hydrants. Mr. Batchelor noted that on the list are many hydrants involved in the buy-sell agreement between the City and the Albemarle County Service Authority. The City has been encouraged to fix those hydrants before this purchase is finalized. Mr. Wood felt the hydrant problem should be considered as a county-wide measure taken for fire protection. Mr. Thacker said from the list, he found that 15 of the 2t hydrants in the Town of Scottsville were in need of repair. He asked if the majority of these repairs were for wrong threads. Mr. Reynolds said no, several are dry and others have low water pressure. Mr. Wheeler said before the discussion continued further, he felt representatives from the Albemarle County Service Authority, the Town of Scottsville, the County Engineer, and others who have knowledge of water lines should be present. He had no objection to transferring money already appropriated from installation of new hydrants to repairs of existing hydrants. Mr. Wood then offered motion to defer any further discussion until July 17. seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: The motion was AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. Mr. Thacker then offered motion to approve transfer of funds from installation of new hydrants to repairs of existing hydrants in the 1975-76 fiscal year. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. No. 11. Leaf Disposal Committee. MW. Wheeler said this committee has requested a two-month delay in order to obtain additional information. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Thacker, granting this request. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: No. 13. Sheriff: Request for approval 0f additional deputies. Sheriff Bailey saidLdurin~-~p~para~ion of the 1975-76 budget, he had requested six additional deputies. During budget hearings, this request was denied. He had sent his 1975-76 request to the State Compensation Board, leaving off these six additional persons. At the present time, there are 22 full-time deputies working in the Sheriff's Office. Five of these are process servers or court bailiffs and 17 are doing the police work. His office~is unable to properly handle their duties since there are not enough men~to.~handle small calls. Mr. Wheeler asked if the State Compensation Board had approved the Sheriff's request. Sheriff Bailey said he presently has 22 deputies in his office and 21 have been approved by the State. Mr. Wheeler said this Board had definitely advised the Sheriff to make application to the State for the six additional persons and if denied, the Board would discuss it at a later time. Mr. Henley said he had stated during budget work sessions that he was in favor of hiring the six additional deputies only if the State participated in their salaries. Mr~ Thacker thought the request was also tied to the departmental study of the Sheriff's Office presently in progress. Mr. Batchelor noted that the Board subsidizes approximately 41.7% of all salaries in the Sheriff's Office at this time. Mr. Wheeler felt the Board should note an appeal to the State Compensation Board, particularly in reference to the one deputy who is presently not approved by the State and that the Sheriff request the six additional deput'ies for'~approvat of the State Compensation Boar~ Motion was then offered by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Fisher to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that Albemarle County does hereby appeal the decision of the State Compensation Board as to salaries and expenses of the Sheriff's Office for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1975; and BE IT ALSO RESOLVED ~hat Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. are appointed as representatives of the County on the Appeals Board. The motion carried by the.following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. Mr. Thacker felt discrepancies, this decision of the State Compensation Board should also be appealed. motion to adopt the following resolution: Henley, Thac~er, Wheeler and Wood. that since at ~eview of the allowance for the Finance Department also shoWs He offered BE IT RESOLVED that ~lbemarle County does hereby appeal the decision of the State Compensation Board as to salaries and expenses of the Department of F~nance for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1975; and BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. are appointed as representatives of the County on the Appeals Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. ~ood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thackar, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. No. 9. Request from Orange County Bicentennial Commission. Mr. Wheeler said the Orange County Bicentennial CommiSsion is seeking t~e redesignation of Virginia State Route 20 as Constitution Highway. Since Route 20 passes through Charlottesville and any additional t'ourist travel on the highway would benefit the business community in Charlottesville, they feel this should be a worthwhile project from Albemarle CoUnty's viewpoint. They are requesting the County's support in this matter. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Thacker, to adopt the resolution which follows. The motion carried by the following ~ecorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thack~r, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. WHEREAS, the Orange County Bicentennial Commission on May 15, 1975, adopted a resolution suggesting the redesignation of Virginia State Route 20 as "Constitution Highway" and suggested the cooperation of the localities along Virginia State Route 20 in efforts to develop and beautify Virginia State RoUte 20 as a Bicentennial project targeted for completion in 1989, the 200th anniversary of the ratification of the United States Constitution; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County deems this project to be most worthwhile and in the best interest of the County of Albemarle; " NOW,~THEREFORE, the Board o citsLeomptete~:support'.of the purposes set forth in its re the Virginia Department of Highw. b6dies located along Virginia St; project a success. Supervisors of Albemarle County pledges e'-:CoUnty~Bi~en~n~ialf_~o~nission in accomplishing olution adopted May 15, 1975, and requests ~ys and Transportation and other governmental ~te Route 20 to also cooperate in making this BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Orange County Bicentennial Commi Commission, the Charlotesville-A Supervisors of Buckingham County Transportation, the City Council of th~ ~ ~ ~o~.~+~ ........ a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the .sion, the Virginia Independence Bicentennial .bemarle Bicentennial Commission, the Board of the Virginia Department of Highways and 6-19-75 No. 5e. The following letter was received from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation: "June 5, 1975 As requested in resolution by your Board on March 20, 1975, the following additions to and abandonments from the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective June 5~, 1975. ADDITION Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of new location Rte. 631 between Sta. 86+25 and Sta. 158+00, Project 0631-002-128,C501. LENGTH 0.T0 M±. Seotions 14 (0.01 Mi.), 15 (0.05 Mi.) and 16 (0.01 Mi.) on Routes 650, 651, and 652 (Connections), Proj. 0631-002-128,C501. 0.07 Mi. ABANDONMENT Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of old location Rte. 631 between Sta. 86+25 and Sta. 158+00, Proj. 0631-002-128,C501. o.7o Mi. Section 6 of old location Rte. 651 from Sta. 116+70 to new connection, Proj. 0631-002-128,C501. 0.07 Mi." No. 5e. It was noted that the Board had received a copy of "Allocations-Secondary System- 1975/76" from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporation, dated May 30, 1975. Also received was copy of "1975-76 Tentative Allocations for Interstate, Primary and Urban Construction" dated May 15, 1975. No. 12. Report: McIntire School. report at the next regular day meeting. Mr. Thacker said the Space Needs Committee would make a No. 15. Request from Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission re: Criminal Justice Plan. Present to present the request was Mr. Samuel V. Pruett, Criminal Justice Planner. Mr. Pruett said the Virginia Council on Criminal Justice allocates its Crime Control Act funds to the State's planning districts on a basis of population and crime rate. The Council, in turn, requires each planning district to submit a document specifying how the general local governments, within the district, plan to utilize these funds. This document is called'the regional criminal justice plan. The plan for district 10, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District, is written in four parts. Part I, "Status of Existing System", is to update information provided in past plans. Information such as population trends and crime trends is included in this section. Part IZ states the region's needs and problems and proposed projects to address these needs and problems. Part II! details the process by which regional priorities were established. Part IV is a multi-year plan which projects funding demands over the next three ~years. According to the plan, the region has seven basic problems: (1) need for juvenile delinquency prevention and treatment programs; (2) need for training of criminal justice personnel; (3) need for prosectuion and court reform; (4) need for improved law enforcement; (5) need for adult corrections programs; (6) need for victim oriented programs; and (7) need for public information and cooperation. Mr. Pruett said the plan calls for federal funds totalling $212,049 for twenty-three projects to be funded out of Crime Control Act money and two projects to'be funded out of Corrections money. Under this proposal, Albemarle County is recommended for $70,798 for seven projects, as follows: 1) (Ranked No. 2 out of 23 projects) $11,821 for the Albemarle County Sheriff's Departmental Training Program at the Central Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Center. 2) (Ranked No. 12) $9,000 for the Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Security Complex paramedical program. 3) (Ranked No. 13) (Ranked No. 15) network terminal. $11,097 for the Joint Security Complex education program. $2,430 for the Sheriff's Department, Virginia crime information 5) (Ranked No. 17) $4,500 for radios for the Sheriff's Department. 6) (Ranked No. 1 -Corrections money) work release program. $15,300 for the Joint Security Complex 7) (Ranked No. 2 - Corrections money) $16,650 for the Joint Security Complex comprehensive work release program. Motion was then offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr..Thacker, to approve the projects listed, to approve the plan in principal and to approve the priorities as listed. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: These priorities were established by the regional Criminal Justice Advisory Council and Albemarle is represented on this Council by Herbert A. Pickford, George W. Bailey, Richard C. Carter and Albert Shank, II. Before the plan is submitted to the State, the Planning District Commission requests three statements from the County, namely: (1) that the Board of Supervisors approves, for planning purposes, the projects listed in the plan; (2) that the Board of Supervisors approves the project priorities; and (3) that the Board of Supervisors approves in principle the plan as presented to it by the Planning District Commission staff. The Board also has the option of setting their own priorities. By approving these statements, the Board does not obligate itself to expending any local funds at this time. 6-~9-75 No. 6. Report on operation of the Ivy Landfill. the operation was moving along nicely. No. 7. Matters not on the agenda from the public. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, said No one had any matter to present. 1975). Appropriation-Airport. (This matter was deferred from the afternoon meeting on June 11, Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, read the following memorandum into the record: "Date: June 18, 1975 To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors From: T. M. Batchelor, Jr., County Executive Subject: Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Cont'ract with Central Contracting Yesterday, Harvey Bailey, the County Engineer, obtained two preliminary estimates from local contractors of the cost of completing the unfinished work at the Airport. Based on an on-site inspection, A. B. Torrence estimated a cost of $55,000 to complete the job, while Faulconer Construction Company, without the benefit of seeing the Airport, estimated a cost of $45,000. The extreme haste with which the estimates were made justifies accepting Harvey Bailey's compromise figure of $52,000 as a legitimate estimated cost of a local contractor c~pleti~g the job. The following figures compare the cost to the Spo ors of choosing the alternative means of completing the Central Contract: me $32,000 15,000 16,700 COMPROMISE WITH CENTRAL Rock excavation New work Correction of erosion and completion of embankment $63,700 Total II. HIRING OF LOCAL CONTRACTOR $15,000 New wc~rk 37,000 Correction of erosion and ~..~-'~leOmp~t~on~of~m~a~kment $52,000 Total The $11,700 increased cost to the Sponsors by choosing tc in effect, purchases: 1. A settlement of Central's rock claim. Based o~ A. B. Torrence, we estimate that the current value of th~ muc~ as $84,000. If the Sponsors choose to hire a local Central, Central could, of course, sue for the value of t compromise with Central, unit prices supplies by removed rock could be as contractor rather than use he rock excavation. 2. Avoidance of the costs and uncertainties of litigation. The complex factual situation and the likelihood of protracted court ~ppearances justifies at least an estimated $10,000 in legal costs. 3. Expeditious completion of the Contract. Additional delays with con- sequent loss of another seeding season could lead to greater erosion. Present market conditions for contractors has resulted in favorable unit prices which may not be obtainable at a later date. Use of a new contractor would also necessitate a rebidding through F.A.A. F.A.A. is withholding from the Sponsors $30,000 until completion of the work. In addition, the present allocation for the Airport fire truck ($t10,000) and any future allocations will be withheld by F.A.A. until completion." Mr. Wheeler said that the committee appointed at the last meeting on this subject has met with the City Attorney and his assistant. They found, in old correspondence, information on the rock claim dating back to 1973. The Committee found that in order for the County/City/Airport Board to effect a savings, that an inspector had been hired who was not satisfactory. Stakes were put in the wrong places and other errors were made. However, Central Contracting, the consulting engineer and the inspector had all certified payments as to correctness and payments were made to the contractor. This information was presented to City Council, but they still prefer to settle the claim rather than enter into litigation. If the Board of Supervisors wanvs to litigate the matter, they will sev aside $38,000 as their portion of the costs to finish the project, and let the County proceed. Mr. Payne was present at this meeting and he feels differently on the mater of litigation and success of same. Mr. Payne said the County Attorney's Office and the City Attorney's Office are in agreement as to the law in this matter. Both feel that Central's claim is a weak claim and the City/County have a strong claim. However, the City Attorney refers to the equities of the situation. Mr. Payne said he interprets that to mean that Central will take a considerable loss because they ran into problems which were not contemplated by the very low bid. If this were merely a question of litigation, Mr. Payne felt the City/County could win their principal claim and Central would not win under a counter claim. He said Mr. Batchelor's memorandum speaks to the time lag problem which is a significant factor and because of this the problem might better be solved through a change order rather than by rebidding. Mr. Wheeler said after the Committee meeting he had expected to recommend that the Board agree to the settlement with Central. Now that it appears there is only $15,000 in new work', he feels City Council took action on the wrong figures. Mr. Wheeler said he would present this memorgndum to City Council and asked that the question be deferred until July 9. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Wood and seconded by Mr. Thacker. Mr. Thacker said he feels the Airport Board had a valid contract with Central. They did not perform in accordance with that contract. Although he had not had time to review the new memorandum,~and did not know if Mr. Bailey had talked about the time element, he was willing to defer this matter. Mr. Wheeler said he felt that errors were made by all parties to this matter and he would prefer that City ~ouncil see this new information before the Board votes. The motion then carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. 6-19-75 No. 14. Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Wood, and carried by the-following recorded vote, to adopt the Annual Appropriation ~rdinance as set out below. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. Messrs. Fisher and HenZey. Mr. Carwile. ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANOE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1976 An ordinance making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expen ditures~of t'h~ C©UNTY-~OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all ordinances wholly in conflict with this ordinance and all ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent of such inconsistency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Baard of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: SECTION I That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976: Paragraph One For the current expenses of the General Fund the sum of twenty-four thousand seven hundred dollars and no cents ($24,700) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Re'~unds $24,700 S UMM~RY Total GENERAL FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1976 To be provided as follows: Anticipated balance at July 1, 1975 Revenue from Local Sources Total GENERAL FUND resources available for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1976 $24,700 ~0~ 24,700 $24~700 Section I! That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976: Paragraph One For the current expenses of the function of GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT the sum of one million six hundred thirty-eight thousand eight hundred ninety- five dollars and no cents ($1,638,895) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Board of Supervisors $'103,811 2. County Executive's Office 85,487 3. Personnel Department 232,240 4. Purchasing Department 37,271 5. County Attorney 68,470 6. Director of Assessments and Board of Equalization 194,783 7. Land Use 27,611 8. Director of Finance 279,955 9. Engineering Department 66,962 10. Planning Department 133,373 11. Zoning Department 63,272 12. County Landfill #1, Ivy 89,736 13. County Landfill #2, Keene 5~200 14. Elections 43,953 15. Maintenance -BuiIdings & Grounds 86,485 16. Virginia Association of Counties 3,636 17. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission 8,660 18. Chamber of Commerce 9,950 19. Economic Development Commission 3,500 20. Bicentennial Cpmmission 10,334 21. Soil Survey 16,656 22. Street Lighting 11,500 23. Road Viewers 150 24. Surety Bonds 1,700 25. Xeroxing 3,000 26. Unidentified Telephone Calls 200 Paragraph Two For the current expenses of the function of HUMAN DEVELOPMENT the sum of two million six hundred thirty-seven thousand five hundred nine dollars and no cents ($2,637,509) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 6-19-75 1; Parks and Recreation $ 103,634 2. Administration, Department of Social Services 518,360 3. Public Assistance; Federal, State and Local 1,528,137 4. Health Department 170,207 5~ Mental Health & Retardation Services Board 42,822 6. Regional Library 211,010 7. Community College 4,065 8. Extension Service 40,929 9. Youth Employment Service 2~000 10. District Home 5,500 11. Offender Aid & Restoration 5,845 12. Madison House 2,000 13. Lunacy Commission 3,000 Paragraph Three For the current expenses of the function of PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE the sum of one million one hundred thirty thousand two hundred seventy dollars and no cents ($1,130,270) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. County Clerk and Commissioner of Accounts $ 75,152 2. Circuit Court 24,517 3. General District Court 6,462 4. Commonwealth Attorney's Office 41,730 5. Juvenile Court 17,454 6. Policing and Investigating 405,391 7. Fire Prevention and Extinction 217,455 8. Fire Marshal 14,831 9. Inspections Department 147,048 10. Protection Livestock and Fowl 30,567 11. Rescue Squad 2,500 12. Highway Safety Commission 25,000 13. Emergency Services 11,863 14. Contribution - Regional Jail 35,450 15. Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home 3,000 16. Magistrate's Office 750 -17. Debt Service - Jail 71,100 SUMMARY Total GENERAL OPERATING FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1976 $5,406,674 To be provided for.as follows: Anticipated balance at July 1, 1975 Revenue from Local Sources Revenue from Commonwealth Revenue from the Federal Government Non-Revenue Receipts Total GENERAL OPERATING FUND resources available for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1976 --0-- 2,929,332 2,340,315 5,700 131,327 $5a406,674 SECTION III That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for SCHOOL purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976: Paragraph One For the current expenses of the SCHOOL OPERATING fund the sum of twelve million forty-three thousand four hundred thirty-eight dollars and no cents ($12,043,438) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Administration $ 205,700 2. Instruction Regular Day School 6,716,300 3. Other Instructional Costs 774,400 4. Attendance and Health Services 52,500 5. Attendance and Health Services (Activities) 108,800 6. Pupil Transportation 750,550 7. Replacement Transportation Vehicles 110,000 8. School Food Services 12,300 9. Operation School Plant 725,000 10. Maintenance School Plant 225,150 11. Fixed Charges 309,000 12. Adult Education 90,500 13. Other Educational Programs 235,000 14. Capital Outlay 309,266 15. Debt Service 1,418,972 Paragraph Two For the current expenses of the FEDERAL SCHOOL PROGRAMS the sum of seven hundred twenty-five thousand three hundred thirty dollars and no cents ($725,330) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. ESEA Title I-Low Income 2 253,400 2. ESEA Title I-Migrant 55,850 3. ESEA Title III-Innovative Programs 46,800 4. ESEA Title II-Library Resources 23,000 5. Vocational Education (Handicapped) 55,900 6. ESEA Title VII-Spectra 290,380 6-19-75 38 SUMMARY Total SCHOOL FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1976 To be provided for as follows: Anticipated belance at July 1, 1975 Revenue from Local Sources (Trans. from Gen. Fd) Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from the Federal Government Non-Revenue Receipts Total SCHOOL FUND resources available for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1976 $1,2.,768,768 --0~ 7,302,268 4,605,920 725,330 135,250 $12,768,768 SECTION IV That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes specified herein for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976: Paragraph One For the function of CAPITAL OUTLAY the sum of fourteen thousand dollars and no cents ($14,000) is hereby appropriated from the Capital Outlay Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Surveying and Engineering $~0,000 2. Site Testing and Preparation 4,000 SUMMARY Total CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND appropriation $14,000 To be provided as follows: Anticipated balance at July 1, 1975 Revenue from Local Sources (Trans. from Gen. Fd.) Total CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND resources available for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1976 14,000 $14,000 SECTION V That the following-sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976: Paragraph One For the function of CAFETERIA OPERATIONS the sum of three hundred fifty thousand dollars and no cents ($350,000) is hereby appropriated from the Cafeteria Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Maintenance and Operation of School C~feterias $35O,OOO SUMMARY Total CAFETERIA FUND appropriation for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1976 $35O,OOO To be provided for as follows: Anticipated surplus at July 1, 1975 Receipts from Cafeterias Total CAFETERIA FUND resources available for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1976 350,000 8350..,000 Paragraph Two For the function of TEXTBOOK RENTALS the sum of one hundred forty-five thousand dollars and no cents ($145,000) is hereby appropriated from the Textbook Rental Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Textbooks $145,000 SUMMARY Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1976 $145,000 To be provided as follows: Anticipated balance at July 1, 1975 Receipts from Rental Fees Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND resources available for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1976 145,000 $145,q0,0 Paragraph Three For the function of the McINTIRE TRUST FUND the sum of three thousand five hundred dollars and no cents ($3,500) is hereby appropriated from the McIntire Trust Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Payment to County Schools SUMMARY Total Mc!NTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for .......... ~= .T~m~ RO. 1976 $3,500 6-19-75 To be provided as follows: Revenue from investments per trust Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1976 ~3,500 $3,500 Paragraph Four For the function of the REGIONAL JAIL OPERATZ~ONS the sum of four hundred eighty-f, ive thousand seven hundred twenty-six dollars and no cents ($485,726) is hereby appropriated from the REGIONAL JAIL FUND to be apportioned as follows: 1. Operation of Regional Jail $485,726 SUMMARY Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND. appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1976 $485~726 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from Other Sources Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND resources available for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1976 $106,350 336,617 42,759 $485,726 Total Appropriations mentioned in Sections I through V in this Ordinance for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1976: RECAPITULATION Section I Section II Section III Section IV Section V General Fund General Operating Fund School Operating Fund Capital~ Outlay Fund Self-Sustaining Funds 5,406,674 12,768,768 14,000 984,226 GRAND TOTAL: $19,198,368 "BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer to other funds from the General Fund, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to but not in excess of the appropriations made to these funds from the General Fund for the period covered by this appropriation ordinance." SECTI.ON VI Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I through V are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said items and those set forth in this section. Paragraph One Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appro- priations made out of the General Fund, the General Operating Fund, the School Operating Fund, the Capital Outlay Fund, the Cafeteria Fund, the McIntire Trust Fund, the Regional Jail Fund, and the Textbook Rental Fund are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations-- the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all the appropriations in full. Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors. Paragraph Two All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare not included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained. Nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation or make transfers between specific items of appropriation without the consent of the Director of Finance being first obtained. Paragraph Three Ail balances of appropriations payable out of the General Fund of the county treasury at the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) day of June, 1976, except as o.therwise provided for, are hereby declared 'to be lapsed into the county treasury and shall be used for the payment of the appropriations which may be made in the appropriation ordinance for the next fiscal year, beginning July 1, 1976. However, nothing in this para- graph shall be construed to be applicable to the School Fund, Capital Outlay Fund, and Self-Sustaining Funds (or any other especially restricted fund), but any balance available in these funds shall be used in financing the pr'oposed expenditures of these funds fo~ ~.~ ~o~ ......... 6-19-75 Paragraph Four No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by requisition to the Purchasing Agent; provided, however, no requisition for contractual services--such as communications, travel, freight, express--and membership fees and subscriptions shall be required; and provided further that no requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or indiv- idual and the Purchasing Agent, who shall be responsible for securing such competitive, bids on the basis of specifications furnished by the contracting department, bureau, agency or individual. In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors. Any obligations incurred contrary to these requirements shall not be considered obligations of the county, and the director of finance shall not issue any warrants in payment of such obligations. Paragraph Five Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in t. his ordinance by any or all county departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates. Paragraph Six Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or approved by the director of finance. Paragraph Seven Ail ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed. THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE ON JULY FIRST, NINTEEN HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE. At 11:45 A.M. the Board took a two-minute recess. No. 24a. Appointment: Library Board. Passed Over. No. 24b. Appointment: Welfare Board. Passed over. No. 24c. Appointment: Drug Abuse 0ouncil. Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Wood, to appoint Mr. Terry W. Hawkins and Mr. John Sessons to this council for two-year terms beginning on June 1, 1975. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Carwile. No. 24e. No. 24f. Appointment: Appointment: Transportation Restudy - Policy Committee. Transportation Restudy - Technical Committee. Mr. John Humphrey recommended Mr. Fred Foster for the Technical Committee. Mr. Wood recommended Mr. Hurt Gloeckner for the Policy Committee. Motion t.o make these appointments was offered by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Wood, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Carwile. 24g. Appointment: Deputy Dog Warden. In accordance with 'Virginia Code Section 29-184.2(b) motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Fisher to appoint Mr. Herman E. Dorrier as Deputy Dog Warden for Albemarle County for one year beginning July 1, 1975. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, ThacMer and Wheeler. None. Mr. Carwile and Mr. Wood. 24d. Appointment: Advisory Council on Aging. Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Thacker, to reappoint the following members: Dr. Frank Finger, a two-year term; Ms. Nancy Joyner, a two-year term; and Mr. Charles Smith, a one-year term. Ail terms begin on June 1, 1975. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler. None. Mr. Carwile and Mr. Wood. 6-19-75 No. 26. Matters not on the agenda from Board members. Mr. St. John~s~id~M~ Henley had asked him to consult with Mr. Kelly Reynolds, County Fire Marshal, to see if it is possible to amend the BOCA Fire Cod~, and enact as emergency legislation today, an ordinance to allow for the sale and discharge of fireworks and sparklers. He said there is nothing in State statutes on fire and fire protection to prevent this, although the sale and/or use of fireworks may be prohibited by local law and has been prohibited by County law for many years. Mr. Reynolds asked if the person bringing this to Mr. Henley's attention was claiming a hardship. Mr. Henley said he personally did riot"know about this law and he did not think anyone else was aware of the law. Mr. Reynolds saidJ'that on May 16, 1974, this Board adopted the old BOCA Fire Prevention Code. His predecessor told everybody in the County that they would have to get rid of their fireworks by July 4, 1974. This was done verbally; not~ by written order. Mr. Reynolds said that three days ago he sent out a notice on this same matter. Mr. Fisher said anyone who ordered stock last winter and was not aware of this County ordinance would not have received proper notification. Mr. Batchelor said there are two separate questions before the Board: (1) a relief situation for those people who have stock'they want to sell; and (2) whether or not the Board wants to exclude fireworks from the County on a permanent basis. Mr. Wheeler said he could vote for emergency action today and then order a public hearing for a decision as to whether or not to exclude fireworks on a permanent basis. Mr. Fisher noted Section 10-4 of the Albemarle County Code which says "no person shall, within the County, transport, manufacture, store, sell, offer for sale, buy,· use, ignite, or-explode any of ...(a number of items).~or any other explosive or flammable compound or substance intended or commonly known as fireworks." Mr. Payne said this is from State law. Mr. St. John said anything not mentioned in Section 10-5 of the Albemarle County Code is prohibited from being sold anywhere in Virginia under State Code provisions. The County cannot authorize the sale of other items. Mr. Batchelor asked if the County Fire Marshal has to enforce the State Code. Mr. St. John said yes. He then suggested the following ordinance for consideration of the Board: BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Article 28 of the BOCA Basic Fire Prevention Code of 1975, as heretofore adopted in Albemarle County, is hereby amended to exempt the provisions thereof, the sale and use in Albemarle County of those articles delineated in Virginia Code Section 59.1-147, as amended. An emergency being found to exist, this ordinance shall take effect immediately subject to a public hearing to be held within sixty (60) days hereof in accordance with law. Motion to adopt the foregoing ordinance, and to set August 13, 1975, at 7:.30 P~M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse as a public hearing date for the ordinance, was offered by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Carwile. No. 25. Work Session on Article 17 - Site Development Plan Ordinance. public hearing from June 11, 1975, afternoon meeting.) (Continuation of a Section 17-5-17. Mr. Thacker felt the section is ~too vague concerning reservation and/or dedication of suitable areas for parks~ schools, open space and other public or private recreational uses. He said the ordingnce makes this a discretionary matter with the review committee. He would prefer something more definite be spelled out so a developer will know his~responsibilities. Mr. Humphrey said this has to be discretionary in the matter of schools since the ~ounty would not know whether a school is needed until such time as the entire area is evaluated. Mr.~ Thacker agreed 'to this, but said if the County is going to require that recreational areas be set aside, this section should plainly state that requirement. Mr. T~acker felt the ordinance should state that "it shall provide provision up to a maximum of 10% of the area." The total amount could vary depending on the situation. Mr. Payne said this is a very inclusive ordinance. The key here is the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Thacker said he did know if an exact figure could be included and he did not want future Boards to require recreational facilities on a three or four lot subdivision. Mr. Payne sai~ he did not feel the section will be too widely used, but that there will not be enough use. Mr. Fisher felt this section involves the question of. equal treatment under the law since there is an impact on public service requirements for both a large and a small development. Mr. St. John said there are many books saying what conditions should be included in subdivision and site plan ordinances. He researched court cases on this subject and found there is no way that the County can equitably require a small developer to set aside 10% ~20% of his land for a school. The land size would be too small and unusable. That is the reason this section originally required funds. If funds are not required, the ordinance must be flexible enough so the Planning Commission and Board, at the time a project is brought for approval, can selectfwhich of the applicants are required to set aside land for these facilities. It may not be equitable, but under the police power of the State, it does not have to be absolutely equitable. Mr. St. John suggested that the ordinance be left as it is now, or omit this section and go with the concept that no developer will be required to set aside any property, and the cost of this would then be borne by the County through purchase of such land. It would be impossible to lay down absolute guidelines as to what the Board or the Planning Commission are required to do on a given application. Mr. Fisher said the concept of contribution of funds should be included in the event ~ project is too small to have a park, but if a park is needed in that area, a certain amount of funds could be reserved to add to the land that someone else can contribute. Mr..St. John said this is desirable, but the County does not have express State.legislation to do this. Other states have done this without express legislation. The Virginia Supreme Court is very conservative on such matters. Literature researched on this matter shows that a school in a la~ge development is an attribute and is of value to the developer since he may get back more than he has given in land by having a school in the development. Mr. Wheeler suggested that the section be left as worded. He said requiring a school in a c~rtain area is at the discretion of the School Board. There are a lot of arguments on both sides for setting aside funds but if the Board wants to get this ordinance passed, they better leave this to the discretion of the Board. 6-19-75 Payne said that was correct. Mr. Thacker asked how the C~unty could prorate this. Mr. Humphrey said this would be based on the capacity of the school and land demand in that area. Section 17-5-20. Mr. Tha6ker said he was not happy with this section but did not have any idea how it could be changed. Section 17-5-22. Mr. Humphrey said this section was inadequate regarding as-built utility plans and the County Engineer was present to speak. Mr. Bailey said it is highly desirable to have exact location of utilities. People who put pipes or lines in the ground are the most logical people to furnish this information. Mr. Thacker said one of the local surveyors had indicated this was a burden on the developer when he had no control over where the utilities place these wires. Mr. Bailey said the utilities should be able to map these when placed. Mr. Thacker said he can see the ordinance creating a burden in this respect. He was not willing to require this at this time. Mr. Humphrey said this probably can be worked out with the review committee. Section 17-6-6. Mr. Thacker asked if any schedule of fees has been considered for this section. Mr. Humphrey said the staff has investigated the amount of fees to charge, but have not resolved the problem of how to structure the fee schedule. Mr. Thacker asked if there were many instances where preliminary site plans are filed and not followed through to final approval. Mr. Humphrey said there have been very few. In order to cover cost of review, it was ascertained that total review would cost $275.00. Sections numbered 17-7, dealing with review And compostion of review committee. Mr. Thacker said he feels a site plan review is a highly technical review made to insure compliance with a technical ordinance. The staff feels this should be done by a technical review committee but the Planning Commission Feels they should be the approving body. He had reservations about having the Planning Commission involved in this review. He said the committee should be composed of members with expertise to insure compliance with the ordinance and he was not sure this could be accomplished with Planning Commission representation. Mr. Wheeler read Section 17-7-2 which set out members as: a representative of the Virginia Department of Highways, the Albemarle County Health Department, the Albemarle County Planning Department, the Albemarle County Engineer's office, the Albemarle County SerVice Authority, the Albemarle County Fire Marshal's Office and in addition, two members of the Planning Commission. He asked who had made this. recommendation. Mr. Humphrey said this is what the Planning Commission recommends. The staff recommended all those members except members from the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Commission still has final approval over the total site plan. Mr. Humphrey said ~hey doPin.~thi2 draft of the ordinance. Mr. Wheeler suggested thatrinstead of having two members of the Planning Commission serve on the committee, that one member set, without vote, to serve as liasion. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission decided on two members when they found the committee might meet once a week. They felt it might be difficult for one person to be at every meeting and decided that the two members could rotate. Mr. Thacker referred to Section 17-7-4. He had reservations that this procedure needs to go through Planning Commission approval at all. Mr. Humphrey said the original proposal was for staff approval with only appeals to the Planning Commission. Mr. Wheeler said that suggestion may have merit. The Technical Review Committee could review the site plan and if the representative of the Planning Commission is not satisified, the decision can be appealed to the Planning Commission, Mr. Thacker agreed. He saw no need for a site plan to. go to the Planning Commission. The whole procedure is time consuming and costly to all parties. Mr. Fisher disagreed. He felt there is a strong need for Planning Commission review. The Review Committee will not know all problems with traffic, drainage, etc. There is no public input at all if this matter is taken away from the Planning Commission. Mr. Payne said the Planning Commission dealt with this issue and the majority of the members feel as Mr. Fisher does. Mr. Fisher said the Planning Commission is the place where a member of the public who lives on the adjacent property can have input. Mr. Thacker said he did nat mean there should be no'public input. But there is no need for committee review and Planning Commission review. Mr. Batchelor said the staff's original recommendation did stipulate that adjacent property owners and the general public would be invited to committee meetings. Public input is needed at this level so the committee will not make decisions that will later have to be reversed. Mr.-Wheeler asked if there were public input at the review committee level, with only those p~ans considered to have.p.robtems being taken to the Planning Commission, if that would satisfy Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher said that is not the same thing. The Planning Commission itself has said that they want to review these site plans. If they want to do it, they should be allowed to continue reviewing, site plans. Mr. Henley said if the Board will still have a chance to see site plans upon request, he saw no reason for these to go through the Planning Commission. Mr. St. John said if the technical committee holds public hearings at their meetings, they will have to keep minutes and advertise and this i's unwieldy. Mr. Humphrey said it is unwieldy at the Planning Commission level at the present time. He personally had suggested this procedure four or five years ago when working on the existing zoning ordinance. He felt public input can be obtained at the committee level. Procedures can be. set up for record keeping, but it would not be considered a public hearing. Mr. Thacker said although public input is needed at the committee level he could see no need for setting up a double bureaucracy. Mr. St. John said at the committee level the public will have no point of departure for discussion. The site plan, after committee review, will be a concrete proposal with all technical input imposed. Then, there is a point'of departure for public discussion. He visualized that without a starting place for discussion, the committee would become so involved with the public that they would not be able to conduct their work. Mr. Payne said this was d~scussed by the Planning Commission and they felt the discussion might be too short instead of too long. Mr. Thacker contended t~hat the review committee is reviewing the site plan for conformance with a technical ordinance. Mrs. Humphrey said at the present time there is no structure for review or submittal of a site plan. Mr Henley suggested that for appeal purposes only one member of the Planning Commission be a ............... ~ ....... e ~ Rn~ that the Technical Committee would 6-19-75 would be approved by the agent of the Board and be taken to the Planning Commission only on appeal. Mr. Wood~s~id the Planning Commission wants to review all site plans after they~.~re ~eviewed by ~he committee. He said this idea has a'lot or merit· Sections 17-7-4 and 17-7-5. Mr. Thacker asked if the review committee can review the plan within 30 days as set out in Section 17-7-4. Mr. Humphrey said that is the intent. Mr. Payne noted changes made to date: Section 17-2-1. parts. Revised section controlling applicability of the article by splitting into two Section 17-3-2. Changed one sentence to read: "no site development plan shall be approved within ten (10) calendar days from the date of the mailing Of such notice." Section 17-3-3. Added a sentence to read: "Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to permit the unatho, rized practice of any profession that is otherwise regulated by law." Section 17-5-2. Before final approval of any site plan, the developer has to execute bond to construct those things required by the ordinance that are to be dedicated to public use. Anything else will be covered by the certificate of occupancy provisions in Section 11-2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 17-5-5. Added a phrase to the fifth line: appendix to this ordinance." "which standards shall be attached as an Section 17-5-8. This section pro~ide~ that service roads be constructed under county and state standards for such roads. Tha~State Highway Department has such standards so this section should be changed to read: "construct service roads in accordance with current standards of the Virginia Department o.f Highways and Transportation for such.roads." Mr. Humphrey said it has been~ ascertained that if such roads are buiilt by the developer, they will be accepted into the State system. Section 17-5-10. Mr. Thacker felt this left too much discretion with the County Engineer. Mr. Williams has said that standards could be promulugated, but they would probably be too inflexible and may serve as a hardship on people and create a~tremendous burden on the Engineering Department. He felt this language was suitable and would serve the purpose. Section 17-5-12. Changed second sentence to read: "Minimum easement width shall be ten feet, provided that in the case of all utilities to be dedicated to public use, for operation by any public entity, the minimum width of such easement shall in no event be less than the minimum width required by such entity." -. Section 17-5-13. Reworded sentence to read: "Provision shall be made for the minimization of pollution of all downstTream water courses due to surface runoff." The Planning Commission"added this sentence. Mr. Thacker said informationL received in the past. has shown that technology for not to a point that this ~an be required. Mr. Payne said chemical treatment was not the idea. The concern of the Planning Commission was that there could be a parking lot where cars are being washed and the water runs down hill. Mr. Thacker said-this had come up during discussion of an application which is now in Comrt. During deliberation, the possibility of all storm'runoff in a subdivision was considered. Information received from the State Water Control Board shows that treatment in this case is ~ot feasible~ Mr. Payne said in that case the proposal~was for"a pond which would serve as a settling pond. That is the kind of provision for minimization"spoken to in this proposal. Mr. Wheeler said the Planning Comm~ission is ready to submit the new Zoning Ordinance and Map to the Board. He suggested that the Board meet on July 2, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. to accept the Zoning Ordinance and take action on this ordinance at that time. At 1:31 P.M., ~r. Wood offered~:motion to adjourn this public hearing until July ~, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. N~-~ ~6~i~.::~Matters not on the agenda from Board members. Mr. Thacker said the Board had received a reqaest at the May 1~ 1975, meeting, from Mr. Carlton Luck to grant a right of way across the Keene landfill site. has ~iscussed this re,quest with Mr. Luck and found that he wants access for his family's use~only. Mr. Thacker asked that the Board again oonsider this request so'Mr. ~Luck does not have to go to the expense of hSri. ng an attorney, etc. Mr. St. John said Mr. Luck has been given a~p~m~v~right to use ~he road. Ha~..~gil&ndlo.cked and this may not satisfy him if he is arranging financing for a home. This read leads tovprobably one of the largest tracts of' undeveloped land in Albemarle County. If a right off way is established, there will is a sub-standard road leading to an indeterminabl~ numbe~ of houses. However, Mr. Luck can be given an exclus±'ve right of way mf-that is what he wants. Mr. Whesler recommended that this be put on the agenda for July 23, and that Mr. Luck be invited to that me~t~ng. No. 26. Mr'- Thamkerdsaid he had one further matter which was not on the agenda. the following communication from Ms. Rosa Hudson: He then read "Last summer the North Garden and Esmont areas had summer recreational programs which lasted for about seven weeks, (for children) ranging from ages two through fourteen, and (for about) 40 to 50 children. This program was strictly volunteer work. This summer we are asking for money to pay a site supervisor for each location. We hope to have a successful program this year ..... Eddy and Mrs. Julia Jones will be supervisors for each location. The program will consist of arts and crafts, lunch and snacks. This will be paid for by U.S.D.A. funds. We are only asking for pay for the two site super- visors for the program. We hope to begin around the middle of June." Mr. Thacker said Ms. Hudson did not indicate in her letter the amount of funds needed. talking to her, he found that tb~ ~,~ ~^~- ~ ....... 6-19-75 7-2-75 '~Mr. Sampson said the Board will be establishing a precedent by approving this request and will probably receive requests from other areas of the County. Mr. Batchelor noted that the County pays only $2.25 an hour. The County tried a similar program about six years about and programs in only two of the areas were amccessful. Mr. Wheeler said these are two areas are composed of low-income families. They cannot get tran.sportation to either of the County parks. This ±B~the type of program that should be funded from Revenue Sharing Funds. Mr. Henley asked if Revenue Sharing funds can be spent on-the project. Mr. Fisher said these would not be matching funds as they are not required before U.S.D.A. funds can be received. Mr. Wheeler said he did not~ believe these children will have any other summer recreation available and he is not worried about setting a precedent. Mr. Sampson asked if this program would involve the Parks Department. Mr. Wheeler said no. Mr. Thacker agreed with Mr. Wheeler that the Board should provide something for these children because of their lack of access to other recreational areas. He then offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $1,600 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from Revenue Sharing Funds and trans- ferred to the General Operating Fund for expenditures of this program. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Carwile. Not Docketed. Mr. Wheeler said the Board has discussed membership on the Welfare Board many times. He asked that a member of the staff cheCk H.B. 1506 passed by the last General Assembly. Mr. Wheeler noted that a new Section of the State Code, Section 2.1-353.1, requires that local officers and candidates for local office must file a disclosure statement with the Clerk of the Circuit Court annually prior to December 31 of each year. Mr. Wheeler said there has been scheduled a public hearing at the State Capitol on July 17, 1975, at 9:30 A.M. to appoint a committee~ to study the relationship between electric companies and governmental entities. As a member of the Virginia Association of Counties Steering Committee he will be attending. Mr. Wheeler said he had recently received copies of two letters from the Directors~-of the Farm Bureau in reference to the Rivanna River Reservoir~ He said items mention in this letters are the same items which this Board has requested of the State Water Control Board. He has talked to representatives of the Farm Bureau and has asked them to meet with the Board as soon as possible. Mr. Wheeler noted that Louisa County is joining the Thomas Jefferson Planning District effective July 1, 1975. Claims against the County in the amount of $2,210,177.67 were presented, examined, and allowed and certified to the Director of Finance for payment and charged against the following funds: General Fund General Operating Fund School Operating Fund Cafeteria Fund General Operating-Capital Outlay Fund School Construction-Capital Outlay Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsville-l% Local Sales Tax CommonweaZth of Virginia-Current Credit Account Over and Short Total 8O7.3'4 412,584.06 1,534,344.12 71,481.48 132,313.30 21,294.28 35,755.91 227.01 1,278.81 91.36 $ 2,210,177.67 At 1:49 P.M., upon proper-~mot~on, the meeving was adjourned. Chairman 6~-25-75 ......... ~h~. ~r~egu~lar meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, scheduled for June 25, 1975, was cancelled by vote of the Board taken on May 15, 1975. 7-2-75 Pursuant to the following notice~ which was mailed on June 25, 1975, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, met in special session at 7'30 P.M. on July 2, 1975, in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, with the following members: Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker] Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Absent: Mr. Stuart F. Carwile. Officers present: Assistant to the County Executive, Robert Sampson; County Attorney, George R. St. John; Director of Finance, Ray B. Jones; and Deputy County Attornies, Frederick Payne and James Bowling, IV.