Loading...
1976-01-28January 28, 1976 (Afternoon - adjourned from January 21, 1976) 483 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 28, 1976, at 2:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from January 21, 1976. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, and William S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive, J. Harvey Bailey; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and Assistant County Planner, Robert Tucker. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman. No. 1. 911 Telephone Number: Emergency Medical Services System. Mr. Fisher noted that Mr. Denver Stone of the Bio-Medical Engineering Division of the University of Virginia had written stating that funds are available to him in the amount of $15,000 in support of evaluating and implementing the Central Access and Dispatching Concept in the Charlottesville - Albemarle area using the universal emergency telephone number 911 or some suitable alternative centralized access concept with a prime objective of improving citizen access to emergency services of all types. Mr. Stone has offered this $15,000 to the City and the County for a study of the Problem. Mr. Stone was present. He said this is~private grant which has been offered. The County can spend the money to either implement or study the problem. This is the Board's decision. Mr. Terry Ricks was also present. He said he has been trying for a year and a half to get such an emergency telephone number in operation in this planning district. The primary advantage of this system is that it redirects the responsibility of describing where telephone calls are coming from and who should respond. It gives ~he~re~p~bili~y~o&a~di~Dathher. ~n~nr~l~ counties where there is a single office for radio equipment, there is no problem in finding a centra,1 dispatching point. It usually comes into the sheriffs office and is handled by that one person. In the Charlottesville-Albemarle area, the Sheriff, the City Police, the University Police, the Fire Department, and the Rescue Squad, all have separate facilities. 911 requires a central answering point and that is the major obstacle. The telephone company for this area will respond to requests for costs figures on this service, if it is a serious request. They have responded to Fluvanna and Greene County. Cost figures for these counties were reasonable. Fluvanna will have a 911 system in November of 1976. Louisa County is still awaiting cost figures from C & P Telephone. Their first £igures were too high and the study is being reevaluated. Before any cost Tigures can be quoted, Centel will have to work up the cost figures for this service. A major advantage of the 911 system is that it does not require that a person pay the ten cents for a~g ~stanc~.Q~ll if from a public telephone booth. However, cooperation of the public safety-~ i~i~~y It has been done in other areas with a maximum coverage of 24 hours with a minimum staff. Mrs. David asked about a feasibility study done in 1975 by the City Department of Community Development. Mr. Ricks said he had worked with Gerald Miller on this study last summer. They did no~ have resources to do a technical cost or feasibility study. They had looked at other conceptual designs and talked with engineers in the state. This study was a summary of benefits and dis- ad~a~t~$ss©Sf®~ll~dDpotential arrangements of different radio operations, and personnel in a central location in one room. The $75,000 cost shown in this report was we~ed up after talking with a radio engineer in ROanoke who has had extensive experience in the communication field. Dr. Iachetta asked if this concept would reduce the manpower involved. Mr. Ricks said yes. Presently there are five to seven people anytime of the day answering and dispatching calls. Dr. Iachetta felt this would be a tremendous saving. Mrs. Marcia Mashaw said she has sent to the board a summary off-some research projects conducted by the Central Urban ~bservatory. This organization was formed about a year ago with the primary purpose of getting research capabilities to bear on local government problems. At one time they had considered a 911 research project, but did no~ take it as a project because they felt it should be a joint city, county undertaking. If the Central Urban Observatory were picked to do this study, it would cost the county no money, since administrative cos~of the Urban Observator~ are paid by the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Andy Sage,~r~ssociate ~~~the School of Engineering at the University, has shown an interest in doing this study and has a graduate .~ student who would help. He has been told there is a $15,000 limit on the cost of the project and th~ere should be a report to the city and the county by September 1. Mr. Henley asked what would be studied. Mrs. Mashaw said the city is not yet convinced that the community needs 911. In order to become convinced, they would like to see some of the costs, some of the benefits, depending on where this dispatching service would be set up and how many agencies would be involved. At this time,q~he cost benefit ratios are unknown. No one really knows if people have a problem receiving emergency services. There are more questions than answers at this time. Mr. Henley said he was not in agreement that $15,000 should be spent to study the subject. Mrs. Mashaw said she was no~ certain it would cost that much. Mr. Sage Said this study would define problems and the various needs t~hat~could be met and the constraints that would be imposed upon the system. From that, objectives for a 911 system would be discussed. He agreed that if all agencies are not-involved, this system would not work. Mr. Fisher said the Board must decide whether they want to use the money offered to further study a 911 system. If the answer is yes, the second question is how that system would be implemented. Dr. Iachetta said this is now a undefined problem and there is money available to define the problem. The Central Urban Observatory represents one way in which the problem could be defined and he then offered motion to adopt the following resolution. WHEREAS, Mr. Denver Stone, Emergency Medical Services System, University of Virginia, appeared before the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, on January 28, 1976, and stated that a grantor has authorized the expenditure of $15,000.00 in support of evaluating and implementing the Central Access and Dispatching Concept in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area using the Universal Emergency telephone number (911), or some suitable alternative centralized access concept, for the purpose of improving citizen access to emergency services of all types; and 484 January 28, 1976 (Afternoon - adjourned from January 21, 1976) WHEREAS, Ms. Marcia Mashaw, Director, Central Piedmont Urban Observatory, appeared at this same time and expressed the interest of the Urban Observatory in assisting the City and County in evaluating the 911 system; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby request the Council of the City of Charlottesville to agree to a joint study being made to determine if the Charlottesville-Albemarle community can utilize the 911 system; said study to be conducted by the Central Piedmont Urban Observatory utilizing those funds made available through the Emergency Medical Services System. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None Mr. Fisher said the question now before the board was whether or not the Central Urban Observatory should present a proposal of what might be done, how it would be done and then request that this be brought back to the board. Mrs. David said this seemed like a natural group to do the work and they have already done some of the background. Mr. Fisher requested that Mrs. Mashaw work up a proposal for the study and bring it back to the board at the earliest possible date. No. 2. Discussion of methods to be used in updating the Comprehensive Plan. January 21, 1976.)~ (Deferred from Mr. Fisher said the board needs to decide if a consultant should be hired and how to schedule meetings with the Planning Commission in order to discuss proper procedures to follow. Dr. Iachetta said during last week's work session, John Humphrey had mentioned that additional staff members would be needed if the study is done by the staff. Mr. William Colony had discussed using local people for the study. Dr. Iachetta said he had thought the two ideas might be combined, thus giving an overview consulting capacity in the community and with the work being done directly by the planning staff thus keeping the study more locally oriented than is usually the case. He asked if this were a possibility. Mr. Tucker said he had never heard of a plan being done in this way. Most consultants find it easier to do the entire study because everything is interrelated. Dr. Iachetta said there needs to be some way to get the pulse of the community before the study is started so that the recommendations will not be locked in concrete by the time the matter gets to the public hearing stages. There should be a reasonable amount of input at the beginning. Mrs. David said the county has a basic plan. They are not starting with a new plan and it is easier to address discussion to an existing plan. She agreed that more citizens should be brought into this discussion and thought the board should look at the problems in smaller units than the total county by possibly holding neighborhood type meetings. Realizing that al~ communities within each district have the same problems, the districts would have to be broken down into several hearings. It has also been suggested that there be a citizens advisory panel. Joint meetings might be scheduled with the Planning Commission after which the Planning Commission and members of the staff could redraft the plan. Mr. Roudabush said he felt this was a good approach if it can be done fast enough. Public hearings could be held first so that the staff and con- sultant, if one is hired, would know in which direction to go. Dr. Iachetta agreed that more work should be done at the beginning of the study. Mrs. David felt that it would be desirable to have a local person working who is not a full scale planner. Mr. Tucker said that the main part of any planning process is the goals and objectives of the plan. However, the economic base study and land use study need to be completed first. Mr..Fisher said Mrs. Wayne Harbaugh, from the Planning District Commission s~a£f~ w~$~p~esent. At one time it was suggested that the staff of the Planning District Commission might help do this work. Mrs. Harbaugh said there was a difference between this plan and the plan which is being revised. Many public facilities are already in operation, such as the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the mass transportation study.. It will be important to get across to all of the citizen participants that there are goals and objectives and what type of decisions have been made in the past. Dr. Iachetta said the decisions made in regard to central waste water treatment and potable water supply are only the hub of that type of service. The real problem of the county is where the Albemarle County Service Authority should extend their lines for retail service. He has heard it stated many times that it is too bad the County cannot implement the Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1971, because there is no way to provide utilities. He has not seen hard evidence of that fact, but if that is the case, the County might have to start over again because the current plan is based on cluster development. Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board cannot set some guidelines for the person or persons who might be hired as a consultant and determine if the Planning District Commission can fulfill those guidelines. Mr. Fisher said he did not feel the board is at a point where they can do this. By law, the Albemarle County Planning Commission has the responsibility of reviewing the plan to see if it is to be amended. He felt further discussion was needed with the Planning Commission in the near future. The board being unable to agree on a date, this matter was de£erred. No. 3. Sale of Well Lots: Mr. Fisher noted receipt of ~.memorandum from Mr. E. E. Thompson, Jr., Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, dated December 31., 1975. "As requested by the Note Committee for the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, I am attaching a list of properties that were either previously well lots or intended to be used for well lots and owned by the Albemarle County Service Authority. As you know, the majority of these lots are January 28, 1976 (Afterno~---a,~.~gu~-~ed ~o~~ January 21, 1976) '485 A review has been made of all lots on two of which rightsaof-way must be dedicated. These rights-of-way are on parcels 59A-C-18B and 45C-E-38A1. The rights-of-way should be 20 feet wide and dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority prior to the sale of the lots. This should be done in order that when purchased, the buyer will accept the lot with existing easements. The abandoned Berkeley sewer treatment facility is located on lot 61Z-03-3. Prior to release of this lot, the Albemarle County Service Authority must pump the remaining sewage from the plant, dismantle and fill in the cavities. We should be able to complete this within 60 days. If~additional information is needed, or if I may be of further help, please contact me." Description Lot No. 61M£1-16 61M-6-2 61M-4-11 60C-D-lA 60C-F-16A 60C-F-14A '60C-F-15A 60C-F-16B 59A-C-21A 59A-C-18B 59C2-01-52A 59C2-01-18A 59C2-01-33A 59C2-02-24A 4SA-E37 45C-C71 45C-E38A1 Subdivision Berkeley Berkeley Berkeley Colthurst Farm Colthurst Farm Colthurst Farm Colthurst Farm Colthurst Farm Flordon Flordon West Leigh West Leigh West Leigh West Leigh Westmoreland Woodbrook Woodbrook Nezk~B~nahlands Current Owner Co. of Alb. Co. of Alb. Co. of Alb. Co. of Alb. Co. of Alb. Co. of Alb. Co. of Alb. Co. of Alb. Co. of Alb. Co. of Alb. Co. of Alb. Co. of Alb. Co. of Alb. Co. of Alb. ACSA Co. of Alb. Co. of Alb. Co. of Alb; Mr. Fisher said that appraisals have been made on these lots and offers hzve been made by some adjoining property owners. The Board now needs to decide how to dispose of these lots. Mr. St. John said that any advertisement of these parcels should say that the sale is subject to approval of the court before the sale is final. The Board can also place a ~ restriction on sale of nonconforming lots saying they cannot be used as a building lot unless combined with another lot. Nonconforming lots can be offered for bid to adjoining property owners. Full size building lots, on which there will be no restrictions placed, should be sold at public auction. After considerable discussion, motion was offered by Dr. I~chetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, requesting the County Executive to speak with the Superintendent of Schools to see if the School Board has any interest in Lot 45C-E38A1 in Woodbrook; that the County Attorney's office be ~ requested to draft the proper resolution for sale of full size lots in accordance with state code; that the County Attorney's Office be requested to prepare the proper resolutions for sale of nonstandard lots which would allow those lots to be sold to adjacent property owners without rights of construction on those separate lots; and, that these resolutions be returned to the Board of Supervisors for action. The motion then carried by the~ following recorded vote. AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None No. 4. Report on request for additional~ warden and adoption of certain ordinances. (This matter was carried forward from the meeting of January 21, 1976.) Mr. Bailey said he had talked to Mr. Ray Walker, the game warden assigned to Albemarle County, and his supervisor, Mr. Updike. Mr. Updike does not feel there is a chance of.obtaining an additional game warden because of the financial stress of the State at this time. Both thought there was merit in the use of temporary game wardens during hunting.season, such as are now given to Albemarle County. They are working on a limited number of hours. Mr.Updike was in agreement with the provisions of the ordinances prepared to restrict hunting in the rights of way. Dr. Iachetta asked if it were not illegal in the State of Virginia to discharge weapons from the side of the road. Mr. St. John said yes, it is unlawful in Albemarle County to discharge any weapon within 300 feet of any road. The ordinance prepared on the casing of guns has been enacted by Orange County, but has not yet been tested in court. The second ordinance which makes it unlawful to hunt on any land unless the hunter has written permission of the owner or is in ~he~"~PmD~n~ ~i~th~i.owner is in conflict with State law. The State hunting laws say you cannot hunt on posted p~pe~ty without written permission o~he~ow~r'~S~a~in~th'~a~hUnter~a~ ~nn~_p~operty ~hd~w~itten permission even though the land be unpos~ed i~clearly in conflict with State law. N~ St~t~ohn said he is not sure that the ordinance on the casing of guns is unenforce- able, but he believe that it is. ~L~Mr. Dorrier said this request started in his district. He attended a meeting of the Souths±de Albemarle Association last night. They were concerned that deer were being killed on land without permission. There were instances of retaliation by hunters when told to leave property. Steers were shot and there has been a general harassment of people living in the district. He said if the ordinances were not acceptable, he felt the board should at least adopt the resolution ~ requesting an additional game warden, or ask that the time be extended during hunting season. He then offered a motion to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, during the recently concluded hunting season, residents of Albemarle County, particularly in the southern part of Albemarle, were aggravated, inconvenienced and damaged by a large number of persons; and WHEREAS, there was~a high incidence of trespassing on private .property, fences were cut, broken and damaged, livestock was shot and/or chased and killed by dogs and the secondary highways of the County were made unnecessarily hazardous by the numerous vehicles either parked on the highways or traveling at low speeds; and 4.86 ~anuary 28, 19~6 (Afternoon - adjourned from January 21, 1976) WHEREAS, the present game warden ~assigned to Albemarle County by the COmmonwealth of Virginia does an excellent job in attempting to prevent violations of present ordinances but is unable to cope with the number of violations occurring in the County and is in need of assistance; and WHEREAS, the payment of salaries for the State's game wardens is made from license revenues and Albemarle County sold over $26,000.00 in licenses during 1975; and WHEREAS, the situation has reached crisis proportions and can only grow more grave with the beginning of the 1976 hunting season; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby petition the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Virginia Commission on Game and Inland Fisheries, to appoint a second game warden to help patrol Albemarle County. FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is directed to send a copy of this resolution forthwith to the Honorable J. Harry Michael, Jr., the Honorable Thomas J. Michie, Jr. and the Honorable James B. Murray, requesting their support of this resolution. AYES: NAYS' The foregoing motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote. Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None Mr. Fisher said the Southside Albemarle Association had also requested that special deputies be appointed. He asked where their powers would derive. Mr. St. John said that each one individ- ually would have to post bond and be appointed by the Circuit Court Judge by name. They would serve as conservators of the peace and their powers are delineated by state statute, but the jurisdiction in which they exercise their powers is not. Because there is a possibility this might turn into a vigilante function, the sheriff is concerned about this type of appointment unless he knows the people being appointed and has a chance to see that they have training in law enforcement. They can carry side arms and arrest people for any offense for which deputy sheriffs can also make arrests. It was the sheriff~ idea that these people be appointed as conservators of the peace with jurisdiction only on their own land. Mr. Fisher said they already have jurisdiction on their own land with rights as a property owner to tell people to leave or call the sheriff. Mr. St. John said under the new criminal code, 18.2 of the Code of Virginia, a property owner no longer has the power to make a citizens arrest. You can shoot a trespasser to protect your own life or do whatever is necessary to protect your property, but you cannot make an arrest. This was unintentional and the legislature may correct this situation at this session of the general assembly. Mr. Dorrier suggested that the board wait for action on the resolution adopted earlier and then reconsider the matter of special deputies before the next hunting season in the fall. No. 8. Revisions to Pay and Classification Plan. Mr. Michael Carroll was present. He said the Pay and ClasSification Plan adopted in November of 1974 requires a yearly review of positions- to determine the accuracy of allocations of classes before budget time. He has completed a review of the plan and is prepared to submit his recommendations to the Board. However, in the interest of time he requested that a preliminary review be made by a committee of two or three Board members. Mr. Fisher appointed Mrs. David and Mr. Henley for this review. No. 7a. Appointments' Board of Equalization: Mrs. David offered the name of John T. Sinclair, a businessman with experience in the area of housing and urban development. Mr. Dorrier offered the name of Charles H. Yost, a farmer. Mr. Henley offered the name of Mrs. Ethel Kindrick for reappointment. Mr. Roudabush offered the name of Robert W. Keller. Motion to appoint the above named persons to t.he Board of equalization for the 1976 calendar year was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: NAYS' Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None No. 7b. Appointments' Parks Committee: It was noted that at this time the Parks Committee is an unofficial committee and the Board must make a decision as to whether or not they should continue. Mr. Dorrier said he feels they should continue as there are recreational needs in the southern part of the County and he feels there must be similar needs in other parts of the County. Mrs. David said some interest has been expressed in extending the Parks Committee work to areas of recreation and the possibility of making this a joint City - County operation. Mr. Fisher felt the charge to the committee should be reviewed. He said there is work needed to complete Totier and also to get the parks into operation for the summer. He recommended that the committee be reappointed with the same charge, with review of the charge to come at a later -48? Notion to this e££ect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS' None Mrs. David offered the name of Harry Y.Gamble Jr. as a member of the Parks COmmittee. He is a Piedmont area professor of religious studies and an outdoorsman. Mr. Dottier offered the name of Mary Waltine Banks, a teacher in Nelson County and a life- long resident of Albemarle. Dr. Iachetta offered the name of Kathleen Burney, a resident of Woodbrook. Mr. Henley offered the name of Roy Harris for reappointment. Mr. Fisher offered the name of David T. Morris for reappointment. Motion to appoint these persons to the Parks Committee with no set term of Office, was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None No. 7c. Appointments: Economic Development Commission: Mr. Dorrier offered the name of Bruce D. Rasmussen, an attorney. Dr. Iachetta offered the name of F. Alton Garrett, a banker. Mr. Fisher offered the name of Mrs. Marjorie C. Jordan ~or~ reappointment. Motion to appoint the above named persons to the Economic Bevelopment Commission for the 1976 calendar year was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None No. 7d. Appointment: Community Action Agency Board: ordered carried over to February 19, 1976. Appointment to this Board was No. 7e. Appointment- Highway Safety Commission: (O~e appointee needed). Mr. Roudabush offered the name of Edwin W. Lang,, a former employee of the University of Virginia Police Department for 23 years. Presently an employee of the University of Virginia Department of Buildings and Grounds. During his 10 year as a police officer, he was a supervisor and had duties involving safety at the University. He has also been active as a volunteer fireman in the Charlottesville Fire Department for many years. Dr. Iachetta offered the name of Michael J. Demetsky, a Ph.D. civil engineer whose major interest is transportation. Mr. Dorrier offered the name of William Rush, who has worked for 29 years as an equipment operator for the Highway Department. Mr. Dorrier said he is knowledgeable about the practical side of highway building. Mr. Fisher then asked the clerk to call the roll and that each Board member express his preference. The~ro~lLw~sLcalled and the vote was as follows: For Mr. Rush: - Mr. Dorrier; For Mr. Lange: Mr. Roudabush; For Mr. Demetsky: .Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Iachetta. Mr. Fisher then noted that he had appointed Dr. Iachetta to be the Board's representative on the Highway Safety Commission; ~his appointment as a replacement for Maxine C. Burton, whose term expired on December 31, 1975. This is a full four-year term expiring on December 31, 1979. No. 7f. Appointment: Advisory Committee for study of the South Rivanna Reservoir. Mr. Fisher noted that the County must make an appointment to fill the vacancy created when John Humphrey resigned as a County employee effective January 30, 1976. There are a number of citizens who have gone to the committee and asked that the committee be expanded in order to have a consumer on that committee. They were told to come back to the Board of Super- visors because there would soon be a vacancy. They are concerned that someone should be on the committee to represent those drinking and paying for the water. Mr. Bailey noted that the chairman of the committee did not want the committee expanded and suggested that this would be a way of filling the need for a consumer. Present was Kathy Tompkins, president of the Woodbrook Homeowners Association. She said they would like to have a person to be a consumer advocate, someone to serve as liaison between Z homeowners groups that are interested in the study, and someone who could review the original proposal in terms of consumer interest. It was suggested that they come to the Board and ask that a Planning Commission member be appointed who has consumer leanings. She said this would be a step in the right direction but would still leave that person wearing two hats. There is no one on the Commission who is only a consumer. Dr. Quarles, who is chairman of this committee, said he would be careful to include the public at the meetings, but at the same time he might have to curtail this practice if it becomes too time consuming. Mr. Bailey said if the committee is enlarged, the City would be in competition for this seat also. Dr. Iachetta said the Board needs to replace Mr. Humphrey and then send a specific request to haVe the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority enlarge the committee. Mr. Roudabush said he had thought the Board would appoint Bob Tucker to fill the vacancy and therefore ~e requested that the matter be carried over to another meeting. The other Board members concurred and the clerk was ordered to put this on a future agenda. 488 January 28, 1976 CAfternoon - adjourned from January 21, 1976 .... ~o. 7g. Appointment: Director of Planning. Mr. Bailey said he had talked with John Humphrey before he left and Mr. Humphrey had recommended that his assistant, Robert Tucker, be appointed in his stead. He concurred in this recommendation. Mrs. David said she had observed Mr. Tucker in action and feels he will ably fill this position. She then offered motion to appoint Mr. Robert Tucker as Director of Planning. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Fisher said he felt it has been the intent of the Board to make all such appointments on an acting basis until the new County Executive is hired and has a chance to review appointees. Mr. Bailey said he feels it is no easier for a new County Executive to remove a person appointed as a department head, than it would be to remove a person appointed as anJ~a~$ing department head. He said there are presently too many acting positions on the staff and it is having an adverse effect on County Government. Mr. Henley said an appointment as acting Planning Director may cause the public to not have confidence in the appointee. Dr. Iachetta said since Mr. Tucker must deal with numerous people in this job, he would be in a better position to do so if appointed as Planning Director. He felt Mr. Tucker does a fine job and said he hopes the new County Executive will concur with the Boards recommendation. Mr. Dorrier agreed that Mr. Tucker should have as much power as possible in carrying out his duties in the Planning Department. Mr. Fisher then asked if it was the intention of the Board to approve a salary for Mr. Tucker, as set out on the County's Pay Plan for that of Director of Planning. Mr. Bailey said that should be automatic with the upgrading of the position. Mrs. David then clarified her motion to state that the Board hereby appoints Mr. Robert Tucker as Director of Planning with salary to be at the first step of the designated grade for this position. The motion was re-seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: ;Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None Mr. Tucker was present and expressed his appreciation to the Board. He said that his old position of Assistant County Planner is now vacant and he asked if the Board wanted to review that position as it should be filled immediately. Mr. Fisher said he felt this was an administrative matter, but a resume of the person selected could be sent to the Board as a courtesy. Mr. Bailey said if the position is advertised and a person selected, he hopes the position will be filled. Last year several positions were advertised, hundreds of applications were received, but the positions were not filled. Mr. Fisher then suggested that the Board adopt a motion authorizing the filling of the position of Assistant Director of Planning. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None No. 9. Authority for Attorneys. Mr. Fisher said he had a meeting with the County Executive and Mr. Hartwell Clarke, Zoning Administrator, on the question of providing legal counsel for County employees who are defendants in suits, and particularly where there are damages involved. He was told that the Board should take action to protect their interests. Mr. St. John then offered the following resolution for adoption. WHEREAS, Hartwell P. Clarke, Zoning Administrator, and George R. St. John, County Attorney, respectively, have been made defendants individually and in their official capacity, in a suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia styled United Land Corporation of America, et al v. Hartwell P. Clarke, et al, for damages in the total amount of $790,000.00; and ~EREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County finds that the acts complained of by the plaintiffs in this suit, were carried out by said Hartwell P. Clarke and George R. St. John within the scope of their official functions and in furtherance of their official duties and in the best interests of Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County further finds that it is in the interest of the County of Albemarle that said Hartwell P. Clarke and George R. St. John be defended by independent counsel in this suit; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the said Hartwell P. Clarke, Zoning Administrator, and George R. St. John, County Attorney, be and they hereby are authorized to employ individual and independent counsel of their own choosing, separately or collectively, as they or each of them shall consider necessary for the defense of the described suit; said attorney or attorneys To be compensated at the expense of Albemarle County. January 9.8, 1976 (Afternoon - adjourned from JanUS;ry 2I, 1976) 489 Mr. St; John cited the following authorities for adoption of this resolution. He said the 1973-74 copy of the Attorney General's OPinions, page 22, cites sections 15.1-522 and 15.1-19.2. The first statute authorizes Boards of Supervisors to do anything the council of a town or a city can do. The second statute authorizes councils of towns or cities to hire an attorney to defend any of its officials which are made defendants in a civil suit, or any action arising in the scope of their official duties. These statutes were applied by the County Attorney in the case of a Zoning Administrator. It is necessary that the aforementioned resolution be enacted now and not after the fact. In adopting the resolution, the Board must find that this is something in the County's interest and that the employee is not charged with doing anything against the County. The Board could guarantee that if Mr. Clarke and Mr. St. John hired an attorney they would be reimbursed, however this is not the proper procedure and the Attorney General has said so. The statute says that a County Attorney's function is to defend any officer and employee of the County in a civil suit of this kind, but it would be very difficult for Mr. St. John to be a defendant in his own right in this case and defend himself as his own attorney, although he could do so. He could also ask one of his associates to defend him, but to do that and to also defend Mr. Clarke as co-defendant when it may come to pass that certain things Mr. Clarke did at Mr. St. John's advice would make this look like a conflict of interest on his part. When one is in a position where one gives advice, it is not proper to also defend. Dr. Iachetta asked if the Board authorized these attorneys expenses, if this would also cover any countersuit, if that were the decision of the defendants attorney] Mr. St. John said if that should happen, he did not feel that it would be proper for the County to pay an attorney to do that work unless it was possible that any recovery be assigned to the County. However, he did not feel that question would come before the Board as the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction of that type in this suit. Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the foregoing resolution. Mr. Roudabush asked if this suit were the same as the suit against T. M. Batchelor, former County Executive. Mr. St. John said no, Mr. Batchelor was accused of acts that would be called quasi-criminal acts. If that is an offense, it is an offense against the County itself and its citizens. In that case the County would be paying for defense of acts against itself. That is not the case in the present suit. This is an allegation that the acts committed denied two individuals their civil rights under 42 US Code, section 1983 of the Federal Civil Rights Act. Those two individuals are members of the public, but the officials are not charged with offenses against-the interests of the County. Vote was taken at this time and the motion carried by the following recorded vote. AYES' NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None At 6:05 P.M., motion was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel and legal matters. The motion carried by the following recorded vote. AYES' NAYS' Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None At 7-30 P.ML, the Board reconvened in the Albemarle County Courthouse, and upon proper motion, adjourned the meeting which had begun at 2:80 P.M. 6~airman