1986-06-11016
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
June 11, 1986, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 9:31 A.M.), Messrs.
Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John (arrived at 9:06 A.M.); and County Planner, John T. P. Horne.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Bowie moved to approve Items 4.1 and 4.2 and to
accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Item 4.1. Memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor,Jr., County Executive, dated June 3, 1986,
concerning the Development Information Office; approved as presented.
"In October, 1985 a memorandum was prepared describing several phased ap-
proaches to implement the recommendations of the Land Use Regulation Commit-
tee to create a Development Information Office. Subsequent Board discus-
sions on the matter were held in executive session relating to assignments
of individual employees affected by the phased proposals. Staff was
directed in the final executive session to prepare the fiscal budget for the
establishment of the Development Information Office, and that budget was
approved for FY 86-87 during annual budget sessions.
The purpose of this memorandum is to create a record for the files of your
approval of the Development Information Office, and will describe the
organization and function of that office and not rely just on the budgetary
approval procedure for that record.
Attached to this memorandum is a description of the Development Information
Office. Your confirmation of the establishment of the office is requested
for the Board's records."
"Description: The Development Information Office will be established with
the beginning of FY 86-87 as a division of the Zoning Department, under the
administration of the Deputy County Executive for Physical and Human Devel-
opment. It will be manned by an Administrative Assistant with clerical and
secretarial support staff being provided by the Zoning Department. The
office will be located on the second floor adjacent to the Zoning Office
reception area, and be clearly identified as the 'Development Information'
office with easy access to the public from the elevator and hallway.
The office staff will answer questions concerning development reviews and
procedures,~provide information and directions through written material
concerning the development process, put citizens in contact with other
departments' staff where needed, aid in resolving complaints or breakdowns
in the review process, and make recommendations to the Executive staff for
improvements needed in the review process."
Mr. Lindstrom asked if he could have more details on what is being proposed and what is
envisioned as the future evolution of the Development Information Office. He would like to
give this additional information to Mr. Bruce Dotson for circulation. Mr. Agnor said he
would send Mr. Lindstrom the requested information.
Mr. Way mentioned another concern about the Development Information Office. He hopes
that the fact that the office will be manned by an Administrative Assistant with clerical and
secretarial support means that this position is stationary, and that the Administrative
Assistant will not be pulled from that job to perform other duties.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this proposal is for someone to operate out of the Zoning Admin-
istrator's office. Mr. Agnor explained that this office would be located in a separate area
even though it is adjacent to the Zoning Administrator's office. He said the Administrative
Assistant would not be pulled from this position for other zoning duties.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how people are going to be informed of the Development Information
Office. He wondered if all the departments will refer people to this office. Mr. Agnor
responded that a sign will be placed inside the building, and that departments will be given
instructions to refer people to the Development Information Office.
Mr. Lindstrom asked that Board members be informed when this department is set up, so
they can physically review the location. Mr. Agnor agreed.
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
J~e
017
Item 4.2. A letter was received from Mr. James M. Hill, agent for Dr. Charles W. Hurt,
requesting that Riverbend Drive be accepted into the State Secondary System of Highways.
The following resolution was adopted by the vote shown above:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Vir-
ginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is
hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to
final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the
following road:
Riverbend Drive:
Beginning at Station 0+00.98, a point common with the right-of-way
margin of Route 250 and the centerline of Riverbend Drive, thence in a
southerly direction 811.02 feet to station 8+12.00, the end of this
dedication.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a variable right-of-way width
between seventy (70) and seventy-five (75) feet along this requested addi-
tion as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 674, page 425; Deed Book 689, page 829; Deed
Book 754, page 741; Deed Book 768, page 645; Deed Book 797, page 703; Deed
Book 798, page 174; Deed Book 821, page 660; and Deed Book 850, page 562.
Item 4.3. Copy of "Tentative 1986-87 Construction Allocations and Six-Year Improvement
Program" with letter dated May 15, 1986, from Mr. Ray Pethtel, Highway Commissioner; receive(
as information.
Item 4.4.
information.
A copy of the Planning Commission minutes for May 27, 1986, was received as
Item 4.5. The County Executive's Financial Report for April, 1986 was received in
accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-605. A memo attached from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden,
Director of Finance, listed the following items:
"The sale of 1986/87 vehicle licenses during the annual renewal period of
March and April has resulted in year-to-date revenues of $616,500, an
increase of $22,500 over 1985/86 sales and $21,500 over projected 1986/87
revenues.
The annual license renewal also resulted in delinquent tax collections of
$877,667 during this same period. Current year tax collection percentages
as of April 30, 1986, were as follows:
Levy Collection % Collected
Real Estate
Personal Property
Public Service
Machinery & Tools
Mobile Homes
17,598,107 $ 17,127,862 97.3%
5,806,124 5,460,133 94.0%
856,619 853,070 99.6%
793,128 793,128 100.0%
84,546 71,597 84.7%
25,138,524 $ 24,305,790 96.7%
As a result of changes in internal processing, efforts to control traffic
flows and the addition of the Division of Motor Vehicles as a sales agent,
this year's renewal process did not result in long lines for the taxpayers.
I have received numerous favorable comments from County taxpayers on these
changes, which resulted from suggestions by various members of the Finance
staff after a review of difficulties and problems over the last several
years."
Mr. Bowie commented that the financial report shows an excellelnt collection rate in all
categories.
Item 4J6. Letter dated May 29, 1986, from the County Attorney re:
received as follows:
Sidewalk Policy,
"You will find enclosed a letter from E. Suzanne Darling, Assistant Attorney
General, on the question of sidewalk policy. You will recall some time ago
the Board asked me to look into this.
Please distribute this letter to each Board member, each Planning Commission
member, Mr. Horne, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Agnor, and Mr. Dan Roosevelt.
I don't think there is any more we can do to resolve this situation, except
to follow Ms. Darling's suggestion and work with the Highway Department on a
case by case basis.
What she means by a case by case basis, is that we prescribe whatever
sidewalks we deem appropriate in each subdivision or site plan, agree to
maintain them without bonding that agreement, and see if the Highway
018
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Department will allow them to be built in their right-of-way without a bond
but with the understanding the County is responsible for their maintenance."
"Thank you for your recent letter concerning difficulties faced by counties
in complying with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's
policy requiring bonding of sidewalks. I recognize the legal and practical
problems which exist and believe that, until an overall solution is formu-
lated, we will be able to overcome these problems on a case by case basis.
I will be happy to work with you towards this end."
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: October 9, 1985.
Mr. Bowie reported that he has read his assigned pages of the minutes for October 9,
1985, and noted the following corrections:
On page 25, third paragraph, change the second sentence to read as follows: "The County
should be committed to honoring the commitment which he-~ee~s-~s-a-e~mm~me~-Be~ it is
makin9 at this time should the developer want to exercise his option to go ahead and make the
road tolerable."
On page 25, last paragraph, change to read: "At this point, Mr. Fisher asked for
comments from the Board members. Mr. Lindstrom said this property is in his district and he
has struggled with the application mo~e because of where it is located. He is not entirely
comfortable with any solution to the problem. He does, wha~-he-ee~es-~-see-a~-hea~?
and-he understands what Mr. St. John said about foreclosing future options~ ~It is the very
nature of the incentive ~ha~-~h~s beinq creates~ ~e~ so the developer ~ak~§ ta~es care of
the problem that the County is not in a position to take care of that makes ~ the incentive
obligatory."
On page 29, eleventh paragraph, fourth sentence, change to read: "In addition, regular
retirees are asked to leave the County plan and get their insurance through the an individual
plan ~ha~-~s-s~es~e~-~e-ma~e-aYa~a~e-~-~hese-ea~-~e~ees of their choosing."
On page 37, second paragraph, first sentence, insert the word "what" between "under-
stands" and "Mr."
On page 38, second paragraph, fifth sentence, insert the word "million" between "$1.01"
and "dollars".
Mr. Way offered motion to approve these minutes with the corrections. Mr. Bowie
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters - Public Hearing: Secondary Improvements Highway
Budget for Fiscal year 1986-87. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 27 and June 3,
1986.)
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, addressed the Board. From the Six Year
Priority Plan adopted by the Board, he composed a list of 17 items which he sent to the Boar(
by letter dated May 8, 1986. At last month's work session, it was agreed to hold a public
hearing today on this priority list. He said that the Board has received a letter from the
Highway Commissioner indicating that the allocation is $1,175,000. However, he has since
received word that the allocation must be reduced to approximately $1,151,000. Mr. Roosevelt
mentioned that last year's allocation was $1,669,500, so there has been an approximate
reduction of $600,000, or 36 percent. He is prepared to discuss why this reduction has
occurred, and, if the Board wishes, he will go through the priority list.
Mr. Fisher informed Mr. Roosevelt that the Board has already had one public session on
the Six Year Plan, and Board members have received the priority list. He asked Mr. Roosevel~
how he proposes to handle the revised budget figure.
Mr. Roosevelt responded that the list sent to the Board included the Hatton Ferry and
County-wide items as the last four of the 17 priorities. Recognizing the County's desire to
continue operation of the Hatton Ferry, and the need for the County-wide items, he suggests
that the reduction be made to one of the projects further up the priority list. For example
Mr. Roosevelt said, not doing the total construction project on Route 618 would save approxi-
mately $25,000.
Mr. Bowie wondered if this would delay the construction, and Mr. Roosevelt answered
"no". Construction will begin during the spring of the year, and he believes all expenses
can be covered by the first of July of next year. At that time, he will have the additional
money that is needed.
There were no further questions by Board members for Mr. Roosevelt, so Mr. Fisher opened
the public hearing. There was no one at the public hearing who wished to speak, so the
public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt the following
budget as proposed and discussed at a prior work session, revising No. 9 downward, as fol-
lows:
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
019
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Vir-
ginia, that the 1986-87 Secondary Improvement Budget Priority List for
Albemarle County is approved as follows:
Priority Route Project Allocation
1 743 From: 29 To: 1455 $ 107,000
2 631 At intersection 659 2,000
3 631 At Agnese Street 2,000
4 654 At intersection 656 1,500
5 631 At Greenbrier Drive 2,000
6 631 At intersection 768 5,000
7 656 From: 654 To: 743 5,000
8 631 Widen two bridges between 15,000
781 & 706
9 618 From: 729 To: 620 130,000
10 640 From: 20 To: 1.0 miles east 50,000
11 664 From: 604 To: 743 362,000
12 622 From: 618 To: Fluvanna C.L. 143,500
13 686 From: 600 To: Louisa C.L. 144,000
14 County Wide Traffic Services (new signs 30,000
and pavement markings)
15 County Wide Install pipe at new entrances 30,000
16 County Wide Fertilize & seed completed 10,000
projects
17 625 Operate Hatton Ferry 10,000
Total $1,049,000
FURTHER, that this resolution is effective this date.
Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and ~ay.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Way said he would like to make his annual plea concerning the Fourth of July parade
in Scottsville. He said one lane of traffic continues to move during the parade, endangering
and inconveniencing spectators. He asked if there were any way at all to stop the traffic.
Mr. Roosevelt said he will look into this matter for Mr. Way.
Mr. Lindstrom wondered when the Board would discuss the list of roads prepared by the
County Engineer earlier this year that were supposed to be taken into the State Secondary
system, but, for many reasons, have not been accepted at this point. Mr. Agnor responded
that Mr. St. John's office requires more time than was originally projected, because there
are some complexities that he has to deal with.
Mr. St. John said he was waiting to get some physical data such as the widths of the
roads, how they are graded, etc. He reminded the Board that the idea was to fund the
projects by using half of the money from the County and half from the Department of Highways.
He mentioned that it was first thought that the County's half could be collected from assess-
ments if 75 percent of the adjoining owners agreed. Mr. Roosevelt then pointed out, however
that this mechanism could not be used as long as there are private road provisions in the
County's Subdivision Ordinance. The County's funding will have to come either from the
citizens or from the County budget.
Mr. Lindstrom requested information on the roads by next month. Mr. Bowie mentioned
that there is at least one road, and possibly two, in his district. Citizens are'interested
in getting the roads into the state system, but they want to know what is involved. He has
told the citizens he is waiting for an answer to their question.
Mr. St. John said that the list he is working on includes only four roads. Mr. Bowie
said there are other roads involved, and Mr. Fisher explained that the four roads on Mr. St.
John's list are top priorities, the roads with the fewest complications and the most traffic
Mr. Bowie said there is also a list of roads which are private roads that could enter the
state system. These are low priority roads, but the citizens would like to know what they
need to do.
Mr. St. John stated that these four top priority roads will have to be described in
detail as to what needs to be done to them. Then, procedures and principles will have to be
followed with respect to all of the others.
Mr. Henley told Mr. Roosevelt about a road on the other side of Free Union, toward
Greene County, that is flooded by a pond below the road whenever there is a hard rain. He
asked Mr. Roosevelt if anything had been done about this matter. Mr. Roosevelt responded
that he has checked to see if any County ordinances require the owner to reduce the height of
the dam and learned there is nothing in the County's ordinances to require such action. If
the owner is unwilling to do anything about the problem, Mr. Roosevelt said, all the Depart-
ment of Highways can do is take him to court for backing water over the road. He thinks the
next step will be for someone to contact the owner and see if he is willing to correct the
problem. Mr. Henley said he would appreciate all that could be done, because he is getting
weekly calls relating to this problem.
Mr. Agnor called attention to the Sidewalk Policy matter included on the Consent Agenda
for today's meeting. He said that Mr. St. John has forwarded a copy of a letter from the
O2O
June I1, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Attorney General's office indicating its willingness to work on a case by case basis on the
matter of maintaining sidewalks by the County and without bond. His question is, should
staff proceed with the process on a case by case basis on the assumption that the County will
begin to maintain sidewalks with or without bond, or shall the staff approach this problem
from the standpoint that because the County will be required to maintain the sidewalks,
sidewalks will no longer be required in subdivisions and on site plans.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that when this matter was first brought up, there was an issue
about a sidewalk in the Willoughby development. He asked what the status is now concerning
that project. Mr. Tucker said he thought the developer placed the sidewalk outside of the
highway right-of-way, and the homeowners' association will maintain it.
Mr. Lindstrom said he believes it would be a mistake not to have some provision for
sidewalks in some of the densely-populated residential areas. He does not know how well it
will work over a long period of time to have the sidewalks located outside of the highway
right-of-way. Mr. Horne agreed this is not a satisfactory long-term solution. He said that
these sidewalks do not get people where they need to go.
Mr. Lindstrom said that he feels it would be a mistake for the County to stop requiring
sidewalks altogether. He hates to put the County in a position of having to maintain them,
but he thinks it is a governmental responsibility to require them. He said that there is no
satisfying answer.
Mr. Bowie agreed that the sidewalks should be considered on a case by case basis. He
mentioned, though, that some type of public works employees would have to maintain them, and
it will become tremendously expensive. He feels some solution has to be found for this
problem, but he is not sure that he would like to see the County maintain sidewalks.
Mr. Fisher said he believes that maintenance of the sidewalks should probably be con-
tracted to someone outside of the County. He mentioned that the County's present ordinances
do not require as many sidewalks as were required in the past. He said that in the past, the
people who were building the sidewalk~ were complaining about the costs and the actual need
for the sidewalk. He believes that the County is at the point where what is being required
is really needed. He agrees with Mr. Lindstrom that some mechanism has to be found to take
care of the sidewalks, but putting them on private ground will not be the answer over a long
period of time.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that when the County receives an application that requires a
sidewalk under ordinance provisions, the Board should review the situation again. He asked
how many applications the Board would have to deal with in the normal course of events. Mr.
Horne responded that it might be simpler for the Board to deal with the site plans because
sometimes there is commercial zoning involved and there is a better chance that the Highway
Department's requirements will be met for maintenance. He believes that the County will
start to see more plans for sidewalks in subdivisions, although there have not been many of
those recently. He thinks that some of the developed, subdivided areas are filling up and
some new large-scale subdivisions will be created that should contain some pedestrian facili-
ties. In those cases, this will usually be dealt with at the Planning Commission level and
probably will not be one of the categories that would allow for state maintenance. In his
opinion, these sidewalks will be the most awkward to deal with. He does not think that
County maintenance is a long term solution, either. He feels, however, that if this is
handled on a case by case basis and the County's policy is not being met, then the Highway
Department should be asked why its policy will not allow the sidewalks to be maintained. He
said the Department should understand that sidewalks are considered a very viable portion of
the transportation system of the County, and that the sidewalks should be taken into the
maintenance schedule. Mr. Horne stated that more rational thinking is needed at the Highway
Department level as to sidewalks in the long term. He thinks this short term policy might
encourage the Highway Department to realize that something different must be done.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the County should require the sidewalks where the ordinance
now establishes the requirement. He added that he is not saying that the Board should
automatically review every subdivision plat, but it should be left to the staff's discretion
as to when it thinks the Board should review the mechanism that is involved for County
maintenance. Mr. Horne responded that he does not think there will be an inordinate number
of Board reviews for subdivisions to the point that it will be a burden for the Board.
(Mrs. Cooke arrived at the meeting at 9:31 A.M.)
Mr. St. John pointed out that it is not just a question of whether the County agrees to
maintain sidewalks. He said if the County's agreement to maintain a given sidewalk is not
sufficient for the Highway Department, then the Highway Department will not let the developer
build in the highway right-of-way. If the County requires a sidewalk and the Highway Depart-
ment will not allow it to be built, it will come back to the County. At that time, the
COunty will have to decide if it will stand by its policy.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested asking Mr. Roosevelt to develop guidelines with the under-
standing that sidewalks are to be kept where they are now required. Mr. Horne said that a
lot of work could be done before sidewalks are approved by working with the Highway Depart-
ment and determining whether the Department approves of the County's position.
Next, Mr. Fisher asked for a sketch of where the alignment will be for the relocation of
Route 678. He is getting a lot of questions from residents in that area. Mr. Tucker said
that the County Engineer can provide Mr. Fisher with this information.
Mr. Fisher then asked for a tentative timetable relating to the relocation of Route 678.
According to the Capital Improvements Plan, Mr. Tucker said, the work on Route 678 will be
done within the next fiscal year. If it is to be tied to the opening of the new Meriwether
Lewis school in that area, it could be delayed another year. Mr. Horne suggested that the
Board fund Route 678 now, because it may take a while to ready the road for construction.
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(The Board recessed at 9:35 A.M. and reconvened at 9:45 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Public Hearing - Ordinance to vacate a portion of
a plat showing a public right-of-way between lots 15 and 16 on Rolling Hills Road -
Northfields Subdivision. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 27 and June 3, 1986.)
Mr. Horne referred to a map behind Board members and illustrated the request to vacate a
portion of a plat showing a public right-of-way on Rolling Hills Road. He said that Raintree
is a new subdivision to the west of Northfields. There is a small section of Rolling Hills
Road between Lot 15 and Lot 16 which is now used as a joint driveway for the two homes. It
is a dedicated right-of-way, but a gravel driveway has been constructed. An approved prelim-
inary plat in Raintree shows that eventually there will be no need for a connection roadway
here, because a cul-de-sac has been approved for this location. When this plat was presented
to the County, Mr. Horne said, there was a lot of concern about the impact of this develop-
ment on Northfields. The County then required some planning strips to separate further these
two developments. The only adverse comment that Mr. Horne has heard concerning this section
of Rolling Hills Road was from the developer of Raintree who stated that he may, when he
develops another phase, use this section of the road as an access roadway for his heavy
construction equipment. Therefore, the developer wishes for the roadway to remain open until
that time. Mr. Horne said he saw no adverse impacts from vacating this plat, although he
also does not see any benefit to the homeowners, because there will not be a connector road
to Raintree.
Mr. Lindstrom said that if the roadway was left as it is, the short term benefit would
be that it would be available for construction vehicles. Mr. Horne stated that he is not
sure the County is obligated to allow construction equipment to drive down this public
right-of-way. Mr. St. John agreed with Mr. Horne.
Mr. Fisher said he wonders about the wisdom of blocking this access before the develop-
ment has been completed. At this point, Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing and asked the
applicants if they wished to speak.
Ms. Doris Biss, co-owner of Lot 16, spoke first and said that she and her neighbors do
not want heavy equipment on this roadway, because there is a very dangerous intersection.
They feel that someone will be hurt if heavy equipment is allowed on that road. She said
there was a 20 foot buffer zone shown on the original Raintree plat, and since the property
is already in development, and the buffer zone runs up to the other cul-de-sac, she does not
see how it can be voided in the one that is still in the preliminary plat. She and the othe~
neighbors would like the road to remain as it is; they do not want it to become a "through"
road.
Ms. Muriel Holdway, owner of Lot 15, said there is a fence that runs along the entire
property boundary. If heavy equipment goes down that road, she asked, who will be responsi-
ble for repairing that fence? Mr. Fisher replied that the deVeloper would not be obligated
to do anything, if the fence belongs to him.
Mr. Ralph Bartholomew who owns the lot on the southeast corner of the intersection,
spoke next. He elaborated upon the dangers of this intersection, saying the last road
repairs by the Highway Department left piles of gravel at a corner of the intersection, whic~
causes automobiles to Slide. He also mentioned that there is a long, sweeping curve near the
intersection. He feels that to open that intersection to any kind of traffic would make a
hazardous situation. He believes that Rolling Hills Road currently carries enough "through"
traffic. He said that people from Carrsbrook, Huntington Road, and other neighborhoods use
that road to go to and from Fashion Square and Charlottesville. He strongly favors vacating
the right-of-way.
Mr. Bob Hauser, with Republic Homes, said he did not agree with the people who have
spoken at this meeting today. He stated that he has no desire to create an unsafe situation
for the homeowners, and does not intend to use this right-of-way. He requested, however,
that the Board delay its decision until the cul-de-sac in Raintree is platted. He mentioned
that the west side of Raintree, which is undeveloped, has no access to public sewer facili-
ties. He is considering bringing sewer facilities from in from Northfields. Because of
situations such as this one, it is necessary for him to have access from Northfields into
Raintree. He said, too, that the plan for that cul-de-sac has not been designed or submitte(
to the Highway Department. He expects to build the cul-de-sac according to plan, but it is
an unsure situation until the Highway Department has accepted the design. Mr. Hauser said
that his company needs this flexibility to make sure that they can develop the property.
Mr. Fisher asked how long it would take to complete the final plat. Mr. Hauser replied
that Republic Homes is selling approximately 20 homes per year in that area,so in the next
five years, Raintree should be completed.
Mrs. Cooke asked what Mr. Hauser means by flexibility in regard to the cul-de-sac. Mr.
Hauser responded that he will have to negotiate with a number of homeowners to run a sewer
line across their property from the existing connection in Northfields. When the sewer line
reaches the right-of-way, he must be able to take the line through to Raintree. He mentioned
that some people will not grant his company access across their property, and sometimes want
an unreasonable amount of money for the portion of their property that is needed. He said
also that the preliminary plat was done by an engineer, and it has been adhered to, but the
final plans have not been studied or submitted for the road. Until the plans are finalized,
he does not know that building a road according to the preliminary plat is acceptable. He
said it could be three or four more years before anything is finalized.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Hauser what assurances he could give the Board that he will not
take down the fence or bring heavy equipment through what is now these people's driveway, if
the Board delays its action until the plat is finalized. Mr. Hauser answered that he is not
022
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
familiar with the fence. He mentioned that getting to that portion of the property is
extremely difficult because it is heavily wooded. He suspects that if the fence is
unsightly, it will probably be removed at the time of development. As far as access to the
property is concerned, he said that his company is using Old Brook Road, which they are
improving as they go, for access to their current development. He does not foresee any
reason to stop using this road. He said that the best assurance that he can give the Board
is that his company is motivated by profit, and to use that road for access would mean Lot
would have to be cleared. He does not believe that this would be in his company's best
interest.
Mr. Fisher then told Mr. Hauser that these homeowners do not want any construction
equipment on the part of Rolling Hills Road shown on this plat. Because Mr. Hauser owns the
property behind this road, Mr. Fisher said he believes that Mr. Hauser could strengthen his
assurance that this road will not be used for heavy equipment. Mr. Hauser replied that this
piece of road would not be Used for construction access. However, he cannot assure that
construction equipment will not use this road if it has to be used for bringing in the sewer
line. Mr. Fisher said he understands the situation concerning the sewer line. Mr. Hauser
then stated that he can give the Board full assurance that this portion of Rolling Hills Roal
will not be used for construction equipment. He said that he is now in the process of
widening the portion of the road where the cul-de-sac begins. He further stated that the
surface of Old Brook Road is paved and can carry all the vehicular activity needed by his
construction.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Hauser if, at some point in the future, he decides that this
right-of-way is the location where he will need to get sewer lines to his property, would
this necessitate bringing heavy equipment on this portion of the road. Mr. Hauser answered
that if he has to use the right-of-way for sewer purposes, he would need to bring heavy
equipment through that right-of-way when the actual work on the sewer line is taking place.
He said that he had only spoken of the sewer line as an example, but he does not have any
intention of actually using the right-of-way or disturbing what is already there. He added
that his company has been in business long enough to know that it cannot assure what the
future holds. If the sewer line must pass through this right-of-way, he said, a backhoe or
other type of digging equipment would be needed to reach the property.
After ascertaining that no one else wished to address the Board, Mr. Fisher closed the
public hearing and put the matter before the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if it was possible to abandon a right-of-way with a
condition reserving an easement for sewer and water lines to an adjoining property. There
could be a further condition that if such sewer and water lines are laid, the cost of restor-
ing the property to its former condition would be paid for by the adjoining property develop-
er. Mr. St. John replied that an easement for sewer and water lines will carry with it the
right to construct these lines and then to maintain them. That would mean that the owners of
these lots could not build or plant extensive shrubbery over the lines without knowing that
they would be taking a chance. He does not believe that the people who are putting in the
sewer lines should be responsible for replacing a building or extensive shrubbery.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he believes the abandonment of this right-of-way could be
conditioned in such a way to impose some costs of restoration. Mr. St. John agreed with Mr.
Lindstrom and said that the conditions would need to be more detailed.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that anytime anything is built over an easement, it is done at
risk. He is uncomfortable, however, with "through" roads connecting subdivisions to one
another. He thinks that a neighborhood needs to be protected from a lot of "through" traffic
unless the roads were intended to become neighborhood collectors or "through" streets. He
said that it is in the public interest to reserve access for utilities, because he thinks it
will mean savings to the developers, and the savings can be passed on to the owners. He said
that this is a public right-of-way and he thinks it is a mistake for anyone to build anything
on it. He now does not think that a driveway would be incompatible with the reservation of ~
utility easement. He wants the property owners to understand that if the Board does abandon
the right-of-way, the owners will not be acquiring an additional 50 feet to use for build-
ings, etc., when it is not in the public interest. He thinks, though, to totally obliterate
the right-of-way would be a mistake. He can support a middle position to reserve the utilit~
possibility and eliminate the road possibility.
Mrs. Cooke mentioned that this right-of-way lies in her district. She said that Mr.
Lindstrom's suggestion is a good one, and she can support it. She stated that the road that
feeds the Raintree subdivision goes all of the way through and connects with Carrsbrook and
Rio Road. In her opinion, there is no need for any kind of a connector road between the
driveway in the Raintree subdivision over to Northfields. She has no problem with dedicatin¢
an easement for sewer or utilities through this particular portion of Rolling Hills Road,
because she thinks that is necessary. She does not see a need, though, for delaying a
decision until the developers make their final plan. Mrs. Cooke then asked Mr. St. John if
the motion needed to specify that easements will be maintained for utilities when the
right-of-way is abandoned as a road.
Mr. St. John answered, "yes." He suggested that the wording should state that easements
will be "reserved" for utilities instead of "maintained."
At this point, Mrs. Cooke made a motion to abandon this right-of-way for purposes of a
road, but reserve a right-of-way for the use of utilities. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the
motion.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John to revise the actual form of the motion to accomplish what
is intended. Mr. Agnor asked Mr. St. John if the width of the right-of-way needs to be
specified. Mr. St. John replied that if the width is not specified, then it can be anything
within the width shown in the documents that are before the Board.
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
02'3
Mr. Lindstrom suggested specifying the location and the width of the right-of-way. Mr.
St. John stated that the map does not say how wide the right-of-way is. Mr. Agnor said that
the right-of-way is 50 feet wide now. Mr. St. John said he does not believe the utility
right-of-way needs to be that wide.
At this point, Mrs. Cooke asked what an acceptable right-of-way for utilities would be.
She then asked Mr. Horne which utilities may need this right-of-way. Mr. Horne responded
that a sewer line is the primary purpose for allowing the developer use of the right-of-way.
He does not know if water would need to be brought through at that point. Mr. Lindstrom sai~
that he thinks that the developer should be able to use the right-of-way for water lines, if
necessary. Mrs. Cooke asked if a 20 foot right-of-way would be sufficient for both water and
sewer lines. Mr. Bill Brent said that 30 feet would be adequate for both water and sewer
lines.
Mrs. Cooke then amended her motion to move adoption of the ordinance as advertised but
adding a stipulation for a 30 foot right-of-way to accommodate water and sewer utilities in
the center of the existing right-of-way. Mr. Lindstrom agreed to this amendment. He then
asked Mrs. Cooke if she wanted her motion to include anything about repairing or restoration
of driveways. Mr. St. John said he did not think the statement relating to repairing or
restoration of driveways should be in the motion. He said that the people who are at the
meeting are aware of what has been stated into the record.
Mr. Fisher opposed the motion because, while he has considerable sympathy for the
landowners, this right-of-way for Rolling Hills Road has existed for a number of years with
the intention that when adjacent areas were developed, there could be public access between
the two developments. He feels that there are cases when school buses, rescue squads and
fire engines need to get between subdivisions. He feels that closing this access prior to a
final plat being put to record makes all of the land on the other side of it procedurally a
mistake for the County.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
Mr. Fisher.
AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF A CERTAIN PLAT OF A PORTION OF BLOCK G,
SECTION 1, NORTHFIELDS; THIS PROPERTY IS SHOWN ON A PLAT RECORDED IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN DEED BOOK 352, PAGE 239.
WHEREAS, a certain tract or parcel of land lying in Albemarle County
has been heretofore subdivided under the name of "Northfields," the plat of
which is of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 352, page 239; and
WHEREAS, Doris K. Biss, is the owner of a certain parcel abutting a
portion of a certain 50-foot road shown on the said plat as "Rolling Hill
Road"; and
WHEREAS, the said road is not needed for public road purposes and the
said Biss has petitioned the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County
that the said plat be vacated insofar as it affects the aforementioned road,
subject to the reservation of an easement for public water and sewer lines;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of County Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the subdivision of Section 1, Northfields, shown on the plat
recorded in the said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 352, page 239, be, and the
same hereby is, vacated as to that portion of the said subdivision shown on
the said plat as that portion of Rolling Hill Road lying between lots 15 and
16 of Block G of the said Section 1, from the intersection thereof with
Northfields Road, at the northerly margin of Northfields Road, thence
northerly to its end; PROVIDED, however, that the foregoing vacation is
subject to the reservation of an easement, in favor of the Albemarle County
Service Authority, 30 feet in width, 15 feet on either side of the center-
line of the said Rolling Hill Road, for the installation, maintenance,
repair, replacement, expansion, enlargement and other service, without
limitation, of one or more public water and/or sewer lines;
2. That the vacation set forth in Section 1 of this ordinance shall in
no way vacate any other street, road, right of way or lot duly platted and
recorded on the aforementioned plat;
3. That the Clerk of the Board shall cause a certified copy hereof to
be recorded in the said Clerk's Office to be indexed in names of the current
owners of lots 15 and 16, Block G, Section 1, Northfields;
4. That this ordinance shall be effective upon adoption.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: Public Hearing - Ordinance to vacate a certain
plat showing Phases II and III of Village Square. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
May 27 and June 3, 1986.)
Mr. Tucker reminded Board members that last month the staff had requested the Board to
consider vacating the plat showing Phases II and III of Village Square because of inadequate
funds to make certain improvements for sidewalks there. He said that yesterday the staff
received a bond from the owners, Salasco, Inc., in an adequate amount to complete that work.
024
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
The staff has asked, and it is included in the bond, that there will be a short period for
maturity of the bond, which will be only through this summer. If the applicant or owner has
not completed the work by that time, the staff would have an opportunity in the fall to call
that bond and have the work completed before the winter. For that reason, the staff no
longer sees the need to vacate those portions of Village Square as originally recommended.
Mr. Bowie wanted to verify that repairs would be done before the next winter season.
Mr. Tucker answered that this is the intent of the bond, which is valid through September 5.
He said that this gives the County adequate time to have the work completed before winter.
At this time, Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. There being no one present who
wished to speak concerning this matter, Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing and put the
matter before the Board.
Mr. Bowie said he was glad this plat did not have to be vacated. He would hate to do
this when so many things relating to Village Square have already been
approved. He wants to have the sidewalks and roads finished before winter. He asked the
staff if the Board needed to do anything to insure this.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker for his recommendation: should the Board defer action untiZ
August or drop the matter completely unless if there is not satisfactory compliance? Mr.
Tucker replied that the staff is confident that no further action is necessary. He said,
however, if this matter is deferred until the September meeting, this will give the staff
another chance to see that the work is completed before winter.
Mr. Fisher then suggested that the matter be deferred until the September meeting and
that a status report be given to the Board at that time. Mr. Bowie offered motion to defer
action on this ordinance until September 14, 1986, and request a staff report at that time.
Mr. Lindstrom seconded, the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: To consider extending the Albemarle Service Author-
ity service area for water to "existing structures only" to include Tax Map 58, Parcel 75D.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 27 and June 3, 1986.)
Mr. Horne said he believes that Board members are familiar with this request. He
pointed out the location on the map and said that it is adjacent to Route 678. He said this
parcel lies between two developmentS, Ivy Oaks and Lewis Hills, which are connected to the
public water system. Therefore, this parcel could have access to public water without the
County having to extend a new water line to the property. Should the Board choose to amend
the service area boundaries, Mr. Horne said, staff recommended that the service be extended
to existing structures only.
There were no questions from Board members, so Mr. Fisher asked Mrs. Whitehill, the
applicant, to address the Board. Mrs. Whitehill stated that she is asking the supervisors t¢
include this piece of property in the water district. She said that currently she has a
well, and that there is another dwelling using this same well. She would prefer to hook into
the County system. She said the people who own the piece of property listed as parcel Number
75 and who also use this well are not interested in a water connection.
Mr. Bowie asked if Mrs. Whitehill has two homes on this piece of property. Mrs.
Whitehill answered that she has a single dwelling, and a cottage that is used for storage.
She said there is no intention to use this cottage for any other purpose.
Mr. Way asked if Mrs. Whitehill is experiencing difficulty with her well at the present
time. Mrs~ Whitehill replied that the water has been tested several times, and there is a
lot of copper present. She said, though, that the difficulty is in the quantity of the
water. She stated that in the summer when there are dry seasons, she becomes very aware thai
more than one family uses this well.
There was no one else who wished to speak, so Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve extending the Albemarle County Service Authority
service area boundaries for "water only" to Tax Map 58, Parcel 75D. Mrs. Cooke seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Appeal: Saule Preliminary Plat. Mr. Horne presented the following
staff report:
"PROPOSAL: This is a proposal to create two (2) lots of 90 and 96 acres to
be served by an existing private road.
ACREAGE: The total area of the property is 186+ acres.
ZONING: RA, Rural Areas.
LOCATION: The property, described as Tax Map 41, Parcel 72, is located off
of Route 680, approximately 1.5 miles south of its intersection with Route
810 and two miles south of White Hall. White Hall Magisterial District.
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The surrounding area consists of rural residential
and agricultural uses. The property is mostly wooded with some moderate to
steep slopes on this site.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant is proposing to use an existing private road
as the primary access for these lots. The entrance of this road at Route
680 presently does not have the adequate sight distance recommended by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. On their comments from
the Site Review Committee meeting, the Department states:
The Department recommends that the existing entrance be upgraded
to a private street commercial entrance with a minimum of 450 feet
of sight distance. To the south of the entrance there is cur-
rently 130 feet of sight distance. To obtain adequate sight
distance in this direction will require cutting of vegetation and
removal of a fence line. Additional right-of-way and/or a sight
easement will also be necessary in this direction to ensure that
the sight distance will be maintained.
This proposal is before the Commission at the request of the applicant. The
applicant has made attempts to obtain permission from the property owner
along Route 680 to improve the sight distance along the road, but has been
unable to obtain such permission. The applicant is requesting that the
Commission waive the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
recommendations and approve this subdivision proposal with the sight dis-
tance which currently exists at this time (approximately 130 feet).
The staff does not recommend approval of this subdivision proposal with
inadequate sight distance. Sight distance is a critical issue of the review
process which directly involves the public's safety, and the staff has never
recommended that a waiver be granted Of a minimum standard for sight dis-
tance. Staff would caution the Commission as to the precedent that would be
set by approving a subdivision with inadequate sight distance as recommended
by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
Staff recommends that the Commission deny this proposal until adequate sight
distance, or some method for providing sight distance, is obtained.
The applicant has also requested a waiver of the minimum right-of-way
requirement for a private road pursuant to 18-36(g) of the Subdivision
Ordinance. A 20-foot right-of-way currently exists. A minimum of 22 feet
is required for this road. This subdivision will establish the eighth lot
on this road. The minimum private road standard requires a 14 foot wide
paved road, with four feet of shoulder and drainage area on both sides 'of
the road. The County Engineer's office has recommended that: 'because of -
the number of lots served and the absence of environmental problems that
would be involved with a public road, we have asked that the existing road
be upgraded to a public road.'
The applicant has attempted to obtain additional right-of-way from the
property owners along this road. None of the respective owners have
responded favorably.
The staff feels that there are no environmental or physical constraints
which limit the applicant from constructing a public road, therefore~ the
installation of a public road is recommended.
If the Planning Commission should choose to approve a private road, the
staff recommends that the Commission not grant a waiver of the minimum
right-of-way requirement. The staff is reluctant to recommend that a waiver
be granted based on the unwillingness of adjacent owners to cooperate with
one another.
A special use permit will be needed for the road crossing of a creek and
flood plain in order to serve the second lot. Normally a subdivision
proposal would not be scheduled for Commission review until all necessary
Special Use Permits are approved. However, given the other complexities
involved in this proposal, and the fact that this is a preliminary plat
(approval of a preliminary plat does not guarantee approval of a final plat
- Section 18-49 of Subdivision Ordinance), it was felt that approval of a
final plat could be conditioned on approval of a special use permit for the
crossing of the flood plain.
Recommendations:
Staff recommends denial of the above-noted preliminary plat for the
following reasons:
Inadequate sight distance exists at the entrance for the primary
access for this subdivision.
2. Public road has not been provided.
Existing right-of-way is inadequate for the minimum private road
allowed under the Subdivision Ordinance.
The following changes/factors could make the proposal approvable.
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
The provision of adequate sight distance to the satisfaction of
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation;
2. The provision of a public road; or
e
Provision of a private road to the standard outlined in the
Subdivision Ordinance (should the Planning Commission grant
approval for a private road).
Should the Commission choose to approve this proposal, staff recommends
the following conditions:
The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
Approval of Special Use Permit for the road crossing of the
creek and flood plain;
County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval
of road and drainage plans;
Issuance of an erosion control permit.
Should the Planning Commission choose to approve this proposal with
proposed private road with the waiver for right-of-way width, staff
recommends the following conditions:
The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
Approval of Special Use Permit for the road crossing of the
creek and flood plain;.
County Engineer approval of final road plans;
County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
Issuance of a soil erosion permit;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval
of private street commercial entrance with adequate sight
distance.
Waiver of minimum right-of-way width requirement of Section
18-36(e).
Mr. Fisher asked if other parcels use this private road. Mr. Horne responded that there
are some other parcels in front of this property that use the road. Mr. Fisher then asked,
if this appeal is granted, would this mean that more parcels would be using this private
road. Mr. Horne answered that it would be adding one additional parcel, because the proposal
is to divide the 186 acres in half. This would be the eighth lot using the road.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this property is at the end of the private road and if the
property would require the use of the whole length of the road. Mr. Horne responded, "yes,"
to both questions.
Mr. Fisher asked at what point a road has to meet County standards. Mr. Horne replied
that there is some discretion in the ordinance now. The applicant can request, and did so in
this case, that the Planning Commission approve a private road that does not strictly meet
either the recommendations or the requirements of the ordinance. The major issue in this
case is the status of the entrance of the roadway onto Route 680 and the construction stan-
dards of this roadway.
Mr. Horne stated that the Commission, at its meeting on April 29, 1986, approved the
Preliminary Plat with a series of conditions. He then went through these conditions in
detail with the Board. He said that there was considerable discussion at the Planning
Commission meeting as to what was adequate sight distance, and whether the Commission should
say that a commercial entrance is required. The Commission decided that there must be a
private street commercial entrance approved by the Highway Department with the question of
what is adequate sight distance left in the hands of the Resident Engineer.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt to speak to the Board concerning the sight distance
question. He asked Mr. Roosevelt to explain why there is not a problem with the Route 811
intersection when there seems to be a problem with the private entrance across the road. Mr.
Roosevelt replied that the Highway Department indicates that the sight distance of 450 feet
can be obtained at the private entrance by clearing vegetation and the removal of a fence.
This means that the sight distance problem is not vertical, but it is a horizontal problem.
The Route 811 intersection is not affected by the same blockage as this private entrance.
Mr. Bowie asked if there is not vegetation on the other side of the road. Mr. Roosevelt
answered that he is not saying there is not a sight distance problem at Route 811. But, what
is causing the problem for this entrance is not the same thing that would cause a sight
distance problem on the other side of the road. He said that there is a fence close to Route
680 lined with trees, bushes, shrubs and weeds which block the sight distance. He added that
this growth is on private property.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Robert Blodinger, attorney for the applicant, if he would like to
address the Board. He also asked him to make a note that, in the future, he should inform
the Board of Supervisors what it is that is being appealed. He said that the Board needs to
know the specific criteria that the client would like for it to consider, because otherwise
the Board does not know how to focus its attention.
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
O27
Mr. Blodinger said that he has been advised that the right-of-way on this property not
only does not have 20 feet available, but is as narrow as 14 feet in some areas. He stated
that this private road connecting to Route 680 has existed for some years. He commented that
the Reed Rubin tract has a 20 foot right-of-way. After that tract, the property narrows intc
an old right-of-way of only 14 feet. He had hoped that the Planning Commission could waive
right-of-way requirements where the topography of the property is not such that would allow
the amount of property required for a riqht-of-way. He went on to say that the road cannot
be built even under the private right-of-way specifications. Now he and his clients are
searching for a general waiver under Section 18-4 of the County Code. Another reason he and
his c~ients are asking ~or this waiver is because it would be too expensive to put in a ~ile
and a half of hard-surfaced road to serve one extra lot. He said that this lot is 96 acres,
but the cost of putting in the hard-surfaced road would be almost half of the value of the
land.
Mr. Blodinger and his clients would also like a waiver on the sight distance problem
which has become more complicated than he had anticipated. A commercial street entrance is
what the state requires, and he does not have a waiver for this at the moment. This commer-
cial street entrance requires a sight distance of 450 feet, and application for a permit has
to be made to the State Highway Department for its construction. This would also require a
widening at the mouth of the right-of-way with certain curve radiuses onto Route 680. There
is no way his clients can obtain that. Mrs. Woodson owns the property where the fence and
growth is located, and she has refused his clients permission to do anything. Mr. Blodinger
went on to say that the sight distance problem may or may not be curable. Since the
Commission hearing, it was brought to Mr. Blodinger's attention that Section 4.4 of the
Zoning Ordinance permits the County Zoning Administrator to require the clearing of grass
undergrowth, etc., where they impede the sight distances that are required to comply with the
State Highway Department regulations. Mr. Blodinger spoke with Mr. Burgess on this issue,
and he decided, based on the Zoning Ordinance, that he would enforce the Zoning Ordinance
attempt to obtain that sight distance. Until this sight distance is acquired, his clients
need a waiver relating to this problem. Even if the sight distance is obtained, he added,
the entrance may not comply with Mr. Roosevelt's requirements, because the curvature is not
available at the entrance to the road.
Mr. Fisher clarified Mr. Blodinger's statements by inquiring if he is asking for a
waiver of all rights-of-way requirements and road construction requirements other than what
can be done on a 14 foot right-of-way. Mr. Blodinger said "yes", and added that his clients
also do not want to hard-surface the road because.of monetary reasons.
Mr. Fisher stated that the ordinance says that you have to start with a public road.
said that Mr. Blodinger and his clients have gone from a public road to a private road, and
then to a private road with a substandard right-of-way. Now, Mr. Blodinger is saying that
his clients do not want to hard-surface the road. Mr. Blodinger said that he did not real-
ize, when he went to the last hearing, that hard-surfacing was being considered. Nor did he
realize that over seven parcels were involved. He believes that the same requirement was
there when the Reed Rubin property was processed, and there were six parcels then. He thinks
that a waiver was granted at that time.
Mr. Fisher answered that if it was, it was probably a mistake. He went over Mr.
Blodinger's requests again by saying that Mr. Blodinger is asking for waivers of
rights-of-way, surface treatment and entrance design, and perhaps sight distance.
Mr. Blodinger said his clients may not need the waiver for sight distance. He said
is a 180 acre tract being divided into two lots. The farm is more than Mr. Saule can handle
he said, that is why he divided it. He mentioned that he had told the Planning Commission
that the Saules would eliminate the three division rights contained on the present subdivi-
sion plat, if the Commission would approve the Saules' requests. That is why those division
rights were eliminated. Mr. Blodinger said he and his clients left the Planning Commission
meeting with less than they had when they got there, and the Saules still could not do what
they wanted. However, the Saules are still willing to give up these division rights. Mr.
Blodinger stated that Mr. Saule has testified that when he bought the property he was shown
plat in which his 186 acre tract was divided into two separate lots which he proposed to buy
from R~ed Rubin with the thought that he would sell one of these tracts. Apparently, this
plat h~d never been approved, and the final plat which showed it as one lot was explained to
Mr. Sable to be a combination of those two lots. But, Mr. Saule was told that the right was
reserved to divide the property in the future. Mr. Blodinger said it is contained in the to
ledger of the plat that three division rights were reserved for the tract which Mr. Saule
buying These division rights were not available to some of the other tracts which were
divide~ off of the original land. Mr. Saule was under the mistaken impression that he had
probleln because the division rights were stated on his plat. Apparently, the original plat,
which ~r. Saule looked at when the original contract was signed, was never approved. Mr.
Blodinger said that Mr. Saule bought the same amount of land, but without division rights.
Becaus~ of that, Mr. Blodinger stated, it becomes a case of hardship for Mr. Saule. Mr.
Blodinger said that this is a situation where it would cost $80,000 to put in a road in
to sell 90 acres of land. He added that this is not practical because the land is worth
probably at most $2,000 an acre. He said that the road has existed beyond remembrance for
all of the tracts, except for the division of the Reed Rubin tract. He mentioned that Mr.
Morris Foster is present to advise the Board as to the cost of constructing and the physical
layout of the road.
Mr. Fisher stated that the Board would not discuss the cost with Mr. Foster. He said
that the cost is a matter that the applicant has to consider in making application for the
division of property.
Mr. Edward Bauer spoke next and asked the Board to deny the application because there is
not a public road access to this subdivision. He mentioned that Section 18.36(a) of the
Subdivision Ordinance states that private roads are intended to be an exception to the
construction and dedication of public roads in the subdivision process, and any exceptions
should be based on the circumstances in the case. He said that Mr. Horne had pointed out
that both the Planning and Engineering staffs have recommended that a public road be
028
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
constructed and that the reasons for not having a public road should be based on topographi-
cal reasons. He stated the people who own the land do not want to give it up so that a
bigger road can go by their property. He pointed out that in 1984, the people who own Lot
15-A had an application to subdivide their 45 acres into five lots. The application was
later withdrawn because of access problems. If a waiver is granted now because of the same
access problems, Mr. Bauer believes that these people could have a legal case. He said that
Lot 72-C, south of the Saule property, has 110 acres owned by Reed Rubin. He added that Ree<
Rubin is well known as a New York City developer. Mr. Bauer thinks that if public road
requirements are not enforced, he would not be surprised if Reed Rubin Used this precedent t¢
further subdivide his property. Next, Mr. Bauer mentioned that the staff report ha~ pointed
out that this part of Route 680 is rated as non-tolerable and carries an average of 715
vehicle trips per day. A couple of miles south of this property there is a sharp, hairpin
curve. Mr. Bauer is not aware of another road that is this dangerous, and he thinks that the
nature of Route 680 in this area is one of the reasons why the Board would not want to do
anything that would provide for more development. He is sure that given the demands for
secondary road..-funds in more populated parts of the County that he will not see the dangerous
nature of that road changed in his lifetime. He asked the Board again to deny the applica-
tion, unless the applicant gets public road access.
Next to speak was Ms. Hester Whitcher who owns the 62 acre parcel that the present
right-of-way serves. Her property is on the west side of the Saule boundaries. She said the
present road runs straight through her property. She bought the property four years ago, and
recognized at the time that there would be a certain amount of traffic on it. But because
the road at the time could not meet the state and county width requirements, she thought that
it would never be developed into a "through" road. On that basis, she spent a good deal of
money to fence a portion of her land on the right side of that road into a horse pasture.
She said the horse pasture is now occupied by two brood mares and their foals. On the other
side of the road is some property that, she assumes, for many years was used as a cattle farm
due to the fact that she has had to dispose of large amounts of rusted, barbed wire fencing.
She said that this piece of property is too dangerous for horses, because there are places
where dumps have been covered over. Since these horses are for sale, she cannot afford to
have them on this side of the road. She said that is why she fenced the other side of her
property. She mentioned, also, that her barns and home are on the opposite side of the road
from her horses. When she wishes to bring her mares and foals in for feeding and grooming,
she has to lead them across this road. She does not mind doing this with the current volume
of traffic, although she said it is now fairly substantial. She can cope with this, but if
the road is paved, a slippery condition could exist that might cause the horses to get hurt.
She added that these horses are sometimes worth $4,000 to $5,000. She mentioned also that
the other residents along this road have asked that this request be denied. She said that
the future of the road affects her tremendously.
Mr. Fisher confirmed that the Board has received a copy of a letter signed by Ms.
Whitcher, J. C. Abell and Paul Patterson. Since there was no one else who wished to speak,
Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing.
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Charles Burgess, Zoning Administrator, if he had been able to
make any progress on the sight distance issue. Mr. Burgess reported that his problem is
twofold. The ordinance does stipulate that the County Zoning Administrator has some power in
providing visibility clearance at intersections. However, he is having difficulty getting it
substantiated that there is a traffic hazard at this entrance. He feels that the ordinance
is somewhat discretionary unless there is a requirement by the Highway Department. He is not
ready to act now, but will give the matter his full attention when it becomes a Highway
Department requirement.
There was no further staff input, so Mr. Fisher placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Fisher said the Board has dealt with a number of "one-by-one" lot divisions over the
years, and at first glance, this seems to be just one more lot. So, why should there be
stiff requirements imposed when the dirt road is good and there will be just a few more
vehicle trips per day. But, over a period of years, as more houses are built and more
property is divided, if the requirements are never applied to any of these divisions, prob-
lems for the other road users multiply. He thinks the Board needs to look seriously at these
kind of waivers. This particular application has a lot of problems including the fact that
it will need hearings for a special use permit, and there is no guarantee that it will be
issued. He said that trying to grant waivers for this aDplication would create so many
waivers that it would violate most of the requirements of the subdivision ordinance.
Mr. Lindstrom said his primary concern is the limited sight distance. Also, he feels
strongly about areas where there are plats that present a number of parcels at one time in a
a rural setting with fairly large tracts and an existing right-of-way that has been serving
the existing parcels for some time. He said that requiring a paved road over a mile and
one-half in length to serve one parcel is a little beyond reason. He understands that the
width requirement is so that two vehicles can pass each other, and he believes that traffic
volume would have a lot to do with this. He knows there are a lot of dangerous places in the
County involving state roads. But creating more dangerous areas will only worsen the prob-
lems. He said that the waiver on the road width bothers him, and he is not sure that two
cars can pass each other in 14 feet of space. He does not think it is unreasonable to
examine this request carefully, since this area has substantial tracts of land, and he thinks
there is a great potential for further development on this road.
Mr. Fisher added that, by the County standards, the road is now substandard. If
requirements are waived, he thinks the Board will have to waive requirements for other divi-
sions along this roadway, and the road will continue to get more and more substandard.
Mr. Lindstrom said he understands Mr. Fisher's argument, but he thinks that the Board
does have to look realistically at some of the requirements. He is not sure that he would be
comfortable waiving all three of the requirements that Mr. Blodinger mentioned. He is not
sure, either, that paving will make it a better road, but it will make it more
expensive and more difficult to maintain for the private property owners than a gravel road.
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
( Pa~qe 14)
Mr. Henley commented that his main problem with the request is that there will probably
be more subdivision later on the same road. He said that he would not vote to require paving
of the road, because he thinks it will be impossible to improve it because of the width of
the right-of-way. He does not know how subdividing can be stopped, unless certain road
standards are required. But he cannot support making it a public road, either.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that the width of the right-of-way is the biggest problem. He
repeated that he would not want to waive the sight distance requirement, either. Mr. Henley
pointed out that the sight distance problem is because of the way the road curves at this
point, and because of a fence that is overgrown with vegetation.
At this time, Mr. Fisher read Condition Number Two listed in the letter to Ms. Saule
from Mr. David Benish, Planner. Mr. Fisher stated that it is clear that the road will have
to be a private road if the right-of-way requirement is waived.
Because of his belief that there will be more division on this road, Mr. Henley thinks
that if the Board waives right-of-way requirements at this time, it will be setting a prece-
dent. He brought out the fact that the Saule tract was approximately a 400 acre tract before
it was first divided.
Mr. Bowie said that it is usually difficult for him to require that a lot of road work
be done by the last house on the road. He could very easily vote for this waiver and then
vote against it next time if six or eight houses were involved. The problem he sees is that
it is not possible to comply with the road requirements. He pointed out that everybody on
the road, except for the applicant, opposes any change to the road. If right-of-way require-
ments cannot be met, he said, he does not understand how there can be a maintenance agree-
ment. His feeling is that the road will not meet the necessary requirements even if this
request is approved. He said that he cannot approve all of the waivers as requested.
Mr. Fisher stated that procedurally, the action of the Planning Commission stands unless
the Board adopts a motion to amend or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr.
Lindstrom commented that the approval, as it now stands, is that there is a waiver of the
minimum right-of-way width requirements of Section 18.36. Mr. Horne said he believes the
Commission was assuming that there was 20 feet of property available uniformly through the
area for the right-of-way. He does not think that the Commission was aware that there was
only 14 feet of right-of-way in certain areas.
Mr. Lindstrom added that he has no problem with waiving the pavement requirement, and
Mr. Henley agreed that he could also support waiving the pavement requirement.
Mr. Way asked if the Planning Commission is requiring that the road be paved. Mr. Horne
responded that private road requirements would require that the road be primed and double
sealed. Mr. Henley asked if the road requirement was binding, since the applicant is giving
up his subdivision rights. Mr. Horne answered that the road requirement is part of the
subdivision approval.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the applicant could come back at a later date and ask for an
amendment relative to the road requirements. Mr. Horne answered, "yes." He said the re-
quirement is binding as long as nothing changes, and it will not affect other people whose
property fronts on the road.
Mr. Lindstrom repeated that he does not mind waiving the paving requirement, but he
cannot support waiving the right-of-way requirement. He does not support the application for
a public road, but he thinks that, at a minimum, the right-of-way should meet the standards
of the ordinance.
Mr. Henley agreed with Mr. Lindstrom that he could waive the blacktopping of the road,
but he does not feel confident about waiving the right-of-way requirement.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Planning Commission waived the requirement for the right-of-way,
but gave the County Engineer no guidance as to what should be approved. He suggested that
Condition Number Two be amended to waive pavement requirements, but that the waiver of the
minimum right-of-way requirements be deleted under Section 18-36(e). Mr. Lindstrom
that sight distance is still part of the requirement, and he thinks that the problem here is
one of dealing with the neighbors. He does not think the Board should waive sight distance
or right-of-way requirements because they involve safety. He went on to say that the road
will be travelled its entire length by the people who live on it. He said he would like for
his suggestion to become a motion.
Mr. Fisher clarified Mr. Lindstrom's motion by stating that the word, "pavement" should
be substituted for the words, "minimum right-of-way width," in Condition Number Two.
At this point, Mr. Lindstrom added that he felt as though the waiver of the division
rights should be clarified because he is not sure if the applicant would have waived his
division rights for what he is getting now. Mr. Henley commented that he did not think the
division rights should be taken away, because there could be access to the property some
other way in the future.
Mr. Lindstrom then added that Condition Three be eliminated as part of his motion.
Henley seconded the motion. The motion as offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr.
Henley approves the Saule Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions:
Mr.
The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions are
met:
Approval of Special Use Permit for the road crossing of the creek
and flood plain;
County Engineer approval of final road plans;
County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
03O
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
AYES:
NAYS:
d. Issuance of a soil erosion control permit;
e. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
private street commercial entrance with adequate sight distance.
2. Waiver of pavement requirement in Section 18-36(e).
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Meadow Creek Parkway, review of alternative alignments.
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"The staff requested comments from the Planning Commission and endorsement
of a preferred alignment for Meadow Creek Parkway. The Commission discussed
this topic on March 18, 1986, and decided to hold a public hearing at a
later date to hear public comments and to make a decision on a recommended
alignment to the Board of Supervisors. At a public hearing on May 20, 1986,
the Commission recommends Alignment A to the Board of Supervisors.
The attached maps show four alternate alignments and designs, one of which
is a no-build option. Attached is a summary of those alternates which is
taken from the draft environmental impact statement distributed by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation in December, 1985.
The staff is recommending a road alignment and design as described in
Alternate D, without the grade-separated interchange at the 250 Bypass.
This design is consistent with the design favored by the City of
Charlottesville and has advantages over various other alternates including:
There would be no disruption of the existing rescue squad facilities on
McIntire Road.
There would be wider separations of the north-bound and south-bound
lanes in the County portion which would minimize the visual impact of
the roadway as that area develops.
There would be less disruption of McIntire Park as compared to a design
using an interchange at Route 250.
The staff opinion is that the cost (monetary, visual and physical) of the
interchange far outweigh the benefits (smoother traffic flow through that
intersection).
The environmental impact statement identifies slightly more encroachment on
the flood plains of Meadow Creek and Schenks branch with the wider median in
the County portion of the roadway. The staff, however, believes that this
can be offset with careful construction practices and erosion control
management. Other environmental impacts are very similar among all the
alternatives. The alternative that minimizes the impact on McIntire Park is
Alternate B. This, however, would destroy the tennis and rescue squad
faCilities and severely disrupt neighborhoods in the City to the east of the
park and is not a viable alternative in the opinion of the staff.
At the Commission meeting on May 20, the staff presented the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation estimates of the incremental costs
of the right-of-way and interchange. They are estimated as follows:
Riqht-of-way Costs (County Portion)
Alignment A
Alignment D
$2.3 million (22.3 acres)
$4.6 million (46.04 acres)
Assumes approximately $97,000 per acre
Interchange Costs (City)
$4.3 million
Total Costs
Alignment A
Alignment D
$13.4 million ($6.0 million/County)
Without interchange, $15.1 million ($7.7
million/County).
The Commission and Board should note that the staff recommendation and other
alternates include the provision of a bikeway system associated with the
roadway. The location of the bikeway would most likely be along the edge of
the roadway and within the median area. Final location of the bikeway would
not be set until design of the roadway has been accomplished.
The staff will be available at the Board of Supervisors meeting with larger
scale maps of the various alternates to receive comments from the Board of
Supervisors. Enclosed is a brief summary of the history of this project and
the actions taken by the Commission and Board of Supervisors concerning the
design of the project in the past. Staff would point out that the Board has
previously approved a parkway type design in the County portion which would
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 16)
031
call for the wider separation of northbound and southbound lanes as recom-
mended in the staff recommendation."
"On May 20, 1986, the Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing to hear public comments and establish a recommendation from
the Commission to the Board of Supervisors on a preferred alignment for the
Meadow Creek Parkway in Albemarle County. Enclosed is a staff report which
describes the alignments and cost estimates of various alternatives.
As the Board will note, the Planning Commission is recommending Alignment A
which is contrary to the earlier positions taken by the Board of Supervisors
on an alignment and design concept for this roadway. The Board has previ-
ously recommended to the Highway Department a wider median to separate the
northbound and southbound lanes which would be most consistent with Align-
ment D. The Commission was aware of this position but felt that due to the
increased cost of this alignment as compared to Alignment A (1.7 million
dollars), and the unnecessary use of additional acreage, that Alignment A
was more in the public interest at this point in time. The Commission was
concerned that the additional cost of this roadway design could impact the
timing of additional roadway projects that are necessary on the secondary
system in Albemarle County.
The staff is requesting that the Board of Supervisors review this recommen-
dation and establish a preferred alignment at this time in order to provide
the necessary guidance to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor-
tation during their design of this roadway."
(Mr. St. John left at 11:30 A.M. and returned at 11:35 A.M.)
Mr. Horne explained, that in order to use federal funding for this roadway, there must
be determination of the environmental impact on land. He said there has been some type of
preliminary finding by the federal government that Alternate B is feasible because it does
not go through McIntire Park. The federal government will not endorse either Alternate A or
B. He said that the staff supported Alternate D, without the interchange, because the staff
does not feel that the interchange is necessary at this time.
Mr. Horne then gave Board members the reasons that the Commission had for supporting
Alternate A. He said the Commission understood the Supervisors' previous position and
understood the benefits of Alternate D. The Commission felt, however, that Alternate D would
not serve the general public's interest at this point, because of the increased cost of
approximately $1.7 million as compared to Alternate A and because of the unnecessary use of
additional acreage. Mr. Horne explained that this additional cost would come from the
secondary highway system budget which is already in very serious financial trouble.
Mr. Way asked if Alignment A is the least and Alignment B the most expensive of the
alternates. Mr. Horne agreed that Alignment A is the least expensive, but Alignment D is
listed as the most expensive because of the interchange included. He is not sure how the
costs for Alignment B were reached, because of the uncertainty of going through the neighbor-
hoods.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Alignment A had curb and guttering included. Mr. Horne explained
that the Board has taken a past position of having a rural cross section instead of curbing.
He said that the Planning Commission still endorses this concept.
Mr. Lindstrom inquired if Alignment A could be built along the route with enough separa-
tion to give it a parkway appearance without the lanes being widely separated. Mr. Horne
answered that he feels Alignment A could be built in such a manner without a lot of separa-
tion, but he does not believe the Highway Department knows yet how much separation is avail-
able in certain areas. He said that the Board could direct the Highway Department concernin(
the maximum amount of separation possible within the concept of Alignment A, if this is the
alignment that the Board chooses.
Mr. Horne said that the Environmental Impact Study indicates that this would be the
general concept. Landscaping and the protection of existing vegetation would be maximized.
Mr. Horne stated that he did not have any detailed designs concerning the landscaping, and
he asked Mr. Roosevelt if he could give the Board some insight into this concept.
Mr. Roosevelt responded that the cross sections that were shown in the booklet that was
available at the public hearing indicate that under Alignment A, from Melbourne Road, there
would be a 16 foot median with no variations. He said that it may be possible to do a
variation using both of these alignments because there are unlimited choices. However, these
two alignments are the basic maximum and minimum choices. He thinks that if Alignment A is
adopted and the Board wishes to make that median variable, then this wish must be made clear
in the Board's recommendation. Another big difference between Alignment A and D, Mr.
Roosevelt pointed out, is that the northbound and southbound lanes in Alignment A will be at
the same elevation. On Alignment D, the elevation of the northbound and southbound lanes car
vary.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how much separation of lanes is necessary to have a variable median.
Mr. Roosevelt answered 16 feet, as long as there are no crossovers.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if construction costs would be cheaper if there were variables that
allowed deference to the contours of the land. Mr. Roosevelt replied, "yes." He said that
if right-of-way costs were subtracted from Alignments A and D, it would be found that Align-
ment D is cheaper as far as construction is concerned. However, the additional right-of-way
costs needed to build this alignment would offset the reduced construction costs, making
Alignment D more expensive.
032
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Bowie inquired if the elevations would vary beyond the 16 feet. Mr. Roosevelt
explained that a distance of 40 to 60 feet would have to be obtained before a real difference
in elevation could be accomplished. He said, though, that the design is not very far along
at this time. He suggested the Board give the Highway Department a general concept and not
recommend a specific width of median at this time. He believes that what the Board wants is
for the lanes to be able to "float." Mr. Roosevelt then mentioned the City section by
McIntire Park. He said the southbound lane is going to be 10 to 15 feet higher than the
northbound lane in that area, according to the sketches that were presented at the public
hearing. Mr. Henley said that if elevations can be reached within reason, he is agreeable.
But, he does not think costs should be increased tremendously for rights-of-way. (He left at
11:47 A.M.)
Mr. Fisher agreed with Mr. Henley. He believes that in any given area there probably is
some optimum separation where the construction cost savings could still offset the acquisi-
tion of right-of-way. He thinks costs should be considered by sections to see if it can be
done cheaper that way. Mr. Roosevelt asked if Mr. Fisher was suggesting that Alignment A be
used with variation of the width between the lanes so that they follow the contour of the
land as much as possible in hopes that the reduction in construction costs would offset the
right-of-way costs. Mr. Fisher stated that Mr. Roosevelt is correct, except he is hoping
that the reduction in construction costs will more than offset the right-of-way costs.
Mr. Lindstrom said there is merit in making the road as aesthetically pleasing as
possible, but he does not think a tremendous amount of money should be spent to do this. He
believes that one of the considerations in determining the median should be to have a suffi-
cient amount of separation to allow either the retention of existing vegetation or future
plantings that would provide a visual barrier between the two lanes. This would be enhanced
by having the lanes independent in terms of horizontal and vertical alignment. He then aske¢
what is the width of the separation of lanes on Alignment D and how it was determined. Mr.
Horne replied that the width of Alignment D varies between 150 feet and 350 feet. He is not
sure if the person who put the width on the map had detailed information.
Mr, Lindstrom stated that he thinks Alignment A, with the suggestion that it be designed
to have sufficient separation to allow for a visual barrier between the lanes and to take as
much advantage of the economies of having separate horizontal and vertical alignments betwee~
the two, would be something that he could support.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Lindstrom if his statement was meant to be a motion. Mr. Lindstrom
answered that it is a motion, but he also wanted to discuss Alignment B and how it relates to
the City. He said that he supports the City's concern about the impact of this roadway and
would like to give the City some assistance in the way that the County's resolution is
phrased in support for Alignment A. He agrees with the City that Alignment B is not an
acceptable alignment.
Mr. Bowie concurred with Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion. He prefers Alignment A, but would
like to see some grade separation. He seconded Mr. Lindstrom's motion.
Mr. Lindstrom then pointed out the different elements of his motion. He moved that the
the Board adopt a resolution supporting Alignment A with sufficient separation and screening
in order to obtain the economies of the independent alignment vertically and horizontally and
stating that Alignment B is neither prudent or feasible. He asked if something needs to be
noted about the grade separated interchange at the bypass. Mr. Horne explained that the
grade-separated interchange is not in the design of Alignment A.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what staff members thought about the grade-separated interchange.
Mr. Horne answered that in looking at the Environmental Impact Statement as it relates to the
grade-separated interchange, the consultant says that except for the function of that one
particular intersection, it does not provide a long term benefit to the overall transporta-
tion network in this area. The interchange will cost approximately $4,3 million according tc
the Highway Department's figures. The staff felt this was too much money to spend for such a
marginal benefit.
There was no further discussion.
ing recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Following is the resolution adopted by the motion:
WHEREAS, the Board has been advised that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation has held a location public hearing on the McIntire Road and Rio
Road Improvements (Project Nos. U000-104-102, PE101 and 0631-002-128, PE000 Meadow
Creek Parkway) and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has presented
the Board with four options; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing three locations, the Board concurs with the City
Council of the City of Charlottesville that Alignment B is neither prudent or
feasible;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, hereby recommends Alignment A with the suggestion that the road be
designed to have sufficient separation to allow for a visual barrier between the
lanes and in order to take advantage of the economies of having separate horizontal
and vertical alignments between the roadways.
Agenda Item No 10.
Authority.
Crozet Sewer Project, Presentation by Albemarle County Service
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
~e 18)
033
Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, made a
brief presentation. He distributed maps showing the proposed routing of the sewer lines and
said that the Service Authority Board of Directors had asked him to meet with Board members
and update them on Crozet's new sewer system. In 1976, he said, the Service Authority
engaged a consultant to prepare a feasibility report on putting in sewers in Crozet. The
report stated that the system would cost approximately $2.8 million, it would have 73,000
feet of pipe, the money could be borrowed for five percent and approximately 700 customers
would be served. In 1980 and 1981, a portion of this system was built in cooperation with a
developer. He reminded the Board that when a second sewer line was built in downtown Crozet,
most of the businesses there moved from an old sewer line. A treatment plant was built and
eliminated the raw discharge from these businesses into a tributary of Lickinghole Creek.
Now in 1986, the engineering plans show that the system will consist of 90,000 feet of pipe
and will cost $5.5 million. The interest rates will be between seven and eight percent, and
there will be approximately 700 customers.
Mr. Brent said the interceptor line is complete and next week the Brownsville Sewage
Treatment Plant and the Crozet Sewage Treatment Plant will be switched over to the intercep-
tor. This will eliminate these two sources of discharge into the stream. He added that the
design of the system is complete, and the plans have been reviewed by the State Health
Department and sent to the State Water Control Board for its approval. The plans have also
been presented to the Highway Department, and they are currently being reviewed to see if
Authority's proposal will be acceptable to the Department. Mr. Brent said his staff has met
with the Highway Department staff on several occasions, but the Board may be asked to assist
the Authority with its pleas to the Highway Department to be lenient in what the Authority
will be required to do relative to the restoration of streets. He stated that the Crozet
project will probably be divided into two separate projects, one north and one south of the
C&0 Railway tracks. The topography of the land is such that the railroad follows the bridge
that separates Crozet and those areas. The area north of the tracks drains toward the Beaver
Creek Reservoir, and there is not much growth expected in this area. Mr. Brent said that
project south of the track will be undertaken first. This area drains back toward the
interceptor, and that is the growth area. Mr. Brent went on to say that the southside
project will probably be put out for bids in August, with bids being received in September,
and the pipes installed in October. The northern phase will follow in approximately three
four months, and will be bid before the end of the year. Mr. Brent added that the total
duration of construction is estimated at two years.
(Mr. Lindstrom left at 11:53 A.M. and returned at 11:56 A.M.)
Mr. Brent stated that for the past two months a number of meetings have been held by
Service Authority with the Crozet citizens to explain to them what the total project encom-
passes, how individual properties will be affected, what the cost will be and the
Authority's need to acquire easements. He said that the streets have been avoided as much as
possible, but in so doing, a minimum of 317 separate rights-of-way and probably 100 to 200
temporary easements from various property owners will be needed. The Authority has informed
the property owners in these meetings that the Board of Directors proposes to waive a
of the connection fee to those people who will connect to the sewer in the first year that
is in operation. The fee that is proposed to be effective in Crozet is $1300 per residential
connection, plus the expense of connecting the house to the service connection that will be
provided at the property line. Mr. Brent said these fees are subject to a determination by
the Board of Directors following a public hearing that will be held next week. He added
he is pleased by the response and cooperation from Crozet residents and has asked the people
to commit to connect to the sewer. He said this is a voluntary commitment and to date, on
the south side, there are approximately 50 percent voluntary, firm connection commitments.
He mentioned that the community spirit in Crozet is strong, and many owners may not need the
sewer system now. But they recognize that their neighbors need it, and equally important,
they recognize that the community needs it. He added that without that spirit of coopera-
tion, this project would be almost unbearable and a lot more difficult. He said that the
financing plan considered for the project will allow the entire system to be undertaken
without an increase in rates, with no request for the Board to impose mandatory connections
and with no request for financial assistance. He mentioned, also, that no federal funds are
involved in this project. He said that the project will be undertaken and repaid with user
fees. There will be a few areas in this project where lines are planned where the Authority
expects that the people will not connect. When this happens, and people indicate an unwill-
ingness to connect to the sewer, the Authority will not build the line. He pointed this out
so that the Board would be aware that some of the lines shown now may not be built.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if an owner is creating a public health problem and does not choose
to connect to the sewer, will he be required by the Health Department to do so anyway. Mr.
Brent responded that this would have to be dealt with by the Health Department. He said
the Authority is advising the Health Department of those areas in which commitments are not
being received. He assumes the Health Department will take appropriate action. Mr.
Lindstrom requested Mr. Brent to let the Board know when there is difficulty in getting
hoOkups if there is a health problem. He believes these people will have to connect to the
sewer system. Mr. Brent answered that he will keep the Board informed of these problems.
went on to say that it has been a number of years since the Authority has been able to look
beyond the Crozet project. He thinks that the time is drawing near when it will be possible
to look at other projects on the list of capital needs. He said the Crozet project is the
largest project that the Authority has undertaken.
Mr. Bowie wanted to know if the cost of the system will be paid by the people who are
being served by it and will not involve an overall rate increase. Mr. Brent replied that
cost of the project is being borne systemwide and not just by the users in Crozet. He said,
however, that it would not involve a rate increase.
Mr. Fisher commented that being able to do this project without an increase in rates or
a mandatory connection ordinance or federal or County funds is an outstanding achievement.
He thinks that over a number of years it has been a concern as to where the money was going
to come from to complete the project. He remembers a request from the Service Authority
years ago for mandatory connections in Crozet as one way to pay for the system. The Board
O34
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(pae_~q~_l!k
has also been concerned about whether to get Community Development Block Grants for this
project. He commended Mr. Brent and the Service Authority for completing this project
without extra funds.
Mr. Brent answered that he had, on a number of occasions, mentioned that he did not
think the project could be funded without some form of assistance. He said that rates have
been increased over the years to develop some cash to go into this Crozet project. He said
that the recent decline in interest rates has had an enormous positive effect, and the sharp
increase in growth of sewer customers, which has been seven percent per year for the past
three or four years has also helped considerably. He also expects the number of sewer
customers to increase in the future.
There was no further discussion of this report.
Agenda Item No. 14. Mahanes Tract - Naming County/City Park.
dated June 3, 1986, was received from the County Executive:
The following memorandum
"The new County/City Park, to be located on the Mahanes tract has yet to be
named, and staff is recommending the following procedure for selecting a
name. We suggest that the Board request that the original County and City
committee, who prepared the joint agreement on the park, review and recom-
mend a name for the park to the City and County governing bodies for their
approval.
Staff has started the process of compiling a list of names for review.
by copy of this memorandum advising the City Manager of this proposed
procedure, and requesting City Council's concurrence."
I am
(Mr. St. John left at 12:05 P.M. and returned at 12:10 P.M.)
Mr..Lindstrom offered motion to accept the recommendation of the County Executive. Mr.
Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 16. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Articles of Incorporation, Change
in Membership. The following memorandum dated June 14, 1986, was received from the County
Executive:
"As you will recall, the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Board has
requested that their Executive Director be made eligible to be appointed to
the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) Board as one of the two County
staff appointees to that board. To accommodate this request, the Articles
of Incorporation of RWSA would require an amendment, and the amended Arti-
cles would have to be approved by the Board of Supervisors and City Council,
after holding public hearings on the matter.
Attached is a concurrent resolution of the City Council and Board of Super-
visors, amending the Articles of Incorporation, which provides for the Board
of Supervisors to appoint the Executive Director of the ACSA, or a depart-
ment head of County government. These amended Articles replace the current
Articles, which provide for the County's Director of Engineering as an
appointee to the RWSA Board. Other appointments to the RWSA Board would
remain unchanged.
It is requested that the concurrent resolution be forwarded to City Council
requesting their concurrence in the resolution as drafted, and their approv-
al of the amended Articles following their holding a public hearing. Upon
receipt of the concurrence, you can schedule a public hearing for the
County's formal approval of the amended Articles.
The RWSA and ACSA Boards, and their attorneys, have been furnished with
copies of the amended Articles, and are acquainted with the revision."
Mr. Fisher said that this seems to be in accordance with the Board's last discussion of
this matter which indicated that the Board would have the option of naming the Service
Authority Director or another County department head to this Board. Mr. Fisher asked if the
Board, by approving this request, would be naming Mr. Brent to the Rivanna Board. Mr. Agnor
answered "yes", once the public hearing was held and the amendments adopted.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if a time needed to be set for a public hearing. Mr. Lindstrom then
offered motion to advertise for a public hearing on July 9, 1986, if the date is appropriate.
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 23. Extension Service Letter: Notice of Freeze.
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
..IPaqe 20)
835
Mr. Agnor stated that this letter is a result of the frost that occurred this spring.
He said the situation was discussed at the Board's last meeting, and the Board is in posses-
sion today of a draft of a letter to the Governor for the Chairman's signature. He said that
the records would have to indicate that this Board approved that the Chairman write to the
Governor indicating that the damage report will be filed on the fruit crop. When the report
is reviewed by state officials, the Board will be requesting that consideration be given to
declaring an emergency which would make the orchards in Albemarle County eligible for federal
financial assistance.
Miss Neher indicated that she had received some new information. She said she had a
call from Mr. Long, with the State Department of Agriculture this morning. Mr. Long said
that if the Board wanted to be considered at all, it will have to ask that Albemarle County
be considered a disaster area now, because the information has to be in Washington by June
21. This means that the request has to get to Richmond immediately. Mr. Long said that he
had a copy of the resolution that the Board adopted last September and the wording was fine.
Mr. Agnor indicated that the letter can be reworded to accommodate Mr. Long's sugges-
tions. He recommended that the Board go ahead with the request to declare Albemarle County's
orchard crop an emergency because of the freezes that occurred on March 21 and 27. The
request will then be submitted in the form of a letter to the Governor.
Mrs. Cooke offered motion to authorize the Chairman to address a letter to the Governor
requesting that Albemarle County be declared a disaster area due to the severity of weather
conditions. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 24a. Claims Against the Dog Tax Fund. A claim was received from Mr.
Curtis Gentry for two sheep killed by dogs on May 14, 1986. A claim was also received from
Mr. John T. Walker of North Garden for two sheep killed by dogs on April 17, 1986. On motion
by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, each of the owners listed was allowed $150.00 for his
claim. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 11. Executive Session: Property Acquisition and Personnel Matters. At
12:18 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss proper-
ty acquisition, personnel matters and legal matters pertaining to Greenwood Chemical and the
Stanley case. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:40 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 12. Certificates of Appreciation, presentation of.
Mr. Fisher called the meeting back to order and presented Certificates of Appreciation
to some of the people who have served the County over the years. The first person recognize~
was Mrs. Edna Anderson. Mr. Fisher said that Mrs. Anderson has served on the Thomas Jeffer-
son Planning District Commission for eight years. She is noted as being faithful in atten-
dance to meetings and has served as the Treasurer for a period of time. She has also served
as a member of the Intergovernmental Review Committee which reviews projects funded by the
federal government. Mr. Fisher said she has taken the responsibility of being a planning
district commission member seriously and has represented the interests of Albemarle County
well.
Mrs. Anderson said that she is extremely flattered and is sorry that she cannot continue
to serve Albemarle County in some capacity.
The next person that Mr. Fisher recognized was Mr. James Skove, who had served on the
Albemarle County Planning Commission from January 1, 1979, through December 31, 1985. He
attended over 300 meetings dealing with everything from current development proposals to lon~
range planning issues. His accomplishments include: developing the current Zoning Ordinance
and map as well as two Comprehensive Plan revisions; attending to reservoir protection and
roads; serving on the Planning District Committee which drafted the current private roads
provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance; and serving on the Metropolitan Planning Organiza-
tion Committee. Mr. Fisher then read a personal note from the person who had provided the
information on Mr. Skove which said that Mr. Skove was a "workhorse" while serving on the
TJPDC staff and the Albemarle County Planning Commission, a man who dealt with planning
issues day and night.
Mr. Lindstrom added that Mr. Skove served as the Commissioner from the Jack Jouett
District as his appointee. He knows that he will miss him and greatly appreciates his
service.
Mr. Fisher then presented Ms. Jeanne Fournier the next certificate. He said that Ms.
Fournier began working for the VPA&SU Extension Service in her senior year in high school.
She has served for 44 years and three months. In the early years of her employment, Ms.
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(P__aqe 21 )
Fournier helped the extension agents with homemaker club meetings. She has been active in
4-H camps and the periodic feeder calf association sales. Ms. Fournier has been involved
with the Extension Service not only as a valuable employee, but also as a volunteer of her
personal time. Mr. Fisher commended Ms. Fournier for her long and loyal service to the
County, on the occasion of her retirement, and thanked her for all that she had done.
Mrs. Hilda Morris was presented with the next certificate, and Mr. Fisher said that she
had worked in the Department of Finance from June, 1945 until October, 1949 when she left to
start a family. In 1960, Mrs. Morris returned to work as a temporary employee. She contin-
ued to work in this temporary position until June 1, 1962, when she went on staff as a perma-
nent employee. She has worked in the Finance Department since that time, and has worked a
total of 30 years and six months. Mrs. Morris notes that she has worked for all of the
people who have served as County Executive of Albemarle County. Mr. Fisher thanked Mrs.
Morris for all she has done for the County.
Next, Mr. Fisher gave a certificate of appreciation to Ms. Treva Cromwell. He said that
during the past seven years, Treva Cromwell has served as Chairman of the Board for the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. She has been an avid proponent for protection of present
and future water resources in preparation for future generations of Charlottesville and
Albemarle County citizens. There have been some significant accomplishments during her
tenure as Chairman of the Authority. They include completion of the Moore's Creek Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant serving the Albemarle urban area and Crozet; initiation of the
Buck Mountain Reservoir project to provide a future water supply source for the community;
construction of the Crozet interceptor, scheduled for completion this summer, to manage
wastewater generated in the South Rivanna Watershed; and initiation of a hydroelectric
project at the South Rivanna Dam to minimize the cost of treating water at the South Rivanna
Water Treatment Plant. All of these projects have the goal of protecting or enhancing
present and future water resources at the most economical cost. He said that the Board's
sincere appreciation goes to Ms. Cromwell for her services over the past seven years.
Mr. Fisher then thanked all of these people for their service to the County. He said
the Board is pleased to have an opportunity to present these certificates. He next thanked
all the staff personnel for preparing the service biographies. He suggested that copies be
made of the biographies for the recipients of the awards.
Agenda Item No. 13. Final Report: Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Assault.
Ms. Barbara Berger stated that she is Co-Chairman of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Task
Force on the Prevention of Sexual Assault. She presented the results of the task force's two
year long study on sexual assault in the City and County. She said that one reported sexual
assault occurs per week in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. She added that estimates
suggest a one to four ratio of reports to actual occurrence, so it would be reasonable to
estimate that four assaults are occurring a week in this area. Fifty percent of these
assaults are acquaintance assaults, and she pointed out that these assaults are even less
likely to be reported. She said another important finding was that victims were not doing
anything inherently dangerous when they were assaulted: thirty-four percent of the victims
were walking, and 31 percent were at home. Ms. Berger explained that 23 percent of all
assaults occurred in the County. She pointed out that there was a high percentage of black
women and University students among the victim population. In the attitude survey, the Task
Force found that educational level and income were tied to how willing people were to accept
rape mythology, particularly on the issue of ascribing responsibility for assault. Over 80
percent of the people that the Task Force talked to did not think that sexual assaults were
reported. These people said that for the most part people were scared and embarrassed and
afraid of what would happen to them if they reported the crime. Women were clearly more
scared than the men. Ms. Berger said that one of the major findings is the apparent willing-
ness of people to blame the victim for the sexual assault.
Ms. Berger added that the report the task force sent the Board included suggestions
concerning how the Board could address the problems of sexual assault in the County. She
said that adopting a housing maintenance code would be helpful since there is an apparent
correlation between rental housing and victimization. Ms. Berger mentioned that recommenda-
tions to the County schools in regard to education issues is also important. She added that
in the Public Education Report there is a model program which can be included in many circum-
stances including the County schools. She thinks this program has some novel aspects to it
in terms of its focus on the potential offender and on building the esteem of everyone
including the potential victims. She asked the Board to support victim treatment counseling
agencies and other agencies such as the Charlottesville Rape Crisis Group. There are some
things that are not necessarily in the purview of the Board of Supervisors, she said, such as
changes in state laws. She said that in the Judiciary Committee Report there are a few
suggestions for legislative changes. She asked the Board to help get the community's voice
to Richmond. She stressed that community-wide effort in terms of cooperation and education
is clearly important in the report results, since sexual assault is not just a local problem.
(Mr. St. John returned at 2:00 P.M.)
The Task Force learned through its studies that sexual assault victims are being blamed,
at least in part, for the assault. Because the victims feel guilty, they do not report the
assault, setting into motion a cascade of events resulting in more victims and more offenders
and more scared people. She said this is especially true of acquaintance sexual assaults.
She said that one objective of the report was to turn the responsibility back to the offende]
and potential offenders. Ms. Berger said that it is suggested that potential offenders be
told not to go out at night alone or to take a woman with them to make them feel more respon-
sible. Potential victims should be told not to accept force or coercion and to know their
own rights. She said that a memo or letter from the Board cannot change this attitude, but
the Board can, together with others in this community, set policies that reflect a desire to
change this attitude. Ms. Berger went on to say that this common message can begin to make
this community a very unpopular place for. sexual offenders. She said the report is a message
that a great deal can be done through policy, cooperation and action. On.behalf of the Task
Force, Ms. Berger asked the Board to take some action at this time to act and participate in
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
.( Paqe 2--2)
037
the implementation of some of these policies and proposals.
Gunter if she would like to speak to the Board.
She then asked Ms. Mary Alice
Ms. Gunter, the other Co-Chairman of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Task Force on the
Prevention of Sexual Assault, shared with the Board an experience that she had this morning.
She said that the Task Force presented its report to University President Robert O'Neil. She
expected a ten minute interview, but instead Mr. O'Neil had assembled all of the Vice Presi-
dents of the University, and the members of the Task Force had approximately a 40 minute
meeting with them. She said that Mr. O'Neil had obviously very carefully read the report and
it was a very productive and caring meeting. She said that one of the things that came out
of the meeting was that this issue should be one of those issues discussed by the Task Force
Commission that is set up by the City, County and the University. She stated that a number
of the problems have to do with law enforcement, and the way in which landlords protect their
renters. She said these things cross all of the jurisdictional lines. She thanked the Board
for looking at the report and said that the City Council would get the report on Monday
night.
Mr. Fisher asked that everybody in the room who has been involved with the Task Force
stand to be recognized. Ms. Berger then pointed out the Chairmen of the different commit-
teesl She also mentioned Ms. Sybil Todd, Dean of Students at the University of Virginia.
Ms. Berger said she was sure the report would not have gotten anywhere without Ms. Todd's
help.
Mr. Fisher asked the Board members if they had questions or comments at this time.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that the report contained a map which shows a grid indicating
the high risk areas, and there are also lighted pathways and emergency phones shown. He
asked if this is a proposal for those pathways and emergency phones or are they already in
existence. Ms. Berger responded that these telephones and pathways exist.
Mr. Lindstrom stated it would help him to know of areas in the County that might need
additional lighting or phones. Such information, he said, could be provided to the Planning
staff. Ms. Berger answered that she will look into this matter.
Mr. Lindstrom said it would be helpful if Ms. Berger has specific recommendations that
the Board needs to consider and act upon.
Mr. Fisher said he had suggested that Ms. Berger tailor the presentation to things that
would be of specific interest to the County, and he said she had done that. Ms. Berger
stated that she was hoping that the Task Force would be able to work with the Board. She
said that she hesitated to point out things that should be acted on specifically by the Board
because she thinks that the Board has to make its own decisions. She said the Task Force is
willing to work with the Board or the County staff in putting together a package of recom-
mendations for action. She said that the Task Force is interested in the implementation of
the recommendations.
Mr. Fisher said he had suggested to Ms. Berger, that rather than having a work session
with the Board today, it would be more useful for the appropriate staff member to review and
come up with some specific things to be worked into the Board's planning, whether it is
comprehensive planning, capital improvements, ordinances or other things. He thinks that a
list of things that the Board can focus on and deal with would help make this effort worth-
while. He asked Mr. Agnor for his recommendation.
Mr. Agnor recommended that a committee be appointed consisting of a representative of
the Law Enforcement operation, Social Services, Housing and Education. He said that this
committee could study the recommendations and isolate those that are applicable to the County
for further work.
Mr. Fisher said he believed that this is the best way to proceed. He asked if Board
members had any comments. Mr. Way agreed with Mr. Fisher that this sounded reasonable.
Mr. Fisher thanked Ms. Berger and said that the Board does want to work in the direction
of proceeding with the recommendations of the Task Force. He asked if the Task Force will
continue to exist, now that it has finished its report and made its recommendations. Ms.
Berger answered that the members of the Task Force believe that they have discharged their
duties. She said that there are still a few things that need to be done relating to compil-
ing the data. She explained that much more data was gathered than went into the report. She
added that the Task Force will probably meet one more time to discuss how best to approach
the implementation issue.
Agenda Item No. 15. Southside Health Center, Inc., revised lease and letter of under-
standing. The following memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive, dated
May 29, 1986, was received.
"As stipulated in your April 9, 1986, meeting, the County Attorney and I
have been working with Mr. D. Brock Green on a revised lease between the
County and Southside Health Center, Inc. The purpose of the revision was
to:
Grant permission to Southside Health Center to sublease the facility to
Central Virginia Community Health Center, Inc.
Set the rent at $500 per month.
Arrange for the rent proceeds to be retained in a manner so as to
insure future delivery of health services to those current Albemarle
County clients of the center.
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Provide for the Southside Health Center Board's input on the future use
of the rent proceeds.
Staff is recommending that only the amount of the rent be included in the
revised lease, and the remaining conditions above be included in a separate
letter of understanding."
Mr. Agnor mentioned that two documents had been distributed to the Board relating to the
Southside Health Center that required signatures. One document is a revised lease for this
facility, and the second is a letter to the President of the Southside Health Center, on
behalf of the County, indicating permission to sublease-the facility. Mr. Agnor then
described in detail the lease and letter to the Board, and requested that the Board approve
them both for signature.
Mr. Way commented that he had been in touch with the people at the Southside Health
Center prior to this meeting, and they are most appreciative of this lease and feel that it
will fully meet their needs. Mr. Way then moved that the Board provide for this lease for
the period indicated, in the amount of $500 and that the Chairman be authorized to sign the
lease as well as the Letter of Understanding.
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
THIS LEASE, made this 14th day of June, 1986, by and between the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, hereinafter called the Landlord, and the
Southside Health Center, Inc., hereinafter called the Tenant,
WITNESSETH
1. Description of Leased Property
That in consideration of the rents herein reserved and the mutual
promises herein made, the landlord hereby leases unto the Tenant the follow-
ing described property:
Ail that certain lot or parcel of land, with improvements thereon
and appurtenances thereunto pertaining, consisting of a building, a parking
lot, with other improvements situated on a 2.1 acre lot in the Scottsville
Magisterial District fronting on the west side of State Highway 627, south
of Porter, being designated as Lot 2 on a plat of "A division of the E. M.
Feggans property" made by Huffman-Foster and Associates, dated May 6, 1970,
of record in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia, in Deed Book 473, page 289, and being the same property conveyed
to the Landlord by deed of Ronald H. Thompson and Bobbie J. Thompson, dated
November 2, 1979, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's office in Deed Book
686, page 727.
2. Term of Lease
The term of this lease shall be for a period commencing on
August 1, 1986, and shall expire on July 31, 1987. Unless terminated by
either party hereto at the end of the term by notice in writing to the other
at least ninety (90) days prior thereto, this lease shall continue thereaf-
ter, on a year-to-year basis, upon the same terms and conditions and at the
same rent, as this lease, until terminated at the end of some like term by
either party by giving to the other written notice at least ninety (90) days
prior to such termination.
3. Rent
The rent for the term shall be FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500) per
month and the public services to be undertaken by the Tenant, as set forth
in this lease. This rent will be contingent upon Tenant obtaining a satis-
factory agreement with Central Virginia Community Health Center, Inc. for
continued use of the facility as a community health center delivery site.
4. Use of Premises
The Tenant shall use the premises as a medically-based public
facility for the purposes of providing health care, health education, health
information, and other health-related activities of benefit to the Southside
Albemarle community, in accordance with the United States Government Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974 as amended, PL 93-383. Nothing herein
shall prohibit the Tenant from entering into contract with a provider of
health care for the purpose of provision of health-related services.
5. Obligations of the Parties
(A) Obligations of the Tenant
The Tenant will maintain the premises, keeping the premises
in good repair except for ordinary wear and tear, pay for all utilities and
other services, provide all furnishings, see to the proper management of the
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 24)
0'3 9
facility in such manner as to accomplish the public purposes set out above.
The Tenant at all times during the term of this lease will provide Tenant's
hazard insurance and liability insurance for facility employees.
(B) Obligations of the Landlord
The Landlord will provide fire and casualty insurance on the
premises and will undertake major repairs of exceptional nature other than
ordinary wear and tear, due to mechanical failure, design failure, or act of
God. The Landlord shall have no duty to make ordinary day-to-day repairs or
provide custodial service or maintenance.
6. Sublease
The tenant shall not assign this lease or sublet the whole or any
part of the premises leased hereunder without the prior written consent of
the Landlord. This assignment restriction is not intended to prohibit use
by public or private groups, agencies, or organizations on an occasional
basis under the supervision of the Tenant.
7. The current lease agreement between the Landlord and Tenant
(dated June 3, 1981) shall remain in full force and effect until July 31,
1986.
Agenda Item No. 17. Request for Waiver of Fees by First Night Virginia.
memorandum was received from the County Executive, dated June 5, 1986:
The following
"Attached is a letter to Mr. Fisher from Ms. Bonnie Brewer requesting some
relief of the facility charges, or a contribution to the First Night/
Virginia, Inc. activity.
In addition to the items (Auditorium, Room 12, and Court House) provided at
a charge mentioned in the letter, the County provides its parking at no
charge plus the ball field for their fireworks display on New Year's Eve.
Last year the County charged $136.08 for 12 hours use of the auditorium and
$90.72 for the eight hours use of room 12. There was no rent charge, just
custodial charge. There is normally a minimal charge of $11.34 per hour.
Custodial wages and fringe costs account for about 80% of this charge, and
utility costs amount to about 20%. At night, for an event of this nature,
it is necessary to override the cost savings feature of the utility system
for heat and lights.
Attached is the policy on the community use of the County facilities.
Everyone except the Classification I pays something.
We have many organizations using the facilities such as NAACP, Unity Center,
Blue Ridge Home Builders, Jefferson Bankshares, FSTC, and various church and
fraternal groups. All of these groups pay something to cover the additional
costs of custodial services and utilities.
The Court House is under the jurisdiction of the judge, and its use is
available only through arrangements with him.
Staff recommends no waivers of the current policy, which has worked well for
the past three years and the actual charges to First Night/Virginia, Inc.
have been minimal if you consider the use of parking spaces and the ball
field at no cost. We have two paid persons on duty on a holiday for this
activity plus the Director of Staff Services checking in periodically."
Mrs. Brewer said she did not want the County to break any rules for First
Night/Virginia. She said that the reason she had asked for a fee waiver is because most of
the businesses and the City government would rather give "in-kind" donations than cash. She
said that she gets a lot of support from the City. She said, though, that Mr. Jones and Mr.
Agnor pointed out to her that the City gets some money back and perhaps the County doesn't.
She commented that Chief Bowen told her that the alcoholics that are kept off the road are
worth a lot to him on New Year's Eve, and she feels that they are kept off of the County
roads, too. She then asked for a cash contribution similar to what the rental fee would be.
Mr. Fisher asked how much money would be involved in this cash contribution. Mrs.
Brewer answered that $150 would probably cover the costs. Mr. Fisher said he does not have
problem with making that contribution. He said that there are a lot of facilities in the
downtown area, but he does not know if the County has ever been involved very much with First
Night/Virginia.
Mrs. Brewer commented that the City has come after First Night/Virginia vigorously, and
has requested pictures for brochures that are done for downtown development. Mrs. Cooke
that the City gains a tremendous amount from First Night/Virginia, because the activities do
take place downtown. She stated that this benefits the local merchants because they get
exposure. She can see why the City would be advocating First Night/Virginia.
Mrs. Brewer explained that the people who are connected with First Night/Virginia
purposely do not encourage commercialization, but they cannot tell stores not to open. She
mentioned that the restaurants in the City, however, do a heavy business on New Year's Eve.
Mr. Bowie stated that he seldom went out on New Year's Eve. He said, though, that he
has gone to three or four of the First Night/Virginia celebrations. He enjoyed them
04O
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
__/_P~aqe 25~ ~
tremendously and would be happy to pay more than $3.00 for the ticket.
using County funds for this project.
But he cannot support
Mrs. Cooke mentioned that she participated in First Night/Virginia for the first time
last year, and she would be willing to pay $4.00 and does not think that $5.00 is unreason-
able for a New Year's Eve celebration. She agreed with Mr. Bowie, that she cannot support
County funds for an activity that takes place entirely within the City limits, with benefits
mainly going to downtown Charlottesville as far as exposure is concerned.
Mr. Way said he totally agrees with Mr. Agnor's recommendation that the County policy
not be waived because he thinks it would set a precedent. On the other hand, he can support
a $150 donation because he feels it is a community activity that benefits the general public
and certainly the citizens of Albemarle County, in a number of ways.
Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Way. He said it is a small amount of money considering
what the Board usually deals with, and it is tempting to approve it. He would support it for
the reasons that Mr. Way suggested, but he feels strongly that the amount should not come
into consideration because there are a number of agencies that really need money. Proper
procedure calls for these agencies to present their requests to the Board at budget time. If
requests are approved during the year, it will be hard to tell whether one request is more
meritorious than another. He is inclined to say that he would support First Night/Virginia,
but he would not want to support it out of the regular sequence.
The Board members agreed that Mrs. Brewer could submit a request for the year beginning
July 1, 1987, to be considered along with the entire County budget.
(Mr. St. John left at 2:35 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 18. Summary of FY 85-86 Merit System - General Government Employees.
The following memorandum dated June 6, 1986, was received from the County Executive:
"The distribution of merit awards derived from performance evaluation
statistics has been completed for FY 85-86 with 67 employees being awarded a
five percent salary increase from their anniversary date of employment. The
67 awards represent 25 percent of a total of 267 authorized employees.
Final calculations of the cost of the program have not been completed, but
it is estimated that it will be within the $50,000 appropriation for the
program. Total final costs will be provided when the annual audit is compl-
ete.
The trend of a low threshold score, recognized in the first two quarters of
the fiscal year statistics of the program continued into the third and
fourth quarters. This trend indicated the threshold score of 83.3 points of
a total 100 point score for a rating of outstanding performance was too low.
One hundred fourteen awards, representing 42.7 percent of the total employ-
ees, would have resulted if that threshold had been used for determining
awards. To comply with the 25 percent limit on the number of employees who
can receive merit awards in FY 85-86, the threshold should have been in the
vicinity of 87.8.
As you will recall, you were advised last June that employees had requested
that the awards be distributed by salary range groups to avoid a possible
disproportionate share of the 25 percent cap being absorbed by top level
supervisors. The threshold scores for FY 85-86 in salary range groups vary
from 85.10 to 91.0.
In my opinion, a sincere effort has been displayed by staff to improve the
management of the merit program. Returning to a single step five percent
plan, which eliminated a second two and one-half percent step, has restored
some value to the meaning of the program. Administering an absolute 25
percent cap has been a significant task, but it has served for this year to
remind the staff that the program requires close scrutiny and responsible
management if it is to be a meaningful personnel benefit.
It is requested that for FY 86-87, the program return to its earlier objec-
tives of approximately one-fourth to one-third of employees earning merit
awards within the limits of funding provided for the program. To reach that
objective, a threshold of 88.0 for an outstanding performance rating will be
used, and performance evaluations will be monitored monthly by the Executive
staff, and reported quarterly to the Board.
Additionally, it is requested that employees who have reached the top step
of their salary range, and have received two successive annual outstanding
performance ratings, be made eligible for a five percent bonus merit award
on a biannual basis, which will not increase their base salary and therefore
not be a vested raise, but which will recognize their continued efforts to
perform outstandingly. At present, an employee reaching the top step of
his/her salary range is not eligible for merit, and has no incentive to
achieve an outstanding performance rating. Your approval of these amend-
ments to the program is requested.
Finally, I need to advise you that staff is examining a 'pay for perfor-
mance' program which could combine funds for budgetary general salary
adjustments with funds for the merit program, and distribute these funds to
employees based upon scores of their performance evaluations. It would
retain the principle of incentive pay and replace a single five percent
award program for 'outstanding performance', with variable awards for levels
of performance determined by evaluation scores. It would be restricted by
. 041
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(~_age 26)
an allocation of funds, and could have limits of a maximum percentage of
base pay increase. A report on the program for your review and approval
will be forwarded in several months."
Mr. Fisher said he understands the request to remove the cap, but he thinks anything
that goes above 25 to 30 percent loses the significance of "outstanding". He does not
believe that a case has been made for the five percent bonus merit award for longevity
employees. He does not have enough information to decide how this will work and how many
people will be eligible. He also wondered if this money would come out of the amount already
set aside for the current fiscal year or if it will require additional funding.
Mr. Agnor explained that it will not require additional funding. He said that when an
employee reaches the top step, and has been an outstanding employee for a number of years,
there is no incentive for him to continue his high level of performance. There is no way of
increasing salary unless the pay scale itself is increased. Prior to the employee reaching
the top step, he serves eight years in four, two-year longevity steps. In those eight years,
the merit increase is like any other merit increase in that it is vested. Once the employee
reaches the top of his salary range, he is not allowed to earn a base salary above that
range. Any increase would be a continuation of the biannual eligibility for merit, but it
would be non-vested. It would not be outside of the funds for the merit program, but it
would be a part of this program.
Next, Mr. Agnor responded to Mr. Fisher's comment about the cap. He said that he
understood Mr. Fisher's feelings on this, but he was speaking of fractions when he requested
that the program return to its earlier objectives of approximately one-quarter to one-third
of employees earning merit awards. He thinks that the 25 to 30 percent range of employees is
a target range that he can work with.
Mr. Fisher asked how many employees are at the top step of their salary ranges. Mr.
Agnor replied that for this coming fiscal year, there will be five employees at the top step.
Mr. Fisher asked if all five of the employees had received outstanding performance ratings
for the previous two years. Mr. Agnor replied, "no." He pointed out that this is why he
recommended that the employee would have to have outstanding performance ratings for two
successive years.
Mr. Fisher then wanted to know if an employee received a bonus this year and got a third
outstanding rating next year, would he be eligible for another bonus next year. Mr. Agnor
replied that if an employee earns a bonus in 1985-86, that employee will have to wait until
the fiscal year 1987-88 before he would be eligible to receive an award again. The employee
will also have to receive an outstanding evaluation in 1986-87 and in 1987-88.
Mr. Fisher felt that the Board's action last year to set a cap and to try to get control
again was a way of saying that there should not be a lot of changes in this system. The
County needs to stay on one system long enough to see how well it is working. Mr. Fisher
said this may be a relatively minor change that affects very few employees and may be some-
thing that should be considered. He does have a strong objection to the last paragraph
concerning the "pay for performance" program because he thinks it sounds as though the whole
system is being started all over again. He said that he did not blame Mr. Agnor for telling
the Board about this program, but his reaction is that the staff will have to present a
strong case to get his support.
Mr. Bowie said he would like to have a chance to see more about the "pay for perfor-
mance'' program because he could not determine how it will work from the information that he
received. As far as Mr. Agnor's two requests are concerned, Mr. Bowie indicated that he will
support the 25 percent cap, even though he realizes that hard choices have to be made. He
said, however, that when the cap is moved from 25 percent to 25 or 30 percent, it auto-
matically becomes closer to 30 percent. Mr. Bowie said that concerning the people who have
reached the top of their salary scale, he would rather handle three or four unusual cases on
an exception basis, rather than change the plan.
Mrs. Cooke asked if some sort of language needs to be put into the regulations that
would indicate that if there is an unusual case, there would be an exception. Mr. Bowie
replied that if someone warrants a merit award, but because of the rules it cannot be
awarded, then he would rather have this brought to the Board as a problem for a solution,
rather than to have the award given automatically. Mrs. Cooke asked if this would be a Board
decision rather than having it decided administratively. Mr. Bowie answered that he is
suggesting that it be a Board decision probably handled as a personnel matter.
Mrs. Cooke asked, again, if language to this effect needs to be put into the regu-
lations. Mr. Agnor replied, "yes." He said that the difficulty he has with Mr. Bowie's
suggestion is that he is not certain that employees who reach the top status of the salary
range would have the incentive to perform two years outstandingly and then have to face a
decision by the Board. He does not mean that a person will not work well without this
incentive, but the pay incentive program is geared strictly to a goal that an employee is
trying to reach. That goal is, having reached the top of the salary range and performing two
years beyond that, the employee is recognized for his performance without having it done as
an exception to the process. He believes the employee would prefer that once the goal has
been accomplished, there be a reward and not a decision made at the end of the two year
cycle. Mr. Agnor mentioned that the award would not have to be five percent, but could be
less.
Mrs. Cooke said she is having a problem with how the incentive route will be determined.
Mr. Agnor explained that this system would set up exactly as the merit performance evalua-
tions are designed. He said the employee is evaluated on certain tasks. If the employee is
on an administrative level, the individual would be given objectives to reach. If the
employee accomplishes the tasks and reaches the objectives and the score is above the thresh-
old that rates the individual as an outstanding employee, then a merit award would be given
to the employee on his or her anniversary date. Mr. Agnor said this would be subject to
042
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
funding. That is where Mr. Agnor thinks the Board's responsibility lies. He stated that he
thinks the funds should be appropriated in the annual budget cycle, and then the administra-
tion of it would be his responsibility.
Mrs. Cooke asked if this is a one-time bonus for two years of meritorious performance or
is it a bonus that would raise the salary level and continue until the next two years. Mr.
Agnor responded that it would not raise the salary level but would be a single payment type
of process. Vesting does not go beyond the top step in the pay scale.
Mrs. Cooke asked how the amount of the bonus would be determined. Mr. Agnor said he
recommends that the award be five percent of the employee's base salary. He believes that
the limitations should be the dollar figure. He reminded the Board that now all of the merit
award money is going to come out of the annual appropriation for that purpose; once the
appropriation has reached its limit, the merit program has to stop. It will be up to the
staff to manage the money through the year so that the appropriation is not exceeded. The
fund will have a limitation. His biggest problem is that he does not want a number for a
cap, but he wants a range, even if the range is from 20 to 25 percent. Mr. Agnor said that
when the cap becomes an absolute number, it becomes a quota and then it becomes not only a
goal, but a target. '
Mr. Way asked how Mr. Agnor had determined the dollar figure in the budget for the merit
award appropriation. Mr. Agnor replied tha~ the total base salary is taken of all eligible
employees and is multiplied by the factor of the merit raise, which is five percent in this
case. It is then multiplied again by the average of the anniversary dates that occur during
the year, because the employees do not earn the amount for the whole year.
Mr. Way asked what the figure is in the budget for merit pay. Mr. Agnor answered that
it is $50,000 this year. Mr. Way asked Mr. Agnor if he would have the flexibility he wants
if the merit pay program does not exceed $45,000 in 1986-87. Mr. Agnor answered, "yes." He
said he could still administer the program within that appropriation.
Mr. Fisher commented that this will not help if, at the end of the year, there are more
people qualifying for merit pay than there is money available. Mr. Agnor stated that he is
going to withhold merit payments until June of next year to make sure that the appropriation
does cover the costs. He said that if the' threshold does not work, then it will have to be
moved so that the award will be made based on the money that is available. He would prefer
not to wait until next June to give out the awards. In fact, the staff has developed a
matrix to try to examine this system and project ahead so that awards will not have to be
held until June. If he is convinced that the matrix will work, he will make the awards as
the anniversaries occur during the year.
Mr. Bowie said that the $50,000 award this year generates somewhere between $125,000 and
$130,000 next year plus the amount of the merit awards for next year. He said that next year
the amount will be up to $175,000 and by the third year it will be over a quarter of a
million dollars. He cannot support increasing the number of employees earning merit awards
above 25 percent.
Mr. Agnor stated that the $50,000 this year will generate between $75,000 to $80,000 in
costs next year. The merit program in addition to that will be $45,000. He mentioned that
putting the employees in the top step would not add to that, because it is a one time pay-
ment. Mr. Agnor then made a further suggestion that the program be returned to the adminis-
trative responsibility of the County Executive. He said that the funding is what he will
have to consider, and it has been calculated at 25 percent. He said the top step is a
separate issue, but he would still like to request it as a part of the plan.
At this time, Mr. Bowie moved that the basic plan stay as it is with the 25 percent cap.
There was no second to the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom said that a year ago when the cap was proposed, he did not support it and
he does not support it now. He is willing to consider the suggestion made by the County
Executive, and if that cannot be supported, then he would be willing to at least give him the
discretion of a 25 percent guideline. He thinks there has been a problem with the cap,
stemming from the rigidity that Mr. Agnor was concerned about last year. Mr. Agnor has
indicated that the message has been received and respected, and Mr. Lindstrom thinks the time
to allow the staff to administer this without that absolute cap has arrived. He would
support a motion which would eliminate the cap and create the guideline of 25 percent which
is not a hard, rigid guideline. '
Mr. Way commented that if the dollar figure is based on 25 percent, and the allocation
cannot go over this amount, then basically it seems to him that it is the same thing as a
cap.
Mr. Fisher said that this depends on a lot of things such as the number of employees who
will get awards, their salaries, the level of employment and at what time the awards are made
during the year.
Mr. Way mentioned, too, that the threshold is being raised to 88 points. He does not
think that he objects to setting a budgetary figure on the basis of 25 percent.
Mr. Lindstrom agreed. He thinks that Mr. Agnor should be able to administer the program
with the profile that he has indicated such as the 88 points, and not with a cap that deals
with people, but a cap that is inherent to the dollar figure. It seems to him that this has
been a very difficult system to work with. He thinks that there are legitimate concerns as
to how the merit system was functioning before, and that the problem was the two step merit,
which was eliminated. He thinks that now, while there is a concern as to how it is adminis-
tered, there is a bigger concern with the amount of money it costs to administer the program.
If the Board has confidence in the people who are administering the program, which he thinks
it does, then it is their job to administer the money that the Board allocates. The Board
has told the administration that it wants the money administered conservatively, and by
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
_ (Page 28)
approving this request, the Board will impose a threshold of 88 points. He then moved that
funding be based upon 25 percent, and the performance rating for merit pay be set at 88
points, with the staff having the discretion to administer the merit system under those
guidelines. Mr. Way seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowie said he does not intend to support the motion. Mr. Way pointed out to Mr.
Bowie that there is the 25 percent guidance as to the employees earning merit awards. Mr.
Bowie replied that the 25 percent is calculated, though, only for the budget and not for the
many years that they will continue to receive pay.
Mr. Lindstrom said he did not believe that the program will go on for many years without
being reviewed again. He thinks the staff always has the 25 percent restriction. He said
this Board is very concerned about the numbers of people who are awarded merits. He thinks
that last year the Board made a mistake by setting a cap because it does not give the staff
any flexibility.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way.
Mr. Bowie and Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Henley.
Mr. Fisher asked if there was a motion on the second part of the County Executive's
recommendation concerning the people who have reached the top of their salary scale.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the award for these people at the top of the pay scale is vested,
and Mr. Agnor answered, "no."
Mr. Lindstrom then moved that Mr. Agnor's second request relating to the five percent
bonus award for the people at the top of their scale be approved. There was no second to the
motion, and there was not another motion made.
Agenda Item No. 19. Revisions: Pay/Classification Plan.
dated June 5, 1986, was received from the County Executive:
The following memorandum
"There are three position titles and job descriptions which should be added
to the Pay and Classification Plan, and four existing positions whose
assigned salary ranges should be increased. These amendments are:
Additions:
Maintenance Helper - Range 7 - An existing position in the School
Division Pay and Classification Plan which would more correctly
describe job activities of an existing employee in Staff Services.
Lead Groundskeeper - Range 10 - Same as above to more correctly
describe an employee's work in Parks and Recreation.
o
Operations Analyst - Range 14 - An existing position in Information
Services, previously authorized from the consultant's study.
Amendments:
mt
Three positions in the Department of Social Services have assigned pay
ranges that are five percent lower than the State minimum authorized
salaries for these positions. With the State financing 60 percent of
the Department's administrative budget, our pay range must equal or
exceed the State's minimum salaries. The positions are:
Position
Social Services Aide
Senior Social Services Aide
Eligibility Worker
Current Amended
Range Range
5 6
7 8
10 11
The Director of Information Services, currently a Range 28 should be
amended to Range 29, to reflect the expanded responsibilities of the
position, previously authorized from the consultant's study."
Mr. Agnor requested that these revisions be incorporated into the County's pay and
classification plan.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve the amendment in the County Executive's memoran-
dum dated June 6, 1986. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 20. Set public hearing date on amendment to Section 8-34(B) of the
County Code regarding application fee under Land Use Ordinance. The following memorandum
dated May 23, 1986, was received from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance:
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 29)
"I would like to request that the County Code, Section 8-34, Paragraph B, be
amended as follows:
"The application fee due under this article shall be figured at
fifteen cents per acre on total acreage with the minimum charge of
fifteen dollars per individual ~w~e~ application and shall be paid
to the director of finance of the County. However, where a land
owner is required to file a new application under this article,
because the use or acreage of such land previously approved has
changed, the application fee for s~eh each re-application shall be
fifteen dollars. ~hese-fees-maM-Be-eha~§e~-~m-~me-~-~me-By
~eso~m-~-~he-B~ar~-e~-S~er¥~se~s~
Previously when a property owner applied on their parcel(s), this
office has charged a $15.00 fee whether the owner was filing on one
application or numerous applications, as long as the parcels were
contiguous. However, this office feels that the intent of the law was
meant to read that a $15.00 fee would be charged on each application
filed by the property owner.
Under the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3234, 'Forms shall be prepared
by the State Tax Commissioner and supplied to the locality for use of
the applicants and applications shall be submitted on such forms.' The
form reads that a single application prepared in triplicate shall be
filed on each line in the land book. It is the understanding in this
office that each line in the land book should constitute a single
application and that an individual fee be collected for each applica-
tion.
Chesapeake and Chesterfield follow the above procedure currently.
Enclosed is a copy of a letter from the County Attorney's office
offering their opinion on the proposed change."
Mr. Breeden said that when the County first implemented the land use program, persons
owning a number of tracts of land would only be charged a one-time $15 fee for all tracts
owned by that person. Now there is a majority of land that qualifies for that type of
assessment under the program, creating quite a disparity in the costs of administering the
program and what is being charged for the applications. He went on to say that in many cases
when someone subdivides a tract of property of several hundred acres, there may be 50 or 60
applications, and it can sometimes require two or three days work by the Finance office for a
$15 fee. He is asking the Board to change the fee back to where it is on an individual
application basis so that a $15 fee can be collected for each parcel on which an application
will have to be completed.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the $15 fee is charged per subdivision lot. Mr. Breeden answered
that a tax bill is prepared on each individual parcel that is defined on the tax map. This
$15 fee would apply to each one.of those. He said there is not a renewal fee involved. It
is only a one-time fee when the application is filed or when a re-application is filed.
Mrs. Cooke then asked if $15 would cover the cost of the application. Mr. Breeden
answered that the $15 fee per lot is substantially more than the County is receiving now, and
he believes that it would be sufficient. He said, though, that it is normally a two to three
hour process on each of the applications.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor if the definition of when the use changes is something
that is a state determination, or is it something that Mr. St. John can determine. Mr. Agnor
answered that it is a state determination.
Mr. Agnor said that a date needs to be set for the public hearing on this matter, and he
he asked the Clerk to check the night schedule for July. She suggested that the public
hearing be set for the July 2 meeting.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to set a public hearing for July 2, 1986. Mr. Way seconded
the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
(Mr. Fisher left at 3:15 P.M., and Mrs. Cooke took over the Chair.)
Agenda Item No. 21. Third Quarter Budget Reviews and Request for Corrective Actions.
The following memorandum dated June 4, 1986, was received from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy
County Executive:
"A detailed review of FY 85-86 departmental budgets in General Government
was conducted by Bob Tucker and me at the end of the third quarter of opera-
tions. Revenues actually received in FY 85-86 should reach approximately
$36 million as compared to the $34.5 million budget estimation as reported
to you previously in discussions of the FY 86-87 budget. Most of the $1.5
million excess revenues will be in local property taxes, and Federal Revenue
Sharing. As you know, only one quarter of Federal Reserve Sharing was
originally budgeted. Expenditures appear to be close to, and generally
within, budget estimates. Of the eighteen departments and divisions of
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
l~e 30)
General Government reviewed, four will require corrective actions in the
form of appropriations or transfers to prevent over-expenditures on June 30.
The four departments are the Police Department, Clerk of the Circuit Court,
Housing Division and the Keene Landfill. The amounts, reason for overruns,
and recommended corrective actions are as follows:
Police Department - the overruns are due to under budgeting of regular
salaries and fringes due to omission of prior year merits, promotions and
reclassifications, plus underestimates of the cost of vehicle and liability
insurance, and underestimates of overtime. The underfunding amounts in the
budget are:
Salaries and Fringes
Vehicle Insurance
Liability Insurance
Reimbursable Overtime
Regular Overtime
Total
$32,420
27,765
6,980
25,000
18,500
$ 110,665
Less: Cost Savings in Other Areas
Net Request
34,165
$ 76,500
The recommendation to solve the problem is as follows:
Transfer from Personnel (Pay plan reclassification) - From line item
1000-12030-201700 to line item 1000-31010-100100, $21,000.
2. Increase revenue estimates for reimbursable overtime to, $30,000.
Appropriate from fund balance to cover balance of salaries (line item
1000-31010-100100) - (insurance cost -line item 1000-31010-530500) and
(regular overtime -line item 1000- 31010), $25,500.
It should be noted that cost savings primarily due to the lower cost of
gasoline and fleet management program in FY 85-86 accounted for offsetting
$34,165 of the overruns.
Clerk of Circuit Court - the State Compensation Board approved the addition
of one position (Clerk) plus approved a salary increase on another position
in October, 1985. The salary increase was adjusted retroactive to July
1985, and the new position was added effective October 1985 for nine months
of the fiscal year resulting in underfunding as follows:
Salaries $13,470
FICA 963
VSRS 1,557
Life Insurance 145
Health Insurance 515
Total Salaries and Fringes
$16,650
Approval of these two salaries and fringes by the State Compensation Board
allows the County to retain a larger amount of the fees generated by the
Clerk's office operations. So in effect these expenses are offset by
additional fees (revenues) being retained by the County.
Housinq Division - the estimated over-expenditure in the Housing Division in
the amount of $2200 results from an employee leaving and having to pay off
the accrued annual leave. This situation can be solved by a reverse circum-
stance in the Planning Department, where a Position was left vacant for
several months that makes adequate funds available for transfer from line
item 1000-81010 Planning to line item 1000-81030-100100 Housing.
Keene Landfill - the expenses at Keene landfill (line item 1000-42040-
301100) will exceed the budgetary estimate by $2000 because the contractor
has been required to open additional cells to lengthen the life of the
landfill. This problem can be solved by transferring $2000 from the line
item 1000-41000-510100 street lights, in the Engineering Department budget.
The cost for street lights did not go up as much as projected for FY 85-86
due to the effective negotiations of VACO and VML with Virginia Power.
Attached is a list of the necessary transactions prepared by the Director of
Finance, and recommended for your approval to accomplish the above trans-
fers, appropriations and budget amendments for FY 85-86."
Mr. Agnor said that this budget review indicates that revenues will exceed by $1.5
million the estimate of revenues for this current fiscal year. He then went over the memo
from Mr. Jones to the Board and explained how these overruns had occurred and described how
the problems could be solved. He requested that the necessary transactions prepared by the
Director of Finance be approved to accomplish the transfers, appropriations and budget
amendments for FY 1985-86.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve the recommendation of the County Executive. Mr.
Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3.1)
Agenda Item No. 22a.
priation.
Appropriation:
Moderate Rehabilitation Program, revised appro-
Mr. Breeden said that the Moderate Rehabilitation Program has received the final budget
approvals from the federal agency. He said that the Board is being asked to adjust one
category, and appropriations are being requested for two additional sections. He said that
the program had initially begun with a $19,000 appropriation which was for one staff member
to develop a budget that could be presented to the federal agency. Later, that appropriation
was revised to bring it to a total of $112,015 based on the preliminary budget which was
submitted to HUD. The final approval on that grant, which was actually for preliminary
expenses, was $119,972. Mr. Breeden said he is asking for a revision of that initial appro-
priation by $7,957.
Mr. Breeden said that the other part of the grant deals with the ongoing costs of
administering the program after contracts have been signed and qualifications have been met.
The total amount approved under the federal grant for that program is $98,100.
Mr. Breeden said the preliminary budget was based on a 100 percent reimbursement. The
second portion relating to the ongoing administrative costs is based on the actual number of
units which ultimately will be signed up for the program. The third portion of the grant, he
said, is the actual payments to the landlords. These amounts total $571,506, and cover a two
year period from 1985-86 through June 30, 1987.
Mr. Way asked if anybody knows how many units are involved with this program, and
whether there is any chance of using all of these funds.
Mr. Horne answered that he anticipates that by the end of July there will be contracts
signed for 38 units to participate in the program. He believes that contracts may be signed
for three more units shortly thereafter. That is a total of 41 units that he thinks will be
firmly under contract with the next two months. He mentioned an additional 18 units that he
is unsure of at this time, but he feels that there is a realistic possibility that within the
next few months these will also be under contract. By the end of August, Mr. Horne is
anticipating an approximate figure of 59 to 60 units. That is below what a straight line
projection would show if there are to be 240 units involved in this program. He said that to
get this many units, one or two large groups of units will have to be located. He said that
he would like to see a wide dispersion of units through the County's rural areas that tend to
have the worst housing problems. He said that the staff must negotiate as long to get one or
two units into the system as to get 50 or 60 units. To date, Mr. Horne said there is only
one person who is weekly visiting the office looking for a large scale project of 50, 60 or
70 units. He said the staff will try to set a strategy on what should be done, because at
the present rate, there will not be 240 units involved in the program. He said that, in his
opinion, the 240 units cannot be 'signed up by doing one and two units at a time dispersed
through all of the rural areas.
Mr. Way asked if most of the 50 units that Mr. Horne is anticipating having under
contract are in the rural area. Mr. Horne replied that 38 of the units are in the urban
areas and the three or four others are small scale units in rural areas. He said there are
three units in Greenwood, one unit in Keene, one unit in Esmont, and there is a discussion
about a 13 unit project in the Schuyler area.
Mr. Way commented that he would hate to have this opportunity to provide this kind of
housing for the County and not be able to take advantage of it. He asked Mr. Horne to
concentrate on getting larger developments in the urban area. He pointed out that there is
only one more year left to accomplish this, or the HUD funding will be lost.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Horne if he has thought about asking the different groups that are
involved with housing to use their volunteer resources. Mr. Horne replied that the staff has
been actively pursuing these groups, and they are attempting to assist. He said, however,
that none of the leads have come to fruition. He has discussed the situation at every
meeting of the Housing Coalition. He tells the people involved with the Coalition that the
most important thing they can do at this time is to assist the Moderate Rehabilitation
program. He has told them that he needs immediate help to find landlords willing to enter
this program.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how much longer the subsidy will be available, if the 240 units are
put under contract. Mr. Horne answered that the rental subsidy will be available for 15
years. He said that when the contract is signed, it means a 15 year participation.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the 240 unit total is not reached, will the people who did sign
contracts be able to continue with the program. Mr. Horne answered, "absolutely."
Mr. Tucker explained that the people who do sign contracts will enter the existing
Section 8 rental subsidy program. Mr. Tucker mentioned, too, that large apartment complexes
need to be contacted. He said it is not easy to find landlords willing to participate in
this program.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what happens if the landlord signs into the program, gets the money,
rehabilitates the unit and then sells it. Mr. Horne replied that the contract goes with the
unit. Mr. Lindstrom then asked what happens if the person who buys the unit wants to live in
it but does not meet the Moderate Rehabilitation qualifications. Mr. Horne answered that he
does not think a landlord can sell the unit to someone who wants to live in it who does not
qualify for Moderate Rehabilitation, but he will need to check on this. He does not think
there is a payback provision under this program.
Mrs. Cooke commented that she would think that many private developers are reluctant to
get into a 15 year contract on a single unit. Mr. Horne replied that the single units that
are found are people who live in the rural areas who have houses that they own specifically
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
047
to rent. These people are not rental developers; they are small scale landlords who do not
have the resources to upgrade the property. He said that a real selling job has to be done
to these people who are not sophisticated borrowers who deal with paperwork every day. He
added that a lot of time has to be spent convincing them that it is worthwhile. He said it
can get very frustrating because there is a lot of paperwork involved.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve the funding request. Mr. Bowie seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
Mr. Horne asked Board members for assistance if they know anyone who might be interested
in the Moderate Rehabilitation Program. He said the staff will visit interested persons,
personally. They will not even have to come to the office.
Agenda Item No. 22b. Appropriation: 911 Dispatch Center. The following memorandum
dated June 4, 1986, was received from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive:
"In the first quarter budget review for this fiscal year, it was discovered
that the budgeted salary adjustments for the 911 Center had been omitted in
error, a total shortfall of $18,661. With the participant's shares of the
budget already approved at the time of the error discovery, the Center's
Board voted to monitor the operation for three quarters of the fiscal year
to determine if some of the shortfall could be offset by reduced expendi-
tures, and also to examine audited carry-over funds from FY 84-85 as a
revenue source to fund any net shortfall in lieu of returning those
carry-over funds to the participants, and then having to request the partic-
ipants to increase their FY 85-86 appropriation.
The budget is now estimated to require an additional $11,380 to balance the
error. The FY 84-85 carry-over fund was $29,897. Attached for your approv-
al is an appropriation authorization for the $11,380, derived from the fund
balance.
The remainder of the Center Fund balance ($29,897 less $11,380 = $18,517) is
recommended to be left' alone until the Center has completed at least two
full years of operating experience in February 1987, at which time the
Center's Board will review the level of funds required and report to the
participants as to its being returned, or retained for operating fund needs.
This net balance represents 4.4 percent of the Center's FY 86-87 budget of
$413,864."
Mr. Agnor told the Board that this request is similar to the Police Department's request
because in the first quarter budget review for this fiscal year, it was discovered that the
budgeted salary adjustments for the 911 Center had been omitted in error, which made a total
shortfall of $18,661. He said that the Center's Board voted to monitor the operation for
three-quarters of the fiscal year to determine if some of the shortfall could be offset by
reduced expenditures. The Center is now in need of $11,380, and it is Mr. Agnor's recommen-
dation for that amount to be appropriated.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to appropriate funds as requested in the County Executive's
memorandum. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
Agenda Item No. 24.
staff.
Capital Improvements Program 1986-87/1991-92, presentation by
Mr. Horne said that there has been a long series of work sessions with the Planning
Commission and agencies. The Planning Commission has recommended a priority list of projects
which is somewhat different from the staff's recommendation, and from the requests that came
in from the agencies. These are broken out numerically in a series of 51 projects, put into
broad categories of "urgent", "necessary", "desirable" and "deferrable" requests. Mr. Horne
told the Board that the Planning Commission gave a very high priority to a large number of
education projects, potentially more than what are actually fundable under the current
funding mechanisms. Commission members felt, however,that there were a series of either
committed educational projects, like the Ivy area elementary school or renovations of
Stone-Robinson and Burley Schools, that were enough of a concern that they should be high on
the priority list and needed to have some funding placed on them immediately.
Mr. Horne said there are a series of "urgent" requests recommended for funding in
1986-87 which somewhat overloads the funding cycle at the very beginning. The major projects
that have an effect on the overall funding level are the very expensive education projects.
One additional project that has a significant impact is the City/County urban park. However,
the Board has already committed to that project, so it is placed as a high priority. The
"necessary" requests are recommended for funding in the next fiscal year. There were so many
requests in that category that Mr. Horne said there had to be two years of funding, 1987-88
and 1988-89. The "desirable" requests are recommended for funding in 1989-90 and the "defer-
rable'' requests are recommended for funding in 1990-91. The Planning Commission fully
expects, according to Mr. Horne, that some of the requests will change significantly, not
only in scope but also in priority as they get closer to reality. Mr. Horne said a good
O48
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
example of those would be the electrical and mechanical projects in the schools. He men-
tioned a couple of items under the "urgent" requests. One is the relative priorities of
Stone-Robinson and Crozet elementary schools. The Commission did place on the priority list
the funding of Stone-Robinson above the rebuilding or restructuring of the Crozet school, but
he does not think that the Commission thought that the Stone-Robinson school project was more
important than Crozet. The Commission felt that Stone-Robinson was closer to being ready to
construct. Mr. Horne stated that the request from the School Board for the Crozet Elementary
School listed it as the school to be renovated and enlarged to be an area-wide school in that
vicinity. As it currently stands, the school district for that school is largely outside the
growth area. The school that serves the growth area that are most likely to develop is
Brownsville. So, the Planning Commission endorses the idea that a school in Crozet needs to
be prepared for the upcoming growth that is expected there, but the Commission feels that the
School Board is not prepared to say whether that school should be Crozet or Brownsville. He
said the School Board could redistrict or change the priorities between Crozet and
Brownsville but there were additional items that needed to be considered before a major
upgrade or expansion of the Crozet Elementary School is done.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that when he served on the School Facilities Committee, the
Crozet Elementary School was concerned about safety. He thinks to defer those improvements
because of growth patterns is a mistake.
Mr. Tucker recalled that enrollment projections showed that Brownsville could accommo-
date those projections within the existing facility, even though the majority of that school
district was in the growth area. Mr. Horne said that Mr. Tucker might want to confirm this
with the school division. He said that this information is different from what was brought
out during the discussions with the school division. He said that the first funding for
Crozet School was $200,000 for this upcoming fiScal year which may be used for the necessary
safety improvements. While the school staff downplayed the need for safety improvements, he
said, the Commission hopes that the $200,000 could make those safety improvements and provide
funding to do the necessary architectural or planning studies to confirm which school needs
to be expanded.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that when he was on the Committee, there never was any mention
of Brownsville School. He said that the concern about Crozet was significant. Mr. Horne
said that the Commission was aware of the School Facilities Committee report and asked very
directly those types of questions to the school division. He added that his Statements
reflect what the Commission heard from the school system.
Mr. Way, who also served on the School Facilities Committee, stated that everybody keeps
saying that there is going to be growth, so additions must be made to different schools. He
said, however, that nobody has actually shown the where growth will take place. He said the
fact of the matter is that growth has already occurred at Stone-Robinson. He said that
Crozet and Brownsville may never experience the predicted growth for their areas.
Mr. Lindstrom said that all of this is new information. He said that the study was
made, and the Committee gave its recommendations, and the School Board members there sup-
ported those recommendations.
Mr. Bowie agreed with Mr. Way that all of the plans show growth areas, but all the
schools on the other side of the County are crowded. He thinks that it is time to admit that
people are moving into areas that were not predicted to grow.
Mr. Horne then discussed the Southern Regional Park, Priority Item 13. He said that due
to perceived funding limitations because of higher priority projects, the Commission is
recommending that funding only be included for planning and land acquisition during the
coming fiscal year and that there not be funding for actual construction.
Mr. Horne then stated that the Planning Commission was not aware of the County Computer
Upgrade, but he said there was a significant request by the Information Services Department
Services for upgrading the computer system. One portion of the request was for the continu-
ing payments for the lease/purchase agreement for the new main frame computer. The Planning
Commission recognized that payments on this computer had to be made, but felt that the
expense of the remaining items was not justified. The Commission recommends only the payment
of the lease/purchase agreement under that request.
(Mr. Fisher returned at 4:00 P.M.)
Mr. Horne went on to say that he thought that most of the other items are self-explana-
tory. He said that there are descriptions of each project, justifications and the Planning
Commission recommendations.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the Lickinghole Creek impoundment had been included, but
he does not see it in this report. Mr. Horne responded that the request for the Lickinghole
Creek impoundment was not submitted this year. Mr. Tucker said he thought the funding for
the Lickinghole Creek impoundment was shifted to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mr.
Lindstrom asked where this project stands with Rivanna. Mr. Agnor answered that the design
is almost completed, and it is scheduled for construction this fall. He said he would verify
this for Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Way asked about Number 11 under the "urgent" priorities concerning roof repairs for
the Scottsville Community Center. He thought there was a new roof put on this building a
year ago that cost $40,000. Mr. Horne replied that, according to Mr. Mullaney, this is for
another portion of the roof.
Mr. Bowie commented that he has trouble with the priorities when he notices that tennis
courts are in the "urgent" listing and air conditioning for one of the schools is listed as
"necessary". Mr. Horne said the justification for the tennis courts by Parks and Recrea-
tion is that there are cracks in the surface to the extent that it will start breaking up the
base. If the resurfacing is not done now, it will become much more expensive. Mrs. Cooke
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
04,
added that the tennis courts are not just for school use, but are available to all County
citizens through the Parks and Recreation Department.
Mr. Way asked what procedure should be followed concerning the Capital Improvements
Program. Mr. Agnor replied that a public hearing must be scheduled, but the Board needs to
decide what it will support at the hearing. He mentioned, also, that the Board can hold a
public hearing on what the Planning Commission has recommended, and suggested that a public
hearing be scheduled on the Planning Commission's recommendations and a work session be held
before that time. There is no strict timetable for adoption, Mr. Agnor said.
Mr. Way said that many of the projects should get started very soon. He does not want
anything to be delayed.
Mr. Fisher said that July 2 could be scheduled for the public hearing and a work session
could be held next week, or the public hearing could be held, and the work session held
later. He thinks that the staff is working to get the CIP program adopted before the end of
June.
In reference to Mr. Bowie's concern about the air conditioners at the various schools,
Mrs. Cooke commented, she is also getting lots of calls from concerned parents. She thinks
that the best thing to do is to have this discussion by the Board as soon as possible, to see
if there is a possibility of rearranging some of the priority items.
Mr. Fisher said that it is true that a lot of these projects cannot get started until
the plan is adopted, and that is why he thinks this matter should be settled as soon as
possible. He then suggested scheduling the public hearing for July 2.
Mr. Way made a motion to set the public hearing on the Capital Improvements Program for
1986-87/1991-92 for the evening of July 2. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Mr. Fisher then asked Board members if they wished to have a work session before or
after the public hearing. He prefers that it be held before the public hearing. Mr. Way
said he thinks it would be helpful to discuss some of these things in work session before the
public hearing. At this time, Mr. Fisher scheduled the work session for July 2 at 3 00 P.M.,
and asked for a motion to that effect.
Mr. Way moved to set a work session on the CIP for 3:00 P.M. on July 2, 1986. Mr. Cooke
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 25. STA-86-1. Subdivision Ordinance Amendments (to be deferred).
Mr. Fisher said that this was the result of a public hearing and for the purposes of
record, there should be a motion to defer this matter until July 9.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to defer action on these amendments to July 9, 1986. Mr.
Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 26. Appointments.
Mr. Agnor discussed a memo with Board members from Mr. Ray Haas, and said that it is the
result of the meeting of the City, County and University Task Force. From that meeting this
Board appointed a Technical Committee last week. Mr. Agnor stated that there is now a need
for a Policy Committee which will be called the Planning and Coordination Council. He added
that the Board's task today is to appoint three members to serve on the Planning and Coordi-
nation Council. He said that Mr. Lindstrom had indicated that he would be willing to con-
tinue to serve.
Mr. Fisher mentioned that he believes that it is better for the people who started the
work on this project to continue, if other Board members do not object. Mr. Way asked if the
three people who served before were Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Agnor. Mr. Fisher
answered "yes". Mr. Way then moved that Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Agnor be appointed
to serve on the Planning and Coordination Council. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYES: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Way informed the Board that Mrs. Sally Gieck wishes to continue serving on the
Library Board. He would be happy for her to to so, but there is another person from the
Scottsville district serving on the Library Board, and he had thought that appointments were
made by districts. Mr. Way said he feels strongly that at least one person from the
050
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Scottsville area near the branch library should be on the Board. That person is Mrs. Helen
Wieneke, and she is now also serving. Mr. Way said that when her term runs out, someone
living in Scottsville proper should replace her. Mrs. Gieck does not live near the community
of Scottsville, but he has no objection to her being on the Board.
Mrs. Cooke commented that she has no objection to Mrs. Gieck serving on the Library
Board, either, but she certainly understands what Mr. Way is saying. She said, however, that
finding qualified people to serve on the Library Board is a difficult thing to do.
Mr. Way said a year from now, when Mrs. Wieneke's term ends, he is going to come in with
a recommendation either for her or for somebody else close to the Scottsville Branch Library
to serve on the Library Board. He is warning the Board that this is what he is going to do.
Mr. Way then moved to reappoint Mrs. Sally Grymes Gieck to the Jefferson-Madison Region-
al Library Board for a term to expire on June 30, 1990. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Mr. Way offered motion to reappoint Mr. James M. Heilman to the Jefferson Area Board on
Aging with said term to expire on March 31, 1988. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Mr. Way offered motion to reappoint Dr. W. D. Buxton to the Community Services Board
with term to expire on June 30, 1989. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs, Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 27. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public.
Mr. Way announced that Scottsville will host its usual Fourth of July Parade. Any
members of the Board of Supervisors who would like to ride in the Parade should contact Mr.
Way.
Mr. Lindstrom informed the Board that he would like to take a vacation the first couple
of weeks in August. He said it would help him if the meeting on August 6 could be cancelled.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to cancel the regular meeting scheduled for August 6, 1986.
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs, Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Fisher said now that there are more hotels in the area, and he is getting more and
more requests to write letters to groups and organizations considering holding conventions
here. He has written only two letters to date. He wrote one to the Virginia Republican
Party for the convention that is being held here this weekend, and another for a statewide
conference on volunteerism which is being organized by the Department of Voiunteerism in the
state office. He said this is a low budget way to run a convention center, and he believes
that there will be other requests.
Mrs. Cooke said she had received letters from parents who are concerned about the air
conditioning problems in a couple of schools. She will wait to discuss this, however, at the
appropriate meeting.
Mr. Agnor announced that there would be two Board members in the County Building tomor-
row at 2:00 P.M. for the Eastern Bypass Committee Meeting. Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Tucker
has indicated that he thinks the Committee Meeting will be over at 3:00 P.M. Since there is
a 4:00 P.M. work session on business licenses already scheduled, Mr. Agnor then suggested
that perhaps the CIP work session could be held at 3:00 P.M., and the Board could hold both
work sessions at the same time. Mr. Lindstrom said he has no objection to holding the CIP
work session tomorrow at 3:00 P.M.
Mr. Bowie asked if the Board could still hold the CIP work session that has already been
scheduled. Mr. Agnor said that the Board could still hold the other work session, but he
added that the work session on business licenses is not pressing. He said he was not sure
how long the business license work session would take. After agreement by the other Board
members, Mr. Fisher set the work session for the CIP at 3:00 P.M., June 12, 1986. Following
that, if there is time, the work session on business licenses will be held.
June 11, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
[Paqe 36)
051'
Agenda Item No. 28. Adjourn. At 4:30 P.M., Mr. Bowie offered motion to adjourn until
3:00 P.M. on June 12 to hold a work session on the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Way
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs, Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
' CHAI~N