1974-09-269-26-74
209
A meeting of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle C6unty, Virginia,
adjourned from September 25, 1974, was held at 7:30 p.m. on September 26, 1974, in
the Albemarle County Courthouse.
Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.~
William C. ThackSr, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
Absent: None
Officers present: County Executive and County Attorney.
Mr. Wheeler called the meeting to order and asked Mr. Harvey Ba&ley to read
communication addressed to the Board from County staff concerning response to the
Grand Jury Report, a copy of which was hand-delivered to each m~mber of the Board
prior to this meeting. Copy of statement follows:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Memorandum
Date:
To:
From:
Subj:
September 24, 1974
Board of Supervisors
County Executive and Staff
RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT
Since February, 1973 when you first requested an investigation of all~ged
favoritism to developers by certain County employees, almost the whole staff of
Albemarle County has come under investigation. For approximately twelve months,
the two State Police investigators interviewed employees, combed through files,
and even checked into the backgrounds of new employees hired since the alleged
favoritism was to have occurred. During the grand jury's investigation ten
employees testified, some for many hours.
We wish to state to you and to the citizens that the staff has given full
cooperation to both the police investigators and to the grand jury in their
efforts. We know of no instance in which a County employee refused to appear
before the grand ~ury or in which an employee refused to answer any question of
either the grand jury or the inve'stigators. Materials have been furnished as
requested, except for the few cases cited by the grand jury where the material was
not available. In many cases whole files were photocopied as requested.
After a total of twelve months of intense investigation, the grand jury has now
issued a final report with no indictments and no charges against any named indi-
Vidual. Instead, they have issued a final report which lists a broad range of
operations in which they say "there appears to be a possibility of irregularities".
Such an approach means that not only are those employees whose actions were
originally to be investigated not fully cleared, but the integrity of every
County employee and every Board member is brought into question. The staff is
indignant that the grand jury should be allowed to smear the Board of Supervisors
and the County employees with such broad allegations without presenting, in many
cases, even one event or incident to back up their charge. If there are such
events, they must be known',to the grand jury and could have been included in
their final report.
The staff is anxious to join with the Board in presenting a positive state-
ment to the County citizens and then to return our full attention to the current
concerns and activities of the County. We see the need to respond to the grand
jury report along two lines. First, to determine the effectiveness and the
efficiency of our management of county operations today and for the future we
again petition you to have a professiona~ management study conducted. This study
will tell you if we are not properly managing the County's business and it will
also suggest improvements in the organization and operations.
Second, we want to cooperate with the Board in making the public meeting on
October 2, an opportunity to clear up grand jury accusations regarding past
actions. We must leave questions of past policy decisions to you. On adminis-
trative actions, whereve'r the grand jury has presented ~ specific charge in
their report, we intend to make a specific answer and present factual docu-
mentation for that answer. However, we must answer broad general allegations
with broad statements. We do not know of events upon which some of these charges
could be based and none have been presented to us.
210
We want to answer any questions which you have regarding specific incidents
behind these general charges, if you know of specific events. Perhaps you have
received more information on these from the grand jury; Mr. Merrill was quoted
as saying that he would try to make it available to you. In order for us to
provide the documentation at the public meeting as you have requested, we need ~-~
to receive from you in advance a list of any incidents which you want us to discus
We have discussed at length the feasibility of attempting to "second guess"
the grand jury and of trying to locate evenvs which they might have used as the
basis for their general allegations. First, this research would be an extremely
time-consuming process and would significantly interfere with completing
priority activities which are already under a tight schedule, often due to the
large amount of time devoted throughout this year to the investigation. Second,
as we stated earlier, we are indignant that the grand jury has issued these charges~
without giving specific incidents when they have had every possible opportunity
to learn of any such events which might have occurred. Third, we feel that the
Commonwealth's Attorney, the grand jury, and/or the investigators should be
called upon to furnish the specifics, if there are any, behind these innuendos
before we are required to make any response.
Finally, we hope that the answering of past actions can be concluded at the
earliest possible date, during the one October 2 meeting, if at all possible.
We want to be able to put all our efforts into rendering the highest quality of
service to the citizens on the needs of today and tomorrow. The grand jury has
stated that the "investigation has already produced some positive improvements
in county governmental procedures" and that the grand jury hopes "that the
upgrading of the quality of administration will continue" We assure you that
improvements have always been made over the years and are constantly being made.
We want to devote our time and efforts now to implementing more improvements.
Mr. Wheeler thanked Mr. Bailey and asked him to notify the staff that the Board
appreciates their bringing this to their attention, that it w±ll be taken un~er con-
sideration and action will be taken.
Mr. Wheeler then announced public hearing on proposed legislative package. Miss
Page Godsey was present to summarize the proposed legislation. He asked Miss Godsey
to start at the beginning of the list as prepared and take each individual item for
discussion.
Miss Godsey explained that the first three are bills related to annexation laws,
carried over from the last session, as follows:
H.B. 114 - Repeals all annexation laws.
H.B. 806 - Evidence in annexation cases cannot relate to contracts, etc. dealing
with joint or cooperative government efforts of parties involved in case.
H.B. 552 - To provide for elections in all areas proposed for annexation and to
provide that no annexation shall occur unless approved by m~jority of
voters in proposed area.
At this point the Chairman recognized Delegates Michie and MGrray and called on
Mr. Michie for comments as to what-might be expected in the way of legislation in this
field.
that he is on the commission studying city-county relations and
Mr.
Michie
stated
they will file a report by the time the General Assembly starts, covering all of these
bills. Mr.~eeler stated that after Mr. Michie's remarks, he felt it wo~ld be wise not
to take any position on these bills but to wait and see what the commission is going to
report. Mr. Fisher stated that when the raport is made, that wou~d be the proper time
for the Board to study it and make whatever comments which might seem appropriate. No
action ~as taken on bills relating to annexation.
H.B. 550 - To provide that contracts are legal if locality enters into agreement
with employee group. (Relates to Public Employee Bargaining.)
Miss Godsey explained that the bill gives employees the right to meet and confer
211
with their employer and will apply to all local governments. It sets forth provisions
on how to get a representative bargaining group and lists the steps which have to be
taken for such groups to be recognized. Mr. Murray explained that there are several
jurisdictions now meeting and conferring with groups of employees and this is either
illegal or must be santioned by some type legislation. Mr. Batchelor stated that a
more lengthy explanation on this would be forthcoming from George Long at the
Virginia Association of Counties meeting. No action was takan by the Board.
H.B. 864 - (Utility Rates) - To require that localities pay according to the
same rate schedule as is used for other corporations.
Mr. Wheeler asked Messrs. Michie and Murray if this bill followed the recommen-
dation that units of local government be placed under the State Corporation Commission.
Mr. Michie advised that this is not the same bill. Mr. Wheeler advised that there is
a steering committee made up of members of the Virginia Association of Counties, the
Municipal League and the Redevelopment Housing Authority, of which he is a member, and
they h~ve hired consultants who are gathering information at this time so that localities
can enter into negotiations with VEPCO on those contracts which have been cancelled or
will be cancelled and also are gathering information to sustain the localities'
position, but until consultants have come up with facts and figures, he does not feel
we can take a position -- a position will be taken by the Virginia Association of
Counties and the Municipal League once this report is received. Mr. Henley stated that
he felt the County should pay the same as anyone else.
Mr. Wheeler asked for comments from the public on utility rates. Mr. Harold Goode
of the Rivanna Distr~t and Mr. Jason Eckford both expressed the opinion that the County
should pay the same rates. Mr. Wheeler pointed out that the CO~y~ has been paying one
cent per kilowatt hour whereas the ~oia~?yhas been paying two cents per kilowatt hours,
many times where the facilities are based in the same location. Mr. John Stroud of the
Chamber of Commerce questioned what effect the granting of easements by localities
should have on their rates. Mr. Wheeler stated that the consultants are also looking
into this aspect.
Mr. Fisher mentioned a meeting last spring with Delegates Michie and Murray and
Senator Michael, to go over what had happened at the last session of the Legislature,
at which time he stated that he thought a bill had been passed which took away from local
governments that right to grant permits, to deny permits .or to have an input on large
power lines and Senator Michael at that time said that he must have misread the report,
but a bill did pass at the last session (House Bill 664) which says that with certain
utility lines and certain transmission lines, the State Corporation Commission is th~
only one who has the final say-so about where it goes or how it.'s built, and that
approval of a transmission line, pursuant to this Section, shall be deemed to satisfy
tha requirements of Section 15.1-~56 which has to do with local governments' compre-
hensive plans and it shall be deemed to satisfy local zoning ordinances with respect
to such transmission lines. Mr. Fisher further stated that there is a fight going on
now in Floyd County because the Appalachian Power Company has proposed to put a
775,000 volt power line through that County, and the local government can only appear
before the State Corporation Commission as petitioners. He stated that he felt pretty
strongly that that was a large step. Living next to a County that is building the
world's largest nuclear power generating plant, he felt it was very likely that we are
going to see some larger lines built through here. He is very much concerned about
this bill.
Mr. Murray advised that the State Corporation Commission must make an environ-
mental impact study to satisfy the standards of the environmental impact, but the
localities have lost veto power.
Mr. Fisher stated that the local zoning ordinance provided for citizen in-put at
the local level and the bill passed wipes out the procedure.
Mr. Murray said he felt the State Corporation Commission would hold local public
hearings in the event large lines were proposed in or through the County.
H.B. 327 - (Governmental Immunity) - To repeal governmental immunity which counties now h~ve in tort actions.
Miss Godsey advised that this would repeal the g~vernmental immunity which
local government now has in tort cases resulting from negligence and, therefore,
would make the government open for being sued. Also, there would be no way to
budget for such costs. There was no discussion or action on this bill.
H.B. 219 - (Social Services) - To repeal the prohibition of appeals from final order of adoption after six months from the date of the order.
H.B. 229 - (Social Services) - To strengthen child neglect and abuse laws.
Miss Godsey advised that the local Department of Social Services opposes the
first bill because they feel that it is unfair to both the adopting parents and the
child and that it will interfere with the stability and security of the adoption. She
further advised that the acting Superintendent of Social Services supports the general
bill, No. 229, but does not feel that reporting to the Commonwealth's Attorney should
be mandatory unless the cases are severe, others could best be handled through~elling.
Mr. Michie said he agreed with the staff recommendation. He said in some cases,
teachers would not report instances where they f.elt it would be turned over to the
Commonwealth's Attorney.
S.B. 399 - (Taxation) - To empower State Tax Commissioner to make annual assess-
merit ratio studies. Also to develop and implement a~.training program
for local assessing officers.
S.B. 208 - (Taxation) - To make tax exempt real property taxable when leased for economic gain.
Mr. Henry Tiffany reminded the Board that this body had made promises in the past
to seek alternative taxation to land tax.
The Board took no action on the foregoing.
Before proceeding with discussion of the proposed package, the Chairman asked if
there were any legislative matters which the public wished to discuss.
Mr. Tom Link submitted a report of the Private Security Industry Task Force to the
9-26-74
2.,13
to the Virginia State Crime CommisSion. He advised that the Task Force wished to
request the General Assembly to enact laws to regulate the private security industry
in the State, and asked for the County's endorsement of the request. Mr. Fisher said
he didn't feel the Board could take action at this meeting but requested copies of the
report. Mr. Link Ieft copy to be photocopied for eac~ member of the Board.
A sizable group of residents from Airport Acres Subdivision appeared with regard
to standards for State roads. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the problem of
road which were not built to standard by the original developer and over the years the
landowners had not been able to get support from all residents in bringing these
roads up to standards in order that they might be accepted into the State Secondary
System.
Marcia S. Mashaw appeared and read prepared statement of the League of Women
Voters as follows: (as appeared in Washington Post 9-26-74)
A new agancy that would work closely with private land developers to provide
low and moderate income housing as well as acting as a tool to control development
in Fa~rfax County has been proposed by a county consultant.
The agency - a nonprofit public firm - would be called the Fairfax housing
and e~virmnmental development corporation. Its creation would require approval
by the state legislature.
"The county shouldn't sit back and wait for low and moderate income
housing to develop itself," said Jim Reid, director of the county's office of
comprehensive planning, in discussing the report yesterday. Fairfax is one of the
most affluent counties in the ~ountry, and the county has been exploring ways to
both control growth and provide more low and moderate income housing.
According to the study, the agency could either offer developers a packaged
building site complete with roads, utilities and the necessary approvals from
county agencies - or enter into partnerships with developers on specific projects.
The agency, through contracts and leases, could also "maintain stricter and
more legally secure control over design and reuse than is possible through conven-
"the study said
tional land use regulations,
Hsing the powers of eminent domain to acquire land and the powers of the
court to enforce contracts with private firms and investors, the propose~agency
could control development by pinpointing the areas where development is desired
by planners and usethe possibility of profit to attract private capital.
¥
The agency would be self supporting a~d, for development projects, would be
funded by either county revenue bonds or through federal agency grants or loans.
Reid noted that the idea needs a lot off'percolation time" and stressed that its
creation would depend heavily on public support. A~imilar proposal was endorsed
by the Montgomery County Council in 1972 and was approved the Maryland H~s~.~of
Delegates, but was not acted on by the Senate.
The agency's workings were outlined in a $100,000 feasibility study prepared
by Arthur P. Solomon, associate director of the Harvard-MIT Joint Center for
Urban Studies.
The idea~.'~, will be presented Saturday at a gathering of county residents and
officials discussing ways to control growth under a Planning and Land Use System
(plus) th'at county planners ha~e been working on since January.
The agency c'ould work in the following ways:
A 160-unit town house complex for low and moderate income families built.
The agency ~oins with a private developer in a partnership in which a public cor-
poration formed by the agency takes the initial risks of acquiring the land and
installing the needed facilities and the private developer builds, sells and
manages the project.
A 2,500-acre community is built in which a similar partnership is established
after a local developer encountered difficulty in trying to build the project on
1,500 acrea. A partnership is formed and additional land ~s added through the
agency's right of eminent domain.
214
Following this presentation, another ten,thy discussion was given to roads serving
low-cost housing, condition of roads generally and standards as set by the State.
Entering into this discussion were Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Randy Wade, Mr. Goode Love,
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Thacker.
S.B. 394 and H.B. 381 - To repeal the Bemiss formula for assessing Public
Service Corporation property as to the 20 year convsr'sion.
Miss Godsey explained that this would immediately place all Public Service Corpora-
tion property on the books at the local assessment ratio, reducing significantly local
property tax revenues derived from Public Service Corporations. Mr. Fisher stated that
this would obviously create a ~hole in the local assessments. He asked if there were
compensating mechanisms built into this bill which would get some sort of a fair market
value determination on that property at the same time. Miss Godsey said she felt the
only compensating mechansim would be for the County to up the assessment ratio~.
S.B. 485 - (Service Authority) - To add to Water and Sewer Authorities Act a
provision that 10% of the voters in a locality can call for a referendum
on specifying projects to the Authority.
Miss Godsey stated that now the Board makes this decision after proper public
hearings and the staff ~elt this amendment could result in water and sewer services
being extended according to current political pressures at the time rather than according
to a comprehensive plan. The Board did not wish to support this bill.
H.B. 1017 - To place a tax on certain beverage containers, glass and metallic, to
be paid by the wholesaler into special state fund. Tax revenue to be
paid out to businesses which recycle containers.
Mr. Fisher wanted to know if there had been a report from the Bureau of Solid
Waste and Department of Highways on their study relating to disposal of such containers.
Mr. Michie advised that the report had not been made. Mr. Fisher stated again that
he felt something must be done about the problem and if the Study Commission comes up
with what seems might baa possible solution, he would encourage support.
S.B. 508 and H.B. 699 - To provide noise limits for motor vehicles operated on
public highways. Sets decibel level noise limits.
Mr. Fisher wanved to know if this was to be adopted and enforced on a local basis.
Miss Godsey advised that she understood it was to be a Statewide bill. Mr. Michie stated
that the problem would_be with meters to measure the decibel level and he did not know
whether this would be handled by State Troopers or local law enforcement officers.
Mr. Murray said he understood one approach being considered for checking noise level
on motor-cycles was checking to see if the original muffler was still installed.
S.B. 520 - To authorize the issuance of Outdoor Recreation Bonds to fund the
planning, acquisition, preservation, development and improvement of
outdoor recreation areas in Virginia.
After very].~little discussion~ the following resolution was offered by Mr. Wood,
seconded by Mr. Carwile, and adopted by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwi!e, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Virginia Association of Comities is hereby'requested to
sponsor the following legislative change:
9-26-74
Enactment of the "Commonwealth-of Virginia Outdoor Recreation Bond Act"
as proposed in Senate Bill 520, introduced in the 1974 General Assembly Session
and carried over to the 1975 Session, said Act to authorize the issuance of
Commonwealth of Virginia Outdoor Recreation Bonds if such issuance is approved
by the qualified voters of the Commonwealth on an election.
H.B. 369 and H.B. 879 - (Planning) - To require all localities to have sub-
division and site plan control under uniform state
enabling act.
No action was taken on these bills.
H.B. 494, H.B. 890, S.B. 487 and S.B. 488 - To allow localities to require
developers'to pay pro-rata share of capital
facilities necessitated by development.
Mr. Michie advised that the Sub-sommittee is working on these bills. Mr. Fisher
said in the past, localities have used the powers of persuasion to do some of the
things called for in S.B. 487. He said that for localities which have adopted a zoning
ordinance and comprehensive plan, this b±tl would allow the locality to require, as a
prerequsite to approval of plat, dedication of land by the subdivider for public use
or payment of a fee in lieu thereof. Ail lands so acquired would be set aside for
schools, parks and recreational areas and gacilities. Then the governing body, or
someone designated by that body, would be required to publish a plan for the improve-
ment of such area and a date by when such improvement would be effective. He said
something of this nature, he felt, would have to be implemented, whether it be this
bill or something similar.
Mr. Tiffany stated that under such a bill, the developer would have to charge an
excessive amount for lots to pay for the land for schools, etc. and borrowing at the
individual level was much higher than at the municipal level. Mr. Tiffany again pursued
the matter of tax relief for landownsrs, stressing particularly farmers. He recom-
mended local income tax laws.
Mr. Wheeler explained that this Board has been on record for six straight years
as being in favor of local option income tax.
Mr. Stroud of the Chamber of Commerce said it seemed to him that some provisions
in these bills would decrease the cost of housing whereas others would increase the
cost. He felt some kind of balance should be drawn between them. He felt the Legis-
lature should look at the alternatives, there should be some sort of reasonable balance.
Mr. Daley Craig stated that he agreed with the need for land for schools, parks,
etc. but was opposed to requiring the residents of subdivisions to pay as would be
required by the bill under discussion.
Mr. Murray advised that this bill is covered in the Land Use Study Com~ssion of
which Mr. Rosser Payne is a m~mbar. He stated that he does not agree with this bill
in principle because it would be asking a new-comer to pay in one lump sum what others
in the community have had spread out over a number of years.
After considerable discussion, Mr. Michie pointed out that he expected the sub-
committed might recommend something more meaningful in October. Mr. Thacker said he
Would prefer to wait to see this report before taking a stand. This was agreeable
to other members of the Board.
The Board then moved to new items suggested for consideration in 1975.
1) To seek specific enabling state legislation for local speculative
builders' license tax in order to clear up the question of legality.
Mr. John Stroud asked Mr. St. John if the County ordinance is valid as it now
stands. Mr. St. John advised that there is a whole section in the State Code on con-
tractors' license but a speculative builder is not a contractor so you cannot tax a
speculative builder under the contractors' tax chapter of the State Code. He did
point out that another section provided permission to impose a business license tax
ordinance and speculative builders could be included under this ordinance.
2-3) Discussion turned back to enabling legislation on low and moderate
cost housing and standards for state roads. The chairman asked if the
Board wished to pursue this item further at this time. Mr. Robin Lee
asked when the committee on low cost housing was to be appointed and
Mr. Wheeler advised that it was hoped the committee would be appointed
by October 15. Further, the Board does not know what it wants exactly
with regard to this matter at this particular time. He referred to
tour already made of low-cost housing in Augusta County a similar tour
proposed in Albemarle.
4) Amendment to bingo-lottery laws to clearly provide that the permit
applicants and not the County should pay the costs of having their
financial records audited by the Commissioner of Accounts as re-
quired by law.
The Board pointed out to the delegates present the need for amendments to the
law as it now exists, specifically with regard to the amount of paper work involved~
notarization and auditing by the Commissioner of Accounts even though only one bingo
party to raise money for a school project may be under consideration.
5) Financial disclosure by public officials.
No discussion on this item.
6) Amendment to Virginia Area ~evelopment Act to guarantee state grant of
at least $50,000 to each Planning District Commission.
Mr. Carwile said he and Mr. Fisher, on behalf of the Planning District Commission,
would like to request ~the Board to pass a resolution supporting this amendment. The
following resolution was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher, and adopted
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood
NAYS: None.
BE IT RESDL~ED that the Virginia Association of Counties i~ hereby requested
to sponsor the following legislative change.
Amend the Virginia Area Development Act of 1968 to provide for a State minimum
annual grant of $50,000 to each of the p~anning district commissions throughout
the ~omm~nwea!th of Virginia.
Mr. Michie advised that he had been approached by Sheriff Bailey regarding ruling
which prevented County law enforcement officers from ~aking arrests on County property
located within the City. He asked if this Board wis~ed to make any recommendations.
Mr. Wheeler stated that the Sheriff has not taken this matter up with the Board but if
he does, the Board will certainly bring this to their attention.
Mrs. Marcia Mash~w of the League of Women Voters also urged the Board's support
of enabling legislation to implement the proposed sign ordinance. She stated they
9-26-72
217
recognize that there is a difference of mpinion regrading amortization and the County's
statutory authority to require that all bill boards be removed within a apecified time.
Th~ felt it would be wise to be prepared with suggested legislation if it proves
necessary.
Mr. Wheeler advised that the County has a committee which is in the process of
holding public hearings on the sign ordinance which will be bringing a recommendation
to this Board. The County's request to the Legislature will have to be along the
lines of their recommendation if the Board sees fit to support their report.
Mr. Murray made mention of letter he had written to Mr. Wheeler which follows:
(letter dated September 20, 1974 ~addressed to Messrs. David W. Carr, and Gordon L.
Wheeler)
"At the present time, the Outdoor Recreation Commission is making a study of
the Rivanna River in Ftuvanna County to determine its qualifications for desig-
marion as a "Scenic River" This study was requested by the Board of Supervisors.
A recommendation by the Commission is a prerequisite to the introduction of legis-
lation designating a scenic river. As you will note from the letter enclosed,
the Fluvanna Board has appointed a committee of interested citizens to advise
and assist t~e Commission in this endeavor.
Recently, the Thomas Jefferson Planning Commission proposed in their regional
land use plan that a longer stretch of the Rivanna be designated a scenic river -
namely, from Moore's Creek to the James River. (The Albemarle County Comprehen-
sive Plan indicates that the banks of the Rivanna be designated "conservation",
one of the essential elements of a Scenic River.)
It would seem advisable, if you think there is an interest in such desig-
nation that the Commission be requested to include the additional stretch of the
river in its present study, and that an advisory committee of interested citizens
be appointed. It is my understanding~at, if strong and widespread opposition
develope~, the Commission would not recommend inclusion of this stretch in the
system.
The [DirectOr of the Commission, Mr. Rob Blackmore, has assured me that he
would be ~glad to appear before your boards to answer questions you might have
about the Scenic River System. His address is:
Mr. Rob R. Blackmore, Director
Commission o~Outdoor RecreRtion
Eighth Street Office Building
803 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
PHONE: (804) 770-2036
I, too, would be glad to offer what I know about this subject. I feel that
the Rivanna offers great recreational potential for the citizens of this area and
should be protected for the enjoyment of future generations.
Sincerely,
James B. Murray
P.S. I am enclosing the pertinent section of the Code."
After discussing this with Mr. Murray, Mr. Wheeler said it might be wise to ask
Mr. Blackmore to come to the Board's Octobem~m~eting. Mr. Fisher said he would like to
hear a little more about this. No action was taken on this mat$~r.
Communication was received from Patsy O. Tiffany requesting that she be allowed
to withdraw without prejudice rezoning petition (ZMP-310) advertised for public hearing
on October 9, 1974. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Wood, Mrs. Tiffany's
request was granted. Motion carried by the following recorded vote:
A~ES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henely, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
9-2g~74 ×~
Communication was received from Mr. W. G. Pickford, Secretary of the Electoral
Board, requesting appropriation in the amount of $1~000 for the employment of an
additional part-time worker in the Registrar's office through November 15, 1'974,
due to increased voter registration plus other constantly changing records entailing
much paperwork to be sent to the computor in Richmond. After considerable discussion,
Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board approve the appropriation and then ask the Electoral
Board to come in and explain their need. Mr. Wheeler said he was hesitant to turn the
request do~n arC, this particular time when citizens are registering ~or the forthcoming
election. It was suggested that a tentative approval be given but it was felt this could
not be done. Mr. Fisher offered motion to approve the appropriation of $1,000, which
motion was se6onded by Mr. Wood. After considerable controversial discussion, the
Chairman suggested that the matter he deferred until October 9th and that the Electoral
Board be asked to appear and explain the need for such appropriation.
Mr. Wheeler requested that this meeting be adjourned until 11:30 a.m. on September
27, 1974, at which time theBoard will be asked t~o consider matters in connection with
the landfill, contract and purchase of land. Motion to this effect was offered by
Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Carwil~e, and adopted by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
CHAIRMAN