1973-09-19239
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia
was held on September 19, 1973 at 7'30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse,
Charlottesville, Virginia, said-meeting being adjourned from September 12, !973.
Present' Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J.T. Henley, Jr., William
C. Thacker, Jr., and Gordon L. Wheeler.
Absent' Mr. Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
Officers Present' County Executi've and County Attorney.
At 7-30 P.M. the Chairman c.alled for a public hearing on expansion of juris-
dictional areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Notice of this meeting
and the entire resolution was advertised in the Daily Progress on September 7, 1973.
Mr. Humphrey said this matter had been referred to the Planning Commission and
they consider that the proposal generally meets the objectives of the master plan for
land use and written objectives since most of these areas will require public utilities.
He said the Commission in considering the proposal accepted the staff's recommenda-
tion that the boundary lines to the south of the City of-Charlottesville be withdrawn
to a point to coincide with urban development as proposed on the land use plan and
they also recommended this ~o the Board. This would delete the major portion of
the Biscuit Run watershed at this time. Mr. Wheeler asked what the master plan re-
commends for this area and Mr. Humphrey said at this time it calls for agricultural
conservation.
Mr. Ray Jones said the Service Authority was delegated certain physical boundaries
within which they can transact business. They cannot transact business outside of those
areas unless the boundaries are changed by the governing body. He said there is
a provision in the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's four-party contract which gives
the Albemarle County Service Authority an option to either buy or nov buy certain
City utilities within ALbemarle County within six months after appraisal. These
utilities are to be appraised by independent appraisers and at the present time the
Albemarle County Service Authority would not be able to finance these facilities.
Mr. Jones said the members of the Service Authority's Board had no--with the
Planning Commission's recommendation since the entire area of the Biscuit Run Watershed
was included to allow for gravity sewage flow at some time in the future. He said
that what had been recommended would be adequate since there is no service in that
area at this time.
Mr. Batchelor said there had been indications that the Board would receive a
request for a PUD in this area and at the time this request is heard the Board can
either approve or not approve, however, he felt that if a.'~eveloper wants public
utilities the Service Authority should have the ability to serve him.
Mr. Jones asked Mr. St. John if the Service Authority had existing facilities
adjacent to this area if they could extend service into this area.
Mr. St. John said it is a matter of interpretating the difference between ex-
tending an existing system and the creation of a new and separate system. He said
240 -
this would be a large area to extend lines into all at one time, however, if this
area is included in the jurisdictional boundaries the Boar~ would not have to go
through this same procedure to establish these boundaries at a later date. Mr. Jones
did not th'ink the Service Authority would be able to finance a major trunk line
through this entire area. It would be tying into existing systems.
Mr. Batchelor said any expansion into any of these areas would have to be
financed by those developing the area. It has been the policy of the Board of
Supervisors that the Service Authority stay within areas that have been ~designated
by the Board and not service outside of those areas.
Mr. Fishe~ said that last year 'the Board was told that the areas designated by
the Board were the absolute boundaries unless these boundaries were enlarged by the
Board, which they could do at anytime, but, they could never reduce the overall area.
Mr. Wheeler said he felt this was the Service Authority's agreement with the Board.
Mr. St. John said the Service Authority has the power to extend any water or sewer
system. Mr. Fisher asked the purpose of establishing jurisdictional areas. Mr. St.
John said the Board established projects based on?~a financing procedure and these
are called projects by state statute. There is no reference in the Code to juris-
dictional areas or a definite line where a project ends. For purposes of convenience
and by necessity you need a description of a project and this is accomplished by
drawing a line. This does not mean that the pipe goes. right to that line and ends
there. If it is part of an existing project, you can extend beyond that line.
Mr. Wheeler said this Board had inferred to the Service Authority that they
wanted them to operate within the jurisdictional areas which the Board establishes.
Mr. St. John said he felt this was a sound policy since you could not establish
a new area with distribution systems, etc., with only a transmission line leading
through that area where you now have no distribution system. That would~be a
separate ~roject. Mr. Thacker asked if any extension of lines would require a
special permit to be issued by this Board. Mr. St. John said it would. Mr.
Fisher asked if that includes all lines or just major transmission lines. Mr.
Batchelor said that applied to major transmission or interceptor sewer lines and
does not pertain to collector lines in streets and distribution lines, those are
rights of utilities. Mr. Carwile said a special permit would be required for any
line whi~.h serves a drainage basin rather than the smaller lines feeding into it.
Mr. Fisher said he understood the general definitions but he felt there would be
questions. The Chairman then called on the public for comments:
Mr. Charles Rotgin asked if the Albemarle County Service Authority had uti-
lities in the proposed areas and the answer was no. He asked if in'designating
these jurisdictional areas, if utilities will be available by such designation
of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Batchelor said if a developer wanted utilities,
financial resp~nsibiliiies could be worked out with the Service Authority, however,
without jurisdictional areas being designated the Service Authority would not have
9-19-73
the right to enter into such negotiations. Mr. Carwile said this would also be
conditioned on availability of unused capacity in treatment plants.
Mr. Rotgin asked what would happen to people located in the proposed juris-
dictional areas who are presently served by the city. Mr. Batchelor said those
areas are part of the buy-sell agreement that was negotiated on the Rivanna contract.
Mr. Rotgin asked what would happen during the interim period if a person wanted
to build in that area where there are city utilities but no county utilities at
the present time. Mr. Wheeler said the Board would make a decision on the buy-sell
area before there is any capacity available for sewage disposal. Mr. Carwile said
the State Water Control Board has said they will not permit the City or the County
to approve any major new connections for sewage treatment until the City/County
have completed modifications to the existing plant and have had a chance to monitor
those results for 90 days and that will probably be in October of 1974.
Mrs. Frances Martin urged the Board to accept the recommendations of the
Planning Commission by deleting the Biscuit Run Watershed from the jurisdictional
boundaries. She said the Planning Commission did not feel this area can be deve-
loped without proper Study.
Mr. Wheeler said from indications he had received the Board will be receiving
requests for some ~ype of planned unit or cluster development in the Biscuit Run
area. He said he preferred that public utilities go into that area because he has
a great horror o£ wells. He felt the Board should look beyond today or tomorrow,
well into the future and he had no objection to adding that area.
Mr. Carwile felt it has been a policy of this Board to encourage planned unit
developments and in most cases these require central utilities. He said the Board
would ~have to choose between their desire not to see developments spread across
Albemarle County and the fact that a developer cannot effectively utilize this
structure without u~ilities and for these reasons he concurred with the Chairman.
Mr. Wheeler said this Board has recently approved two such units and he would
rather have supported these requests if public utilities were to be provided. He
feels that at some time in the future there will be a need for public utilities
for these two units.
Mr. Fisher said he feels the Board tends to encourage planned unit develop-
ments, however by the way utilities are laid ou~, these developments become so
expensive that there is not enough land in one place to consider planned unit
developments, therefore, the Board receives requests for what are essentially small
villages, farther into the rural areas o£ the County. He said .when the Board asked
the Planning Commission to help with this plan they suggested that this area no~ be
included and he felt the Board should not override that recommendation. Mr.
Batchelor reiterated that these boundaries are not a zoning map and bY designating
these boundaries it does not commit the area to anything with the exception of
two-acre lots which are already in the zoning ordinance.
9-19-73
Mr. Wheeler said he was not suggesting that he would approve any change in
zoning for that area. Mr. Fisher said the Board does not have a request for a
planned unit development before them and yet this is the reason given for including
the Biscuit Run Watershed within ~he jurisdictional area.
Mr. Thacker said even if the Board creates a jurisdictional area that does
not mean service will be extended into those areas until or unless the Service
Authority can afford by means of revenue derived from those lines to install them.
This must be a self-supporting situation.
Mr. Fisher asked why the Biscuit Run area was included ~o the exclusion of
other areas. Mr. Batchelor said there had been interest shown and he had talked
with someone who stated he would be willing to pay for water and sewer. Mr. Fisher
wondered if this were the,right decision to put high density water and sewer
capacity in the hands of the Service Authority at this point, since the Board
thinks it will be several years before ~here is sewage capacity and also when the
Planning staff recommended that the Board wait for proper planning of this area.
Mr. Batchelor said that was recommended from a planning point of view, but, that
does no~ preclude anyone from putting 500 houses on two acre lots in this area.
He felt that if it is legal, the Service Authority should have the ability to serve
since this would be better than wells and septic tanks.
Mr. Henley said there were 10 square miles in question and he felt this was
too large an area to include a~ this time since it could be added later. Mr.
Batchelor said it can be included at ~ laEer date but the staff needs directions
from the Board as to whether they want to have public utilities in this area at
some future date.
Mr. Fisher asked how much of this contested area will be in the new conser-
vation zone. Mr. Humphrey said he could not tell at this time, but much of this
would have to be determined in the new zoning ordinance. He said some of this land
may come under the ten acre requirement in the new ordinance. Mr. Fisher said he
was not in favor of expanding the jurisdictional areas completely around the City
at this time without definite proposals.
Mr. Henley said he felt the same, but neither is he in favor of private water
systems. Mr. Carwile said this is what will happen. Mr. Wheeler said his re-
marks were based on information which indicated this area is being considered for
development. Mr. Fisher said if the Board grants jurisdictional areas on this
basis they are in fact stating that this is where they want growth in the County.
Mr. Thacker disagreed. He said the Board would ~ be pe~rmitting the planning
and not changing the density. Mr. Fisher said he felt the Board was closing their
options when they granted jurisdictional areas they could never change.
Mr. Carwile said he felt Mr. Fisher was equating the PUD concept with high
density zoning. He said land use planning will not influence the number of people
who move to Albemarle County since he feels they will move here irregardless. He
9-19-73 ~-~
feels the overall density of the PUD concept is not that high and is much better than
that in a typical subdivision.
Mr. Fisher said the PUD concept does put more houses per acre in certain areas than
septic tanks can handle and that is why there is a need for public utilities. He felt
that the Board would prejudice any decision for this area before planning has taken place.
Mr. Carwile said in the present zoning ordinance, PUD's are allowed in the agri-
cultural zone. He understands that in the proposed zoning ordinance they will be allowed
in any residential classification based only on density. He did not feel that the
Board will be pre-empting any zoning decision by this designation.
Mrs. Frances Martin said from a citizens point of view to put a jurisdictional
area in a certain part of the County because the Board expects a proposal for a planned
unit development abrogates the Board's responsibility for planning and puts it into
the hands of private individuals and she protested this kind of reasoning.
Mr. Fisher then offered motion to adopt the jurisdictional boundaries recommend-
ated by the Planning Commission.
as follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and the vote was
Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
Messrs. Carwile, Thacker and Wheeler.
Mr. Thacker then offered motion to adopt the following resolution as requested by
the Albemarle County Service Authority'
WHEREAS, this Board, by resolution adopted at its regular meeting on August 16,
1973, stated its intention to designate certain water and sewer projects to be under-
taken by the Albemarle County Service Authority; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on said projects was held on September 19, 1973 pursuant
to notice thereof published once on September 7, 1973 in The Daily Progress, a newspaper
published in Charlottesville, Virginia, having general circulation in Albemarle County,
Virginia;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, as follows:
Section 1: That this Board, having created the Albemarle County Service Authority
pursuant to the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act (Chapter 28 of Title 15.1
of the Code of Virginia of 1950) as amended, hereby designates the following water and
sewer projects to be undertaken by the said Authority, which are set forth in resolu-
tion adopted by said Authority on August 14, 1973.
PROJECT
TO acquire, construct, maintain and operate water and sewerage system in the area
described as follows:
Beginning at a point, the intersection of the Northern boundary line of lot #1, section
61 Albemarle County Tax Map, of the Chapel Hill Sub-Division, with the center-line of
State Route 631; thence along center line of State Route 631 in a Southerly direction
to its intersection with the Western boundary of parcel 144, section 61; thence with
the Western boundary of parcel 144, section 61, in a Northeasterly direction to a corner,
and continuing with the Eastern boundary of said parcel in a Southerly direction to its
corner with parcel 146D, section 61; thence with said parcel 146D, section 61, in a
Northeasterly direction along its Northern boundary to a corner in the..:Western margin ~
of the R.O.W. of the Southern R.R.; thence with the said margin of the Southern R.R.
in a Southerly direction to a corner common to parcels 150 and 15lA, section 61;
thence crossing the said Southern R.R. in an Easterly direction to a corner common to
parcels 154 and 155, section 61, in the Eastern margin of the R.O.W.'of the Southern
R.R.; thence with the Northern boundary of parcels 155, and 154D, 154B, 154A, and 164, ~
section 61 to a corner common to parcel 164 and 164A, section 61, in the line of par-
cel 16, section 62; thence crossing parcel 16, section 62, in a Southerly direction
to a corner common to parcel 16, section 62, and parcel 165, section 61; thence with
the Easterly margin of parcels 165 and 166, section 61 To a corner common to parcel
166, section 61, and parcel 16, section 62; thence crossing parcels 16 and 17,
section 62 in a Southeasterly direction to a corner common to parcels 17 and 17C,
section 62; thence with the boundary...o£.~parcel 17, section 62, in a Southeasterly
direction to a corner common to parcels 17 and 17C, section 62; thence in a Northeast-
erly direction along the Southeastern boundary of parcel 17, section 62, to the West
bank of Rivanna River; thence Southerly along the West bank of Rivanna River to the
center line of the right-of-way of the Virginia Electric and Power Company; thence,
with the center line of Virginia Electric and Power Company in a Southeasterly direc- ~
tion, crossing the Rivanna River, Parcel 1, section 78, parcel 23, section 62 and
parcels 59A, 57, 55, 55B, 56 (Glenorchy Subdivision), 53,. section 75 and continuing
the same line, crossing parcel 5lA to a point in the line of parcels 5lA and 51,
section 78; thence in a Southerly direction along the boundary common to parcels 51,
5lA, and 5lB, section 78 to a point in the north margin of Interstate Highway 64;
thence, in a Southeasterly direction, crossing 1-64, to a corner common to parcels 45
and 47, section 78, in the south margin of 1-64; thence, with the Western boundary of
parcel 47 to the north margin of U.S. Hy. 250 and continuing, crossing U.S. Hy. 250,
along the east boundary of parcels 33B and 33, section 78, crossing the Chesapeake
and Ohio Railroad and the Rivanna River to the South bank of the Rivanna; thence with
the South bank of the said river, up stream in a Westerly direction to the Western
'boundary of parcel 29, section 78; thence in a Southeasterly direction along the
Western boundary line of parcel 29, section 78 to a corner common to parcels 29 and ~
22, section 78; thence, crossing parcel 22, section 78, in a Southwesterly direction
to a corner common to parcels 22 and 23, section 78, in the margin of State Route 53
and continuing the same course to the center of State Route 53; thence in a Westerly
direction along center line of State Route 53 to its intersection with the .~
Charlottesville-Scottsville district line at or near the entrance to Monticello; thenc
in a Southerly direction along Charlottesville-Scottsville District line (crest of
Mountain) to a point where South boundary line of parcel 25, section 77 and parcel
9-19'73
30, section 91, extended Eastward intersects the Charlottesville-Scottsville District
line; thence in a Westerly direction to the South East Corner of parcel 30, section
91, and continuing along the Southern boundary of said parcels 30 and 25 to a point
700 feet East of State Route 20; thence in a Southerly direction crossing parcels
29 and 7, section 91, to the North East corner of lot 36, section 91; thence Southerly
along the East property line to the Southeast corner of lot 36, section 91; thence in
a Southwesterly direction, crossing parcel 7, section 91~ to the center line of St.
Hy. 20; thence with the center line of Hy. 20 in a Southwesterly direction to a point
opposite a corner common to parcels 27 and 7A, section 102; thence crossing from the
center line of St. Hy. 20 to the said corner common to parcels 27 and 7A; thence along
the Eastern bQundary lines of parcels 7A, 7 and 2~section 102, to a corner common ~o
parcel 2, section 102 ~-f~i parcel 38, section 101; thence, crossing parcel 35, section
101 along the center of a private right of way to its fork leading to 39, 40 and others,
section 102 a~d continuing therefrom in a Northwesterly direction To a corner common
to parcels 38 and 25, section 101; thence with the Northern boundary of parcel 25, section
101 to the center of St. Rt. 631; thence along the center of St. Rt. 631 in a Northeasterly
direction to the intersection of the center line of St. Rts. 631 and 781; thence West-
erly from the intersection of State Routes 631 and 781 crossing parcel 49B to the South
East corner of parcel 23, section 76; thence Westerly along the Southern boundary of
parcel 23, section 76, to a corner common to parcels 23 and 49, section 76, and Sherwood
Farms, as shown on section 76N; thence with the said Sherwood Farms in a clockwise
direction along the Southern and Western bQundary of Sherwood Farms, section 76N, To
its corner common to parcel 44, section 75; thence with parcel 44, section 75 Westerly
along its Southern boundary ~o a corner common to parcels 43 and 44, section 75;
thence Northerly with the Western boundary of parcel 44, section 75 and continuing the
same course, crossing the Southern Railroad and Hy. 29 to a point 300' North of the
center line of Hy. 29 in parcel 45, section 75; thence in a Northeasterly dir. ection
by a line paralleled to and 300' from the center line of Hy. 29, crossing parcels 45
and 48, section 75, To a point in the boundary line common to parcels 48 and 53,
section 75; thence in a Northwesterly direction along the Western boundary line of
parcel 53, section 75, to its intersection with the South R.O.W. of Hy. 1-64; thence
~hence Westerly along South R.O.W. of 1-64
Westerly along South R.O.W. of/ 4;~o its intersection with Eastern boundary of parcel
I (City Reservoir) section 75; thence along Eastern boundary parcel I, section 75, to its
intersection with the Western corner of parcel 81, section 59D; thence along Western
boundary of parcel 81, section 59D to a point approximately 300' South of the Southern
R.O.W. of U.S. 250; thence parallel to and 300' from the Southern R.O.W. of U.S. 250
in a Western direction to a point opposite the Eastern boundary of parcel 23E, section
59; thence Northerly 300' to U.S. 250 R.O.W., and continuing along same line to the
Southeast corner o£ parcel 23E, section 59; thence along Eastern boundary o£vparcel
23E, section 59, to its intersection with the C & 0 R.O.W. and the same c~urse continued
crossing'the C & O R.R. to its boundary with Farmington; thence along the Western
9-19-73
boundary of Farmington in a clockwise direction to the intersection of State Routes
601 and 654 at the bridge over Ivy Creek; thence Southeasterly approximately 200' along
center line of State Route 654 to the Western boundary of parcel 3,~section 60; ~ .~
thence in a Southerly direction along the Western boundary of parcel 3, section 60,
to a corner common to parcel 3, section 60, and "Colthurst Farm'.' section 60C; thence
with "Colthurst Farm," section 60C, along its Western and Southern boundary to a
corner common to "Colthurst Farm" and parcel 66, section 60; thence in a counter
clockwise direction along the Western, Southern and Eastern boundaries of parcel 66,
section 60, to the center of State Route 654; thence in a Northerly direction along
the Western boundaries of parcels 27 and 27A, to the Northwestern corner of parcel
27A, section 60A and continuing with the said parcel 27A Eastward along its Northern
boundary and Northward along its Western boundary to a corner common to parcel 27E,
section 60A; thence in a Northerly direction with the Westerly boundary of parcel
27E to a corner common to parcels 27E, and iOA, ("Hessian Hills") section 60A; thence
in a counter clockwise direction along the boundary of "Hessian Hills" to a ~corner
in the West side of State Route 656; thence in an Easterly direction to the center
line of State Route 656; thence in a Northeasterly direction along center line of
State Route 656 to the South corner of Georgetown Green; thence in a clockwise
direction around the boundary line of GeorgetQ~n Green Sub-Division to the center
line of State Route 743; thence in a Northerly direction along State Route 743, to
the Northwestern corner of parcel 27A, section 61; thence Easterly along the Northern I .~
boundary of parcel 27A, section 61 and continuing along Southern boundary of parcel
29, section 61, to a corner common with parcel 29, section 61, "Westfield," section
61W, and the Berkeley Community, section 61M; thence with the Southwestern boundary
of Berkeley, section 61M and parcel 119, section 61 to the center line U.S. 29; thence
Northward along the center line of Hy. 29 to a point, the intersection of the center
line of Hy. 29 with the Southern boundary extended, of parcel 135A, section 61; thence
with the Southern boundaries of parcels 135A and 135B, and 135C in a Southeasterly
direction to a corner common to 135B and 136, section 61; thence along South
boundary of 135B, section 61, in an Easterly direction to a corner common to lot
135B and lot 14 of Chapel Rill Subdivision; thence in a clockwise direction around
Chapel Hill Subdivision ~o the center line of State Route 631 (Rio Road), the point
of beginning. Included in this jurisdictional area is all that land which lies bet-
ween the above described perimeter and the corporation boundary of the City of
Charlottesville. Included in this area are portions of Jurisdictional Areas 2, 4,
and 6, into which the Albemarle County Servi'c~ Authority's utilities have not hither-
to been extended.
Section 2. No other authority has been created under the provisions of said Act
serving the whole or part of the same area, and one of the powers granted by said
9-19-73
247
Act shall be exercised by the Authority in the construction, maintenance, ex-
tension or operation of any project or projects which in whole or in part shall
duplicate or compete with existing utilities, public or private, serving sub-
stantially the same purposes and area. Motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and
carried by the following recorded vote'
AYES' Messrs. Carwile, Thacker and Wheeler.
NAYS: Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
Mr. Wheeler said he had several comments to make to the press.
1) He said that in the future all meetings of the Board will be handled in a
public manner. If the Board goes into executive session, there would be a vote
taken.
2) When the press needs information that will effect the entire Board, the
Chairman, if he is available, will speak for the Board, also,-~Board members are
available at all times for. comments.
3) Concerningffithe Supreme.Court decision on the tax case, the only step
taken so far is to request a rehearing.
4) The public hearings on the City's requests for a landfill site in the
County have been closed and will not be reopened unless the Board so directs. The
Board has requested certain additional information and it will be available on
Friday.
5) The Rivanna Authority, the City and the County appeared before the State
a report
Water Control Board on Monday. He said he will be making~on "this at the Board s
meeting tomorrow.
6) He said that a request had come to him for a rehearing of approval given
for the site plan for Charlottesville Shopping World. Since he had a conflict of
this
interest he had tu~ed this matter over to Mr. Batchelor to discuss~with the Vice
Chairman. This matter was posted on the age~da for tomorrow at which time Mr.
Batchelor did not realize that Mr. Wood would be absent, therefore, it will be re-
moved from that agenda. Mr. Wheeler said he had stated.several times that he has
a conflict of interest, but, to his knowledge none of the other members of the
Board have any such conflict.
Mr. Carwile said he had read in the Daily Progress yesterday that he owned
two acres of land on Route 29 N. He said he has never owned any land in the County
other than his home. He said this is the height of irresponsible reporting and
the Daily Progress should encourage responsible reporting.
At ~'50 P.M. the Chairman called for a public hearing on revenue sharing
proposals as advertised in the ~aily Progress on September 8 and September 12, 1973.
Mr. Batchelor said the revenue sharing proposal advertised contained the
following provisions'
Item 1. Public Safety. $73,9.50. He said a certain amount of this had already
been allocated in the 1973-74 budget for the purchasing department, Community
9-19-~73
248
.Action Organization and Madison Hall, and he said certain other items would be
designated for public works. However, the list of projects had not been worked
out at this time. There was also $50,000 included in the present budget for pur-
chase of land for a new fire station.
Item 2. Beaver Creek Improvements. He said there are two comfort stations
which need ~o be replaced and also a boat ramp which needs to be replaced. This
would be $10,500.
Item 3. Parks. They are in need of equipment totaling $21,500. This would
be for a chipper, $3,500; a two-ton dump truck, $9,000; a three-quarter ton pick-
up, $5,000; and a one-half ton utility pickup, $4,000. He 'said that these were
vitally needed since the parks has spent approximately $1,500 in repairs since
July 1st. The chipper was needed so that the parks would not have to haul mulch.
I~em 4. Totter Creek. There is a need for a bulldozer, $2,500. This would
be used for clearing an area for parking.
Item 5 and Item 6. McIntire School renovations and Levy Opera House renova-
tions. No amoun~ was given for either of these projects.
Item 7. Radio equipment for the new building inspectors. This would be
a total of approximately $13,000 for 13 vehicles. He said that this would more
than take care of the revenue sharing money expected,
An unidentified gentleman asked what improvements would be made in the parks
Mr. Wheeler said that the Board had appointed a committee to handle this
system.
and he thought they would be ready to make an interim report as to expansion of
the parks in the near future.
Mr. Bob Merrill of the Western Albemarle Taxpayers Association, said they
would like the Board to consider the use of this money To reduce taxes and they
requested that the money not be spent on renovations to McIntire School. He felt
that in the matter of radios for the inspectors that mobile telephones would be
less expensive. Mr. Batchelor said it had been investigated and these telephones
cost approximately $52 a month, each, where the radio would be a one time expense
of $1,000 each, with approximately $30 each a year for maintenance contracts.
Mr. A. Dofflemyer, Blue Ridge Mental Health Association urged that the
money be used for services of the Region X District.
Marshaw Bishaw speaking for the League of Women Voters asked that part of
the money be set aside for acquisition of a site for the new regional library. She
said they had supported last year an allocation to the Community Action Organiza-
tion when federal funds were cu~ off and now they would like the Board to make a
commitment to housing. She asked that the Board not spend all the revenue sharing
money on capital works since they feel there is a need for housing and other
Essential social services in Albemarle County.
Mr. Roy Patterson speaking for Citizens for Albemarle asked that some money
be set aside for research and development for solid waste disposal.
9-19-73
2'49
Another gentleman asked if it were possible To set aside money for use by
the parks department.
Mr. Wheeler said he felt the revenue sharing law was passed so that localities
could carry out their responsibilities and he said the money would have to go in
many directions-.
Mr. Fisher said he felt some of the comments made were worthwhile and he would
like to see those incorporated into the revenue sharing proposal.
No one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed
and upon proper motion the meeting adjourned at 9:10 P.M.
Chairman