1972-09-219-21-72
26o
A regular meeting of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
VirgiNs, was held at the County Office Building of said County on the 21st day
of September 21, 1972, at 9:00 A.M.
Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley~ Jr.,
William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and.Lloyd F. Wood~ Jr.
(Note: Mr. Carwi!e arrived at 9:1~ A.M., left at 9:~ A.M. and returned at 1:30 P.M.)
Absent: None
Officers present: County Executive and County Attorney.
The meeting opened with The Lord's Prayer led by.Mr. Wheeler.
Upon motion by Mr. Fisher~ seconded by Mr. Wood, minutes of the meetings of
July 26, August 9, August 17~ August 29 and September ~ were approved as read.
Motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
AB'SENT: Mr~...:C~rwile..
Mr. Batchelor presented a communication from Dulaney, Salley and Company,
requesting that the Board amend the minutes of June 2~, 1972, in order to more
fully incorporate their intent in establishing t~e tax rate for the year 1972.
Mr;-FiSher offered motion to amend the minutes of June 28, t972, as follows:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia
does hereby lay the County levy for the year 1972 for General County ~arposes
of Five Dollars and Ninety Cents ($~.90) on eve~ry One Hundred Dollars worth
of assessed value of real estate and personal property, and ordered that the
Director of Finance of the County of Albemarle assess and collect on all
taxable real estate and all taxable personal property, including machinery
and tools not assessed as real estate, used or employed in a manufacturing~
business, not taxable by the State on Capital; including ~blic Service
Corporation property (except the '~or011ing stock of railroads) based upon
the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commission and certified by it
to the Board of Supervisors both as to location and valuation; and including
all boats and watercraft under five tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia;
and all vehicles used as mobile homes or offices as set forth in the Virginia
Code; excluding merchant's capital, farm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock,
and household goods as set forth in the'Code of Virginia, SectiOns ~8-829
and ~8-829.1. FURTHER, the Director of Finance shall make separate classi$i-
cations~ of farm machinery, farm tools and farm livestock.
Mr. Fisher's motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
Mr. Carwile.
9-21-72
267
Mr. W. A. ?acer Chairman of the Flood Committee was present to give a report.
He Sta~ed'that the committee had met and they felt that the majority of people
affected by the flood had applied for assistance. They recommended that
several ads be run in the local newspaper advising'people of the deadline for
filing for assistance. Motion was Offered by 'Mr. Thacker~ seconded by Mr. Fisher
to authorize the County Executive to work out the details, one, this· with Mr. ?ace.
Motion carried by the following recorded vote:
~ES: Messrs. Carwile, Fishery Henley, Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Wheeler expressed the Board's appreciation for the work that the committee
had performed on the behalf of the County and asked Mr. Pace to convey this to the
members.
Mr. Richard Coates~ Assistant Resident Engineer was present to present highway
matters in the abse~e of Mr.R.~G. Warner.
The proposed budget for the Secondary System for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 197~ was submitted by the County Executive. On motion by Mr. Wood,
seconded by Mr. Fisher, the following resolution was adopted by the following
re~orded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fisher, Henley, Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the SeCondary System Budget for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1973, as submitted by Mr. R~ G. Warner~ Resident
Engineer, bE and the same is hereby approved as follows:
Ordinary Maintenance
Maintenance Replacements
Incidental Construction
State Funds Project Construction
Total
$ ~17,129.00
163, ~8 ~. O0
oo,.oo
..8~+ 5'., 886. O0
$1 , 712,000. O0
Mr. Wood stated that he had received several calls ~out Greenbrier Driv~ ....
Erom its intersection at Rt. 29 North. He stated that there are "no parking" signs
to the end of state maintenance~ however~ past this point, there is a problem with
congestion caused by the number of workmen who park on either side of the road.
He asked Dr. Charles Hurt~ who was present, if it would be possible to continue
"no parking" signs along this section until th~sm road~a~d interconnecting roads
are accepted ~nto the State secondary system. Dr. Hurt stated that he would do
whatever was $osSible .to help alleviate the situation.
Mr. Carwi~e said that he has received calls concerning the intersection of
Georgetown and Barracks Roads stating that the stop sign was not clearly visible
and he asked Mr. Coates to have this cleared. He also suggested that a "prepare
to stop" sign might be placed on ~eorgetown Road.
9-2i -?2
Mr. Thacker asked if the Highway Department would study the possibility
of relocating asign on Route 6 which is directly in front of the Scottsville
Museum. '
The Board was reminded that a public hearing on the closing of the Warren
and Hatton Ferries is to be held on October $, 1972, at 7:30 P.M. at the
Scottsvitle School. Upon motion by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Fisher, the
following resolution was offered:
WHEREAS, a public hearing will he held by a representative
of the State Highway Commission in the Scottsvit!e Junior High
School at 7:30 P.M. on October ~, 1972, for the purpose of ob-
taining citizens' comments on the Commission's intentibn-~ to -
discontinue portions of Route 627, including the Warren Ferry
in Albemarle and Buckingham Counties, and to discontinue portions
of Route 62~, including the Hatton Ferry in Albemarle and Bucking-
ham Colmties$
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Super-
visors of Al'bemarle County, Virginia, that the following individuals
be and they are hereby respectfully invited and urged to attend
said public hearing: The Honorable J. Harry Michael,'Jr.; The
HonOrable Daniel G. VanClief; The HonorRble Thomas J. Michie, Jr.;
Mr. LeRoy Eakin, Highway Commission representative for Culpeper
District; and Mr. D. B. Hope, Culpeper District Engineer.
The above motion carried by. the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs'~Cgrwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.-
NAYS: None.
The following communication was receiv~d~from the Department of HighWays:
September 15, 1972
Miss Lettie E. Naher, Clerk
Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Miss Neher: "'~
Reference is made to your letter of September 11, 1972, with regard to the
maintenance of Route 777 in Albemarle County.
This is to advise that I have made a working'agreement with the-Culpeper
Residency, which'handles work in Orange County, whereby they will maintain that
portion of Route 777 in Albemarle County which is accessible only through Orange
County. Any maintenance work done will be charged against Albemarle Secondary
Maintenance Funds; however, Orange County will do the actual work.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) R. G. Warner
Resident Engineer"
Mr. Carwile offered motion to authorize the Chairman to execute the
following agreemeht:
THIS AGREEMENT~ made this 21st day of September~ 1972~ by and
between the City of Charlottesville~ Virginia (the City), Albemarle
County~Virginia~(the County)~ and Rivanna Water and Sewer A~thority
(the A~tho~ity), provides that
WHEREAS, the City and the County have taken the nedessary steps
to create the Authority pursuant to the Virginia Water and Sewer
Authorities Act (the Act) for the ~urpose of acquiring, financing~
constructing~ operating and maintaining facilities for developing
a supply of potable water for the City and the County and for the
abatement of poI~ution resulting from sewage in the Rivanna River Basi~;
and
WHEREAS~ the Authority proposes to issue its revenue bonds to
finance its share of the cost of undertaking water and sewer projects
but is now in the need of funds to go forward with planning for such
projects pending the sale of its bonds; and
WHEREAS~ the City and the County as members of the Authority
are empowered by. Section 1~.1-t2~0 (hi) of the Act to advance or lend
money to the Authority;
NOWTHEREFORE~ the pa~ties hereto agree as follows:
(1) The City and the County each agree to lend to the Authority
up to $'~O,O00 to be used for engineering and other preliminary expenses
incident to the Authority's purpose.
(2) Such leans shall be made equally by the City and the County
from time to time upon the written request of the Chairman ef the
~thority to both the City a~d the County.
(~) Such loans shall be repaid by the Authority to the City and
the County not later than June ~0~ 197~, with interest at the rate of
~% per year.
IN WI~TNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement
to be executed by their duly authorized officers.
Motien was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs'~-Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Batchelor presented the following communication from Ray B. Jones
in reference to the engineering fee on Powel~l's Creek:
"Attached i~ the invoice from John McNair and Associates for the unpaid
balance on the ?owell's CreeE sewer plant and the appurtenances thereto.
Since this plant will not be built and the Service Authority does not
have the funds to pay the Bill, it is requested that the Board of
Supervisors assume this obligation.
I am sure that you and the Governing Body realize that the development
of these plans made it possible for Albemarle County to be allocated
ce~tain~Era~nt funds. The allocation of these grant funds was significant
in the formation of the Rivanna Regional ~athority.
Evenlual!y approximately one-half of the design wilt be used as shown
in the letter from John McNair dated August 22M
Mr. Batchelor stated that funds wereavailable under the Watershed Project
in the current budget and Mr. Wheeler stated that he supported payment of this
bill by the County. Mr. Wood offered motion to approve and pay bill from
John McNair and Associates in the amount of $20,636.97 and termeddas "South
Rivanna Sewage Treatment Plant Design under terms of Contract signed June 2,
1970". Motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. John Humphrey, County Planner, was present to give a report on Hollymead.
He stated that the Planning Department has received a preliminary subdivision
plat that shows possible non-compliance with minimum lot size as based on
conditio~s~set forth by the Board in its approval of Hollymead. That condition
requires 20,000 sq. ft. for houses on a septic system. He stated that in
consultation with representatives of the developer, several approaches on how
to meet the intent and not disrupt the overall plan had been presented. He
then read the following letter from Dr. Charles W. Hurt:
"September 20, 1972
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
Re: 20,000 Sq. Ft. lots, Hollymead
Dear Members of the Board:
On suggestion of the County Planner, we would like a clarification of intent
from the Board of Supervisors in connection with the condition recommending that
the use of septic tanks be limited on a minimum size lot of 20,000 square feet
per lot for septic systems. The limit of 20,000 square feet could be met in one
of the following ways, with your approval:
That the sewer collector lines be installed and with approval from
the Health Department a temporary large ~entral septic system be
installed to take care of a minimum number of houses at Hollymead.
2. That a deed of restriction be placed on every other lot stating
that no building can take place until such time as there is a
working central sewer system and adjoining properties are connected.
There are representatives from my firm present today at this meeting to
give full'exploration to the above mentioned method of septic installation,
It is hoped that a workable situation can be achieved with the unexpected
problem. It is our intent to work with the Board of Supervisors more closely
and to keep county staff members informed on the development as they take place
at Hollymead. I believe that with this joint co-operation, Hollymead will
develop into a model PUD for Alben~le County.
Yours truly,
(Signed) Charles W. Hurt"
Mr. Humphrey then read the following memorandum from J. Harvey Bailey,
County Engineer:
9-21-72
271
"Memo To: Mr. John Humphrey
FrOm: Mr. Jo Harvey Bailey
Subject: Hollymead Sewerage
'As an alternative to individual septic tanks for the 8~ lots in
Hollymead allow such service and as a solution to the use of lots of
Less ~than 20,000 sq. ft. in area, as specified in the conditions ~for
a~proval, it was suggested that a multiple house service system be
employed. This system would make immediate use of the collector services
to be installed by the developer.
Further investigation into the consolidated septic system would
i=dicate that it poses grave drawbacks. If the area were divided into
two fields to accommodate 8~ lots, the lot plan suggests 34 dwellings
would be served by one field and ~1 by the other. It is assumed the
same number of lineal feet of tile will be required for a dwelling
regardless of whether it is served by itself or grouped with others~
and that 300 ft. per house will be required. Instead of rDre-cast ~&Ptic
tanks, two large tanks (6'x13'x~9') for the smaller field and (6'x16'x48')
for the larger, would be built in place. Each of these septic tanks
would require a pump and force main to convey the effluent to a dis-
tribution box. From thence, multiple pumps and distribution boxes would
be required to serve the extensive fieldS.
Hollymead School has Just constructed such a system at the cost of
approximately $13,000 for a 4~000 foot total drain field. If we assume
the unit cost for the proposed Hollymead system would closely approximate
the schools'~cost experiences, then the estimated cost of the system is
0 ~
$~'~. 00.; The average cost per dwelling ~s beenestimated by the owner
as $800. This means the individual septic system plan would cost $68,000
a savings of $1~,000 for 8~ lots."
· After considerable discussion about the above, it was the concensus of the Board
that a resolution setting forth the method for putting the above cOnditions, as
into effect,
~scussed,/should be prepared by the County Attorney and the County Planner, same to
be submitted for adoption at the meeting of September 27.
Mr. Humphrey then presented a status report s~A[ing that since this is' the first
planned community in Albemarle, the Supervisors should be informed of progress.
He stated that on April 10, 1972~ 8~ permits were issued for single family rental
units on 200 plus acres in the area known as Hollymead. On May'8, 1972 the Board
approved a special permit for 750 units in Phase I, ultimately to be served by
public water and sewer with interim development without public sewer and without
upgrading existing roads. The Planning Commission has approved landscaping plan,
utilities plan, general site plan and E~ading plan for area one of Phase I. On
September 12, 1972, the site review committee received and reviewed site and grading
plan for area 2. All road plans and profiles for Phase I were submitted to the Highway
Department. They~ in turn recommended changes and returned these to the County Engineer
and on Seotember 20 he did refer these back to the Highway Department for formal approval.
Grading ola~have been approved and permits issued for grading done at the two
entrances on 29 South. A review of land north of Hollymead Drive, parallel to Route 29,
was inspected in compliance with soil and sedimentation ordinance earlier this year
and it was ascertained that no grading was necessary, only clearing and grubbing to
clear out theUnderbrush. A review of the McCauley-Taylor tract was accomplished ~d
grading permit issued on April 6, 1972. A subsequent plan was submitted and approved
for the area of Rt. 649 immediately east of the furniture store.
272
kt present~ sewer and water in Phase I are being installed based on utilities
plan. On August 1~, four permits for single family houses were issued to CFM
Corporation in violation of conditions of approval based on incorrect information
stating that public water and sewer were avai!Dble. The foundation of one house"
was started and this week has been stopped and these permits voided. The 8~ permits
issued were r~voked because of change in plans from rental to ownership.
CFM contracted for a block of lots on the 27th and at that time~the variance
from the 20,000 sq. ft. condition was noted onthe preliminary site plan.
Items to be completed before teta! compliance are:
(1) Agreement consummated between the Albemarle County Service Authority and
developer(s)~to insure construction and/or financing relative to construction
of Phase I, Hollymead. (See Dr. Hurt's letter to Ray Jones under date of
September 21, 1972.)
(2) Escrow fund to be held by the County to insure individual hook-up to a
public sewer system.
(3) Escrow and bonds to insure construction of streets to State standards.
The Planning Department has received an estimate of some $72,000 from Dr. Hurt's
engineer. This is to be reviewed by the County Engineer and approved. On the
basis of this approval the Planning Department will request negotiable instrument'
to be filed and held until roads, or J~S~gments thereof, are completed.
(4) Citizens Association Charter has been filed and reviewed and will be
processed in'~a week.
(~) Approval of the subdivision under the Subdivision Ordinance by the County.
The Planning~COmmission needs andoriginal with all pertinent information and
eight copies~-~Subdivision olat, citizens charter and other pertinent data-to be
filed and recorded.
Mr. Wheeler then asked Mr. Humphrey to give another progress report on
HollYm~ad after the first of the year.
An ~reement between the City of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle
and Horizon Aviation, Inc. was presented. This agreement coverE operations of
at the Charlottesvillz-Albemarle A~rpo~t,
the Lessee/and is effective for ~ years from oc~ooer 1, 1972. Motion was offered
by Henley,._seconded by Mr. Thacker to authorize the Chairman to execute the
agreement. Motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: ~Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Carwile.
(Note: Said lease is in permanent records of the Board of Supervisors)
RESOLVED
Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Thacker/to authorize the
Chairman to execute the following agreement between the County of Alhemarle and
the City of Charlottesville. This agreement also pertains to the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airoort:
273
This Agreement made and entered into this 21st day.of September, ~9~2~
by and between the CeUNTY OF ALBEMARLE and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE~
~ursuant to the authority contained in Section 5.1-35 and 5.1.36, Code of
Virginia (1950),as amended.
WITNESSETH:
The parties hereto agree that the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport,
now jointly owned by them shall~ hereafter be owned and operated by a governing
board which shall consist of the County Executive of the County of Albemarle,
the City Manager of the City of Charlottesville, and the Chairman of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Joint Airport Commission~ all of whom shall serve
without compensation but shall be reimbursed for reasonable and necessary
expenses. The three members hereby designated shall serve on the-board hereby
established while serving as County Executive, City Manager and Chairman
respectively. The Board hereby established shall be known as ?The Charlottes-
ville-Albemarle Airport Board"~ and shall have all the powers conferred on such
boards by Section 5. I'.35 and ~.t.36, Code of Virginia (1950) as amended.
The parties further agree that they will convey all right, title and
interests, now vested in them with respect to the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport to the Board hereby established. Such conveyances shall be at no cost
to the Board.
The parties agree to share equally in all operational costs of the Airport
to the extent that they exceed net revenues~ and in the costs of any improve-
ments thereto; provided, however, that no improvement, the cost of which will
require funds from the County and City shall be undertaken by the Board without
the prior approval of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County and the City
Council of Charlottesville.
The Governing Board shall exercise complete management control of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, and, in addition, it shall accomplish the
following:
(1) The Board will take action to ensure compliance with such regula-
tions of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States as may be applicable;
(2) The Board will, not less frequently than annually cause an audit of
its financial affairs to be conducted by an independent auditor, and a report
there of submitted to the parties hereto;
(3) The Board shall maintain insurance satisfactory to the parties hereto
to protect the property conveyed to them or hereafter acquired, and to save the
parties harmSess from claims arising out of the operation of the airport.
To the extent that i~ has the power to do soy the County of Albemarle
agrees to enact such ordinances as may be necessary to regulate vehicular parking
and traffic, and to regulate the orderly conduct of business at the airport.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the County of Albemarle~ pursuant to a resolution
duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 21, 1972, has caused
this agreement to be executed in its behalf bY Gordon L. Wheeler, Chairman,
and attested by Lettie E. Neher, Clerk of the Board, and the City of
Charlottesville, pursuant to resolution duly adopted by its City Council
on 1972, has caused this agreement to be executed on
its behalf by Francis H. Fife~ Mayor~ and attested by J. Sidney Rush~ Jr.,
Clerk of the Council.
The above motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
,ABSENT: Mr. Carwile.
Mr. Batchelor p~sented a request for extension of the ILS project at the
Airport stating that the Airport Commission recommended that a turn-around be
added at the south end of Runway NO. 3 While the ILS project is under constr-
uction. This will increase the safety at the airport and wOUld be in order
at this time during earth moving operation for the ILS project. He stated that
FAA has been contacted and they will participate in the cost. The contract
for this can be accomplished by maing funds that were not needed for the ILS
project. The ~ounty's cost would be one-fourth of an e~timated $$~,~00oO0 or
$11,~2~.00. The County's share of the total project would then be estimated
at $~7,570.66. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to authorize the County Engineer
be
to proceed with this project, same to/let as a separate contract or as a change
order to the present contract. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Carwile.
Statements of expenses of the Department of Finance, the Sheriff's Office and
· he Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney were submitted for the month of August,
1972. On motion by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Wood, these statements were
approved by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Carwile.
Reports of the Department of Public Welfare were submitted for the month of
July, 1972, in accordance with Sections 63-67.1 and 63-67.2 of the Code of
Virg~iR.
Statement of expenses incurred in the maintenance of the County Jail was
submitted along with summary statement of prisoner days for the month of August~
1972. Claim of the Jail Physician was submitted for the month of August, 1972~
in the amount of $~g. O0, of which two-thirds is reimbursable by the State. On
275
motion by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Thacker, these statements were approved for
payment by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thakker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Carwile.
Report of the County Executive was submitted for the month of ~ugust, 1972,
as information.
Uoon motion by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Wood, the following resolution
was adopted by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
.ABSENT: Mr. Carwile.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that $890,51+8.38 be and~her~by~is~appropriated
to be used as folk~s:
Joint Security Complex
-'~.V6ca~ional Technical Center
$ ~31,735.75
$ 4~8,812.63
The following communication was received:
"Seotember 12, 1972
To: T. M. Batchelor, Jr.
From: Ray B. Jones
Subject: Special Appropriation
The School Board, in a lease dated July 20, 1972, agreed to lease, a portion of
Albemarle High School to the Piedmont Community College for $2~,000. A check
dated August 31, 1972, has been received in the amount of $8,333.33 for 1/3 of
the total amount. Two more checks are forthcoming in December and March.
The Superintendent has requested the following codes be increased by the following
amounts:
17.6-119 Compensation of Janitors $10,000
17.61-21~ Repairs-~ildings & Grounds ~,000
17..6-207 Lights and Power ~,000
17.6-311 Fuel 2,000
17.8-600.6 Buildings and Grounds 3,000
$2~,0oo
The $3,000 allocated under 17.8-600.6 is necessary to provide some partitimning
required by the operation of the Community'College. The other allocations are
estimated increases in utilities and maintenance costs.
A copy of the lease is attached."
Upon motion by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Thacker, the following resolution
was adopted by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs~ Fisher, Hen!ey~ Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Carwile.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that $2~,0OO be and is hereby appropriated for
school purposes as ~utlined above.
2
Mr. Batchelor stated that he had received a request from the Electoral
Board for the purchase of additional voting machines, these to be used for
emergenc~ purposes. Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Wood
to adopt the following resolution. Motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
ABSENT: Mr. Carwile.
BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of County Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that $3,750.00 be and is hereby
appropriated for the purchase of two voting machines.
Mr. Ray B. Jones was present to give a report on certain well lots owned
by the County. After a lengthy presentation, he stated that the Board should
reserve the right to take any mechanical equipment that might still-.be on these
lots if same are sold. Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Henley
to dispose of all building size lots at public auction andto negotiate for the
sale of other lots. Motion ~carriedab¥}the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Tha2ker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Carwile.
During Mr. Jones' presentation he stated that it had recently come to his
attention that two abandoned well lots in Laurel Hills Subdivision and the
Property on which the CroZet Filter Plant is built are recorded in the name of
the County of Albemarle. Mr. Jones stated that these items were bought with
money advanced by the County before the Service Authority was finalized, however,
this money was repaid by the Service Authority on October 12, 196~ He, therefore,
asked that this land be transferred to the name of the Service Authority.
Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Thacker, to have the County
Attorney proceed with this transfer. Motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. ~
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Carwile.
Upon motion by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Thacker, the Clerk was ordered
to advertise, once a week for two successive weeks, for a public hearing on
OCtober 19, 1972, at 10:00 A.M. an amendment to the County Code under title of
"An Ordinance to adopt by reference the provisions of Titls $6. I and Article 6
of Chaoter 2 of Title 18.1 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, relating to
while
motor vehicles and traffic generally and to driving/under the influence of alcohol,
drugs or intoxicants, and to repeal and renumber certain sections of the Albemarle
277
County Code." Motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrso Carwile~ Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
Upon motion by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Carwile, the Clerk was ordered
t~'~advertise, once a week for two successive weeks, for a public hearing on October 19~
1972 at 10:10 A.M. an amendment to the County Code under title "An Ordinance to
designate agencies whose membership shall be entitledto benefits under the pr~isions
of the Virginia Line of Duty Act (Virginia Code Section 15o1-156.1 et seq) as being
integral parts of the Official Safety Program of Albemarle County by the addition
of Article VIII~ Section 2-~ to the County Code." Motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, ~entey, Thacker and Wheeler.
NAYS: Nor~
ABSENT:' Mr. Wood.
Motion to adopt the following resolution was offered by Mr'. Carwile:
RESOLVED: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 716, ACTS OF ASSEMBLY OF 1972, the
- following deputy Sheriffs employed by the County of Albemarle are
hereby certified as full time law enforcement deputies who have
met the qualifications of the Law Enforcement Officers Training
Standards Commission and are eligible to receive the minimum salary
at $7,200 per annum.
L. Kent~ Carter, Thomas A. Lewis, C. Purcell McCue,
J. Steve Huffman, J. Howard Morris, Walter E. Morrison,
. ~-~.Wa~ne Davis, Thomas A. Anderson, Thomas H. Maxwell,
Harry H. Young, Jr.
The above motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:~ Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
The following contractual agreement among the sponsoring local governments
of the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Commission and ~pplicant local governments
~esiring to become sponsoring members of~h commission was presented:
PREAMBLE
WHEREAS~ at the present time the cities of Harrisonburg, Lexington, Staunton,
and Waynesboro are sponsoring local governments of the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile
Detention Commission, being hereinafter sometimes referred to as "s~onsoring local
government" or ~sponsors"~ and
WHEREAS, under the supervision of the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention
Commission a Juvenile Detention Home has been constructed and is in operation, and
WHEREAS, th~ bids for the construction of such Juvenile Detention Home were
received from contractors in December 1966 Eor the construction of this facility, and
WHEREAS, each of the sponsoring local governments de,posited $37,500 as its share
of the cost of construction of the Juvenile Detention Home, and
WHEREAS, th? City of Staunton contributed an additional five and sixty.seven
hundredths ~o67) acres of land as the sit~Tor such facility, and
WHEREAS, other local governments in the area which were initially expected
to be served by the Shenandoah Velley Detention Home elected not to become sponsors
of this facility at the time the construction was planned and commenced, and
WHEREAS, it now apoears to the governing bodies of several local governments
located in and near the Shenandoah Valtv that it is desirable for such local
governments to become sponsors of the Shenandoah Valley DetentiOn Home, and
~4EREAS, the City of Charlottesville, Virginia; the County of Albemarle,
Vir$inia; the County of Augusta, Virginia; and the County of Rockingham,
Virginia are applicants to become sponsoring local governments of the Shenandoah
Valley Juvenile Detention Home and being hereinafter sometimes referred to as
"applicant local government" or "applicant", and
WHEREAS, the State Legislation relating to joint sponsorship of Juvenile
detention homes and commissions by local governments was amended in t972 to permit
enlargement of the number of sponsoring local governments of subh Juvenile Detention
Homes and Commissions according to the terms of agreement among the local
sponsoring governments and applicant local governments, and
WHEREAS~ the local gover~ng bodies sponsoring the Shenandoah Juvenile
Detention Home facility agree to accept such applicant local governments as
additional sponsors of the facility under the terms and conditions stated
below, and
WHEREAS, the applicant lo,at governments agree to these terms and conditions
as the considerations under which they as individual applicants are to receive
sponsoring membership in the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Commission and
to obtain privileges for the use of the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention
Home as provided to other sponsoring members, and
WHEREAS, it is agreed by the applicant local governments and the initial
Sponsoring local governments that the construction costs have risen in the
'Shenandoah Valley area by 40% since December 1966, and
WHEREAS, the cities of Harrisonburg, Lexington, Staunton, and Waynesboro
shall be known as the sponsors and as the party of the first part and that the
City of Charlottesville and the counties of Albemarle, Augusta, and Rockingham
shall be known as applicants and that each of the applicants shall be known as
parties of the second part.
TERMS 0F AGREEMENT
The following provisions are the'-~terms of agreement between the sponsors and
the applicants for membership for sponsorship of .the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile
Detention Commission and the use of the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home:
1) That each applicant local government shall prior to September 1~, 1972 pay
into the capital improvement reserve fund of the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile
Detention Home the sum of $37,~00 plus the sum of $1g,000 representing the increase
in construction costs amounting to 40% ~or a total of $~2,~00.
2) That such funds paid by each such applicant local government shall be held
in reserve and invested in appropriate government securities until needed for
capital improvements to the Shenandoah Vall. ey Juvenile Detention Home. Such
investments shal'l be made in a manner to obtain a maximum amount of interest
consistent with secure investment as can be reasonably expected.
3) That while such funds are held in reserve all interest collected from
such investments shall accrue to the benefit of the Juvenile Detention Commission
for the purpose of financing the operation of the facilities of the Shenandoah
Valley Juvenile Detention Home or for caoital improvement purposes for such
facilities, whichever the commission may determine to be appropriate.
4) That this contractual agreement is cont~gent upon receipt of a finm cial
grant from either the U. S. Government of the State of Virginia or from both the
previously mentioned sources of not less than ~0% of the cost involved in the
construction of dormitory facilities of six (6) rooms for boys and four (4) rooms
for girls comparable to that which presently exists at the facility, as well as
the additional auxiliary space required to accommodate juveniles committed from
the applicants. Such new facilities are to be comparable in size and type of
construction to that which currently exists at the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile
Detention Home.
~) That if it is impossible to obtain a grant a~ defined in paragraph 4~r
such construction purposes within twenty~Four months from September 1, 1972, this
279
agreement will be terminated and the amount of payment made by such applicant local
governments will be refunded to the applicant local government. Provided~ however~
if said grant is not obtained and the applicants elect to pay the entire cost of
construction of the additional facilities over the balance remaining in the
Shenandoah Valley $~venile Detention Home capital improvement reserve fund~ without
cost or obligation to the present sponsors, then this agreement shall not terminate
but shall remain i~'~full force and effect as if such grant had been obtained.
Upon the termination of this agreement each applicant local government shall
cease to be a sponsoring member and all rights and privileges which such applicant
local govermment may have enjoyed as a sponsoring local government shall cease.
6) That each applicant local government shall pay into the operating fund of
the Shenandoah Val]~.ey Juvenile Detention Home by September 1~, 1972 an additional
amount equal to one-fourth (I/~) of the operating balance on h~nd at the Detention
Home on September 1, 1972. Such payment shall be added to and become a Part of
the operating balance for such facility.
7) That during the time between the date of execution of this agreement and
completion of construction of the expanded facility, detention of Juveniles in the
Juvenile Detention Home from such new sponsoring local government jurisdictions
shall be given ~riority consideration over detention of juveniles from non-sponsoring
local government areas~ however~ it is understood and agreed that the inital~local
government sponsoring members will continue to receive priority consideration when
the ~uvenile Detention Home facility is filled to or near capacity until the time
the construction herein mentioned has been completed. After completion of the
expanded facility ~ll sponsors shall receive equal consideration.
8) That the payment for operational costs by such new local government sponsors
for the remainder of the first fiscal year shall be determined by using the average
per diem cost for the prior fiscal year and multiplying this amount by the number
of detention-days of utilization of the facility for confinement of juveniles
from the respective new sponsoring member jurisdictions. Such payments shall
be made tri-monthly. After completion of the fiscal year in which the new sponsoring
local governments become members~ the local shmre of cost of operation of the
Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home shall be prorated among all the then
sponsoring local governments according to the number of ~detention days of utilization
of the facility by each of the sponsoring jurisdictions.
9) That it is understood and agreed that the Juvenile Judge from each local
governmental jurisdiction shall serve as a member ex-officio of the 'Juvenile Detention
Commission as provided by law and that each~ person serving on the Shenandoah Valley
Juvenile Detention Home Commission shall have one vote on all matters coming before
such commission.
10) That in addition to the Juvenile Judges~ membership on the Juvenile Detention
Commission shall consist of only one (1) member from each of the then sponsoring local
governments~ and that such member shall have qualifications and be elected in a manne~
provided by State law, but with the understanding that insofar as it is possible to do
so within the framework of state law, the governing bo~es will $ive due consideration
to the election as a~representative ~ the commission of the chief administrative officer
of the unit of local government or some other person vitally interested in the
Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home and having direct liason with the ~overning
body of the unit of local government.
11) That in addition to the regular mem~ers~ each then sponsoring unitoSf
local government shall designate in the same manner as required for the regular
one or more alternate representative members to serve upon request of the regular
member as the member of the unit of local government to the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile
Detention Eome Commission during the absence of the regular member. Such alternate
representative when serving as the regular member shall be entitled to vote and
participate in all commission action and deliberation as if th'e alternate
representative was the regular member.
12) That this agreement shall become effective on September 1, 1.972 provided it
has been approved by all present sponsors and the~applicant local government.
Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Thacker to approve the above
agreement to authorize the Chairman to execute same of behalf of the County.
Motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fisher, Henley, Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
The following communication was received from the Tax Relief Committee:
28O
"North Garden, Virginia
September 13, 1972
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
County Office ~.ilding
Charlottesville, Virginia
Gent 1 emen:
The committee on property tax ~elief for the aged had their final meeting
on September 7, !972, and unanimously passed the following resolution:
"That no action be taken on property tax relief for the aged in
Albemarle County until after the meeting of the General Assembly
in 1974 at which time it is hopeful that assistance will be
provided at the State Level."
The 1971 Session of the General Assembly Created a commission to study
the exemption of certain real estate of persons not less than sixty-five years
of age. This Commission was composed of seven members of the House of Delegates
and four from the Senate. This Commission has completed their report and I
quote from their findings:
"Recognizing the need to alleviate undue tax burdens for our senior
citizens while limiting the negative effects on local governments and our
elderly citizens, in the body of this report the Commission recommends the
enactment of legislation which will correct these present inequities.
We know that several local governments are attempting, with their limited
financial resources~ to provide tax relief for the elderly as authorized by
the General Assembly. Many others are considering doing so. This Commission
has concluded that prOperty tax relief for the elderly should be a State
program, offering uniform relief for all eligible senior citizens. We urge
prompt enactment of legislation as contained in this report, with immediate
appropriations to fund a State program of property tax relief~ before localities
implement their programs. We still have time to provide a uniform Statewide
plan. If we wait, Iocalities will be further impaired in performing vital
Iocal services for their citizens and many of our elderly will be again burdened
with excessive taxes in proportion to their incomes."
Your committee also desired that all material gathered ~by them be turned
over to your office for possible use if a local study became necessary in
the future.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) M. Y. Sutherland, Jr., Chairman
Tax Relief Committee"
There being no member of the ~ommittee present for this meeting, the Chairman
requested the Clerk to arrange a meeting of the full committee for October 11,
at 4:30 P.M. in the Board Room.
The Chairman stated that Mr. John Smart, Chairman of the Land Use Committee
had called to say that he was leaving town for six months and asked if the
Supervisors would like to have his resignation. It was the concensus of the
Board that Mr. Smart's work for the committee was valuable and since this committee
would be working for ~everal months~ that the Vice-Chairman be asked to take over
in Mr. Smart's absence and that a letter be sent to Mr. Smart to this effect.
The County Attorney presented a decree~handed down by the Judge of Albemarle
County Circuit Court ordering that a refund be paid to John T. Camblos, Attorney
for Daniel E. & Frances B. Taylor~ that portion of their 1971 real estate taxes
paid on an erroneous over-assessment. The decree also Sated that appraised
value for tax purposes should be reduced until the next reappraisal, but that
appraised value of imprevements shall remain as taxed. Motion was offered, by
28i
Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Carwile authorizing payment of the above decree.
Motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Claim against the Dog Tax Fund was received from Virgil M. Grinstead for
one (1) lamb kill.ed by dogs. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr~~ CarWitgy
Mr. Grinstead was allowed $20.00 for thi~ claim. Motion~carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwiley Fisher~ Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Claim against the Dog Tax Fund was received from Virgil M. Grinstead for
one (1) ewe killed by dogs. Dn motion by Mr. Henleyy seconded by Mr. Fisher,
Er. Grinstead was allowed $10.'00 for this clan. Motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwiley Fishery Henley, Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
At this time, the Chairman asked for names to pla'ced for' nomination for
appointment of a member to the Planning Commission to fill the unexpired term of
James S. Parks. This term expires on December 31, 1973. Mr. Carwile placed for
nomination the name of M. Jack L~inehart. Mr. Wood placed for nomination the name
of Harold Umstetter. There being no further nominations the Chairman called for
a vote on the above names.
Voting form Mr. L~inehart: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley and ~ae~ler.
Voting for Mr. Umstetter: Messrs. Thacker and Wood.
The Chairman declared Mr. Rinehart the winner.
Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, to appoint Mr. James Jessup as a member
of the Bi-Centennial Commission. ~e~e~beingL-Roc~2drther ~ominationsy the Chairman
declared the nominations c~sed and Mr. Carwile's motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYRES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fishery Henley, Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
The Chairman stated that the Mayor had asked that two members of this Board be
appointed ~o work with the City on a request by Madison Hall volunteers for an
appropriation. He so desiEnated Mr. Carwile and Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Wheeler stated that Mr. Batchelor, the Mayory Cole Hend~ix, Mr. Shannon
Mr. Shea and himself had met and he felt that the type of mix-up that occurred in
A~gust would not happen again. He requested that all correspondence to Mr. Shanhon
should come from the Board of Supervisors and be signed by the Chairman.
The Board received a request from W. J.Copeland, Executive Secre~ry, Criminal
Justice Planning Unit in June, 1972, stating that Downing L. Smith wished to be
relieved of his responsibilities as a member. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile to
282
~ustice
appoint Stephen H. Helvin as a member of the Criminal/Planning Unit. Motion
was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
The Clerk was instructed to send a letter of appreciation to Mr. Smith.
Mr. Henley reported that the Dog Committee had not finalized any suggestions
at this point. HoweVer, it is their concensus that there needs to be adopted
some type of legislation in other than A-1 zones. The Board needs enabling
legislation that would let the Board draw lines were necessary and this might
not be tied to zoning.
Mr. Wood stated that at the Board meeting of September ~, he was absent
when vote was taken on SP-189 for Billy. L. Clemmer. He stated that he had
received calls from Mr. Clemmers' neighbors about this and asked for a
reconsideration of the vote. He stated that Mr. Clemmer wants to buy this land
and is confused about the Boards' decision since he had contacted every
neighbor in the community and found only one opposing, that having been resolved.
The land he proposes to buy is three acres and he feels that he has complied
with all requirements. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to reconsider the
action taken on September ~. Motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: Messrs. Fisher and Wheeler.
Mr. Clemmer was called to the Board meeting. Mr. Humphrey then restated that
the Planning Commission had deferred action until after a site review and then
approved the p~titions with l~O ft. set back and Health Department approval of
a septic tank system. Mr. Fisher stated that he felt the Board needed to
establish a policy on mobile homes. Mr. Thacker felt that the correction should
or
be in the new zoning ordinance stating that if the trailer were 800sq. ft./larger
he could obtain a building permit and not have to apply for a ~ecial permit
and would not have to come before this Board. Mr. CarWile stated that he was
concerned that a trailer could stay indefinitely and would prefer to approve the
petition on a ~-year basis instead of a permanent basis.
Mr. Wood then offered motion to approve the petition with conditions as
recommended by the Planning Commission. This motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker.
Mr. Carwile then asSed Mr. Wood if he would amend his motion to make this a
~-year (maximum) permit, administratively renewable at the end of the second
year and each year thereafter, up to ~ years. Mr. Wood stated no. Mr. Carwile
then offered motion to approve this amendment. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, He~ley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: Mr. Wheeler.
9-21-72
283
Vote was then taken on the original motion and it carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: Mr. Wheeler.
Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Batchelor to have a proposal for the use of the L~y
OperatHouse ready for the agenda ~ Getober 19.
Mr. Wheeler asked about a letter from the Virginia Association of Counties
asking for a list of highway priorities. Mr. Batchelor stated that he felt this
could be detrimental to this county and suggested that this be debated at the
annual meeting of Virginia Association of Counties.
Mr. ~gheeler asked the Clerk to put on the agenda of September 27~ the
appointment of a street naming committee. He asked the Board members to have
names ready for recommendation.
At 3:05 P.M., the Chairman entertained a motion to adjourn into executive
session to discuss legal matters. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded
by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fisher~ Henley~ Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened.
Upon motion, the meeting was adjourned.
Chairman