1975-01-291-29-75
department would be trained to answer the majority of inquiries from the public concerning
the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Hartwell Clarke if he had any comments to make on this ~ual2.
setup. Mr. Clarke said he did not seek the job of zoning administrator but he felt
it was an excellent time to make the change if the Board so decided. Mr. Fisher noted
alternative number one in the staff's memo which stated "if the previous reorganization
is implemented it may necessitate hiring an assistant zoning administrator if the workload
so warrants. If this occurs the procedure described earlier would remain the same with
the exception that the assistant zoning administrator would relieve the majority of the
workload from the destinated zoning administrator." He asked if there would be any
likelihood this would occur in the near future. Mr. Clarke said he did not think this
would be necessary for a year and the salary proposed for that assistant zoning
adminiStrator would not exceed the pay scale recommendation which is about $8,000. Mr.
Clarke said that he and Mr. Batchelor recommended upgrading one secretarial position by
about $900.00. They also recommend that $3,000 be added to Mr. Clarke's salary for his
additional duties as zoning administrator. Mr. Fisher said there were no mention of
salary increases in the memo. Mr. Clarke said they had upgraded the position of a
secretar~III~i2 which is presently vacant because of a resignatio~ by about $900.00
hoping to hire a young lady with the same general qualifications~as the present office
manager. He also recommended that this $900.00 be charged to the Zoning budget. Mr.
Batchelor noted that the pay and classification plan adopted by the Board in November
states that any change in a .job description will automatically be reviewed and reclassed
either up or down. Mr. Clarke noted that this secretarial position is presently carried
on the pay scale as an S4'1 at $5,484 and the recommendation is to raise that to a S7-1
at $6,348. He also noted that these total changes will still save the County money
as the present Zoning Administrator's salary is approximately $12,000.
Mr. Fisher said he is concerned that zoning be handled in a fair, equitable, and
reasonably expeditious manner because there are violations. He feels the County has been
criticized and rightly so for not administering some~of the 'ordinances that it has already
adopted and that things need to be tightened~.up.
Mr. Thacker said he feels ~this provides a great deal more efficiene~ in the
Inspections Department and perhaps provides a great deal of convenience to the public.
At the present time, the County is making a final building inspection plus a plumbing
inspection. Under the proposed reorganization, this could be combined into one inspection.
Mr. Thacker said when ~he County established the Building Inspections Department by
necessity, the Committee who worked on this realized ther~ would be peaks and valleys
during periods of great activity and periods of lesser activity. The County is presently
approaching a period of lesser activity and this would streamline the building inspections
department, ~ince the County can not dismiss inspect~us~ and then go out and pick them
1-29-75
up again when needed. Mr. Thacker said he feels an increase in salary is justified
by the responsibility and 9¢-ork~.~L~that will be placed on the combination of a building
inspector and zoning administrator. ~
Mr. Carwile said he was in favor of the suggested reorganization. Mr. Henley
concurred. Mr. Wheeler said he could support this reorganization since he feels it
will be more efficient. During slack times, the inspectors can switch over and start
checking some of tha special permits and site plans and other items which are of interest
to the citizens of the County. He felt this would make a smoother run organization since ~
the building inspections and zoning inspections go hand in hand and a citizen can come to
one place, get some answers and action.
Mr. Batchelor said that Mr. Clarke, Mr. Humphrey and himself had discussed this matter.
Mr. Clarke would like for the present zoning administrator to work with him for thirty
days prior to assuming the responsibilities of zoning administrator. He would also like
for her to be available for thirty days after that for the purpose of answering questions
with this change being effective March 1, 1975.
Mr. Thacker then offered motion to approve the reorganization of the Planning and
Zoning Departments as recommended by the staff giving responsibilities of the Zoning
Administrator to that of the Building Official and with this change to be fully effective
on March 1, 1975. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following
recorded vote: ~
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. ~
NAYS: None.
Mr. Wheeler noted other items which were attached to the staff's recommendation
such as a site development plan ordinance, a memo entitled "Recommended Procedures for
Site Plans and SubdivisionS' and a memo-entitled "A Positive Approach to Improved Relations
Between the Public and Governmental Personnel and Officials." Mr. Batchelor said these
memos had been sent so the Board could see how all of this relates to the reorganization.'
items
There are certain/involved which are before the Planning Commission now for public hearings
and which will come to the Board in February or March.
Mr. Carwile said he would wait for recommendations from the Planning Commission on
these items. Mr. Fisher said when the Board adopted the Subdivision Ordinance last summer
there was concern about enacting a notification policy of adjoining landowners. He did r~
not remember if this had ever been done. Mr. Humphrey said that all adjacent property ~
owners on subdivisions and site plans are notified. The staff had suggested that the
Board reiterate the policy since there is no legal requirement for this. Mr. Fisher suggest-
ed that Mr. Humphrey draft a policy that could be adopted by the Board.
Item Number 2 on the agenda was a report from the Space Needs Committee. Mr. I
Thacker sai~3~S~ace Needs Committee had sent a report to the Board on their re~~~s
and attached to this was a report from the staff's Space Needs Committee. He felt the
staff's committee had done an excellent job but the problem the Board is facing is
financial. In view of the Board's committee recommendation that the Board continue
to attempt to utilize McIntire as a County Office Building, the architect, Thomas
Wyant, was asked to go back to ~his report drafted in January of 1973 and update this
report. Mr. Wheeler said he understood that originally when the Board looked at this
report they were told that McIntire would not be adequate for the County staff.
Mr. Wyant said he had reviewed his findings of two years ago and finds that McIntire
is still adequate with approximately 6,000 square feet left over. There will be space
for the Extension Service. In five years or so, there may be a requirement an
for
additional five or six thousand square feet.
Mr. Wheeler said after looking through the staff report, he found that three
members of the staff feel that McIntire is not the solution. Mr. Wyant feels it is
adequate, there are 11.3 acres of land and it is in a good location. To go to another
location would be a considerably larger expenditure. He asked if the Board's
committee had determined what the staff's objections were to McIntire. Mr. Thacker noted
that the staff report did indicate that additions might be required by 1984. He said
the Board committee had met with the staff committee but still feels that for the present
time, McIntire is adequate. He noted that in a letter dated this date from Tom Wyant
that there has been an increase of 50% in the County staff since 1972. He said no one
would have given this a thought at that time. Mr. Wheeler said that in the staff's
report, John Humphrey has said that McIntire would not be adequate for his staff,
Fletcher Simms said it would ~ea burden for the Real Estate Department, and Calvin
Jones in Purchasing has said it is not adequate. Mr. Fisher noted that in the staff's
report, J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, had said that examination of the area
reveals many obstacles to obtaining adequate ingress and egress to the school property.
He also noted that any construction will be fairly expensive. Mr. Fisher questioned
whether the Board has adequate information on which to make a judgm~ent. Mr. Thacker
said he feels Mr. Fisher's observation is valid but the largest problem is the
application for a rezoning. Mr. Wheeler said he realizes this is a problem but this
is separate from whether the building is adequate or not.
Mr. Wood said it is nice to look for a new building but somebody has to pay for
that building. Previously, he felt the Board could not find a better location for an
Office Building and McIntire was available. However, he now understands from the School
Board that they may need McIntire as a school next year. Mr. Thacker said Clarence
McClure had commented that the School Board could use McIntire as a school if the Board
of Supervisors did not put it to another use. Mr. Wood said it all boils down to a
p~c~l~: point of view. If the Board is going to solve the space problem they must find
an economical way in which to do this. If additional space is needed in later years,
there is adequate acreage at McIntire on which another wing could be built or even
another building.
1-29-75
Mr. Carwile said he would support the use of McIntire as a County Office Building
current
in view of the/economical climate. There are other locations around the County that
would have been more viable. But in order to acquire enough land for an office complex, ~l
enough
the Board would have to buy/land to satisfy the County's needs for a long time into
the future. With site preparation and then cost of construction, the County cannot afford
this expense at this time.
Mr. Wheeler said he was not thinking in terms of a complex. Actually, the county
offices can stay where they are for a year or two. Mr. Wyant noted that the County
does have some available space in the present location, although, it is not plush.
There are two garages,.~the one where the real estate department is presently located
could have a second floor built ontop of the present building. The garage further down
the hilllwas built substantially but not as well. The land falls so that it would be
feasible for construction of an underground garage on fourth street. There is also
the old jail and other alternatives.
Mr. Batchelor noted that the County is presently leasing quite a bit of space.
The lease on the floor space presently being used by the Social Services Department
has been presented for renewal. The staff has talked to the owners representative
and he has agreed to temporarily renew the lease for t~ree month intervals. Mr. Fisher
said if the Board committed themselves to going to McIntire this date it would
still be a year before they could get into the building. Mr. Batchelor said the firs~ [ 1
obstacle to using McIntire as a County Office Building is the zoning. If a zoning
request were approved by the City, Social Services Department could be moved into
McIntire within eight weeks. The area proposed for them in McIntire would require
very little remodeling. At the moment, the County does not know what will happen
to the Planning, Zoning, and Engineering Departments if the Elks Building is purchased
for use as a juvenile court. Mr. Wheeler suggested that the first step would be
to apply for a rezoning of the McIntire property.
Mr. Carwile then offered motion to authorize the appropriate officials of Albemarle
County to apply for a rezoning of the McIntire School Property so this can be used as
a County Office Building complex. Motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, F~her, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler. ~
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
Mr. Wheeler suggested when this rezoning request comes before the City Planning
Commission, that the entire Board of Supervisors be present at that time. ~-~
Mr. Wheeler said Mr. Henley had discussed with him a problem with a three-quarter
acre of land proposed for sale by the School Board. The land was appraised and
sent to the Board of Supervisors to concur in the sale. The Board sent it back and
1-29-75
asked the School Board to advertise the parcel for sale. It h~ now been brought
to the Board's attention that the Board has authorized the School Board to
offer for sale a piece of land that normally the Board would not allow a building
to be constructed on. Mr. Henley said if Mr. Randolph A. Maupin can buy the land
he is going to take down the fence.and put the additional land into a field. The
state has ~nsd~L~he~a~d~n front of this parcel and with the required setback,
ar~installation of a0well, and a septic field the lot would not be buildable.
suggested that the~parcel could be sold with a deed restriction that it would become
a part of Mr~ Maupin's adjacent property and any subsequent subdivision would have
approved
to be by new plat/through the County's Subdivision Ordinance procedures.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to adopt the following resolution:
Mr. Carwile
.~'ll>?~>.WHEREAS, theo3Albemarlei~Co~nty-.School_B6ardl, is the owner of a
certain parcel of land consisting of three-quarters of an acre
more or less, as designated on the Albemarle County Tax Map 17,
Parcel 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, 1887, 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 e~ek wi~t be; and that the public
interest and necessity may best be served by the sale thereof;c~and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County School Board at a regular
meeting on January 13, 1975, unanimously approved the sale of
said property through solicitation of sealed bids through
public advertisement and authorized its chairman, Carl M. VanFossen
to execute an instrument to accomplish the same;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RES'OLVED by the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors that action taken by this Board on September
19, 1974, requiring the sale of this property through solicitation
of sealed bids and public advertisement is rescinded;
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors does hereby authorize the Albemarle County School
Board to sell this lot to Randolph A. and Pauline A. Maupin
With a deed restriction stating that this lot is to become
part of Mr. Maupin's adjacent property and any subsequent
subdivision will have to be by new plat approved by the County
Subdivision~Ordinance.
(Mr. Carwile left the meeting at approximately 4:15 P.M.)
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr.. Carwile.
Mr. Wheeler noted that Mrs. Margaret Wood of the County Extension Office had
requested the Board's approval of May 7 as Albemarle County Youth in Government Day
and that the Board increase their participation in this event. The Clerk was notified
to notify Mrs. Wood in the affirmative.
Item Number 3 on the agenda listed as appointments to the Equalization Board
was passed over.
Item Number 4 on the agenda was a meeting with the newly formed Housing Committee,
The following charge was handed to the members of the Committee:
1) Study the alternative types of low and moderate income housing
programs available in relation to the particular needs of the County
and make initial recommendations for County action to the Board of
Supervisors within six months. Monitor the progress of the County's
efforts in the encouragement of houSing development and make reports
and r~ecommendations to the Board of Supervisors at least twice a year
on the continuation of the program and/or changes in the program.
2) Within sixty days assi~ the staff in defining the responsibilities
of one full-time staff position to work in the Low and Moderate
Income Housing field for a trial period of one year. This may require
a continuing involvement with the general staff and with the person
hired to re-define and expand the position duties as experience warrants.
3) Serve as a local resource from the individual committee members'
home communities. This shall include the iidentification of land
potentially suitable for housing sites or developments. A major role
shall also be to enlist community acceptance of the program effOrts
and of specific housing developments.
4) Establish the criteria for qualification of local profit and
non-profit builders and developers'who wish to participate in the
County's housing program and maintain a list of these persons. Also,
assist the staff in coordinating the County's efforts with the private
sector~
Mr. Wheeler said in discussing low income housing with Mrs. Hudson, a member
of the Committee and others, he had been advised that there are applicants who would
qualify for FHA Housing Loans but who are unable to find suitable land. It was the Board's
ide~ that with a staff person to assist this committee, the Committee would be able
to find land, help to get it rezoned and to clear other, matters. Mr. Wheeler said
this is not the type of thing that will be done by people in the real estate field
because the sales.are too small and ~ many hQurs of work. The Board does not want
to become involved in building or financing homes and does not want the Committee
to get involved in that either. Mr. Fisher said if the committee should find that
there are ordinances or procedures which make it impossible to obtain low or moderate
income housing, changes should be considered and these items should be brought to the
Board's attention for comments.
Miss Page Godsey, Administrative Assistant was present and introduced Miss Pat Haight
and John Mahone, University of Virginia students who are members of a policy analysis
graduate seminar, who~'~.are studying ordinances and policies presently followed by the
County. They are looking at things which are presently done which have an impact on
the cost of supplying housing. Mr. Wheeler noted that Miss Godsey will work with this
Committee initially as an assistant.
Mrs. Hudson said she did not know if this charge included substandard housing
already in the County since she knows that FHA also furnishes funds for improving
these houses. Mr. Eckford asked if there were any funds available from the County
in order to get such a project started. Mr. Wheeler said he could not say at this time
that there is money available. However, if the Committee feels it is necessary,
they should bring such a recommendation back to the Board for a decision. Mr. Thacker
noted that the charges are all inclusive. He said the Committee may find~ other areas
which go beyond that charge.
At 4:50 P.M., the Board recessed for supper and reconvened at 7:40 P.M. in the
Albemarle County Courthouse for an advertised public hearing on revenue sharing proposals.
This was advertised in the Daily Progress on January 19 and January 26, 1975.
Mr. Wheeler said before he started this public hearing he had a note from the
Chairman of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission regarding the~p~etiminary
plan for Virginia Air Transportation System. It was noted that if the Board wanted
to make comments, they must do it by March 1. Mr. Batchelor noted that both the Airport
CommiS~and the Airport Board have made comments and they do not agree with very much
of this study. Mr. Fisher said in that case he felt the Board and City Council should
support~the position of the Airport Board. Mr. Wheeler asked that the matter be included
on the agenda February 20.
Mr. Ray Jones, Assistant Director of Finance was present to present the staff's
report on Federal Revenue Sharing funds. He said that as of this date the County has
in escrow one million, seven hundred and sixty two thousand, five hundred and seventy-
seven dollars and eighty seven cents. During the next two quarters the County will
receive an additional two hundred and ninety thousand, one hundred and seventy-eight
dollars making a total available of two million, fifty two thousand, seven hundred
and fifty-five dollars and eighty seven cents. As of this date, the Board has appropriated
four hundred and nineteen thousand eight hundred and thirteen dollars and ninety eight
cents. Out of that total, two hundred and seventeen thousand, seven hundred and ten dollars
and forty-three cents is still unexpended. The City has reimbursed the County one half
of the cost of the Ivy Landfill Site. Since the total amount for the purchase of the
site was appropriated from revenue sharing, that amount will he,returned to revenue sharing
funds. The'~renOvation of the courthouse was appropriated at fifty thousand. Only ten
thousand three hundred and seventy four dollars was spent and the remainder _i ....
will be returned to revenue sharing.
The Board has made certain appropriations from revenue sharing fundS which were
not presented at the previous public hearing. Those were four thousand dollar contribution
to the library, twelve thousand eight hundred and seventy dollars for an additional
deputy, and thirty two thousand, seven hundred dollars for parks vehicles and the
Beaver Creek comfort station. The Board should adopt a resolution tonight to ratify that
action.
Mr. Jones ~hen noted the priorities of projects established at bhe~Ap~il~17, 1974,
public hearing on revenue sharing.
High Priority:
(1) Wing - County Office Building - Courthouse 100,000
(2) Clerk's Office 10,000
(3) Space for Juvenile Couzt 250,000
(4) Fire Station 150,000
(5) Fire Station Equipment 200,000
(6) Fire Hydrant 25,000
(7) Purchase Ivy Landfill 200,000
(8) Site Improvements - Landfill 100,000
(9) Bicentennial Utility Lines 20,000
(!0) Moving of telephone cable (Mr. Fisher) 400
(11) Low Income Housing Program (Mr. Wheeler) 20,000
.) 1 6 1-29-?s
(12) Sidewalks at Barracks Road (Mr.
Medium:
Purchase of Equipment for Landfill Operation
Low:
-[I7-- County Office Building
(2) Improvements Totier Creek
1,075,400
100,000
764,000
30,000
794,000
Grand Total 1,969,400
He then.noted~the.-~recommended- revisions of~'amounts onk. existing priorities.
Space for Juvenile Court
Fire Station & Equipment
Fire Hydrants
Landfill Site Improvements & Equipment
Low Income Housing
Bicentennial Utility Lines
175,000
350,000
25,000
410,000
20,000
20,000
1,000,000
Low Priority:
County Office Building
Improvements to Totier
1,000,000
53,000
1,053,000
Grand Total
2,053,000
Mr. Jones finished by noting that there were additional projects which could be
considered and placed on the priority list.
Piedmont Community College
Beaver Creek Road
Mint Springs Road
Chris Greene Lake
Library Site
Rivanna Reservior and Q~aiity Water needs study
48,000
5,000
6,000
12,800
87,000
150,'000
Total 308,800
At this-point, ~Mr.~ Wheeler opened the public hearing. The first to speak was
Victoria Craw. Mrs. Craw said she was disturbed to find that the Rivanna Reservior
Study was listed at the bottom of all items. She felt this should be at the very
top. Mr. Wheeler said it was not at the bottom because it had a low priority.
However, the Board has not decided whether Or not this study can be paid from revenue
sharing funds or if it will have to come from general funds. He said that this is
a top priority item with him. Mrs. Marcia Mashaw said even though the Board would
not be reconsidering the appropriation for low income housing, the League of Women
Voters will continue to support this proposal. She then asked about the amount of
money shown for the Ivy .Landfill and asked if this were the total amount to be paid
by both city and county. Mr. Wheeler noted that this is only. the County share.
Mrs. Mashaw said the League of Women Voters would like to go on record supporting
acquisition of land for a new library. However, they woUld have to support money for
the Rivanna River Reservior Study as a first priority.
Mrs. Kate Sandusky said she would like to put in a plug for bicycle paths.
A Mrs. Armstrong asked if the improvements to the Ivy Landfill Site should
not be done by a private contractor since the Country is in a recession. Mr. Wheeler
said the county has operated the landfill under a private contractor and it had not
been satisfactory. In approving the agreement with the City and trying to make this
~.-~.aa viable operation, both governing bodies had felt this was the best way in which
to operate the landfill~.~
Mrs. Armstrong asked if revenue sharing funds should not go into the general
fund rather than being used for special expenditures. Mr. Wheeler said the items
recommended are not things the Board is thinking of to spend money~fo~if'~..the~e~enue
sharing funds were not available, these are projeCts which would have to be completed
and would increase taxes. In this way, revenue sharing funds do help to hold down
property taxes.
Mrs. Craw asked if the recreational facilities proposed for Piedmont College
would include night lighting. Mr. Thacker said this was still in the planning stages.
Mrs. Craw said she felt this was inappropriate in these days of energy conservation.
Mrs. Armstrong asked about improvements to Totier Creek. Mr. Thacker said this
would basically provide a comfort station, parking facilities, boat ramps, docks, etc.,
to provide some recreation at Totier. Mr. David Morris, Chairman of the Parks
Committee, was present. He said this would utilize a valuable piece of waterfront
property that presently is not being used.
Mr. Wood sai~ he had received a letter from the Berkeley Community Association
requesting that a portion of revenue sharing funds be allocated for the first stage
of a park in the Berkeley Hydraulic area. This was for land owned by the School
Board on Westfield Road. They are asking that the County depart from the policy of
geographic location of parks throughout the County and asking that the Board install
the parks adjacent to the people. He felt this should be referred to the Parks
Committee even thOugh they have previously studied the matter. Mr. Carwi~e said
when this matter was brought up before, the Board had asked for an appraisal of the
property and it was a fairly substantial sum. He is in favor of a parks program in
the urban area but in terms of ~~i~ will not vote at this time to spend that
magnitude of funds for this property, since Albemarle High School is directly across
the road and has recreational facilities available.
Mr. Wood said he agreed one hundred percent with Mr. Carwile. They are not
asking for any disposition at this time. He realizes this is a valuable piece of land
but there is a need for open space and recreation in that high density area. However,
he is not sure the County should be providing this or requiring this from developers
through site plan control rather than taking a piece of property valued at three
quarters of a million dollars for this purpose.
At this time, motion wa~ offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Carwile to ratify
1-29-75
previous actions of the Board in using revenue sharing funds for the following items:
Contribution to the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library 4,000
Additional Deputy 12,870
Parks Vehicles and Beaver Creek Comfort Station 32,700
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
by setting priorities on items listed in the staff report.
The
Board
continued
1) Space for a Juvenile Court 175,000
To be left as a high priority item.
2) Fire Station and Equipment 350,000
Mr. Henley did not feel that the County should go into this type of fire operation
but should work out something with the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Wheeler asked if the
Fire Station Committee had any recommendations to make at this time. Mr. Wood said the
Fire Station Committee has almost decided on the type of facility which will be needed
but have not found a location and do not know the cost of land. The most important
factor in fire fighting is how long it takes from the time the alarm is sounded until the
unit arrives at the scene of the fire. They have made test runs and established that
in order to service the high density area from the south fork of the Rivanna River
into the city, the fire station should be located in the vicin~ity of the Rio Road
and Route 29 North intersection. This has been worked in connection with City fire
fighting stations. In order to provide services not only to County residents but to
help supplement services provided by the City, the County and the County volunteer fire
departments. Mr. Henley did not feel this item should be included on the list until
after a report is received from the Fire Station Committee. Mr. Carwile said he was
unwilling to include it as a high priority item until after he had received more
information. Mr. Thacker concurred.
Mr. Batchelor noted that part of this amount had been for replacement of the existing
county fire truck which is housed in the city fire station. He said specifications are
now being drawn and the expected cost of this fire engine is about $75,000. Mr. Carwile
said he remembered the Board had authorized purchase of this one fire engine and he still
concur~ in that request. It was a general concensus of the Board that $75,000 be left
in the high priority items for purchase of this fire engine, that the $350,000 for the
fire station and eqUipment be put into the low priority list.
3) Pire Hydrants
Leave as high priority item.
4) Landfill~ Site Improvements and Equipment
Leave as high priority item.
5) Low Income Housing
Leave as high priority item.
25,000
410,000
20,000
1-29-75
5, 1 9
6) Bicentennial Utility Lines 20,000
Leave as high priority item.
7) It was suggested that $87,000 listed for purchase of a library
site be moved into the high priority list.
Money for draining and regrading of lake bottom at Chris Greene Lake
in the amount of $12,800 was also moved to the high'priority list.
Mr. Robert Sampson, Director of the County Parks, was present. He said
~'~ that a committee of people from the Soil Conservation and Service inspects each
year the Beaver Creek Watershed and brings recommendations on what should be done to keep
the facility in good shape~ They have recommended that the Beaver Creek road be surface
treated. This would cost~ about $5,000. It was the concensus of the Board that this item
not be given a priority at this time.
The next item under discussion was improvements to Totier Creek, estimated
cost $53,000. Mr. Thacker said this facility has been lying dormant for a number
of years. Mr. David Morris has indicated this is a valuable resource that can be
developed and used by a large area of the County that does not at this time have any
recreational facilities. Mr..Thacker said he would like to see this included as a
high priority item. Mr. Wood said he could not believe the~Board would put this item
in and take out the fire station. Mr. Thacker said he would support the fire station
when a report was received from :the fire station committee.
Mr. Fisher said he had received comments from people in the southern part of
his district and there are no recreational facilities in that part of the County.
It is a long drive to Chris Greene or Mint Springs and access to the Rivanna River
is not good at this time. Something should be done for the people living in the
southern part of the County. It was the concensus of the Board, 4 to 2, that this
item be moved to high priority.
Funds listed for Piedmont Community College for athletic facilities in the
amount of $48,000 was left as a low priority item.
Mr. Sampson also brought to the Board's attention the need to upgrade the
road into Mint Springs Park, estimated cost $6,000. He said the road can be patched
every year for about $400.00 and it possibil~-~??' would last for three or four years
without a~major.repair or resurfacing. He felt the Board should be informed that
~'~ the road
if they decide not to resurface/at this time, that in three years or less, the ParkS
Department will be back with a request to pave the entire road. It was a concensus
that this item be left as low priority.
Mr. Wheeler noted that this now made a total of $877,800 in the high priority
~" listing and left a balance of $1,175,955..87 in the low priority listing. Mr. Batchelor
brought to the Board's attention that~.~s~, projects, are mentioned for planning purposes
only. The staff must come back to the Board not only for an appropriation but for final
approval of the project before bids are accepted on same.
1-29-75
Mr. Fisher asked if the Rivanna River Reservior Study was being deleted entirely
and would not be included even as a low priority item. Mr. Henley said it had no priority
as far as he was concerned Mr. Carwile did not think it should be included until the
·
Board had decided how it would be funded. Mr. Wheeler suggested that the amounts
for the Piedmont ~Community College, Beaver Creek road, and the Mint Springs Road, and
the Rivanna River Reservior Study be included in an item called sub-low priorities.
Mr. Thacker then offered motion to set priorities as had been determined by the
Board during this meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Carwile to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $12,800 be and the same hereby is appropriated from
Revenue Sharing funds and transferred to the General Operating
Capital Outlay fund for expendi.tures of the Parks Department for
certain renovations/made to Chris Greene Lake.
being
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Thacker asked that the bids on this Chris Greene project be brought back to
the Board if there is an overf~/BA of the amount appropriated.
Mrs. Victoria Craw asked when the Board would know if Federal funds will be
available for the reservior study. Mr. Wheeler said the Board and City Council have not
yet decided to make that study.
A discussion followed as to when the Board would begin work sessions on the County
budget. Same not having been received as of this date. It was suggested that next year
the work copy of the budget be to the Board of Supervisors by February 1.
At 8:55 P.M., motion was offered by Mr-. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood to adjourn
this meeting until February 5, 1975, at twelve noon in the Board Room of the County
Office Building. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
AYES:
NAYS:
None.
CHAIRMAN