1974-09-199-19-74 ' -
165
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
was held on September 19, 1974, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room County Office
Building.
PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart P. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, William C. Thacker, Jr.,
Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd P. Wood, Jr.
ABSENT: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive and County Attorney.
The meeting opened with the Lord's Prayer led by Mr. Wheeler
Upon motion by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr, Fisher, the minutes of the night
meeting of May 8, 1974 were approved by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Mr. Carwile.
The Chairman requested that the Clerk bring a report to the next Board meeting
stating when the minutes would be up to date.
The first item for consideration was a request to have roads in Westover Hills
Subdivision taken into the secondary highway system. Mr. Charles Perry, Assistant
Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of Highways was present. He said roads have
been checked by the Highway Department and are basically acceptable. There is still
a problem with a drainage easement, however, he felt a resolution could be~passed
at this time. Mr. John Humphrey, County Planner said the Board does have a mora-
torium on Sections 2 and 3. He would suggest at this time lifting the moratorium
on Section 2 and continuing on the other section until plans are submitted and
approved by the Highway }epartment. Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker to adopt
the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways be, and the same hereby
is, requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subjec~ to
final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the
following sections of roads in Westover Hills Subdivision:
Beginnin~ at the intersection of the right-of-way of State
Route 675 and the center line of Westover Drive, station
10+15 on the plans and profiles of Westover Drive and
Westover Circle as prepared by Warren F. Wade, thence in a
southwesterly direction 1,066.50 feet to station 20+81.50.
Beginning at the center line intersections of Westover Drive,
station 20+31.50, and Westover Circle, station 10+00; thence
in a southerly direction 540.71 feet to station 15+40.71 the
end of Westover Circle.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways be and
is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right-of-way and drainage ease-
ments along these requested additions as recorded by plat in the Office of
the Circuit Courv of Albemarle County in Deed Book 425, page 234.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: M~bsrs: Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood
NAYS: None
i'6 6
/)
9-19-74
Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker to lift the building permit moratorium
imposed on Section 2 of Westover Hills} Upon notification by the Highway Department
to the Planning Department that the roads have been accepted into the Secondary
System. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood
NAYS: None
Mrs. James Murray requasted abandonment of back portion of Route 661 from end
of present state maintenance to Rivanna Reservoir, due to inconvenience and road
being changed since purchase of property. This section of 661 known as Old Rays
Ford Road has not been used since 1927. Motion was offered by ~r. Wood to advertise
this request for a public hearing at 9:Z5 A.M. on October 17, 1974. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None
Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher to adopt the following
resolution:
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the secondary system budget for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1975, as submitted by Mr. R. G. Warner, Resident Engineer, be and the
same is hereby approved as follows:
Ordinary maintenance --- 587,060
Maintenance replacements -- 205~735
Improvements --- %,222,420
TOTAL 2,015,215
The motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood
NAYS: None
Mr. Batchelor presented the following communications from the Virginia Depart-
merit of Highways:
"September 5, 1974
Secondary System
Additions
Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Gentlemen:
As requested in resolution by your Board on August 15, 1974, the following
additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved,
effective September ~, 1974.
ADDITION LENGTH
Jefferson Village Subdivision
Colonial Drive - From Route 6'49 west to Route 649. 0.51 Mi.
Tompkins Drive - From Colonial Drive to 0.17 mile west
of Colonial Drive. 0.17 Mi.
Washington Court - From~Colonial Drive to cul-de-sac 0.05 Mi.
Madison Court - From Colonial Drive to cul-de-sac 0.04 Mi.
MonrDe Court - From Colonial Drive to cul-de-sac 0.04 Mi.
Jefferson Court - From Route 649 to 0.07 mile west of
Route 649. 0~:07 Mi.
Sincerely,
(signed)
J. E. Harwood, Deputy Commissioner
and Chief Engineer"
9-19-.74
16 7
"August 27, 1974
Secondary System
Additions
Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Gentlemen:
As requested in resolution by your Board on November 15, 1973, the
following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby
approved, effective August 27, 1974.
ADDITION
Westfield Subdivision, Section !~
Greenbrier Drive - Prom Route 29 0.04 Mile S.E. to Westfield Rd.
Westfield Road - Prom Rouee 29 NBL to Greenbrier Drive.
Sincerely,
(signed)
J. E. Harwood, Deputy Commissioner
and Chief Engineer"
LENGTH
0.04 Mi.
0.16 Mi.
"August 27, 1974
Secondary System
Additions
Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Gentlemen:
As requested in resolution by your Board on August 16, 1973, the following
additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved,
effective August 27, 1974.
ADDITION LENGTH
Brookwood Subdivision
Claudis Drive -Prom its intersection with Route 1204 to
400' S. of Route 1204. 0.08 Mi~
Jamestown Road - From the intersection with Claudis Drive to the
intersection with Brookwaod Road. 0.22 Mi.
Sincerely,
(signed)
J. E. Harwood, Deputy Commissioner
and Chief Engineer"
As requested by Mr. Morris Foster, representing the developer of Earlysville
Heights, Mr. Amon P. Williams,. motion was offered'by Mr. Carwile to adopt the
following resolution:
RESOLUTION
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 f~nal inspection
and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following sections of roads
in Earlysvi!le H~ights Subdd'~,~ion:
Approximately 540 feet - Ridgemont Road from State Route 743 to its
intersection with Viewmont Road
Approximately 940 feet -Viewmont Road from. Ridgemont Road norvhwest
to its termination at a turnaround.
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 these requested additions as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 443, pages 8 and 9,
Deed Book 452, page 162, Deed Book 491, page 3 and Deed Book 532, page 479.
Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None
Motion w, as offered by Mr. Fisher to lift ehekbuilding permit moratorium imposed
on Earlysville Heights roads when the Planning Department is notified by State High-
way Department of roads being accepted into the State system. Motion was seconded
by Mr. Wood, carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None
Mr. Humphrey stated that back in May a resolution had been passed asking for
correction of deficiencies on the roads in Corville Farms or have bond money put
into escrow. This has been done. Planning Department was asked to contact the
Highway Department to get replacement cost of the substandard drainage ditches
and if there would be sufficient money for a maintenance bond. Mr. Humphrey received
letter from the Highway Department stating that as of June, 1974, there was only one
major item to be corrected, cut the concreta drainage'ditches. Thay had~not received
a reply from Mr. Tiffany ay this time. Therefore, based on last inspection $5,000.00
should be retained until the work is completed in accordance with h~ghway standards.
The County is presently holding two bonds that approximate $7,000.00 Mr. Thacker
asked the amount of ~a maintenance bond for roads in Corville Farms. Mr. Perry said
it would be $150.00 less. This is a maintenance fee not a bond, and after acceptance,
the developer would have to post a maintenance bond of one year. This would be
$750.00 to $1,000.00 depending on the length of the road. Mr. Thacker said he wanted
to know if $7,000.00 was adequate to provide the other cost needed until the roads
are accepted by the Highway Department. Mr. Perry recommended the Board retain at
least $5,000.00. Mr. Fisher asked if the County could proceed to have remaining
work done to the roads. Mr. Humphrey said that was the question he had wanted to
ask of the Board.
The Board discussed who should handle repairs to this ~road, and what the correct
procedure should be. Mr. Fisher offered that the Board should contact the developer
and give him the option to make necessary road repairs himself. If action to bring
the road up to standard is not taken by October 1', Mr. Humphrey has the authority
to proceed working from the bond money.
After additional discussion as to length of time developer should be given as
notice, Mr. Car~ile said he felt the Board has been fo$1ing ar.ound long enough with
this. The developer has had sufficient notice and he could see no problem in this
instance. Mr. Wheeler said ~ the developer was notified that the Board would
exercise the bond and place it in escrow. He had received notice at that time.
Mr. Fisher then offered motion to adopt the following resolution.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the County Planner and the County Engineer are hereby
authorized to take necessary~ action to accomplish construction of
drainage structures required to bring the roads in Corvitte Farm
Subdivision up to state standards and approved by the Virginia De-
partment of Highways.
Mr. Wood said he felt this is ~what the Board should do, but the daveloper is
not here and he felt Mr. Tiffany (the developer) should be sent a notice asking that
he be at the next meeting of the Board and the Board take action at that time in
Mr. Tiffany's presence. He felt this was a better way to do business.
~ote was taken on the motion at this time and the motion was carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwiie, Fisher, Thacker, and Wheeler
NAYS: Mr. Wood
9-19-74
Mr. St. John asked Mr. Humphrey if he had~already written to the developer
when the certificates of occupancy were cashed, and if he were still responsible
if bond was not sdfficient to cover work. Mr. Humphrey said yes, the letter con-
tained a statement saying that the cashing-of these cervificates in no way released
him from his obligation. Mr. Batchelor suggested that Mr. St. John review the
letter before it is mailed.
Mr. Humphrey said in reference t~ the roads in Auburn Hills Subdivision. He
has talked with the applicants several times. The applics~ wants to develop Section
2. This~plan is being held pending the posting of a bond and also the completion of
the roads in Section 1 or a bond in lieu of completion being posved. He has not
heard anything further on this matter.
Mr. Humphrey said he has been in touch with the Highway Department to see what
needs to be completed on the roads in Oak~ill Subdivision so they may be brought
into the State System.
Mr. Humphrey said there are also some corrective measures which need co be
made to Greenbrier and Commonwealth Roads. They are minor but the County is still
holding the bond.
Mr. Wheeler asked that a list of all bonds being held be furnished to the Board
of Supervisors.
Mr. Carwile asked Mr. Perry if sidewalks had been incorporated into the plans
for the interchange at Barracks Road and Route 250. Mr. Perry said the sidewalks
were extended in these plans, however, he did not know for what length.
Mr. Wood said he had received calls from people living in Oakhill Subdivision
about recently placed signs. The main road through Oakhill Subdivision is State
Route 631 and it has been designated as Stagecoach Road. However, no sign was
placed at the intersection to show this. He asked that someone check to see who
had erected street signs so that this matter could be corrected.
Mr. Thacker asked the status of a request for industrial access funds for roads
around Stromberg Carlson. Mr. Perry said the plans had been sent back for answers
to questions, mostly dealing with capital outlays of Stromberg plus number of addi-
tional personnel. There was also question about a drainage easement required behind
Stromberg Carlson. The State will not act on this request until this drainage
easement is complete. Mr. Carwile said he think's~.Virginia Real Estate Investment
Corporation owns the~property that the easemenv falls on. Mr. Perry said it might
be wise for the Board to contact them since Mr. Jim Hill has been unsuccessful and
the State will not make a decision until they have all the information needed.
Mr. Thacker then offered motion that this Board send a letter to the owner of
the property, Virginia Real Estate Investment Corporation that this drainage ease-
ment is required before final action can be taken on a request for industrial access
funds and that they make a de6ision as to whether or not they will grant such eamement.
The motion was seconded, by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler, and Wood.
NAYS: None
ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile.
Mr. Thacker asked status of his request of the Highway' Department to make a
traffic study at the intersection of Route~627 and 727. He s~id the traffic is
increasing greatly on 627 and it is an acute intersection. Mr. Perry said Mr. Warner
had talked to the traffic officer but he did not know the outcome and would check
into the matter.
Mr. Fisher asked if traffic had been restored to Route 745. Mr. Perry said
they have raised the tonnage back to 10 tons. The rail road did .all the work and
the bridge is now safe for school bus traffic~
Mr. Fisher read the following excerpts from a letter signed by John O. Higginson.
"Several weeks ago I asked Donald Woodson to come out and look at the poor
conditions on Robert Patterson's road to his subdivision, caused by the lack
of proper drainage to State Route 708, just past my Slaughter Place. Ail the
water and mud has been pouring down into 708 for the past several months.
Donny was very cooperative and stopped by to talk to me.
I called Mr. Mills of the High~ay Department at the same time and he said
he was going out.to see the conditions of the road.
I talked with Donny about the poor conditions Jack Camblos's unfinished
road is causing on State Route 637. Ail the water and mud slush is pouring
down on 637 in both directions and well out into the road on the sharp curve.
The road is extremely dangerous without further hazzards.
I cannot understand at the time of the site plan why Camblos was not
required to provide a drainage system that would keep this excessive run off
out of the highway. His road is very steep and this Rind of condition will
occur if strict drainage is not required.'~
"Why weren't Patterson and Camblos required to follow standards when they
applied for their permits?
They have both violated the Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance and I
feel this should be promptly enforced.
With the poor conditions and heavy traffic on State Route 637, a very
serious accident could be caused by all the mud slugh on the sharp curve.
I would appreciate it if you would look into this situation and see
that immediate action is taken. Winter will soon be approaching and condi-
tions will become much worse unless this situation is remedied."
Mr. Fisher said he could personally attest to the fact that there have been
three to four inches of mud across these roads. Mr. Humphrey said .the road which
Mr. Camblos is g~ading is the restricted road approved by the Planning Commission
and the Board of Supervisors this past summer. His notification of approval on
August 16, 1974 indicated that before the plat would be signed a grading plan had
to be approved by the Thomas Jefferson District. They have hear~ nothing further
from Mr. Camblos and knew of no grading until Mr. Woodson advised them. An inves-
tigation washed,made two weeks ago, on September 13, Mr. Camblos was notified that he
is above the 15,000 square feet and technically is in violation of the grading
Ordinance because there has been no permit issued. They had asked Mr. St. John to
review the matter, Mr. St. John said all facts are being turned over to the Common-
wealths' Attorney.
9'19'74
Mr. Wheeler said he understood that on restricted roads before any grading
could be done drainage had to be approved, and if that was correct then the 15,000
square feet mentioned does not come into play until after the grading plan is ap-
proved. Also there is another requirement on restricted roads, that a plan be sub-
mitted and approved before any work can be started. Mr. Humphrey said that was
correct. Mr. Fisher felt this work was done five or six months ago. Mr. Humphrey
said it was net brought to the attention of the Planning staff until about a month
age.
Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Perry if where someone takes action and silt comes
across the state highmay, if that is a violation. Mr. Perry said definitely.
He said if someone wants access off of a state road they must apply for a permit.
The highway department ~reviews the entrance, the site distance, the drainage, etc.
If this ~saa problem, someone would have been in touch with Mr. Mills 6f the Highway
Department and he in turn would contact the developer, however, he was unaware of
any action being taken but he would check into the matter.
Mr. Humphrey said in reference to the Patterson Subdivision on Route 708.
Plans were submitted on this road which weseto have been brought into the state
system, however, they are not dividing their land but developing it into rental units.
Mrs. Miller wrote on September 18, after site inspection by Andy Evans. He found
roads being graded without a permit and a central water supply being installed
without a permit. A cease and desist order will be ordered on both of these vio-
lations today. The applicant has been asked to oeat~et S~e Planning office. These
facts will be submitted to the County Attorney for reference to possible legal
action. Mr. Fisher said legal action would probably take months; what could be
done to get the roads cleaned up .and safe at this time. Mr. Perry said the Highway
Department can take action if developer does not do it within a reasonable length
of time. M~e Perry said the cost could be assessed against the owner if this was
a problem. Mr. Wheeler asked that Mr. Perry look into how these entramme permits
were issued and to make a report to the Board at the October meeting.
Mr. Perry said the intersection of Bellair and Route 250 West has been brought
to the attention of the Highway Department on many occasions. They are going to
change the physical alignment of the intersection and sand bank hoping this will
correct the situation.
Mr. Humphrey said the Planning office has been made aware of zoning violation
on Route 742 where Ridge Way Electronics have dumped all the debris from their recent
fire on land on 742. This matter is being handled by the Planning Office.
At 10:20 A.M., the Chairman called for a public hearing on the adoption of an
ordinance vacating a portion of a dedicated right-of-way in Colthurst Farm Subdivision,
Albemarle County, Virginia. Such right-of-way known as Colthurst Drive extends
172
9-19-74
southerly from Cavalier Drive, Colthurst Farm Subdivision for approximately 307.91 feet.
Right-of-way is shown on plat drawn by O. R. RandoLph dated April 14, 1955, and
recorded in Deed Book 340, page 422, Albemarle County Clerk's Office. Notice of
~his public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August 30 and September
6, 1974.
(NOTE MR. THACKER ABSTAINING AND DID LEAVE THE ROOM DURING DZSCUSSION AND VOTE
ON THE FOLLOWING MATTER.)
Mr. Gary McGee was present to represent Mr. James L. Jessup, petitioner asking
for this vacation. Mr. McGee stated Colthurst Drive is the main road off of Barracks
Road, and the last 307 feet are privately maintained, and serving no other part of
the existing subdivision, tt does, however, serve a well lo~ owned by ALbemarle
County Service Authority. The proposed ordinance is for an easement of 25 feet in
width for service to this well lot. He said the only property which would be served
by this road is the Faulconer property which borders the subdivision where this
road ends. He said according to the layout of Colthurst S~ubdivision, there is
access to Faulconer property over several other roads such as Ivy, Barracks mr
possibly through Canterbury Hills. He said a petition was given To the Board of
Suparvisors in February, 1974, signed by every person residing in Colthurst all
asking that the road be closed. There was no opposition from any people residing
in Colthurst.
Mr. Jessup was present. He said the road is not in the state system and is
in a bad state of reyair. The intersection would lead one to believe that the road
leads to the fence. The Sheriffs Office has been answering complainst trying to
give the two lots privacy.
Mr. McGee said it is the hope of the people residing in Cotthurst that this will
remain a small residential developmont without any,through traffic. He asked that
the ordinance if adopted, also show plats recorded in Deed Book 391, Page 461.
Mr. Herbert Pickford was present to represent the Faulconer estate. He
suggested that~perhaps this matter be deferred until Mr. Henley could be present.
However, he proceeded with his presentation. He said the County has projected the
Colthurst section will be developed as residential. There will be no way to get
traffic from Route 50 to Barracks Road without this connection through Colthurst.
The ~,County is the owner to the fee simple; i~f the County gives up this short spur
of road, the County or the State may have to purchase this in the fut~e or condemn
it and the Board will loose an option. There has been some concern shown that this
will develop into a thorough fare. The Board has control over subdivisions and the
alignmen~ of roads. M~. Hunter Faulconer said he went over it about once a month
ago. This small spur was required in Colthurst in 1968 when Colthurst was approved.
It was policy then and is now, that the County require subdividers in Section 4-5
of the new ,Subdivision Ordinance that the street or arrangement shall provide adequate
9-19-74
i73
to adjoining parcels when necessary ~o provide for the orderly development of the
County.
Mr. Hunter Faulconer ~aid there had always been a connection between the two
properties. When they bought the property in 1950, Mr. Colthurst was using, since
the only two paved roads in the area where Ivy and Garth Road.
Mr. Pishburne said looking ahead ten or twenty years, if the area is developed
there may be some fire and police problems. Because they would have to go all the
way around and it would take 15 minutes longer in order to get to the property.
A matter of seven or more miles.
Mr. Wheeler then asked Mr. Humphrey for his opinion. He read the following
staff report which was written on February 20, 1974.
The staff bases its determination on the following:
1.
2.
3.
There are large tracts of land that would benefit
from the extension of Colhurst Drive.
The County may need this right-of-way for extmnsion
of the utilities in the future.
Alternate access, other than from Barracks Road
and Old Ivy Road is needad for circulation within
the general area.
Proper circulation for emergency vehicles.
Mr. Jessup said there had been a lot of talk about the access but there is
other access available into the same property. They would not be cutting off the
only means of access.
At this time, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Carwi!e then offered motion to adopt the ordinance as advertised with the
additional reference to the plat. He felt the property does have sufficient
access from other points. The reads in Colthurst are not state maintained roads.
It has been the policy of this Board not to allow roads to connect into the road
system which is not in the State system since this would place an additional
burden on th%~roperty owners. This vacation with the easement granting has been
supported by the service authority.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher. He asked Mr. Jessup if it was true
that the roads are not state maintained. Mr. Jessup said &ll the roads in Colthurst
are in the state system except this one short section. Mr. Carwile said he felt
there are still sufficient other reasons to abandon this section of road.
Mr. Wheeler said he would not support the motion. He said closing roads with
adjoining properties will cause problems in the future. Especially, since the
Planning staff has said that this connection will be needed in the~_~overall plan
and development of this area.
Mr. Fisher said he knows d~ a similar situation of roads not in the state
system and there is concern by the owners that if the roads were tied into another
subdivision, they would have to maintain roads which others were using heavily.
He said any intensified development of the adjoining property would generate
trafficathrough Colthurst and would change the character of an established residen-
1 7 4
tial development. This has been one of the things which they had to support the
motion in the past. He said there has been a request to defer~ this matter until
Mr. Henley is present to vote and if it looks like the Board is heading for a tie
he would suggesv that this be done.
Mr. Wood said after the last meeting knowing of the problems with trash and
vandalism, knowing that the Service Authority did not oppose this vacation, not
being aware of a possible emergency or a crisis for emergency vehicles, and that
there was access into the property; he was prepared to vote for the motion.
However, he thought it might be wise to wait for Mr. Henley. He said he was
worried about the problem brought to the Board about parking and the lack of ability
to police that area. If there were someway the Board could accomplish both, it
would be great to leave the access open. He said he would not mind thinking about
it until Mr. Henley is present.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if, when the County owns the fee to the property,
is there any way traffic can be controlled, would ±~ ba illegal ~o put a Chain
across the road only to be opened by the Service Authority and for the Faulconer's
when t~ey have to use farm machinery? Mr. St. John said there is no reason why it
cannov be chained. Mr. St. John said iq is dedicated to public use~ but until it
is made into a street, he did nov feel the public has the right to use it as a
street. Mr. Fisher said this would solve some of the problems with traffic.
Mr. Car~ile asked if Colthurst was originally approved with all roads to be brought
into the state system, or was it originally done on a private road basis ~nd
then subsequently brought into the system. Mr. Humphrey said he was not sure the
roads were brought in fairly recently. This road was to be a stem road and is only
60 feet wide as opposed to the others which are 70 feet.
Mr. McGee said the roads were approved as private and brought into the state
system at a later time. Mr. Carwile said he thought the roads were approved as
private and if that were the case there would never be any obligation to the developer
to upgrade vhat section of road to make the connection. Mr. Pickford said that the
Faulconer estate does not have any opposition to a chain or a gave or anything to
keep the traffic off that section of road.
Mr. Wood then offered a substitute motion to defer action until Mr. Henley is
present. He would like to see the Service Authority place a chain and they would
have access. The one way to correct vandalism would be to abandon, but in trying
to be consistent, would like to see it chained rather ~han cause more serious
problems.
No second was received to Mr. Wood's motion to defer action. The Chairman then
called for a vove on the original motion as proposed by Mr.' Carwile and seconded
by Mr. Fisher and The vote was as follows:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, and Fisher
NAYS: Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Wood
ABSTAINING: Mr. Thacker
9-19'74
The County Attorney advised the Board that when a tie vote is reached and the
full membership is not p~esent, the motion goes over to the next regular meeting
of the Board at which time it must be voted upon again. The Clerk was ordered to
place this item on the agenda for September 25, 1974 at 7:30 P.M..
At 10:48 P.M. the Chairman called for a public hearing on an ordinance to be
known as Section 13-26, Chapter 13 of the Albemarle County Code and referred to as
a Firearms Control Ordinance. Notice of this public.~hearing was advertised in the
Daily Progress on September 4 and September 1!, 1974.
Mr. Floyd Archery asked what the intent of the ordinance is and if there are
any ordinances or laws on the books which would cover this situation. Mr. Fisher
said the intent of the ordinance is to. protect the public safety where the population
density is great enough that to disCha~ge~irea~ms would be unsafe on the face of
the act. In places like townhouses, apartments, etc., there is no prohibition
against the discharge of firearms except as within a 100 yeard .os state roads which
is a hunting law. He asked the County Attorney if there are any other ordinances
which~-~ to this. Mr. St John said the County Ordinance already prohibits the
shooS~ng of any firearms whether you are hunting or not within a town in 100 yards
of a street or highway or any road in the County whether hunting or not. That is
100 yards on either side of any public thoroughfare. Mr. Wood asked if public
thoroughfare meant state maintained roads. Mr. St. John said, it says it is unlaw-
ful for any person to be engaged in hunting or attempting to hunt with firearms 'within
50 feet of a primary or secondary highway and that is whether you fire the gun or
not. You c~n't hunt within 50 feet of a primary or secondary highway~ You can't
fire your gun within 100 yards of any road in Albemarle County.
The Ordinance also covers R-I, and RS-1 which are fairly large size pieces of
land. Mr. Archery lives in R-1 and it has 2-1./2 acres of land. His land backs up
onto a lot with 25 acres. He has a target range on which he shoots a .22 pistol.
This ordinance will prohibit him from doing that which means he will have co go
somewhere else. He feels the ordinance is too restrictive and he asked that it be
voted down for that reason. He also brought to the Board's attention that the
ordinance restricts the legal use of firearms in the protection of home and property.
The ordinance does not make any provision for this. He said lots in high density
areas and in R-1 which are not of a large size would already be covered under the
ordinance since you can't fire firearms within 100 yards of a state road.
Mr. Fisher said that he had a point but he could not concur that one acre lots
are large enough to allow the discharge of rifles and pisto~s. He said in
reference to Mr. Archery's remarks about breaking the law in the protection of
property and life, it was the opinion of the County Attorney that under most cir-
cumstances if a person were trying to protect his property the Judge might consider
this an overriding matter. The Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Wheeler said the Board had a problem since the enforcing of hunting laws
is controlled by the Game Warden. This ordinance would be enforced by the Sheriff.
He did not know of any one who can get the Sheriff to enforce the game laws. Mr.
Wheeler said he was concerned about someone being able to protect their home.
However, he lived in a subdivision of 3 acres and he said the lots are much too
small for shooting.
Mr. Thacker asked what the legal definition of firearms is. Mr. St. John said
it does not include air guns, there would have to be a special ordinance for air
guns.
Mr. Wood said he felt there are adequate laws now and the Sheriff can enforce
these. He found it hard to support the adoption of this ordinance because a
person would be guilty under this ordinance for protecting his home. Mr. Carwile
asked if anyone had an amendment that would allow someone to fire a firearm in
seIf-defense. Mr. St. John said an amendment could be drawn and the ordinance
would not have to be readvertised. Mr. St. John said he has doubts about the
enforcability of this ordinance. Mr. Carwile suggested the matter be deferred
until afternoon to allow the County attorney time to draft an amendment to this
ordinance.
The following memorandum from John Humphrey, County Planner, was presented
"September 17, 1974
TO: T.M. Batchelor, Jr., County Executive
FROM: J.L. Humphrey, County Planner
SUBJECT: Cost of Notifying Propervy Owners - Proposed Zoning Map and Ordinance
We have analyzed the cost of notifying the individual property owners in
Albemarle County in connection with public hearings on the proposed zoning
ordinance and map. Acme Visible reports that to place the appropriate infor-
mation on computer cards ~ied to the Real Estate records now housed with Acme
Visible would cost somewhere between $1,080 and $1,140. This is based on an
estimated total parcels of between 18,000 and 19,000, at a rave of 65 per
parcel. The post office reports that bulk mailing could be acoomplished at a
rate of 6.16 per piece of mail, 3rd class. With the given number of parcels,
it is estimated that this would cost between $1,098 and $1,159. If we are to
send the individual notifications first class, it would cost between $1,800
and $1,900.
In summary, the minimum cost outside of staff time would be somewhere
between $2,078 and $2,299. Th~s includes the Acme estimate and the third class bulk
mailing rate. To send the notifications first class would result in an
additional $800.
With reference to staff time and cost, ! submit that the staff'~s effort
in compiling the information necessary to notify the property owners would
have been accomplished anyway without notification to property owners, since
we are preparing a zoning analysis and information booklet in which 80% of the
information needed to notify property owners would have to be used.
This zoning analysis does break the County into the village clusters and
community clusters which necessitates a parcel or tax map analysis relative to
the existing and proposed zoning. The staff analysis goes further in that we
will project population saturation under the proposed zoning along with total
impact. We are of the opinion that such an analysis is needed to inform the
laymen and general public as to what the proposed map and ordinance does and
what the objective is."
Mr. Humphrey said they are not required by the General Enabling Legislation
that when a locality pursues a new or revised ordinance with more than 25,000
parcels to do this, however, about 20% of the work is complete at this time and
they have set a date of October 15 for completion. There are now three people
working on this full time. It will take quite a lot of hand time labeling letters.
9-19-74
177
Mr. Carwile said he realizes that County is not obligated co send these notices
but he would be in favor of notifying the property owners by the third class bulk
rate. He felt the County will receive benefits from the assemblages' of this data
and the corrolation of it with the real estate record. The proper~y owners are
entitled to knowwhat specifically is proposed with the zoning classifications of
their property.
Mr. Fisher asked what information wiii be mailed to the property owners.
Mr. Humphrey said information will show tax map parcel number, existing zoning,
proposed zone, acreage involved and if the land is split into two different
categories, acreage involved in each. There will also be an insert describing
proposed zones. There will also be a packet inserted which will show proposed
zone, describing the zone, proposed uses permitted in the zone, as well as the
present uses. Ail of this information will be made available to the public in
booklet form.
Mr. Humphrey said Acme Visible has prepared a preliminary print-out with the
co!umns~necessary. This will be stuffed into ~he envelopes with the basic infor-
mation. Mr. Thacker said the basic information is from the computer print-out with
back-up information on how to analyze the novice. The basic staff time will be
consumed by stuffing envelopes and addressing.
Mr. Humphrey said there may be a need for additional telephone lines into the
office after the notice is sent to the public. Mr. Batchelor said he felt thav
indicated that the information is needed so that people can understand what is
happening to the~H? property.
Mr. Fisher said the City had recently adopted a new zoning map which was pub-
lished in the newspaper with the proposed zoning on the map and the public was
invited to seek more information. Ail other information about permitted use~ was
also published. Mr. Humphrey said the County could do this as an alternative,
however, the zoning in Albemarle County was much lower than the City and the map
would have to be broken up into several sections in order to allow the public to
read the zoning. Mr. Wheeler said he felt publication in the newspaper may be a
good idea. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission had set up the month of Nov-
ember for their public hearings. Considering a possibility of three public hearings,
having over-lapping advertisements for the Board and getting this raady for the
Board by December 1. Mr. Fisher asked if information were published in the newspaper,
how soon could the Zoning Ordinance go to a public hearing. Mr. Humphrey said if
mailing was not required, they could readily determine the public hearing dates
instead of waiting to see how the staff is progressing with their work.
Mr. Carwile asked how long it will take the staff to complete their work if they
proceed with this mail-out. Mr. Humphrey said they had estimated October 15, but
they are a little behind schedule at this time.
1 7 8 9-,19-74
/ c~
Mr. Wheeler asked if the mail-out is ordered, could the Planning Commission
finish the work at their level by December 31~ This did not indmde Board of Super-
visors hearings. Mr. Humphrey said yes, it could be completed by that time.
There is a possibility the Planning Commission may need more public hearings
depending on the public in-put. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission had
decided, tentatively, to have one public hearing for the urban area, one for the
West side of the County and one for East side of the County as a minimum.
Mr. Wheeler said that he would suggest that there be a public hearing held in
each magisterial district even though this might cause some overlap. If the Planning
Commission can finish their work in 1974, and the Board passed on the Ordinance in
the first month of 1975~ he would p~efer that adoption of the Ordinance not go past
February !, 1975. Mr. Wood, Hr. Carwile and Hr. Fisher said they would support
the sending of notic~since they felt it was very important the people get as
much information as possible. Mr. Wheeler said he was not concerned with the cost
if the citizens are properly advised. He said it was the consensus of the Board
that Mr. Humphrey carryeu~t notification to the property owners by third-class
bulk rate mail, and he asked the Planning Commission to conduct and finish their
public hearings in 1974, and notices of the public hearings of this Board of
Supervisors be set so there would be no doubt about the Planning Commission
finishing their work first. Mr. Wheeler asked if the Board should make an appropri-
ation for these notices at this time. Mr. Batchelor said that the amount is not
known at this time, but there is an account in the Board of Supervisor's budget
Which will cover this.
At this time the Board took a Two minute recess.
Miss Page Godsey was present to discuss the 1975 legislative package. Mr
Wheeler said the Board must take action on legislative matters, For the Virginia
Association of Counties package by October 1, 1974. Matters would then b~ presented
as a later date to our delegates to the General Assembly. He suggested that the
Board hold a public hearing on legislative matters on Thursday, September 26, 197~
at 7:30 P.M. ~in the Court House, and that Senator Michael, Delegates Michie, and
Murray be invited ta~_~his meeting.
Miss Godsey said the staff recommends that the Board consider she following
carryover items from the 1974 session of the General Assembly.
1) H.B. 552 Annexation
2)
3) H.B.
4) H.B.
5)
6)
H.B. 550 Public Employee Bargaining
864 Utility Rate Schedule
327 To repeal Governmental ~unity (the County Attorney has recommended
that this bill be opposed).
S.B. 394 and H.B. 381. To repeal theBemiss Formula for assessing Public
Service Corporations.
S.B. 485 Service Authorities relating to Public Referendums on specifying
projects.
179
9-19-74
7)
8)
9)
lO)
1t)
H.B. 1017 Place tax on certain beverage containers
S.B. 508 & H.B. 699 Provide. noise limits on Motor Vehicles operated on
public highways
S.B. 520 Outdoor recreation bonds
H.B. 369 Minimum Subdivisions
H.B. 494, H.B. 890, SB 487, & S.B. 488: To require developers to pay
Pro Rata share of capital facilities.
Mr. John Stroud asked if the Board had considered a new bill on assessmenvs,
from a report issued out of the Governor's office. The Chamber feels there will be
some drastic changes in assessments across the State because of this Bill. Mr.
Batchelor~said that all Board members had been mailed a copy of this report, and
he feels there will be major changes and legislation because of the Perkins case.
Miss Godsey said Senate Bill #399 is one of the carryover bills having to do with
assessment ravios and a training program for Iocal assessment officers. Mr. Stroud
said that he understands that if some of these recommendations are adopted, local
assessments would then come under the State Tax Commissioner and it is the Chamber's
opinion that this power should be left in tha hands of the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Wheeler said he has studied the report from the Governor's office; he is in
favor of a uniform assessment across the State of Virginia.
Mr. Thacker said it has been suggested that the Board seek specific enabling
State Legislation for local speculative builders license tax in order to clear up
the question of legality. Since this tax ordinance is now on the Counts&s books,
and a questions, has been raised, he asked if it would be in order to seek an
Attorney General's opinion rather than to seek courv action to determine the legality
if the question can be cleared up in a less expensive way. Mr. St. John said it would
not clear up the question. If the Attorney General says the ordinance is lagal, it
would put the County on somewhat f~rmer ground; however, the courts do not put any
weight on the Attorney Generals opinion, but puv the weight on the reasoning of the
opinion. He said that whan an ordinance has been adopted and has been on the
County's books for a long time, there are arguments pro and con about seeking an
Attorney General's opinion after the fact. He would ravher the Board take the
position that the ordinance is valid and put the burden on anybody who challenges it
to show that it is not valid. Soon after he bacame County Attorney, he was asked this
question, and at that time did considerable research. He has issued an informal
opinion that the ordinance is valid. The County has just been through a maximum effort
to enforce this ordinance, and he would rather put the burden on anyone who challenges
the ordinance rather than seek an Attorney General's opinion.
Mr. Wheeler said if any member of the Board has a specific ivem to be considered
at the public hearing, he should contact M~ss Godsey before next Thursday.
On motion by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood, lottery permit was issued to the
Parent Teacher Association of Broadus Wood School for a one time event to be held
on Friday, October 18, 1974. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
180
9-19-74
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None
Mr. Henley
On motion by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Fisher, lottery permit was issued to
the Henley Middle School Band Boosters for a one time event to be held on October
5, 1974. The motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
No acvion was taken on a request for a special appropriation in the amount of
$9,646.64 for the salary of the judge of the circuit courv.
Motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Carwile, to reappropriate $50,000
from revenue sharing funds for purchase of a site for a fire station in the quadrant
northwest of the city of Charlottesville. The motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None
Mr. Henley
At 12:00 P.M. the Chairman requested an executive session to discuss litigation
in connection with the landfill, and plans in~-connection with the report of the
special grand jury. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by
Mr. Thacker,. and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler, and Wood.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
The Board reconvened at 1:42 p.m.
Statements of expenses of the Director of Finance, the Sheriff's office, and the
office of the Commonwealth's Attorney for the month of Augusv, 1974, were presented.
On motion by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Fisher, these statements were approved as
read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Woods
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
Statemenv Of expenses incurred in the operation of the County Jail for the month
of August, 1974, was presented along with summary of prisoners days. Also presented
was bill of the Jail Physician in the amount of $40.00 of which 2/3 is reimbursable
by the State. Motion to approve vhese statements was made by Mr. Wood, seconded by
Mr. Thacker, and carried by .the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood~
None
Mr. Henley
9-19-7 4
Report of the County Executive for the month of July, 1974 was presented as
information.
Report of the Department of Social Services, in acoordance with Virginia Code
Section 63.1-52 was presented as information.
Check #I-005346 dated June 27, 1974, in the amount of $3,400.00 payable to
Fowler American Incorporated, was presented for cancellation. Mr. Batchelor informed
the BOard that this check has'been written for purchase of an automobile, however,
when a member of the Planning Staff went to pick up the car, it was not ready,i~he
check has never been out of the hands of the County. Motion to cancel the check
was offered by Mr. Wood and seconded by Mr. Carwile, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs: Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler, and Wood
None
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
Check #I-002904 dated February 20, 1974, in the amount of $379.05 payable to
Educational Audio-Visual Incorporated was presented for cancellation. Mr. Batchelor
informed the bBoard that this check had been written vo Educational Audio-Visual
Incorporated, instead of Educational Audio-Visual Corporation. In August, when a
past due notice was received from Educational Audio-Visual Corporation, the Federal
programs director had contacted Educational Audio-Visual Incorporated to find if they
had been holding the check. This check was returned to the County and is presented
for cancellation. Motion to thi~ effect, was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by
Mr. Thacker, and ~arried by the following recorded ~ote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwite, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, and seconded by Mr. Thacker, to adopt the
following resolution.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Suparvisors of Albemarle County, Virginia
that $379.05 be and the same hereby is appropriated from the School Operating
fund, and coded to 17QD~03 and expenditure of these funds is hereby a-pproved.
The foregoing motion ~arried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:. Messrs. Carwi!e, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
Claim against the Dog Tax Fund was received from R. Leake for eight hens killed
by dogs on July 15, 1974. On motion by Mr. Fisher, aeconded by Mr. Wood, Mr. Leake
was allowed $1.50 for each of these hens for a total of ~12.00. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
Claim against the Dog Tax Fund was received from J. W. Mannis for 37 chickens
killed by Dogs on August 17, 1974. On motion by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Thacker,
Mr. Mannis was allowed $1.00 for each of these chickens for a total of $37.00. The
morion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
Mr. Hartwell Clark was present to make the following request of the Board:
"This office submitted a budget for 1974-75 based on six inspectors. We
felt the much touted recession in the building business would occur, and this
size department would suffice.
The expected decline has not occurred in Albemarle County. May was the
biggest month recorded with revenues totaling $17,444.75. June totaled
$13,048.95, and July totaled $15,154.20. This occured while approximately one-
half the construction in the County was under old permits and was not ~he
responsibility of this office.
We have before us Albema~rle Green Apartments, Four Seasons West, Sherwood
Manor, Peacock Hill, and work done by Dr. Charles Hurt as new work to be
added to our present load.
We find it necessary to add an additional electrical inspector immediately
in order to make the required inspections. This will be the third electrical
inspector.
We anticipate ~he need for an additional plumbing inspector and an addi-
tional building inspector by February, 1975.
This office has found it necessary to get ~mergency permission for a third
secretary from Mr. Batchelor to take care of the applicants ay the counter and
the additional work involved with checking business Licenses and keeping these
records.
I have prepared a budget to cover this additional expense and an IBM service
contract expense that was not included in the 1974-75 budget.
We are' almost certain that unanticipated revenues will cover all of the
salaries, direct expenses, and at least one-third of the equipment cost.
This office has no intention of hiring any personnel unvil it is absolutely
necessary, and the equipment will nov be ordered until needed."
Mr. Thacker said this office was set up under State law, there are certain
services which must be rendered by them, and they have an obli.gation to render these
services as quickly as possible. He feels Mr. Clark has done an excellent job so far
said
and relies on his opinion in this matter. Mr. Batchelor/they have been over the num-
ber of inspections ~o be made, and the number that have not been made and this per-
sonnel is needed in order to comply with the law. Mr. Wheeler said he felt this
request is justified.
Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker, to approve Mr. Clark's request and to adopt
the following resolution:
BE. IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $46~295.00 be and the same hereby is appropriated from the General Fund
a~nd transferred to the General Operating Fund for expenditures of the Building
Inspections Department and expenditure of these funds is hereby approved.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs.
NAYS: None
Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
Mr. Clark also presented the following for Board consideration:
9-19-7 4
183
"When the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code was adopted, certain
routine inspections were required. These included "places of assembly" which
include churches and public halls, and "hazardous uses" which include motor
vehicle repair shops and petroleum warehouses or storage areas.
A fee schedule of ten dollars ($10) per inspection was adopted. At a
later date the Fire Brevention Code was adopted, which covers all buildings
except residential units. Public areas in multi-family units are covered.
No fees are charged for these inspections and this is customary practice in most
areas.
This office recommends that the fee schedule for routine inspections be
dropped for the following reasons:
1. Business feels that this service should be provided free, since
they pay a business license.
2.Churches feel that the Volunteer Fire Companies should continue
to do the inspections free.
3. This office feels that since the percentage of inspections under
the fee schedule is so small in relation to the inspections that
are free, bad public relations and possibility of unfairness
suggest removal of the charge."
Mr. Fisher asked what the potential loss of revenue would be from this proposal.
Mr. Clark said he did not have an exact figure, but would guess at about $1,000 a
year, however, this $1,000 has not been considered in this revenue estimate at any
time.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Volunteer fire companies would continue to make inspec-
tions of churches, and public halls and schools, or if the fire marshall would in-
spect schools.
Mr. Clark said the fire marshal~ would inspect schools ~nly if asked. If he is
not asked, the County is not responsible for these inspections. Recently, Kelly
Reynolds~has been hired as fire marshal,~ Mr. Clark said he is very impressed by
this very energetic young man. Mr. Fisher asked if anybody inspects the schools.
Mr. Clark said that by law the Principals are required to request that somebody
inspect their school every six months. Mr. Thacker asked if the fire marshall would
prefer to make these inspections. Mr. Clark said that as a general rule, the
volunteer fire companies ame manned by very fine people who give their time as a
public service. They are fairly well trained in fire suppression; quite a few have
had courses in fire prevention. The thrust of the fire marshal~t office is toward
fire prevention, and arson prevention. A more technical type of duty than putting
out fires. He did not mean to imply that the volunteers are not quali£ied, but they
do not have time to do all of these inspections. The fire marshal would be glad to
inspect schools if so requested.
Motion was foffared by Mr. Fisher, seconded byMr. Thacker co advertise for a
public hearing on October 17, t974 at 10:00 A.M. in the Board Room, an amendment to the
Albemarle County Code section 6.3 so as to eliminate the fee chargadfor all routine
inspections performed by the fire marshall ~ The motion carried by the following
recor~ vote:
AYES: Messrs.
NAYS: None
ABSENT:
Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood
Mr. Henley
18 4.
9-19-74
Mr. Wheeler asked who hired the fire marshal~ and who he works under. Mr. Clark
said he was h±red by a committee of three. The B~ildC~g~.~nspections department gives
him supportive services, however, legally, he works for Mr. Batchelor. Mr. Thacker
asked ~f it would be appropriate for this Board to indicate to the Department of
Education that the fire inspection service is available, and the Board ~ncomrages
their use of same. Mr. Clark said this was not necessary. Mr. McClure had written
to him requesting certain fire inspections during the time the ~ounty was w~thout a
fire marshall,. He has now notified Mr. McClure that the fire marshal~_ is working,
and the inspections are available.
Mr. Clark said after the adverse publicity, County Staff has received, some feel
very strongly about parts of it. He said ~e had written a resolution and brought it
to the staff meeting last Monday, and presented it. After considerable discussian,
a vote was taken, and no dCssenting vote was recorded. He read the following:
WHEREAS the staff and personnel of Albemarle County government have been
subjected to some six months of investigation by agents trained in police work;
and
WHEREAS their repor~ voa Special Grand Jury and the Grand Jury's subse-
quent report to Judge Berry does not accuse any individual of misappropriation
or misuse of funds, nor does it accuse any individual of ineptness or wrong-
doing at the present time; and
WHEREAS, the investigators did not seem to concern themselves with the
methods currently used by the departments in handling the work load or if these
procedures were effective and efficien~ and
WHEREAS the staff and the County Executive feel that the taxpayers are
entitled to know exactly how effective and efficient their government is, t'he
Staff and the County Executive respectfully petition the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to retain the services of a thoroughly competent management
analysis group. It is suggested that this group should evaluate the County
Executive, the Heads of Departments, all administrative assistanvs and the em-
ployees who perform the work. It is further suggested that a report be made to
the Board of Supervisors and the public.
The County Executive and the staff would expect the Board of Supervisors
to take any action necessary to insure the citizens of Albemarle County efficient,
effective and honest government.
Mr. Wheeler said he noted that other department heads were present, and asked if
any had comments to make.
Mr. Humphrey said he con6urred wholeheartedly in the resolution. He feels
personally that it is time that those who only come to Board meetings once a year,
find out what it is really like.
Mr. J. Harvey Bailey said he feels this is ~he form any further investigation
should take. Surely, if there had been any o~iminal activity, it would have been
uncovered by now. He had heard through the news media, that a new grand jury will
be selected, and he feels that any further attention should be directed towards
bus±ness efficiency.
Mr. Fletcher Simms said he agreed witch both Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Bailey. He
approves of this resolution and feels the Board should take the initiative to
clear up this~..matter.
Mr. Ray Jones said he feels this is the positive approach. A professional
management study would give the County Staff constructive criticism and something
to which they could adjust.
i 8 5
Miss Page Godsey said all of the staff strongly supports the resolution and
would like to have constructive information that would come out of a professional
study.
Mr. Wheeler said the Board wel6omes the resolution. The Board knows of the con-
cern of the staff. He says they realize the county has a mosv effieient staff.
The Board will take this resolution unde~ consideration and does appreciate the staff
bringing it to them.
Mr. Carwile~concurred with the Chairman's remarks. Mr. Wood said he was glad to
see it. Mr. Thacker agreed with the Chairman, and said he welcomes this type of
thing. Certain questions have been raised and he feels ~he
citizens
of
Albemarle
County deserve an answer as rapidly as it can be given t~! them. Mr. Fisher had no
comment Mr Wheeler said the Board appreciates the staff bring~ng~_~h~s to~their
attention and it w~ll be given careful consideration in any plans the Board makes
for the future. ~he Board continued with discussion of adoption of a firearms con-
\
trol ordinance. Public haaring on this ordinanYe was held earlier in the day. Since
that time the County Attorney had prepared~ an amendment, and presented same for
consideration. Mr. Fisher asked if the language proposed would allow anything that
is otherwise permitted by the law in defense of person or property, and would not
override other laws in existance about the use of ~irearms in those instances.
Mr. St. John said that was the intent of the amendment.
Mr. Fisher offered motion to adopt the firearms contro~ ordinance am amended.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYes: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
(THE COMPLETE WOR~ING OF THE ORDINANCE AS ADOPTED IS SET OUT BELOW)
FIREARMS CONTROL ORDINANCE
Chapter 13, Albemarle County Code, Section 1~-26:
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge any firearm within
the boundaries of any residential district within Albemarle County,
Virginia: provided, however, that no person discharging a firearm
within such a district in defense of person or property as otherwise
permitted by law shall be deemed to have v~olated this ordinance.
(b) Any person violating this ordinance shall be liable to a fine of
not less than $25.00 nor more ~than $1,000.00 for each such violation.
(c) For purposes of this ordinance, "residential district~' sha~ mean
any district described as RS-i, R-i, R-2, or R-3 on.the ~fficial
Zoning Map of Albemarle County, as Well as any Planned Oommunity~ as
defined in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Batchelor said a communication has been received from the Albemarle County
Service Authority naming Mr. George Omohundro and Mr. Elvin Thompson as appointees
to a joint committee to review the e~isting note for County loan to the Authority.
Appointments by the Board of Supervisors to that committee ha~e not been made.
Mr. Wheeler said Mr. Thacker, Mr. Fisher, and the Chairman had been appointed to this
committee and he would arrange a m~.eting as soon as possible.
9-19-74
Mr. Ray Jones, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, was
present. He said vhe Service Authority, intends to issue water and sewer bonds to
finance certain projects, such as the Ivy water line, expansion of the Crozet water
facilities, and theUPowell's Creek sewer line. Bonds will be issued for
years. This years extends beyond the life of the Authority, which was
created April 16, 1964, for fifty years. Since these new bonds will not be issued
until after completion of all projects, the Authority requests a 15 year extension
to the year 2029. Hr. St. John said this matter must be handled by resolution of
the Board. He has talked with Hr. Harry Marshall, Attorney for the Rivanna
Authority, who is an expert in these matters, and although the code does not say
there must be a public hearing held on this matter, this should be handled by the
same procedure as that of creating the Authority, Under code section 15.1-1243,
which require~ an advertisement one time, ten days before this matter would be
discussed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker, to advertise for a public hearin~ on October
17, 1974, at 10:30 A.M. in the Board Room, a resolution to extend the life of the
Albemarle County SerVice Authority for 15 years. The motion was seconded bY
Mr. Carwile, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
The following communication was received from the Rivanna Water and Sewer AuthOrity.
"DATE: August 30, 1974
SUBJECT: Subject C-51-509-01
Attached is a copy of a letter from ~he Environmental Protection Agency con-
cerning funding of Rivanna Step 2 Grant Application for design of the AWT Plant,
Morey Creek Interceptor Sewer, Rivanna Interceptor Sewer and the Crozet Inter-
ceptor Sewer. This letter is EPA's response to our continued request to both
the Water Control BGard and EPA to "Get the Show on the Road"
In light of the enclosed letter, and in light of the study being performed
by ECOL Sciences, Inc., I believe the interest of Rivanna are best served by
accepting this alternate funding method, which means that design of the C~ozet
intercepting sewer will not be authorized for several months. What it does mean
is that design grant funds for the remainder of the project can begin to flow
in the near future.
As far as the status of the ECOL Sciences study is concerned, a telephone
conversation with Mr. Bob Blanco ~ EPA on August 29, 1974~indicated that the
study was approximately 50 per cent complete and scheduled for completion on
October 1, 1974."
UAugust 27, 1974
Mr. George Williams
Executive Director
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
P.O. Box 18
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: C-51-509-01
Dear Mr. Williams:
Several months ago, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority submitted a grant
application for the development of Plans and Specifications for Pr~ect C-51-509-01.
This project, as presently defined, consists of a 15 MGD AWT treatment plant, the
Rivanna, Morey Creek and Crozet interceptors, and associated facilities.
During our review of the grant application, we requested from the AutHority,
by Mr. Sapp's letter of July 3, 1974, additional information to assist us in our
consideration of the project. It now appears that our only reservations concern
the potential environmental and land use effects of the Crozet interceptor, and
..... 4 1 8 7
possible alternatives to this proposed segment of the regional system. Ecol
Sciences, Inc., a consultant to our Environmental Impact Br. anch, is studying
the Crozet interceptor, and will submit its findings later this year.
In order to allow us to proceed with Project C-51-509-01, I suggest that you
limit the scope of the project by deleting the Crozet interceptor from the current
grant application. Depending on our eventual decision concerning the Cro~et
interceptor, this segment, or an alternative, can be funded at a later time by
either amendment or additional application.
Please contact Mr. Fenton Roudabush of my staff (215 597-9050) if you
would like to further discuss this situation.
Sincerely yours,
(signed)
Warren L. Carter
Director ~
Grants Coordination Div~ion
Mr. Wheeler asked how negotiations are proceeding on--the Agreement. Mr.Batchelor
said a meeting is set for October 1st with the engineers for a report.
The following .resolution was received from the Albemarle County School Board:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, THe Albemarle County School Board is the owner of a certain parcel
of land consisting of 3/4 of an acre, more or less, as designated on the Albemarle
County Tax Map 17, P~el 4, being in all respects the same property conveyed to
The White Hall School District of Albemarle County, Virginia by deed of Robert
D. Burrus, dated August 22, 2887, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed Book 98, Page 462; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County School Board has found that said parcel is
not now used for public purposes; that there is no probability that it ~ver
will be; and that the public interest and necessity may best be served by the
sale thereof; and
WHEREAS, Randolph A. Maupin and Pauline Austin Maupin have offered to buy
from the Albemarle County School Board said parcel of property for seven hundred
fifty dollars and no cents ($750.00); and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County School Board believes that $750.00 is the
fair market value for said property; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County School Board at a regular meet&rig on
September 9, 1974, unanimously approved the sale of said property to
Randolph A. Maupin and Pauline A. Maupin, and authorized its Chairman, Carl M.
Van Fossen to execute an instrument to accomplish the same;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Albemarle County Board of Super-
visors that the sale of said property to Randolph A. Maupin and Pauline A.
Maupin by the Albemarle County School Board im unanimously approved.
Mr. Batchelor said the staff feels there may be other parcels which may be offered
for sale, and they recommend that this parcel be included with those for a public
auction.
Mr. Wheeler said he felt that was a good idea if the Board moves toward selling
just this parcel by itself, there should be an appraisal made.
Lease for an antenna site on Mountain House Farm was discussed next. It being
the consensus of the Board, that insufficient information had been presenved, this
matter was referred-back to the staff for further study.
Mr. Batchelor said United Virginia Bank had recently opened an office in
Charlottesville, they have asked ~o be recognized by the Board of Supervisors so
they can bid on County monies for deposit. Mo~n was offered by Mr. Carwile to
adopt the f~llowing resolution:
RE S 0 LU T I ~N
WHEREAS the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at its
meeting held on the t9th day of September, 1974, received from the Treasurer
of Virginia that the United Virginia Bank of Charlottesville has fully qualified
as a public depository pursuant to the Virginia Security for public Deposits Act,
Section 2.1-359, et seq., Code of Virginia (1950), as amended and is now desig-
nated to receive deposits of the Director of Finance of Albemarle County
which deposits are protected under the provisions of the above cited sections of
the Code of Virginia;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia hereby approves and authorizes T. M. Batchelor, Jr., to deposit
county funds in said bank;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be submitted
to all parties.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Wood, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
Mr. Thacker, said the~~-~-commit'tee met with Judge Berry and discussed the
bids which were received ~n July for expansion of tMe Courthouse. The committee
and the Judge share a concern a¥~a, the additional cost of the project. The Board
has appropriated $50,000, but had expected the cosy to be near $100,000, but the low
bid was just under $132,000. The Judge and the Committee feel the County should
investigate fully the County's overall space needs and see how this project fits i~to
those needs. For these reasons, Mr. Thacker said the committee would recommend
against acaaptance of this bid and he offered motion to notify the low bidder that
this bid would not be accepted.
The motion was accepted by Mr. Carwile, and Carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker-Wheeler and Wood
None
Mr. Henley
Mr. Thacker said the Boar~s space committee had met wit~ the staff space committee
and should have a report to present to the Board in the near future. Mr. Wheeler
said if the clerk were notified, this item would be put on an agenda.
Letter was received from Virginia Moore rendering her resignation as an Albemarle
County Representative of the Jefferson Madison Regional Library Board of Trustees,
effective September 17, 1974.
Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker to accept the resignation with deep regret and
ordering that a letter go ~o Miss Moore, expressing sincere appreciation for her
devoted services. The motion was seconded by Mr.. Fisher, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood
None
Mr. Henley
Mr. Wheeler said the Board was in receipt of a copy of a letter which had gone
to the Albemarle County Service Authority from Sarah O. Glickman. If the Board
intends to take any action on the letter, Mr. Wheeler said he would have to disqualify
himself, since Mrs. Glickman is his secretary. Unless someone objected, he felt this
9-19-7 ~
was a matter which should be handled by the Service Authority. No objection was
raised.
Mr. Wheeler said he had received from Otis L. Brown, Secretary of Human
Affairs that the General Assembly had passed Senate Bill #517 which empowers the
Govern'mr to authorize localities to establish pilot projects to test approaches to
the integration of human services delivery. He said this letter should be given to
staff for consideration.
Mr. Wheeler said he had received a l~etter from the airport manager stating that
there would be a vacancy on the joint airport commission on December t, 1974.
He asked that the Board bring names for nomination to the committee.
Communication was received from Josephine Flood expressing appreciation for the
contribution made to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad.
News release was received from Lynchburg Gas Company,stating that they had
requested the State corporation commission for an increase of approximately 7%
and a formal hearing has been sev for this matter on October 8, 1974.
Mr. Wheeler said he has been asked by the exvension agent to proclaim October
6 through 12 as national 4-H week.
Mr. Wood said since the Board had decided not to use the Levy Opera House for
Juvenile Court facilities, a committee has been looking for other quarters. They
now recommend acceptance of a purchase option on the property known as the Elk's
Lodge located on East High Street. The property has been reviewed by Judge Zehler,
he is in favor of using this property if the City and County purchases same. A
purchase option has been worked out by the Committee, and the trustees for the Elks,
it carries the following conditions:
1) Purchase of the property for $225,000. Appraisals have been made to
substantiate this as a fair market price.
2) There are three floors in the building, and the Elks presently ocaupy
one floor. T~ey would be allowed to remain on the basement floor for
one year and would pay to the County-City $350.00 per month rent.
3) The first thirty days of the option would be free. This would give
time for architects to meet with Judge Zehler to work out an arrangement
for courtroom on the second floor.
4) If the option has not been exercised at the end of the first thirty days,
it carries three extension per~'~ods of sixty days each to run consecutively~
5) $2,250.00 would be paid for each additional sixty days, and this amount
would be applied against the purchase price.
Mr. Wood said the Judge has been very cooperative.'~e feels that the city-county
and
committee should set a pri~e for the overall renovation/equipping of the building.
He will then stay within ~that price which is sev. The Committee feels that the cost
of furniture and fixtures and remodeling etc. will be about $150,000. The juvenile
court can be put into this building for between $350,000 and $375,000, or about
$150,000 less than if the City-County had used the Levy Opera House. This was a
unanimous consensus of the committee.
Mr. Fisher Concurred that this was a unanimous recommendation of the committee
to the Board of Supervisors and City Council. So that a detailed investigation can
be made to see what is required to bring this building ~o/~tate requiredfor use by
190
9'-19-7 4
the juvenile court. The terms of the lease beyond the first thirty days would be at
6% annually or 1% for each of the months in the lease, and this seems to be a reasonable
fee.
Motion Was offered by Mr. Wood to enver into this purchase option with the City
Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recor-
ded vote.
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler, and Wood.
NAYS~ None
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
Mr. Batehelor said he had~talked t'o the State Treasurer on Monday about bonds this
Board has authorized being sold through the Virginia~Sc.hool Authar~y..~ ~ They have
decided not to se~t these bonds until next spring. However, they will pass a resot-
ution that they will buy Albemarle County School Bonds, so the County will have some
authorization if they need to sell bond anticipation noteB.
The next matter discussed was the report of the special grand jury.
"TO:
HONORABLE DAVID F. BERRY, JUDGE
ALBEMARLE CIRCUIT COURT
It was the understanding of the members of the Special Grand Jury when it
was impaneled ~n March 1974, that all proceedings would be confidential, with only
the Court being privy to its findings. However, as a result of the motion filed
by the Daily Progress in the Virginia Supreme Court (and the petition filed by
the County Attorney on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and
~fficials) and the subsequent ruling of said Virginia Supreme Court, this pro-
tection was removed.
Inasmuch as the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors requesved the inves-
tigation, the members of the Special Grand Jury entered into its task, fully ex-
pecting complete cooperation from the Board, as well as from county employees.
However, as the investigation proceeded, the Jury was hampered in its attempts
to develop information. Efforts to secure much needed data were thwarted when
it was discovered that the tapes of some crucial Planning Commission meetings
had been erased, that a document filed with the Board of Supervisors minutes
was missing and that letters complaining of zoning and of the Soil Erosion and
Sedimentation ordinance violations could not be found. Further, this Jury was
told that the transcripts of minutes of Board meetings were not up to date and
that, in fact, minutes were not available for any meeting since May 1974! The
Special Grand Jury was not able to develop to its satisfaction the date on which
the Board of Supervisors officially authorized the County Attorney to file the
May 13, 1974, motion to have the Jury quashed. There is no official record
available to show that this was done prior to the filing, nor was the Clerk to
the Board of Supervisors able to find in her notes any information to indicate
that official action was taken prior to the filing of said motion.
This juror would have preferred to continue the investigation into areas
where there were alleged irregularities and to follow through to a comprehensive
conclusion. This course of action is no longer possible for reasons of which
t h e ~a~u~rJ~t is fully aware. The effectiveness of the grand jury has been
impaired since it can no longer operate in an atmosphere of independence, secrecy
and absense of pressure.
It is obvious that an in-depth study of the modus operandi of the various
departments of the County government is imperative and it is equally imperative
that a number of deficiencies which currently exist be corrected. However,
this is the responsibility of the Board of Supervisors, who were elected by the
citizens of the county to oversee their interests.
The information set forth in the majority report represents a true account
of the investigation and is not in any way the subject of disagreement. This
minority report is submitted only because it is abhorrent to this juror that
these reports must be made public and because it is felt that no useful purpose
will be served by submitting a full report on the various phases of the inves-
tigation. · ~e Court is respectfully requested to continue to hold in secrecy
the four-~ge report dated May 24, 1974, and it is further requested that this
juror be relieved of her duties as of this date. ~
SUBMITTED: September 13, 1974.
(signed)
(Miss) Jean Printz, Member
SPECIAL GRAND JURY
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
"TO: HONORABLE DAVID F. BERRY, JUDGE
ALBEMARLE CIRCUIT COURT
Zt was the understanding of the members of the Special Grand Jury when it
was impaneled in March 1974, that all proceedings would be confidential, with
only the Court being privy to its findings. However, as a result of the mot~Gn
filed by The Daily Progress in the Virginia Supreme Court (and the petition to
intervene filed by the County Attorney on behalf o£ the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors and officials) and the subsequent ruling of said Virginia Supreme
Court, this protection was removed.
Inasmuch as the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors requested the inves-
tigation, the members of the Special ~rand Jury entered into its task, fully
expecting complete cooperation from The Board, as well as from county employees.
However, as the investigation proceeded~, the Jury was hampered in its attempts
to develop information. Efforts to secure much needed data were thwarted when
it was discovered that tapes of some crucial Planning Commission meetings had
been erased, that a document filed with the Board of Supervisors minutes was
missing and that letters complaining of zoning and of the Soil Erosion and Sedi-
mentation ordinance violations could not be found. Further, this Jury was told
that the transcripts of minutes of Board meetings were not up to date and that
minutes were not available for any meeting held since May 1974! The Special Grand
Jury has not been able to develop to its satisfaction the date on which the
Board of Supervisors officially authored the County Attorney to file the
May 13, 1974, motion to have the Jury quashed. There is no official record that
this had been done prior to the filing, nor was the Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors able to find in her notes any information to indicate that
official action was taken prior to the filing of said motion. ~
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and County Executive are sworn to
uphold the State Codes and County Ordinances, but the Special Grand Jury finds
that this has not always been done. Zt is a m~tter of record that the County
Executive was found guilty of malfeasance in office. This report will detail
some of the additional findings relating to these shortcomings.
Based on one of its options, the following comments and recommendations are
made:
Irrespective of any question that a contractor may.hava about the
interpretation of the contractors license ordinance, it is the duty of the county
to assess the tax in accordance with the ordinance* as written, including the
collection of interest, penalty and fine for non-payment or late payment. The
whole problem of contractors license would nov have arisen if the Director of
Finance had enforced the ordinance, including the prescribed fines, which
could have amounted to a maximum of one hundred dollars for~each day payment
was in arrears. Contrary to statements made by the Board of Supervisors
that only $1,600 was not collected, the amount of uncollected contractors
license fees estimated to be owned to the county is a very significant figure--
approximately $30,000 from only two convractors. (For detailed figures which
~votVe these two contractors, see Schedules A and B, attached.) The amount
owed by other contractors has not been calculated. The enforcement machinery
was set into motion to collect contractors fees in only one instance, but the
Commonwealth's Attorney was advised by the Assistant Director of Finance
that it was not necessary to proceed with the enforcement. The following quo-
tation is f~om a letter dated August 30, 1972, from the Finance Department:
" .... Since the above licenses were purchased within the time allowed, I am this
date notifying the prosecuting attorney that it will not be necessary to
prosecute .... "
An in-depth study of the modus operandi of the various ~epartments of ~he
county government should be made with a view toward correcting a number of
deficiencies which currently exist in these offices. As an example, it was
noted from the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Supervisors that the
Bookkeeping Department frequently issues checks in duplicate payment of bills.
While the minutes show those~checks which are returned to the county for can-
cellation, the question arises regarding how many duplicate payment checks are
not returned and the amount of the loss to taxpayers. It also would be of
interest to know why this.practice recurs with such regularity. Ail records
should be up-dated, including a program of collection of all unpaid fees,
penalties, interest and fines. This would help to insure future compliance with
the law.
(* - Copy of ordinance attached hereto)
Regarding the Albemarle County Service Authority, it should be noted that
the statement is often made to taxpayers of Albemarle County that this independent
water and sewer corporation is self-supporting from water and sewer rents and con-
nection fees collected. A study, partially complete at this time, shows that
this statement of self-sufficiency is not true. The ACSA is subsidized by General
Revenue in that: a) compensation for Ray Jones, Executive Director~of ACSA;
T. M. Batchelor, Jr., Secretary-Treasurer of ACSA; and J. Harvey Bailey,
Engineer for ACSA, amounts to only $5,000 per year total; whereas, the combined
salaries of these three officials is over ~62,000 per year. Their work for the
Service Authority accounts for far more than 8% of their total time. b) The
county has loaned to the ACSA, without interest, almost $1 million. In addition
192
9-19-7 4
to the questionable legaiity of this loan, there is no evidence of repayment to
date. The loss of interest to the county on this money is substantial -- for
example, if this sum had been invested at only 8% interest, the return ~or
just one year would have been $80,000 -- hardly a small consideration, c)
Although the Board of Supervisors has appropriated funds from General Revenue
from time to time for engineering work benefitting the ACSA, there is no evidence
that the County has been reimbursed. A few examples of these appropriations are:
In 1967, approved $5,965 to investigate the soil conditions at Totier Creek;
authorized $1,400 for engineering service for Crozet sewage facilities and
$3,000 for an engineering study of water needs on Route 29 North; appropriated
$134,000 to make necessary conmections and improvements to the system purchased
from Sydnor and Commonwealth; appropriated $20,000 for additional study at Totier
Creek. In 1969 approved $6,000 from the General Fund for sewage study On Route
29 North; in 1972 authorized a final payment of a total fee of $78,974.78 for
the Powells Creek plant(which plan was later abandoned, rendering this expendi-
ture a total loss); authorized $20,636.97 for Suuth Rivanna treatment plantand
design. The financial problems of the ACSA have further been compounded by the
failure of the officials of the Authority to collect for all water used by
contractors and the failure to see that meters were installed at the Four-
Seasons apartment complex, as well as in the commercial and pool areas, with
loss of revenue -- this, in spite of being advised repeatedly that the apartments
w~re occupied. When final settlement was made, the agreed-upon time that water
was first used was at least six months after some of the apartments were known
by county officials to have been occupied. Further, there was a failure by county
officials and the ACSA to establish proper guidelines for acquiring existing
water facilities and to properly executa legal documents for waver and sewer
service -- including an unrecorded instrument of dedication of water and sewer
facilities, which enabled a developer to obtain Federal Housing Administration
loan guarantees 'for the development. As a result, the county was involved in a
court suit at high cost to the users of the ACSA services, with possible collusion
in the agreement which led to the settlement of the~uit. It is obvious that there
should be a complete separation of the county management from the Albemarle
County Service Authority. A study should be made of the acquisition of water
systems by the county and the ACS~ to determine whether these were properly
acquired, that the taxpayers got full value for their money and to ~sure that
the taxpayers are not still subsidizing this service.
Although the investigation is incomplete, there appears to be a possibility
of irregularities in the following areas:
1) ~Se of questionable purchasing proeedures prior to the hiring of a
purchasing agent; e.g., awarding contracts without following proper
bidding procedures and purchasing from certain vendors who were
neither low bidders, nor able to supply the.material specified in
the order.
2) Preferential treatment shown in the selling of county surplus vehicles
with the resultant loss of revenue to the county.
3) Lack of proper criteria for promotions and salary increases in county
departments and unusually large increases of up to 70% for some
employees with consequent lowering of morale among other employees.
4) A county-sponsored "training session" which not only failed in its
purpose, but caused embarassment and dissension among employees.
5) The questionable legality of the use by the County Executive of special
license plates registered to the Sheriff's Deyartment.
6) Possible illegal actions by ACSA in collaboration with the Board of
Supervisors in obtaining a Farmers Home Administration loan in violation
of Federal statutes regarding such loans.
7) Zoning violations not properly acted upon by county officials.
8) Issuance of building permits without proper licenses and allowing
construction to proceed without the filing of site plans.
9) Allowing buildings to be occupied without having the builder file the
required certificate of occupancy.
10) Allowing signs to remain in place after they have been reported to be
in violation of county ordinances.
11) Failure by county officials to enforce properly the Soil Erosion and
Sedimentation laws, after being made aware of ~iolations.
12) The willful and unlawful grading of roads by a contractor without
proper permits and with the knowledge of a county offi~al who
failed to take proper action.
13) Illegal use of state funds by putting employees on payrolls paid in
large part by the State Compensation Board when said employees were
not working in jobs included in such state participatian.
14) Favoritism to certain developers in the establishment by the Board
of Supervisors of certain Jurisdictional Areas for the ACSA.
15) Deliberate overloading of the B~rkeley Sewage Treatment Plant.
16) Lack of proper supervision of ACSA -- operated sewage plants.
Another point of deep concern is the question of the e~.hics of several members
of the Board of Supervisors who exhibit questionable conduct b~ ~oting on matters
before the Board when there is a possibility of conflict of interest. In ~uestions
9-19~7 4
i93
which might involve a conflict of interest, however slight, it should be obligatory
that a member of the Board leave the room when the discussion and vote take place.
The Special Grand Jury's study of the county organization indicates that there
is entirely too much power and responsibility vested in the office of the County
Executive. As a result~ county government is not responsive eno~Hh to its taxpayers.
There is a great need to diffuse these powers and duties and to encourage the Board
of Supervisors to be mo~e cognizant of its constituents' wishes -- to seek them out
if people have become lethargic, discouraged and disillusioned with participation in
government. A study should also be made of these laws which allow the salary of
the County Executive to be paid largely by the State for his title of Director of
Finance, when in actuality he performs few of the duties of that office.
The sizeable business of the county -- about $20 million a year -- demands
efficient and reliable business management not e~idenced thus far in this inves-
tigation. It appears that in some ameas of county operation there is a lack of
full and open communication from the County Executive to the Board. There is
evidence that departments are run by "word of mouth" too often. Records and files
are poor; memoranda are often unsigned and undated. These lax methods provide an
opportunity and a climate for wrongdoing. However, it has become apparent that
this investigation has already produced some positive improvements in county govern-
mental procedures and it is the hope of this Jury that the upgrading of the
2uality of administration will continue.
The Special Grand Jury would have pmeferred to continue its investigation and to
follow through to a comprehensive conclusion. This course of action is no longer
feasible for reasons of which the Court is fully aware. In submitting this final
report, it is requested that the Court continue vo hold in secret the four-page
report dated May 24, 1974, and it is further requested that this Special Grand Jury
be relieved of its dutie.s as of this date.
SUBMITTED: S~ptember 13, 1974
(signed)
ROBERT E. MERRZLL, Foreman
Special Grand Jury
Albemarle County, Virginia~
Mr. Wheeler said he would like to recommend to the Board that they start an investiga-
tion of the 16 outlined irregularities in the report as soon as possible. He suggested
~that the Board seek input from the staff and those Boards or committees which have received
crttmcis~ and that public meetings be scheduled on this matter starting the week of October
1st. He would not expect to receive comments from the public, but the meetings would
be opened to the public.
Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker to begin public meetings on the special grand
jury report on October 2, 1974 at 7:30 P.M. at the Albemarle County Courthouse. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Wood.
Mr. St. John asked if the Board intended to limit the ~nvesti~ation to just those
16 numbered criticisms or ~f it would include all criti~cism5 in the report. Mr. Wheeler
said the investigation would touch on every item in the report. He suggested that the
Board start with item #1 and go through the 16 first.
Mr. Fisher requested that.the Board of Supervisors be furnished by the various
department heads evidence for any statement that they will make in answer to these
criticisms. He suggested that the legal staff be able to furnish to the Board a listing
of the appropriate State and Local codes which the County is presently operating under,
and which relate ta the criticisms in order to have a full-accounting for any situation
that is alleged', in the report.
Mr. St. John said he would be prepared to do that f. or every critic~sm in the report
and his information will be specific enough for the Board to understand the nature of
the crit'i~cism itself.
Vote was taken at this .point, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood
None
Mr. Henley
Upon proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 3:05 P.M.
CHAIRMAN