1986-05-1455O
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqel__k__
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
May 14, 1986, 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 97, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 9:11 A.M.),
Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher~ J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:09 A.M.) and
Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
County Attorney; Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; and,
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M. by the
Chairman~ Mr. Fisher. At this time, Mr. Agnor introduced several new department heads. Mr.
Michael Armm began as County Engineer on May 12; Mr. Charles Burgess began as Zoning Adminis-
trator a few weeks ago; and Mr. Jesse Hurt was recently promoted to Director of Inspections.
Agenda Item No'. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve Item 4.1
and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Mr. Henley 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.
Item 4.1. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's
Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of April, 1985; approved as presented.
Item 4.2. Letter dated April 1'0, 1986, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner, Depart-
ment of Highways and Transportation, re: 1986-87 Construction Allocations, Secondary System
and Arlington and Henrico Counties; received as information. Albemarle County's total
estimated allocation for 1986-87 is $1,073,868.
Item 4.3. Letter dated May 1, 1986, from Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director, Albemarle
County Service Authority, enclosing a copy of a resolution regarding water and sewer charges
and fees which went into effect on July 1, 1986; was received. -Mr. Brent states that the
Authority also proposes to amend its Rules and Regulations concerning Local Facilities fees.
For the Crozet service area~ the local facilities fee for sewer connections will be $700 for
connections made within one year of the placing in service of the sewer main to which the
connection is made, making a total connection charge for a single-family residential sewer
connection of $1,300.
Item 4.4. A copy of the Planning Commission's minutes for April 29, 1986, was received
as information.
Item 4.5. Received a copy of "Employment and Wages in Virginia - 2nd Quarter 1985" from
the Virginia Employment Commission (on file in Clerk's office).
Item 4.6. Report on Totier Creek Reservoir Repairs.
May 9, 1986, was received from the County Executive:
The following memorandum dated
"Attached for your information is a brief historical account, prepared by
Bill Norris, of the recent Totier Creek waterline break. You will see from
the report that the Rivanna Authority considered several options of replac-
ing, elevating and relocating the existing line, and determined that the
costs were prohibitive. The minimum cost was $30,000 and the average annual
appropriation for repairs of the system is $3000. The Authority chose to
repair the line at a cost of $2000.
The line is 15 years old, and has been repaired twice, once in 1975 and
again this spring. Two repairs in 15 years is not an unusual frequency, and
since the users of the system would incur the costs of replacement versus
repair, the option to repair was deemed to be the better choice.
The major problem with the repairs was the need to drain the reservoir, and
disturb the fishing in the lake. Rivanna Authority considered the facts
that: 1) there are alternative fishing sites, 2) the fishermen cannot be
expected to pay the difference in costs of replacement versus repair, and 3)
the primary function of the reservoir is a drinking water supply paid for by
the users of the system. The decision to repair was therefore determined to
be in the best interest of the Authority and the users. We realize that
fishermen disagree with that priority."
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
"Special Report: Totier Creek - Waterline Break
By: William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official
The Totier Creek Reservoir was completed in 1971 after an expenditure of
approximately $503,000. A normal pool elevation of 284 feet creates a water
surface area of 66 acres, a shoreline of 4.7 miles, and a usable water
storage volume of 1.0 million gallons per day.
This impoundment supplies the water needs of the town of Scottsville. In
addition to its use as a water supply the Totier Creek area is available for
limited recreational uses. Permitted uses within the Park boundaries
include fishing, canoeing, boating (non-combustion engines only), hiking,
birdwatching and picnicking.
Since the Totier Creek Reservoir has been in place, there have been two
instances of waterline breaks that have resulted in the Reservoir being
drained and taken out of service for a period of time.
In 1975 a section of the cast iron raw waterline from the pumping station at
Totier Creek Reservoir to the Scottsville water plant incurred a break. The
Reservoir had to be drained to repair that section of line because the line
is located under the main body of the Reservoir. It appears that the
problem was the result of uneven settling of the line. Details regarding
this break are sketchy due to the time involved and changes in personnel
since the repair.
Following repair of the break, the Reservoir was refilled and functioned as
a water supply impoundment, and a recreational fishing lake uninterrupted
until March of 1986. On March 14, 1986, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Author-
ity (RWSA) confirmed a break in the raw waterline at Totier Creek. The RWSA
analyzed the options of a) replacing the existing cast iron line with
ductile iron, b) elevating the line on piers and, c) relocating the line
entirely. The minimum cost of any of these options was estimated to be
$30,000. This was perceived to be well beyond the means of the Scottsville
system to absorb. It was decided to repair the line in a similar manner to
that taken on the previous break in 1977.
The lake's outlets were opened on Tuesday, March 18, 1986, and the Reservoir
was drained. Following a drying period, the repairs were begun on April 4.
Another section of the original line serving as the raw waterline was
replaced with ductile iron pipe. Again the cause appears to be uneven
settling of the raw waterline over sections of rock. The repairs were
completed on April 8, 1986, at an approximate cost of $2000. The Reservoir
was then allowed to refill, and as of April 16, 1986, is back in service.
The major portion of the fish population of the Reservoir was lost during
the draining of the lake. According to Game Commission personnel the
Reservoir will be restocked in the spring, probably in early June with Bass
and in the fall with Sunfish. Next spring an additional stocking of Bass
will be undertaken. The fish to be stocked will be in the three to four
inch fingerling size. It will take approximately three years for the Bass
and Panfish to return to catchable sizes."
Mr. Way thanked Mr. Norris and Mr. Tucker for preparing this memorandum and said it
described what happened and why it happened. He is concerned that this may happen again and
when it does, he would like the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to try and save the fish in
the lake, rather than restock the lake after draining. Mr. Agnor promised to refer this
suggestion to the RWSA.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes. Mr. Way had read the minutes of March 11,
1985, and noted a couple of typographical errors. He offered motion to approve these min-
utes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. 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. 6a. Highway Matters: Village Square Subdivision Improvements.
Tucker presented the following memorandum, dated May 7, 1986:
"In October, 1984 the developer of Village Square requested that the road in
Phase I be accepted into the State Highway System. Following an inspection
later that month, the developer was notified of those items left to be
completed for state acceptance. Their bond was reduced accordingly, to an
amount of $8300 estimated to cover the costs of the listed items. The
necessary minor corrections were not completed and approximately one year
later (September, 1985) we again notified the developer of the repairs still
outstanding. In November, 1985, VDH&T notified us that the road would not
now be accepted until the sidewalks were replaced. Apparently during cold
weather the sidewalks had cracked.
There is currently a dispute between the developer and his contractor
regarding who is responsible for replacing the sidewalk. With only an $8300
bond, the County is unable to have the work completed. Cost of the sidewalk
repair is estimated in excess of $30,000.
The County is holding bonds for Phases II and III of Village Square in
amounts sufficient to complete the work in Phase I. Since no construction
Mr.
552
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
has occurred in the recently approved Phases II and III of Village Square,
staff recommends that a hearing be set for June 11, 1986, to vacate Phases
II and III of Village Square subdivision and that bond proceeds from those
plats be used to complete the necessary work in Phase I for acceptance by
VDH&T. All remaining funds from those bond(s) would be returned to the
developer."
Mr. Lindstrom asked the name of the developer. Mr. Tucker answered "Salasco Service
Corporation", a service corporation for Jefferson Savings and Loan.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the bonds were tied to specific phases. Mr. Tucker said staff
understood that the bonds could be used for the first phase if Phases II and III were
vacated. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. St. John for his opinion. Mr. St. John agreed with staff's
recommendation, because, he said, Phases II and III are provided access by the road going
through Phase I. He explained that the plats for Phases II and III could be vacated because
there were no houses built there yet. Once these plats have been vacated, he said, the
developer must get new subdivision approval, and Phases II and III will be re-bonded at that
time.
Mr. Bowie asked if any trees had been cut down in the Phases II and III area.
Tucker said he was not sure how much work had been done in that area.
Mr.
Mr. Bowie said this was the second time a bond had been set too low for the work to be
completed. Mr. Tucker said the bond would have sufficed, had the work been done when it was
supposed to be. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that staff may have taken too much time to follow up
on what the developer was supposed to be doing. When a bond is at stake, he said, staff
should make sure the developers do what they are supposed to do.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks the staff's recommendation is legal and defensible, but dras-
tic. He asked how long the developer had known these plats might be vacated if the developer
and the contractor could not work things out themselves. Mr. Tucker said staff informed the
developer of the action it would take in March. Mr. Way pointed out that the developer still
had another month to complete the road and sidewalk work.
Mr. St. John said he believed this may be the incentive the developer needs to finish
the work. He said one contractor built the sidewalks, curbs and gutters to State standards.
The surface of the road itself, he said, was to be built by another contractor. Because this
surfacing was never done, several heavy storms washed portions of the roadway under the
sidewalks and cracked them. He said the contractor and the developer blame each other for
the damage. Their stalemate should not be the County's problem, he said. He asked the Board
to authorize staff to forfeit the bond and set a public hearing to vacate the plats for
Phases II and III. If there are any unbuilt lots in Phase I, Mr. St. John added, the Board
could enact a resolution to keep any further building permits from being issued for Phase I.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to authorize the calling of the bonds on Phases I, II, and
III of Village Square in order to have road and sidewalk work in Phase I completed, so the
road can be taken into the State Secondary System, and to set a public hearing on an ordi-
nance to vacate the Village Square plat, Phases II and III for June 11, 1986. Mr. Henley
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. 6b. Highway Matters: Naming of Route 240.
since the person making the request was not present.
Deferred without discussion
Agenda Item No. 6d. Highway Matters: Secondary Roads Budget Priority List. Mr. D. S.
Roosevelt, Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation,
addressed the Board and summarized the following memorandum, dated May 8, 1986:
"Reference is made to Commissioner Pethtel's letter of April 10, 1986,
concerning 1986-87 Construction Allocations for the Secondary System.
Attached find the priority list referred to in Commissioner Pethtel's
letter. I request that this list be presented to the Board of Supervisors
for review at their meeting on May 14, 1986, in Order that a public hearing
on this list can be scheduled as early as possible.
Although the Board has not yet adopted a Six Year Plan priority list, a list
has been reviewed and a recommendation will be presented at the public
hearing on May 21, 1986. The Budget priority list attached is taken from
the Six Year Plan priority list as proposed and is based on my estimate of
the funds which can be actually spent on each project during 1986-87. I
suggest the hearing on the Budget priority list be scheduled after May 21,
which will allow the Board to incorporate any changes made to the Six Year
Plan priority list into the Budget priority list."
Priority Route
1 743
1986-87 Secondary Improvement Budget
Albemarle County
Priority List
Project
Allocation
0743-002-153, C501
From: 29 To: 1455
Four-lane Hydraulic Road -
complete construction financing
$107,000
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
~Page 4)
553
2 631
3 631
4 654
5 631
6 631
7 656
8 631
9 618
10 640
11 664
12 622
13 686
14 County Wide
15 County Wide
16 County Wide
17 625
0631-002-
At intersection 659
P. E. for safety improvement
2,000
0631-002-
At Agnese Street
P. E. for safety improvement
2,000
0654-002-
At intersection 656
P. E. for safety improvement
1,500
0631-002-
At Greenbrier Drive
P. E. for safety improvement
2,000
0631-002-
At intersection 768
P. E. for safety improvement
5,000
0656-002-
From 654 To: 743
P. E. for construction of left
and right turn lanes
5,000
0631-002
Widen two bridges between
781 & 706. To cover P. E. costs
15,000
0618-002-213, N501 155,000
From: 729 To: 620
New hard surface - finance construction
0640-002-216, N501 50,000
From: 20 To: 1.0 miles east
New hard surface - finance constrUction
0664-002-217, N501 362,000
From: 604 To: 743
New surface treatment - finance construction
0622-002-215, N501 143,500
From: 618 To: Fluvanna CountyLine
New surface treatment - finance construction
0686-002-218, N501 144,000
From: 600 To: Louisa County Line
New surface treatment - finance construction
Traffic Services (new signs and
pavement markings)
30,000
Install pipe at new entrances
30,000
Fertilize & seed completed projects 10,000
Operate Hatton Ferry
10,000
Total $1,074.000"
Mr. Roosevelt said the Board should be aware that the allocation for secondary road
improvements in the County will be reduced by about $600,000 next year. Mr. Lindstrom asked
if this reduction were in line with the reductions projected last year. Mr. Roosevelt
replied that the actual reduction was more severe than what was projected. He said the
Highway Department had about $106 million less to spend on improvements for secondary roads
next year, due to a decrease in federal funding and an increase in the amount of funding
necessary for highway maintenance. In short, Mr. Roosevelt said, counties can expect about a
35 percent decrease in funding for secondary road improvements next year. The major effect
of this reduced funding, Mr. Roosevelt said, is that construction on Route 727, Priority No.
18 on the Six Year Plan, must now be delayed by at least a year.
Mr. Horne asked if Mr. Roosevelt had included on his list any funding for the relocation
of the intersection of Route 678 at 250 West in Ivy. Mr. Roosevelt said "no". Mr. Horne
said the Planning Commission recommended moving this project from the Capital Improvements
Program, where it would be funded completely by the County, to the Six Year Plan, where the
project could be funded by the State. He said staff had recommended that the project stay in
the Capital Improvements Program because it was important to have the road finished before
Meriwether-Lewis School opened. Mr. Roosevelt suggested that the Board consider this project
at the Six Year Plan hearing next week.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to set a public hearing on the Secondary Roads budget for
June 11, 1986. 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.
554
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
( Page 53__
Not Docketed: Mr. Roosevelt presented the following letter dated May 8, 1986, from Mr.
J. G. Ripley, Director, Planning and Programming, Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation re: Revenue Sharing Funds, Section 33.1-75.1, Code of Virginia:
"As you are aware, the above-subject statute permits a county to designate
annually up to twenty-five percent, or $500,000, whichever is greater, of
its 'Revenue Sharing Funds' for use by the State Highway and Transportation
Board to construct, maintain, and improve the primary and secondary highway
systems. It further provides that the Board shall match such contributions,
not to exceed a statewide total of $5 million in any fiscal year.
To facilitate the allocation and administration of these funds, I must be
advised by June 15, 1986, as to the amount of such funds each governing body
intends to designate for the 1986-87 fiscal year. Since adjustments to the
upcoming budget will not possible after that date, only those requests
received by this deadline will qualify for participation in this program for
the 1986-87 fiscal year.
In the event you have any questions regarding this matter, our resident
engineers can assist you in this regard."
Mr. Fisher asked if the State matched revenue sharing funds on a fifty-fifty basis.
Roosevelt replied "yes", for up to 25 percent or $500,000 of the County's revenue sharing
funds. Mr. Fisher said he thought this might be the best way to finance the Route 678
project and he asked Mr. Tucker to investigate this possibility.
Mr.
Agenda Item No. 6e. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Way said several citizens requested that the speed limit be reduced on Route 627,
which enters the community of Warren. There are enough houses in this community to warrant a
reduction in speed, he said. Mr. Way added that weekend visitors to the James River also
travel Route 627 through Warren. He asked that the Highway Department consider posting a
speed limit of 35 or 40 miles an hour on this road as it enters Warren. Mr. Roosevelt said
he would look into this situation.
Mr. Bowie told Mr. Roosevelt he wished to examine the files of the Highway Department
concerning Route 640 West and the right-of-way problem. He added that he also wished to
clarify his stand on the Village Square subdivision improvements discussed earlier. He said
he thinks the bond should have been called last fall.
Mr. Tucker said he had three additional highway matters to relate to the Board.
Firstly, he said, the staff received from the Highway Department a form concerning Critical
Highway Needs to be filled out and returned within two days. The staff complied with these
instructions, using the priority lists the Board presented to the Transportation in the 21st
Century Commission. Secondly, he said, staff received a letter regarding the environmental
impact of certain road improvements. Mr. Tucker said staff usually does not bring this to
the Board because the roads are secondary project and the environmental impact is minimal.
This time, he said, one of the projects mentioned was improvements to Route 29 North. He
said the staff has prepared a letter responding to the environmental assessment of the
improvements, particularly the turning movements on Rio Road and the impact these might have
on Route 29. Mr. Lindstrom asked for a copy of this letter.
The last item, Mr. Tucker said, concerns the road study recently completed by the
Engineering Department, which the Board discussed at a meeting last month. He said the staff
had hoped to present a follow-up report on the road study at this meeting, but was unable to
do so. He said that Section 33.1-72.1 of the State Code provides that certain roads that
have not been taken into the State Secondary Road System may be included if they meet the
standards of the Highway Department. The County and the State share the cost of including
the road in the State System on a fifty-fifty basis. Mr. Tucker added that the State Code
also allows the County to assess the property owners for the County's share if 75 percent of
the property owners along the road agree to this assessment. He said Mr. St. John has asked
the staff to see whether these roads meet the minimum State standards for highways. Mr.
Tucker said the staff has not finished this task. He said staff has completed the study on
Dunromin Road and estimated that it will take between $6000 and $7000 to improve this road to
State standards. Mr. Tucker said the staff should have finished the full report by June 11,
1986.
Mr. Roosevelt said one of the conditions of Section 33.1-72.1 is that the County must
have adopted a local ordinance for control and development of subdivision streets to the
necessary standards for acceptance into the State Secondary System of Highways. About two
and one-half years ago, Mr. Roosevelt continued, the Highway Department reviewed the subdivi-
sion ordinances from every county in the State and determined which ordinances met the
Department's requirements for acceptance into the Secondary System. He said Albemarle County
did not meet these requirements and, could not benefit from Section 33.1-72.1. Mr. Roosevelt
said the Highway Department notified the County of its failure to meet the requirements. Mr.
St. John said he had forgotten this. He remembered now, Mr. St. John continued, that the
County did not meet the requirements because there are private roads in the County. Mr.
Roosevelt said this was the case: if the County continued to allow private roads, then the
problems Section 33.1-72.1 sought to address would continue.
Mr. Henley said he was no= ready to discontinue the use of private roads in the County.
There are instances, he said, when a new road may service only three houses and it seems
ridiculous to him to make such a road conform to State standards.
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
555
Mr. Fisher asked the staff to consider these legislative and legal problems when prepar-
ing the report which he expects to be presented to the Board in June.
Mr. Fisher announced that he would deviate from the agenda momentarily to recognize the
students from Western Albemarle High School who are attending the Board meeting as part of
Youth in Government Day. These students were: Mike Dickerson, White Hall District; Jennifer
Kelly, Samuel Miller District; Scott Overstreet, Samuel Miller District; Alex Patterson;
Sarah Thompson and Renee Varner. Mr. Fisher welcomed the students and apologized for the
dullness of the items on today's agenda.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: Request to Vacate Right-of-Way: Rolling Hills
Road. Since Ms. Doris Biss was now present, the Chairman returned to this item on the
agenda. The following memorandum from Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community
Development, dated May 8, 1986, was received:
"This Department has briefly reviewed the attached request by a resident of
the Northfield Subdivision (Doris K. Biss). It appears that the request is
for the County to vacate a small portion of Rolling Hill Road which was
apparently dedicated to public use when the Northfield Subdivision was
approved. On the (attached) map you will see that this portion of roadway
now abuts a future section of the Raintree Subdivision on which a cul-de-sac
road is proposed to be built. It would appear, therefore, that in the long
term this portion of Rolling Hill Road would not be necessary for a through
road connection to Raintree Subdivision. The Planning Commission has
approved a master plan for Raintree Subdivision which proposes this cul-de-
sac.
I have been in contact with the developer of Raintree and Mr. Hurt has
stated that he would wish for this right-of-way to remain open for three to
four more years in that he may wish to use this access for construction
vehicles during the development of this section of Raintree Subdivision.
This right-of-way is now used as a joint driveway for Lots 15 and 16 and, in
the staff's opinion, the use of this right-of-way for heavy construction
vehicles would severely damage those driveways and would have adverse
impacts on the adjacent lot owners.
There would not appear to be any long term need for this right-of-way.
Prior to the public hearing on the vacation of this right-of-way, however,
the staff would propose to do a more complete analysis of this situation.
Should the Board of Supervisors choose to schedule this matter for public
hearing the staff will undertake that analysis."
Ms. Biss addressed the Board and said her primary concern was that the County pay for
paving the dead-end road. She said this road, a drive-way between two homes, was an exten-
sion of Rolling Hills Road, and has never been paved, even though it is a part of the
Northfields Subdivision system of roads.
Mr. Fisher said someone must have misinterpreted Ms. Biss's request. He said he thought
she wanted to have the road vacated, not paved. Ms. Biss said vacating the road was a
secondary consideration.
Mr. Lindstrom said there was a good chance that heavy construction vehicles may use this
driveway. With funding for road improvements rather restricted, he said, he did not think
the County could pay for paving the road, but it may be able to prevent this road from
becoming a thoroughfare. Ms. Biss repeated that no one uses the road but her family and her
neighbor. Mr. Lindstrom warned her that this may change and asked Mr. Horne to explain.
Mr. Horne said this was true. Although the long-term plan for this driveway was to end
it in a cul-de-sac, he said, the developer would like to use this road to move his machinery
while grading in the Raintree Subdivision. He said staff did not think the developer should
use this road for heavy equipment and had no problem with the idea of vacating the road. Mr.
Horne said the staff did not address the issue of paving the driveway.
Mr. Fisher said paving this road with public funds would be almost impossible since it
served only two residents. Ms. Biss said she hoped that the 150 feet of this road could be
paved when Northfield Road was blacktopped and that she and her neighbor could share the
cost.
Mrs. Cooke said the County would not vacate the road if it paid to have the road paved.
Moreover, she said, if the road were paved, the developer could use it for transporting heavy
equipment. Under these conditions, Ms. Biss said, she prefers that the road be vacated.
Mrs. Cooke offered motion to set a public hearing on June 11, 1986, on an ordinance to
vacate a portion of the plat showing a public right of way between Lots 15 and 16 on Rolling
Hills Road, Northfield Subdivision. 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. Request to extend Albemarle County Service Authority service areas
to include Tax Map 58, Parcel A, for water service only. Mr. Horne referred to the following
memorandum, dated May 8, 1986:
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
"Enclosed you will find a request from Mr. and Mrs. Arthur M. Whitehill, III
to be included within the water service jurisdictional boundaries of the
Service Authority. As you will note on the enclosed map, this parcel is
located along with four other parcels in an area between Lewis Hills and Ivy
Oaks on Route 678. Both Lewis Hills and Ivy Oaks are within the jurisdic-
tional service area boundaries for water only. There does exist a water
line with easy access to this property which could physically be extended to
serve the Whitehill's property.
This Department has been unable to verify the water quantity problems which
seem to be implied in the second paragraph of the Whitehill's letter to the
Board of Supervisors. In the absence of a clearly verifiable water quantity
or quality problem with this well, the staff of this Department would be
concerned about the precedent set by an action of the Board of Supervisors
to allow connection to the water line for this parcel. There are a great
many parcels in the Ivy area that are in similar situations in that they are
residential parcels on the edges of the jurisdictional boundaries. Approval
of this request without some demonstration of a water quality or quantity
problem could open the Board to a large number of similar requests.
Should the Board of Supervisors decide to advertise this request for public
hearing, the staff will investigate further into the circumstances surround-
ing this particular case. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to contact me."
Mr. Fisher asked the applicant, Mrs. Whitehill, what problems she was having with her
well. Mrs. Whitehill answered that her water supply was limited. She said the well serves
two houses: hers and one belonging to her mother-in-law. She said she and her mother-in-law
must sometimes stagger washing dishes or clothes or they will run out of water.
Mr. Horne said that the Whitehill's house was in existence before the water line was
placed through the property. Therefore, he said, the Board could amend the jurisidictional
boundaries to include existing structures only.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to set a public hearing for June 11, 1986, to consider
extending the Albemarle County Service Authority service area for water to existing struc-
tures only to include Tax Map 58, Parcel A. Mr. Way 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.
Since the representatives from Piedmont Community College had not arrived, Mr. Fisher
moved on to the afternoon's agenda.
Agenda Item No. 16a. Appropriations: Mahanes Tract Operating Expenses.
Mr. Agnor said this is an appropriations request from the Parks and Recreation Depart-
ment so they may provide maintenance to the existing dwelling on the Mahanes Tract which is
being rented. The revenue from the rent will offset expenses. The Director of Finance has
suggested that this operation be handled as a separate fund entitled "Joint Recreation
Facility Fund", and that ti be started at the beginning of the 86-87 Fiscal Year.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $2,400 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated from the
Joint Recreation Facility Fund and coded as follows:
1'4200-71002-300403 Repairs and Maintenance
1-4200-71002-530400 Insurance
$2,000
400
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1986-87 County budget
is hereby amended by the addition of $2,400 to the following Revenue Code:
2-4200-71002-150243 Rent
$2,400
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective July 1, 1986.
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.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 10:18 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 16b. Appropriations: Flood Damage for Scottsville School. Mr. Agnor
presented the following memorandum from Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney, Director, Parks and Recrea-
tion, dated April 16, 1986:
"Within the next month we will be completing the flood repair work at the
Scottsville Community Center.
In January the Board of Supervisors appropriated $34,190 to code 1-9000-
71000-701016 for the purpose of making repairs. Actual repairs are going to
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
( P~age 8)
557
cost approximately $40,500. The additional cost is due to damage to the
heating system and the support structure of the stage floor that was not
apparent when the initial estimates were made. These additional repairs
have been approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and
will be eligible for 75 percent reimbursement from them and 13 percent from
the State.
I would like to request that an additional $6,310 be appropriated to the
above mentioned code to complete the necessary repairs. This will bring the
total flood cost to $42,065, which includes $1,565 for equipment rental and
man hours for our own crew's cleanup efforts. Our total reimbursement will
be about $30,000, which is 88 percent of the total after deleting $8,000 for
the asbestos cleanup.
FEMA personnel would like to make a final inspection of the property prior
to July 1, 1986. Please call me if you have any questions or need addi-
tional information."
Mr. Way thanked Mr. Mullaney for his timeliness in applying for the federal funding
needed to repair the old Scottsville School. Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by
Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $6,310 be, and the same is hereby appropriated from the
Undesignated Fund Balance of the Capital Improvements Fund coded
1-9000-99999-999998 and transferred to code 1-9000-71000-701016 entitled
Scottsvilte School Repair.
FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is effective this date.
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.
(Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 10:25 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 8. Presentation: Piedmont Virginia Community College. Dr. James
Batten, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Piedmont Virginia Community College,
addressed the Supervisors and said he would like to describe some of the College's achieve-
ments during the past year. The College has instituted an Associates in Applied Sciences
degree program in Computer-Aided Design and a cooperative program with Mary Baldwin College
to provide adults with the opportunity to earn a Bachelor's degree part-time without leaving
the area.
During the past year, Dr. Batten continued, the Division of Extended Learning Opportuni-
ties has been involved in a number of projects with local business and industry. Credit
courses for business and industry clientele enrolled 1096 students during the 1984-85 aca-
demic year. Career Studies Certificate Programs continue to gain popularity with the first
Career Studies Certificates in the secretarial area to be awarded this spring to students in
the joint University of Virginia/Piedmont Virginia Community College Secretarial/Clerical
Development Program.
Dr. Batten said enrollment at the College increased by almost six percent this year,
bringing the number of students to 3,847. The enrollment of black students increased by 23
percent, he said, which reflects the College's commitment to reach lower socioeconomic groups
throughout the region. In response to this growth, the College is undergoing a $2.0 million
construction program consisting of a new wing which will add 26,000 square feet to the
physical plant. The new wing will house the nursing and respiratory therapy programs, the
physics, electronics, academic computers and drafting programs, plus some new faculty office
space. The new addition will also provide a multi-purpose room which will be used for drama
productions, seminars and other special activities. The new wing is scheduled for completion
in October, 1986.
As the Board is aware, Dr. Batten concluded, Piedmont is a state-supported college.
However, he said, localities do participate in the funding process. For 1986-87, he said,
the County will be asked to contribute $5190 to the College's operating expenses. He added
that local funds represent two-tenths of one percent of Piedmont's total budget.
His presentation finished, Dr. Batten introduced fellow College Board member, Dr. Howard
Allen, and the President of Piedmont Community College, Dr. George Vaughan, to the Board.
Mr. Fisher thanked Dr. Vaughan for the outstanding leadership he has provided the College and
Messrs. Batten and Allen for their service on the College Board.
(At 10:36 A.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:44 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 6b. Naming of Route 240. Since Mr. James Crosby was still absent, Mr.
Fisher asked if anyone else wished to speak on this issue. Mr. Steve Meeks addressed the
Board and said Route 240 is the only major road in Crozet without an official name. This
stretch of Route 240, he said, is a historic road and he would like the Board to consider
naming this road by its historical name: Three Notch'd Road. He said this name is more
pleasing than the name proposed by Mr. Crosby, "Allview Road".
Mr. Fisher said it was the Board's intent to preserve historical names for roads when-
ever possible. Before the Board decides this issue, however, he said, he would like to hear
from Mr. Crosby.
558
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe9_~__
Mr. St. John said Mr. Roosevelt, who had left the meeting, mentioned to him that only
the State Highway Commission has the authority to name primary highways and Route 240 is a
primary highway. The Board, he said, adopt a resolution recommending that the Highway
Commission name Route 240 "Three Notch'd Road", but the Board itself cannot name the road.
Agenda Item No. 9. 10:45 A.M. Public Hearing: Agreement between Albemarle County,
Charlottesville and the University of Virginia, re: Improvement of communication and mutual
benefits through cooperative planning. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 5 and May 9,
1986.)
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor to present the staff's recommendation of the proposal. Mr.
Agnor said the agreement dealt primarily with the planning process and the use of land in
areas close to the University. He pointed to a map and explained the three areas outlined
there. Area A, he said, encompasses the Central and North Grounds of the University; Area B
is composed of property surrounding Area A and is of mutual concern to the County and the
University. Area C consists of property near University-owned property, and includes the
area around the Blue Ridge Hospital, the Milton Hills area in the eastern part of the County,
and the area around the University Vivarium on Route 20 South.
By the terms of this agreement, Mr. Agnor said, the University will submit its construc-
tion and development plans in Area A for review by both the City and the County. He said the
University also agrees to make reasonable efforts to comply with any recommendation the City
or County may make in reference to those plans. In Area A, the City and the County will also
send the University any proposed changes in land use plans and regulations and make a reason-
able effort to comply with any suggestions the University might make. Most of Area A, Mr.
Agnor said, is owned by the University, with only a few small parcels in private hands.
Mr. Agnor said the proposed agreement calls for making Area B a "study area", in which
the University, City and County will work together to develop a master plan for land use and
development. If the University develops property in this area, he said, it must submit plans
to the County and City, where these plans will be reviewed for compliance with City and
County regulations. The City and County, Mr. Agnor continued, will submit to the University
and to each other, any changes in land use plans and regulations.
In Area C~ he said, the University will voluntarily comply with land use plans and
regulations and the City and County will notify the University of any changes in these plans
and regulations. Mr. Agnor added that the University has also said it will pay the appropri-
ate property taxes on the land it holds in this area.
In addition to offering guidelines for interaction in these three areas, Mr. Agnor said,
the proposed agreement outlines some general understandings to be held by each of the three
jurisdictions. The University has formed a real estate foundation which, by the agreement,
will abide by all City and County land use laws and regulations and will pay all applicable
real estate taxeS. Moreover, he said, the University will not accept any transactions from
this foundation to avoid land use laws or taxes. The University also agrees to accept a
representative from both the City and the County as non-voting members of its Master Plan
Committee. He said the University will also involve representatives from the City and County
in site selection studies on any major new facility.
The City and County, Mr. Agnor said, will define the growth rates desired for the two
communities and attempt to regulate development according to their growth rates. The City
and the County will also include representatives from the University on their Planning
Commissions as non-voting members. He said the three jurisdictions also agree to try to
synchronize the revision and updating of the City's and County's Comprehensive Plans and the
University's Master Plan. The University, City and County will agree to use common defini-
tions and data bases for their land use planning.
Mr. Agnor said no party to the agreement will sponsor, seek, or support any legislation
that would restrict another party in matters relating to the terms of this agreement. If
there are disputes on the interpretation of the agreement or the reasonableness of the
efforts to follow recommendations, and these disputes cannot be resolved by any of the three
parties, they will be submitted to non-binding arbitration. Mr. Agnor added that the agree-
ment could be dissolved at any time after one year's notice by any of the three parties.
Mr. Agnor then explained how the County Planning Commission interpreted some of the
terms used in the agreement. "Land use plans and regulations", he said, would include only
legislative actions by the Board, such as amendments and adoptions of amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, rezonings and special use permits. The County
would not have to submit for review subdivision and site plans. As for the clause stating
that no party will sponsor or seek legislation to limit the powers of another party, the
Planning Commission recommends adding that no party will oppose any legislation initiated by
a locality outside the agreement that may affect one of the parties to the agreement. The
Planning Commission and staff also request that they be allowed to review the procedural
document that will be attached to this agreement. Mr. Agnor said the Planning Commission and
staff wish to have some input on the arbitration provision and the timetable for the review
process. Mr. Agnor said the Planning Commission also recommended that a policy and technical
committee, similar to the Metropolitan Planning Organization, be established to implement
this agreement.
Mr. Fisher said he wished to describe briefly the process that resulted in the agree-
ment. Last fall, he said, the University proposed to establish a real estate foundation to
acquire, hold, and perhaps develop, property in the County and City. The City and County
then asked that the legal status of such a foundation be defined. Neither the City nor the
County wanted the University to acquire large blocks of property, removing them from the tax
rolls and out of the jurisdiction of local land use and zoning laws. The Board appointed
Messrs. Lindstrom, Fisher and Agnor to meet with representatives from the University and City
to work out an agreement.
MaY 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
559
Mr. Fisher said he thinks the representatives succeeded beyond what was believed possi-
ble at the time. The legal status of the foundation was defined: it was to be private
rather than public. Its ownership of property would not remove that property from the tax
rolls or the County's jurisdiction. More importantly, Mr. Fisher said, the representatives
from the County and City discovered the University was interested in planning land use and
development jointly with the two localities, particularly in Area B. Mr. Fisher said he
thinks the greatest success was realized in Area C, where the University has voluntarily
surrendered its right to acquire and use property without being subject to the zoning laws
and Comprehensive Plan of the County.
Mr. Fisher said he is not sure how the agreement will be implemented; nothing like this
has ever been done before. He said he is concerned about the arbitration issue. It is
clear, he said, that the County cannot give up its legislative zoning rights to an arbi-
tration panel. Unless the County is willing to surrender these rights, the agreement must be
non-binding. How well this agreement works, he said, must depend on the parties involved and
how willing they are to cooperate. The City and the University have already approved this
agreement; he said, it remains for this Board to decide whether to join.
Mr. Fisher then opened the public hearing. First to speak was Ms. Kat Imhoff, repre-
senting the Piedmont Environmental Council. She urged the County to enter into the three-
party agreement. While the agreement may not be legally binding, she said, it is morally
binding and shows a commitment toward cooperative planning for the community.
Mr. Bill Edgerton addressed the Board and said he thought the agreement was too spe-
cific, but a positive step toward cooperation nevertheless. He said the three localities
needed to communicate with each other and this agreement, despite the need for some fine-
tuning, would offer them this opportunity, and help prevent problems such as the Fontaine
Avenue conflict. He asked the Board to approve the agreement.
With no one else wishing to address this issue, Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing at
11:08 A.M. and placed the matter before the Board.
Mrs. Cooke said she did not understand the provision restricting a party's efforts to
seek legislation to defend itself. She asked Mr. St. John to explain this provision. Mr.
St. John said this agreement should be seen as a moral commitment, carrying with it public
disapproval and opprobrium should any party violate its provisions. He said the County could
not abrogate its constitutional right to seek legislation, nor could any party seek an
injunction against any other party for violating a provision. Mr. Fisher said this agreement
resembled a treaty between nations, in which each nation keeps its independent powers, but
agrees to do certain things together. Mr. St. John agreed this was a good analogy: it was
up to each party to keep or breach the agreement, but violating the agreement might incur the
disapproval of the public.
Mrs. Cooke said she had no problem with the general concept of the agreement. However,
she said, she thought the County had everything to lose and nothing to gain by signing the
agreement. The County has the most land available for development. She said her major
concern is that the County will have no way to defend itself if the University were to decide
to use property in a way that did not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. She said she feels
the County may be most vulnerable party in the agreement.
If the University decided not to comply with the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Bowie said, the
University has breached the agreement and the other parties are no longer bound by its
provisions. Mr. St. John said that may be a problem: usually the party who violates the
contract will not admit to breaching it.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the value of this proposal appears when it is compared to
the present situation. Currently, he said, the University may do whatever it chooses
throughout the City and County, without either a moral or legal obligation to comply with the
land use policies of either locality. This agreement may not be legally binding, he said,
but it will bring to bear the weight of public opinion, which is a force greater than any
tool available to the County up to this point.
Mr. St. John said the State Code is not without laws to govern the University's activi-
ties. The statute which exempts the University is exempt from land use laws and taxation
states that the acquisition of property must lie within the scope of its educational mission.
If the property does not fulfill an educational function, then it is subject to taxation and
zoning regulations. The problem is, he said, determining whether a particular property
purchase falls within this educational mission. He cited the Milton Airport as an example of
this problem. The courts determined that the airport, though a commercial property, fell
within the University's mission of education.
Mrs. Cooke asked how a commercial operation could be deemed an educational mission. Mr.
St. John said some of the University's commercial operations were clearly educational as
well, such as the cafeteria, the bookstore, and the pharmacy. In the case of the Milton
Airport, the University conducted flying lessons there. Mrs. Cooke asked if the University
could construct a shopping center and designate it for the use of students, faculty and
employees, and exempt itself from taxes and zoning laws. Mr. St. John said he supposed the
University could do this, but it could not build a shopping center purely for the purpose of
generating income for its endowment.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Lindstrom if, during the meetings about the agreement, the Univer-
sity provided a list of what it considered to be commercial operations directly related to
educational functions. Mr. Lindstrom said there was no list, but representatives did discuss
such commercial-educational operations as research parks. Mr. Fisher said defining these
uses was very difficult. He added that the University agreed to comply with the County's
zoning and taxation, regardless of the function of the operation, in Area C and this was the
most control the County has ever had over the University.
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
( P ag_e_~! 13--
If the University chose to build its new field house in Area C, Mr. Way asked, would the
County be able to control the University as it would a private developer? Mr. Fisher said
"yes". Without the agreement, Mr. Way noted, the County would be powerless.
Mrs. Cooke asked what would happen if the County did not think the University was making
reasonable efforts to comply, entered the period of arbitration, and remained unsatisfied at
the end of the arbitration period. Mr. St. John said the County's only recourse would be to
go to court and prove that the University is violating the State Code and acting outside its
educational mission. Mr. Lindstrom said he envisions another possibility: if the University
acts in a manner inconsistent with the County's land use policies, the County may then
consider the agreement breached. With the force of the public behind the wronged party and
an attempt on record to work things out, Mr. Lindstrom said, the County would be in a
stronger position to make its case to the General Assembly. Mr. St. John agreed that this
agreement might be a stronger weapon than the courts.
Since the University is the largest employer is this area, Mrs. Cooke said, she wonders
just how many people would rally around the County against the University. As the University
grows, she argued, the County may not be able to count on public opinion as a weapon. She
said she will support this agreement because it is the only tool available to the County now.
She said she does object to the provision denying parties the right to sponsor or support
certain kinds of legislation.
Mr. Bowie said he supports the agreement because he thinks it may offer the three
localities a chance to work out their differences themselves.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Way to adopt the following
agreement and authorize the Chairman to execute same on behalf of the County:
THREE PARTY AGREEMENT
The CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE; the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE; and THE RECTOR
AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, hereby agree as follows:
The University Will:
1. Voluntarily comply with the land use plans and regulations (as
exemplified by those listed in Exhibit 1) of either the City or the County
regarding the use of real estate held in Area C on the attached map.
Area C* includes all land not included in Areas A and B.
2. Voluntarily submit its construction and/or development plans for
review by the City or County to determine their compliance with land use
plans and regulations on any real estate held in Area B on the attached map;
and make reasonable efforts to comply with any recommendations received.
Area B* includes land which lies at the boundaries of or between the
University and either the City or the County and on which the activities of
any or all three of the parties might have an effect. Area B will be
designated a "study area." The City, County and University will work with
each other to try to develop a master plan for the study area perhaps by
beginning with its most critical parts. The intent is that the results of
the cooperative study will be made a part of the Comprehensive Plan of each
body.
3. Voluntarily submit its construction and/or development plans for
review by the City or County on any real estate held in Area A on the
attached map; and make reasonable efforts to comply with any recommendations
received.
Area A* includes land either on the Grounds of the University or at its
borders. Since some portions of Area A are of critical importance to the
City and County, the University also agrees that it will involve the City
and County in the development or revision of its Master Plan for land use,
and also in the study of those areas of A which, by mutual consent, will
affect the land use plans of each other.
4. Anticipate the formation of a Real Estate Foundation created for
the acquisition and development of land which would not be owned directly by
the Rector and Visitors, but which would serve University purposes. The
Real Estate Foundation will abide by all City and County land use laws and
regulations (as exemplified by Exhibit 1) regarding any property it holds.
The Foundation also will pay all applicable real estate taxes.
5. Not accept transfer of land to be used for investment purposes from
the Real Estate Foundation to itself primarily for the purpose of avoiding
the application of the City's and County's land use laws and regulations or
taxation.
6. Accept a representative of the City and County as non-voting
members of its Master Plan Committee.
7. Involve City and County representatives in site selection studies
on any major new facilities which may be planned.
*Any difference of opinion over the geographical extent of either Area
A, B, or C shall be governed by the attached map.
May 1~4, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
561
The County and/or City Will:
1. Submit to the University and to each other for review all proposed
changes in land use plans or regulations in Area B on the attached map and
make reasonable efforts to comply with any recommendations made by the other
parties.
2. Submit to the University for review all proposed changes in land
use plans or regulations in Areas A and C on the attached map and make
reasonable efforts to comply with any recommendations made by the Universi-
ty.
3. Attempt to define a desired community growth rate within its laws,
regulations, or plans and attempt to regulate development according to this
growth rate to the extent allowed by law.
4. Include a representative of the University as a non-voting member
of their planning commissions.
The City, County and the University Will:
1. Adopt the same length of land use planning period.
2. Develop and use common definitions and common land use data bases
having the same or similar data elements.
3. Adopt the same interval between major reconsiderations of their
land use plans and schedule those reconsiderations for the same year, Unless
precluded from doing so by State requirements.
4. Adopt a substantially similar topical outline for the purpose of
describing their land use plans.
5. Share drafts of their land use plans with each other for review and
comment in advance of any public hearings.
6. Indicate those portions of each other's plans with which it agrees
and do nothing during the planning period to change those portions of the
plan without mutual consultation.
7. Not sponsor, seek, nor support legislation restricting the powers
of each other regarding any of the terms of the understanding or regarding
any other matters related to taxation, land use planning, or land use
regulation except by mutual agreement.
8. Agree to non-binding arbitration of a~y disputes during the term of
this Agreement. Arbitrators shall be selected as follows:
(a) In case of disagreement involving all three parties, each party
shall select one arbitrator.
(b) In case of disagreement between any two of the parties, each party
shall select one arbitrator and these two arbitrators shall select a third.
If the first two selected are unable to agree on a third, then they shall
request the third selection be made by the judge of the Circuit Court of the
City of Charlottesville.
9. Agree these understandings may be dissolved on one year's written
notice by any party to the other two parties.
10. Take no actions which circumvent the purposes of this agreement.
BY RESOLUTION duly adoptedb¥ Council on the 21st day of April, 1986,
the Mayor was authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the City of
Charlottesville.
BY RESOLUTION duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors on the 14th day
of May, 1986, the Chairman was authorized to execute this Agreement on
behalf of the County of Albemarle.
BY RESOLUTION duly adopted by the Board of Visitors on the 31st day of
January, 1986, the President was authorized to execute this Agreement on
behalf of the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia.
Signed
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
By Francis Buck
Signed
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
By Gerald E. Fisher
THE RECTOR AND VISITORS OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
Signed By Robert M. O'Neil
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.
562
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
( Pa_~e_13d
(Note: Mr. Henley left the meeting at 11:38 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: VEPCO Clearing of Jarman Gap Estates Buffer Zone.
Removed from the final agenda. This item was deferred at the request of the citizens who
brought this matter to the County's attention.
Agenda Item No. 11. Clarification - Home Safety Repair Program Appropriation. Mr.
Agnor summarized for the Board and public the following letter from Mr. Gordon Walker, the
Executive Director for the Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA), dated May 7, 1986:
"We were very pleased to receive the allocation of $10,000 toward the work
of JABA's Home Safety Program. However, we feel that if there are restric-
tions on the use of this money for the assessment of clients, the Home
Safety Program will not be able to continue to operate effectively in
Albemarle County.
The cost of assessments is present being paid by a grant from a local
foundation. This money will not be available after June 30. Assessments
are integral to the program, since very obviously we cannot provide equip-
ment or services for clients without first knowing what their needs are and
the best way to respond.
An Occupational Therapist (O.T.R.) is specifically trained to make the type
of Home Safety assessment that we perform. She does not look only at the
client's house and whether it might be hazardous, for example, that it has a
broken stair railing. More importantly, she looks at the client's home in
terms of how the person functions in performing such activities of daily
living as cooking or bathing, and relates that to their safety. An individ-
ual who has had a stroke and is paralyzed on one side has different needs in
the type of bathroom safety equipment they use from a person with arthritis
even though they may both be at high risk of accidental falls in bathing.
Occupational therapists are professionally trained to evaluate a client's
functional abilities, and relate this to their safe performance of daily
tasks. O.T.R.'s are registered with the American Occupational Therapy
Association and in many states must meet state licensure regulations as
well.
We do not believe that a non-professional person should be performing the
type of safety assessments that we do. Our insurance carrier has indicated
that there is high risk of liability exposure if assessments and installa-
tions of equipment are not performed by, or closely supervised by, a profes-
sional. Although AHIP's expertise in housing construction is unquestioned,
they agree with us that their staff does not have the necessary professional
background to do the same type of assessment that our program performs. Our
Aging Service Specialists (outreach workers) are trained in social work and
similarly do not have the specific type of medical background that is
needed.
Therefore we believe that our Home Safety Assessments should be performed as
they presently are, by a registered Occupational Therapist. We would urge
you to reconsider your restrictions on the use of the allocated $10,000 so
that the Home Safety Program might continue in Albemarle County."
Mr. Walker was present at the meeting and offered to answer any questions from members
of the Board. He introduced Ms. Joyce Deily, an occupational-therapist. Mr. Fisher thanked
Mr. Walker and asked Mr. Gary Olivera, of the Albemarle Housing Improvement Project (AHIP),
for his opinion.
Mr. Olivera said AHIP does not perform home safety assessments, nor is there an occupa-
tional therapist on their staff. He said AHIP focuses on large scale renovations and con-
struction projects. During the course of a construction project, Mr. Olivera said, AHIP may
install wheelchair ramps, grab bars, or widen doorways, but AHIP usually does these things
only in the course of a larger project. He said his group is not trained to audit homes for
safety the way an occupational therapist might. He said he would prefer that JABA handle
these jobs.
Mr. Way said he supported the $10,000 increase in funding to JABA and did not want to do
anything to jeopardize the program. However, he said, he did not want most of this money to
be spent on an occupational therapist, rather than on the repairs that the people really
need. If most of the jobs are minor, he asked, why must a professional be hired to inspect
the work?
Mr. Olivera said AHIP would respond to as many of JABA's large construction projects as
possible, maybe as many as two a month. This would at least keep JABA from having to hire a
handyman or carpenter.
Ms. Joyce Deily addressed Mr. Way's concern. As an occupational therapist, she said,
she does not look at the person's house, but the person himself. If a person has had a
stroke, leaving him with a paralyzed hand and foot, and must go up and dOwn stairs, she would
recommend that this person have a handrail on both sides of the staircase. She says she must
ask herself how she can keep a particular individual, with particular disabilities, secure in
his or her home. Ms. Deily said JABA requested $11,356 each for salaries for herself and a
part-time handyman. She said the City funded this amount without restrictions.
Mr. Lindstrom said he and Mr. Way were concerned that JABA's bureaucracy might grow
without providing any corresponding increase in services. He asked Ms. Deily how much of the
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 14)
563
$10,000 would be spent for her salary. She said she did not have those figures. He asked
how much of this $10,000 would be spent on actual improvements. Ms. Deily said $18,000 for
her salary would come from the $21,356 given by the County and City. Mr. Bowie noted that
did not leave much money for improvements. Last year, Ms. Deily said, the funds given by the
County paid for equipment only and foundations paid for her salary. Mr. Fisher said this was
the intent of the Board this year as well.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the foundations were doing their part this year. Ms. Deily said at
least one foundation, Alton-Jones, may be withdrawing its support this year, but she will not
know for sure until June. She said it is easier to get money for equipment from foundations
than for salaries. The Board must not forget, however, she said, that programs do not run
themselves.
Mr. Bowie said he supported funding the Home Safety Repair Program because he thought
this money would go toward fixing houses. He said he will not support changing the restric-
tions.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the suppliers of the home safety equipment could inform JABA how
their equipment is to be installed and used. Ms. Deily said she is uncertain how detailed
this information would be.
Mr. Walker said .the point he and Ms. Deily were trying to make was that a professional
assessment must be completed for the job to be done properly. He said he could work out an
arrangement with the Board that no more than half of the $10,000 would be used for assess-
ments. Mr. Fisher said he wanted the funding to go only for repairs. Mr. Bowie added that
the money should go only for minor repairs not covered by another County program.
Mr. Lindstrom said it worries him that the Home Safety Repair Program seems to be
evolving after the budget process, without the benefit of analysis by the staff. He said he
has learned to be wary of programs that grow this way. Mr. Walker said JABA stated in its
proposal that the funding would be used for assessments; his group is not guilty of subter-
fuge. He said his group has been honest and straightforward in its request for funding.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Walker if he would rather not have the $10,000, if it might
create a dangerous situation, having equipment installed without the help of an occupa-
tional-therapist and resulting in JABA's insurance rates increasing. Mr. Walker said if the
money could not be used for the purposes stated by the Board, JABA would return the funding.
Mr. Way asked if the funding could be used for the costs of installing the equipment, or
was it to be reserved for materials only. Mr. Tucker answered that the Board allowed some of
these funds to be spent on installation, since AHIP could not perform some of the tasks JABA
undertook.
Mr. Fisher asked if there were a motion to change the restrictions placed by the Board
on this funding. There was no such motion, so JABA's request was denied.
Agenda Item No. 12. AHIP Semi-Annual Report. Mr. ~liver~ said AHIP completed 19 units
from October 1, 1985, to March 31, 1986. He presented photographs of twelve of these
projects, which occurred throughout the County and involved remodeling bathrooms and kitch-
ens, putting on new roofs, and installing running water and electricity. The costs of
materials and subcontracts to complete these projects totaled $151,672; direct labor costs
were $81,708; and, administrative costs were $74,505. The County contributed 31 percent of
the total of $307,885, or $96,849. (A copy of this report is on file in the Clerk's office.)
Mr. Fisher commended Mr. ~livero on the thoroughness of this report. Mrs. Cooke said
she never ceased to be amazed at what AHIP accomplishes with its resources.
Mr. Fisher commented that AHIP will celebrate its tenth birthday on July 1, 1986. He
suggested that AHIP find some way to let the community know what AHIP has done for them over
those ten years.
At 12:15 P.M., the Board recessed for lunch and reconvened at 1:30 P.M.
present at this time.
Mr. Henley was
Agenda Item No. 13. 1:30 P.M. Public Hearing: Ordinance to Increase Salary of Board
of Supervisors. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 29 and May 6, 1986.)
Mr. Agnor said the three and one-half percent increase in salaries made available to
County employees can be extended to Board members as well. This increase would add $251 to
the each Board member's base salary, bringing salaries up to $7,427. He said the stipends
for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman would remain the same. The effective date would be
July 1, 1986.
Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. Since there was no one who wished to address this
issue, Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the ordinance as advertised. Mr. Way 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.
An Ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2-2.1 of the Albemarle County
Code entitled "Compensation of board of Supervisors" to increase such
compensation by an inflation factor of three and one-half percent as allowed
by Virginia Code Section 14.1-46.01:1(2).
564
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Sec. 2-2.1. Compensation of board of supervisors.
The salary of the board of supervisors is hereby set as follows:
Seven thousand four hundred and twenty-seven dollars for each board
member; provided, that in addition to his/her regular salary, the vice-
chairman shall receive a stipend of one thousand two hundred dollars;
provided, further, that in addition to his/her regular salary, the chairman
shall receive a stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars. This shall
be effective on and after July 1, 1986.
Agenda Item No. 14. Request from School Board for Funds for Classified Employee Merit
Plan. The following memorandum from Mr. Agnor to the Board, dated May 9, 1986, outlines the
County Executive's recommendation on the merit plan:
"As you may be aware from the news media, the School Division is considering
the implementation of a merit pay (incentive pay) plan for the classified
employees in the school system. Attached is a description of the plan being
recommended by the school staff to the School Board at their regular meeting
Monday night, May 12.
If the School Board adopts the recommendation without major changes, it will
be on your Wednesday (May 14) agenda for discussion and funding. If major
changes are made, it will be removed from your agenda for a later meeting.
The plan is basically the same as used in general government. The perfor-
mance evaluation system, which is the underlying plan to determine the
levels of performance, is also the same.
It is recommended that the plan be funded, if requested by the School
Board."
Mr. Overstreet addressed the Board and said the School Board has approved the plan
contingent upon receiving funding. He asked that the Board grant the Schools the supplemen-
tal funding necessary to implement the project this year.
Mr. Fisher asked how the plan would be implemented and what percentage of employees
would receive increases. Mr. Overstreet said a remuneration system would be attached to the
present system of evaluation. He said the School's classified employees were in their second
year of this system of evaluation, which is the same used by classified employees throughout
the County. This system of evaluation, he said, includes three areas of assessment: the job
description checklist, performance characteristics checklist and a summary. Rather than
devise another system of evaluation, Mr. Overstreet said, administrators would use these
criteria to place employees in one of four levels of merit: Level One, unsatisfactory and
not recommended for re-employment; Level Two, unsatisfactory with no recommended increase in
salary; Level Three, satisfactory and eligible for the basic salary increase of three and
one-half percent; and Level Four, outstanding and recommended for a higher increase, not to
exceed five percent.
Mr. Fisher asked if the $72,397 was one and two-thirds percent of the total salary pool
for classified employees. Mr. Overstreet said "yes". Mr. Fisher asked if the School Board
planned to authorize the program to be effective by July 1, 1986, rather than coming due on
each employee's anniversary date. Mr. Overstreet said "yes", most of the School's employees
began their employment in either May or June anyway.
If the salaries of some of the employees are frozen, Mr. Fisher said, there will be
additional salary money that may be available for merit pay, which might result in more than
one-third of the employees receiving the five percent merit increase. He asked Mr.
Overstreet if the Schools really needed the amount requested to implement the plan. Mr.
Overstreet said what Mr. Fisher said may be true, but he will not know for sure until he
knows how many employees fall into each category. Mr. Fisher said the County has experienced
such merit pay systems get out of hand. Mr. Overstreet said the School Board would like to
have the full amount funded, although, he said, it may not spend that much. He said School
administrators, for their merit pay plan, have accepted the amount available for the pool as
the limit of what would be spent, no matter how many outstanding evaluations were achieved.
Mr. Lindstrom said he supported this plan and felt the request was reasonable and
perhaps could be adjusted if experience proved the plan to be over-funded. He commended the
School Board for cutting the general increase to three and one-half percent. If less than
one-third of the employees qualified for the merit pay increase, he asked, would the extra
funds in the pool be divided among those who did qualify, giving them more than five percent
raises? Mr. Overstreet said that could not happen, because the Board has limited the merit
increase to five percent.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor if he wished to comment on the plan. Mr. Agnor said he had
worked closely with Mr. Overstreet on the merit pay plan for the School's classified employ-
ees and thought the plan was something the County has needed for a long time. He recommended
the Board grant the funds requested.
Mr. Bowie said he was pleased to have all County classified employees on a similar merit
pay plan. He asked Mr. Overstreet if one-third was the limit on the number of employees who
could receive merit pay increases. Mr. Overstreet said "no", limits were placed on the
amount of money available in the salary pool and the amount of money an individual could
receive. Mr. Bowie asked if it were conceivable that all employees could receive a one and
one-half percent raise. Mr. Overstreet said it was possible, but unlikely and would probably
mean the plan had to be revised.
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Although he supports the plan, Mr. Bowie said, he is leery of funding the request this
early, before anyone knows how many employees will receive what kinds of raises. Mr.
Overstreet said he would know the answers to these questions in July. Mr. Bowie said he
would rather agree to fund the plan, but hold the funds until Schools administrators have
completed their evaluations of classified employees and can present the exact cost of the
plan, rather than basing the request on projections.
Mr. Lindstrom said he supported funding the request now, because the merit plan was
something the Board had asked the School Board to develop. He asked Mr. Overstreet if the
merit pay increases were vested. Mr. Overstreet said this issue was still open to discus-
sion. He said the merit pay plan for administrators was changed this year to make part of
their salary increases vested and part not vested. Perhaps this combination could work for
classified employees as well, he suggested. The objective of the plan, he said, is to reward
top performers in a way that means most to them. He said he would like to learn what the
classified employees want before making a decision on how the raise will be awarded.
Mr. Way said he supported the plan and was pleased to see the cooperation between
General Government and the Schools.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve the appropriation which follows:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $90,496 be, and the same is hereby, transferred from the
Board of Supervisors Contingency Account to the School Fund entitled "Salary
Reserve, Merit"; and
FURTHER, that the appropriation is effective this date.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Overstreet to report to the Board in July the results of the
evaluation and what portion of the funds requested would be expended. Mr. Overstreet agreed.
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. 15. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Recommendation Effective July 1, 1986.
Agnor presented the following memorandum, dated May 9, 1986:
"The recent announcement that the University of Virginia Hospital and
physicians would not participate in the KeyCare program prompted a meeting
between Andy Overstreet, Bill Brent, Carol Hastings and Carl Omohundro,
local manager for Blue Cross, and myself. The purpose of the meeting was to
explore the possibility of offering an optional medical plan effective
July 1, which would be available to employees at their added expense and
which would fully cover the University Hospital and staff.
The Blue Cross representative offered us rates for the KeyCare plan and for
the 7510 plan that the County offered prior to implementing KeyCare. Both
plans would be equal in the mental health benefits offered, i.e. 70 days
inpatient and $3500 per year outpatient. In reviewing projected rates for
these plans, we were told that the KeyCare Plan would cost $656 annually for
individual (subscriber) coverage effective July 1. This represents a $32
annual reduction in rates from that which is currently being paid. The
reduction is due to the University of Virginia's failure to participate in
KeyCare; thus the plan does not have to be rated to cover a medical center's
costs. Family coverage under KeyCare effective July 1 would cost $1195, an
annual reduction of $59 from current rates.
The 7510 plan would cost $788 annually for individual (subscriber) coverage,
or a $100 annual cost increase over current KeyCare rates. Family coverage
would be $1568 annually, an additional annual increase of $313 over and
above the $100 increase for the subscriber coverage.
The offering of two options would not result in two separate groups for
expenses although rates would be determined by the experience of the indi-
viduals participation in each plan. Statistically it is anticipated that
higher cost risks would result for the 7510 plan option. Employees who need
or are seeking treatment at the medical center will choose the 7510 plan
thus resulting in higher costs being incurred by this group. The rates for
7510 would then rise dramatically after one year because of this adverse
selection. Many 7510 participants may then find the cost prohibitive and
choose to change to KeyCare. The problem, however, is that all expenses
need to be paid out of one pool. The only way to raise the necessary
revenue would be to raise the rates of all participants in the medical plan
including those KeyCare members who chose the cost containment program, and
who otherwise may have enjoyed a rate reduction.
Because of this rating projection, our recommendation to our respective
board is that only the KeyCare plan be offered in 1986-87. It is further
recommended that rates be maintained at current levels. This recommendation
is based on two factors:
a. the need to replenish our plan's reserve
b. the fact that the reduced rates were based on the University's
nonparticipation in KeyCare. If the University did choose to join
Mr.
566
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1_7)__
as a provider, costs would rise and we would need funds to cover
this possibility.
The projected experience with preferred provider plans such as KeyCare is
that rates should decrease. Even with our limited experience since January
we are seeing this trend begin. By allowing our full group to have one year
of KeyCare experience, it is hoped that rates will reduce and that savings
can be considered toward other benefit options such as dental coverage,
disability insurance, additional life insurance, annuities, etc.
It is important to realize that our employees can still utilize the Univer-
sity of Virginia Hospital and its physicians under the KeyCare plan if they
choose to do so. Employees using University facilities will have approxi-
mately 80 percent of the rates paid. However, there is a $1,000 limit per
year to the amount an employee could incur in out-of-pocket expenses. When
a KeyCare provider cannot provide the medical service, the University charge
will be paid in full.
Given the above, we firmly believe that offering KeyCare as the only alter-
native in 1986-87 is the best course of action and request that the Board
support this recommendation."
Mr. Lindstrom said he was pleased to see the School Board and the Albemarle County
Service Authority decide to stay with the KeyCare plan. He said the plan is very reasonable
and thinks the County should stay with it. In time, he said, he believes the University will
become a provider of KeyCare services. He would not like to switch health care plans and
perhaps signal to the University that the Board thought the University had done the right
thing.
Mr. Bowie said he agreed with Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Fisher asked if the seventy-day, in-patient mental health benefits were an improve-
ment over the current KeyCare coverage. Mr. Agnor said "no", but that it was different from
the normal KeyCare coverage, which paid for thirty days in-patient and $2,000 out-patient.
Mr. Agnor said the seventy-day, in-patient mental health benefits have been in effect since
January.
Mrs. Cooke asked why the University of Virginia Medical Center did not want to partici-
pate in the KeyCare plan. Mr. Agnor said there was a disagreement over whether certain
medical procedures were to be considered primary or tertiary care, which are billed at
different rates. Another point of contention, he said, is the fifteen percent discount,
which is used throughout Virginia by every doctor and hospital involved in the KeyCare
program. The University medical staff has agreed to only an eight percent discount, which is
unacceptable to Blue Cross.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to accept the recommendation of the County Executive to
continue with KeyCare Health insurance as the only option for County employees through the FY
1986-87 with insurance premiums remaining the same. Mr. Way 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. 17. Sale of White Hall School. Mr. Bowie presented the following
memorandum from the Building Committee, dated May 7, 1986:
"On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, the Building Committee and staff
have:
Had the White Hall School property surveyed and appraised as
requested.
Negotiated a purchase price with the Poats family for purchase of
the 0.7 acre tract.
Determined there is no beneficial and cost effective use of the
property.
Recommendation - Based on the Committee and staff findings, the Committee
recommends the County offer the entire tract for sale and buy the 0.7 acre
tract in order to prevent the creation of a substandard lot in that com-
munity. In order to accomplish the above, the Committee recommends the
Board of Supervisors take official action to:
1)
Adopt a resolution of intent to buy the Poats family's interest in
the 0.7 acre tract for $2500.
2)
Authorize staff to advertise the property (2.7 acre tract) and
sell it by sealed bids in late May or early June 1986.
3) Authorize the Chairman of the Board to sign the necessary deeds.
In opinion of the Committee, the time is right due to low interest rates to
sell this property. There are at least six different people interested in
the property."
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(paqe 18)
567
Mr. Bowie added that the purchase of the Poats' property was contingent upon the sale of
the total package, the .07 acres belonging to the Poats and the White Hall School property.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to authorize staff to proceed to buy the Poats family's inter-
est in the 0.7 acre tract for $2,500 and to advertise the property (2.7 acre tract) and sell
it by sealed bids and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to sign the
necessary deeds. 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. 18. Discussion of City/County Fire Service Contract.
sented the following memorandum, dated May 5, 1986:
Mr. Jones pre-
"After two internal studies of the past fire services provided by the City,
and the related costs; almost one year of negotiations between the staff of
the County Executive's office and the City Manager's office; review by the
Jefferson Country Firefighter's Association (JCFA) and County Volunteer
Chief's Association; the attached City/County Fire Service Contract is ready
for final action by you and City Council.
The recent review by JCFA added the requirement that the City use the
response forms developed by JCFA and currently being used by all Volunteer
Fire Companies in the County. A second recent change by the Volunteer
Chief's Association was to change the type of response in category 92 of the
addendum from a 'sounded' fire alarm to a 'structural' fire alarm. This
means the City will respond only to fires in buildings unless called in by
the Volunteer Company at the scene. Also, the Chiefs agreed to review their
individual requests of supplemental service from the City each year and make
any changes necessary in the level of service from the City.
Staff recommends that you take official action to enact the contract effec-
tive July 1, 1986. The 1986-87 budget allocation for this service was based
on the $370,000 figure in the contract."
Mr. Jones said the staff and the JCFA studied whether the City's level of service was
adequate, if all the responses made were necessary and was the service too costly. Each fire
company was asked to assess the needs of its area. In areas such as Crozet, Mr. Jones said,
volunteer fireman have jobs nearby, so the fire stations can be manned 24 hours a day. In
some of the less populated areas such as ston~'~oint, he said, volunteer fireman must travel
further to their jobs and cannot be available to respond to calls in their area. The adden-
dum to the contract contains what the chiefs of each fire company requested for their areas.
Mr. Jones said the staff and the JCFA also studied funding. He said the City requested
that the County increase its contribution this year by $100,000. The County staff negotiated
an agreement with the City staff that spreads the payment over four years, plus the annual
change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Mr. Jones said one/%the questions raised by this investigation was whether it was time
for the County to create its own paid fire service company. He said the staff concluded that
it could not establish a fire service company by July 1, 1986, but the negotiated contract
keeps future options open. Whatever happens, Mr. Jones said, it was important to remember
that the fire service contract is intended to supplement, rather than replace, the volunteer
system.
Mr. Fisher asked what the value of the CPI was today. Mr. Agnor said it was 2.3 percent
ve~ the past twelve months. Mr. Fisher said the contract was confusing: in one place, the
contract mentions increasing the amount by the CPI, and in another place, multiplying the
whole year's budget by the CPI. He suggested that these parts of the contract be rewritten
to make them clearer.
The County agreed to pay $25,000 each year for the next four years, Mr. Bowie said, yet
the County is also beginning a program which will reduce the need for the City's fire ser-
vice. He asked why this was the case. Mr. Jones said the contract was negotiated on a
year-to-year basis: if at the end of FY 1986, the County decided it no longer needed the
City's fire services, it would withdraw from the contract, paying only $25,000 instead of the
$100,000 increase originally requested.
Mr. Fisher asked if the firemen were happy with the contract. Mr. Jones said "yes";
they were in on the creation of this agreement. Admitting that it was difficult to work the
interests of each fire company into one document, Mr. Jones compared the effort to quail-
hunting, saying sometimes the representatives of each fire company flew in several different
directions. Finally, he said, they managed to create an agreement that satisfied everyone.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to authorize the Chairman to sign the contract with the
changes noted. 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, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
None.
None.
CITY/COUNTY FIRE SERVICE CONTRACT
THIS AGREEMENT made this 14th day of May, 1986, by and between the CITY
OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, hereinafter called "CITY" and the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, hereinafter called "COUNTY".
568
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
( Pa~_ 19_1______
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the County annually provides funds to the City as part of the
City operating budget, in sufficient amount and for the purpose of equipping
and manning the equivalent of one fire company of mutually agreed upon
strength and equipment; and
WHEREAS, the above described fire company is logistically supported by
the City from funds provided by the County; and
WHEREAS, the principal purpose for the establishment and existence of
the said fire company is to provide supplementary fire protection for the
County, and in particular the urban area of the County; although this fire
company is available for suppression of any fires in the City, the County,
or central Virginia, as the occasion may require; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the County hereby agree as follows:
(1) The City has included in its budget for fiscal year 1986-87 the sum
of $370,060 as the County's share of the cost of manning, equipping and
housing the Company with the City fire department. Such budgeted amount has
been reviewed and approved by the County, through its budget process, and
such sum will be appropriated by the Board of Supervisors of the County.
(2) The County agrees to make quarterly payments to the City of such
appropriated sum, payable on July 1st, October 1st, January 1st, and April
1st in the amount of 25 percent of the appropriated sum, for the services to
be rendered by the City hereunder during the ensuing quarter.
(3) A. The City agrees to furnish to the County fire fighting assis-
tance to augment the services of the seven County volunteer fire companies
(see attached addendum for listing of current levels of service). Such
service shall provide for an automatic mutual aid response between the City
and County which means that the City fire department shall dispatch the
closest paid engine company available on alarms to the County in accord with
responses as stipulated by the chiefs of stations within the County. The
Chiefs of the County volunteer companies shall review the level of responses
with the City Fire Chief at least annually and revise the responses (running
cards) as needed by the County. The County-owned units assigned to the City
may be utilized for responses to augment the service in the City, and shall
remain under the administrative and logistical control of the City of
Charlottesville Fire Chief.
B. Other supporting services such as unified central radio
dispatching for all County volunteer companies; provisions of aerial ladder
response on a special request basis; utilization of the jointly-owned air
utility vehicle; and other services as have been past practice shall con-
tinue.
C. The City shall assign an incident number to all responses
inclusive of the volunteer companies and paid company. In event of dual or
multi-unit responses, only one number shall be assigned to all responding
units.
The City shall report all responses in the County on standard
forms designated by the County immediately following each response.
(4) Ail personnel employed pursuant to this agreement shall continue to
be considered as City employees for all purposes, including but not limited
to pay and classification, personnel regulations, retirement benefits and
grievance procedures.
(5) A. On or before December 1st in each fiscal year for which this
agreement remains in force, the City shall submit the projected fee for fire
services to the County for the continuance of existing services for an
additional year, as well as an increased fee proposed for any additional
services or levels of service which the County may have requested.
The fee shall be based upon an adjustment calculated by using
the percentage change in the consumer price index (C.P.I.) as certified by
the Tayloe Murphy Institute of the University of Virginia, for the preceding
calendar year; over the base amount established in FY 1987. Each succeeding
year the prior year's base amount shall be increased by the percentage
change in C.P.I. In years where the projected costs are greater or less
than the percentage change in the C.P.I., the City Manager and the County
Executive shall mutually agree upon a fee for service that takes into
consideration special funding requirements to be included in the approaching
fiscal year.
B. The fee for fire service charged to the County will also
include another component in the annual calculation. In addition to the
annual calculation of the fee for fire service (as stipulated above), an
additional cost of $25,000 per year for the next four years beginning with
FY 86-87 shall be included in the calculation to arrive at an additional
charge of $100,000 above the agreed upon budget cost. (For example, if the
percentage change in the C.P.I. is reported by Tayloe Murphy Institute as
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)__
56 9
three percent in 1986, four percent in 1987, and five percent in 1988, the
calculation shall be:
For FY 1987/88 $370,060 X 103% + $25,000 = $406,162
For FY 1988/89 $406,162 X 104% + $25,000 = $447,408
For FY 1989/90 $447,408 X 105% + $25,000 = $494,778
C. Such fee for fire service charge shall be subject to review
through the County's normal budget procedures, and to final approval for
funding by the County Board of Supervisors; provided that should the Board
appropriate more or less than the proposed amount, the City shall advise the
Board of the resultant changes in levels of service, manning or other
reductions occasioned by such changes in funding.
(6) This agreement shall remain in force from year to year unless
terminated by either party. In the event either party desires to terminate
such agreement at the end of any fiscal year it shall so advise the other
party not later than 30 days after the beginning of such fiscal year. Such
notice shall be given in writing mailed by certified mail to the City
Manager in the case of the City or to the County Executive in the case of
the County.
Agenda Item No. 19. Discussion of Business Licenses on Book Royalties. The following
memorandum, dated February 28, 1986, was received from Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of
Finance:
"Based on the Albemarle County Business License Ordinance, Virginia Depart--
ment of Taxation guidelines, and an opinion issued by the Virginia Attorney
General's Office, royalties earned may be. subject to the local business
license.
These royalties would be subject to a license if the person is determined to
be engaged in business. If the person represents themselves to be an author
and the royalties received represent a significant portion of their income,
they would be considered to be engaged in business. Also, if the royalties
are from revisable books such as textbooks or technical manuals, they are
considered as payment for services and subject to a license. Royalties from
a one time or occasional fictional book are not subject to the license tax
since the person is normally not considered to be engaged in business.
As you can well imagine, home occupations of this nature are the most
difficult areas for this office to obtain compliance with the license
ordinance. Basically, the only way we have knowledge of these types of
businesses is contact from the individual or information provided by the
Virginia Department of Taxation. In the case in question, we received a
copy of the individual's business income schedules from the Virginia Depart-
ment of Taxation.
These schedules are normally sent to the localities each year by the
Virginia Department of Taxation, however, based on our files, the 1984
schedules were the first ones ever received for this individual~
Based on the information on this schedule, the individual's gross royalties
exceeded the $5000 exemption provided in the license ordinance. This office
requested by mail that the individual file a license application for the
current license year (1985) and the three preceding years (1984, 1983,
1982). This request was made based on Section 11-15 of the Albemarle County
Code which also requires the assessment of penalties as provided by Section
11-12."
Mr. Lindstrom presented a memorandum, dated May 14, 1986, in which he argued that the
Board should repeal the business license tax on book royalties. He said Dr. Frank Langford,
who was present at the meeting, had brought to his attention some of the problems inherent in
taxing royalties.
This tax, he said, is assessed upon individuals who may do nothing in the County but
write and revise a book. All the editing, printing, publishing, marketing, sales, distribu-
tion and accounting for the books is done by the publisher. Moreover, he said, it is
unlikely that anyone receiving royalties will know that such income is subject to the
County's business tax.
Mr. Lindstrom said he believed the County's ability to asses this tax uniformly and
fairly is limited. Unless reported by the individual, the only way this section of the
business license tax can be reasonably enforced is for the County to learn of the royalty
income from schedules filed with federal income tax forms. Royalty income reported as such
on a Schedule E will be picked up by the Finance Department as subject to the business
license tax. However, he said, such income may be reported under "other income" on a tax
form without .being shown on Schedule E. In such a case, the finance department will not know
of the royalty income. There is no penalty for reporting royalty income either way to the
I.R.S.
Similar endeavors, Mr. Lindstrom continued, are not taxed. The author of a book of
fiction who may receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in royalties is not subject to a
business license tax. Nor is the tax levied on a work of non-fiction, unless the author
revises the book. Mr. Lindstrom said these circumstances produced some complicated legal
questions. If a book is written and five years later a publisher requests that a revision be
57O
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
produced, is the author required to pay tax retroactively upon all the royalties he has
received to that point?
For what it is worth, Mr. Lindstrom said, the City has deleted this tax from its tax
code. For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Lindstrom said, he requested that the Board consider
the adoption of a resolution of intent to amend the County's tax ordinance to delete the
assessment of the business license tax upon book royalties.
Mr. Bowie asked how many people were affected by this tax and why revision triggered the
tax. Mr. Lindstrom said it is the State Attorney's opinion that a single transaction does
not constitute business: writing one book would not subject an author to the tax. If an
author writes a revision of his book, Mr. Lindstrom said, then the State Attorney considers
that author to be transacting business.
Mr. Fisher asked Dr. Langford if he would like to comment on this tax. Dr. Langford
said the business of producing a book is undertaken by the publisher, not the author. He
said he had been writing books for over forty years, and had no idea he needed a business
license, until he received a notice from the Finance Office stating he was delinquent by four
years in the filing of an application for a business license. He said the Finance Department
had just received statements from the I.R.S. that he had been receiving royalties for the
past four years. He said he does not understand why it took four years for this information
to reach the Finance Department. He did not know he had to have a business license and now
he must pay a penalty for not filing. He said he has paid the retroactive taxes on royalties
from several books that have not yet been revised. If the publisher decides that the books
will never be revised, he asked, will he be reimbursed the amount of these taxes? He said he
understands that very few Counties assess this tax in the first place. He said he thinks it
is unreasonable to require a business license for a creative effort.
Mr. St. John said he would like to clear up some misunderstandings before the discussion
proceeds. He said it does not matter whether writing books is a business; the State Code
allows localities to assess a license tax on businesses, trades, professions, occupations and
callings, which has been defined by the Supreme Court as any activity by which a person makes
his living. An isolated transaction, or irregular transactions, do not constitute activities
by which a person makes his living. If an author makes his living from his writing, a
locality may require a business license tax be paid.
Mr. St. John said whether the book was revised had nothing to do with whether the tax
should be paid. Nor, he said, does it matter whether an author writes fiction or
non-fiction.
Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. St. John had convinced him that it would be wrong to repeal the
tax on royalties from books without exempting other people who earn a living through-creativ-
ity. He asked that the Board review this aspect of the tax code and decide whether it is
something that can be applied uniformly, making it a fair tax.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Breeden if the County collected this tax from other authors. Mr.
Breeden said there were between ten and fifteen authors now licensed in the County. Although
this does not bring the County much revenue, he said, the staff is concerned that Mr.
Lindstrom's recommendation would encourage people practicing a number of other occupations to
ask for the same exemption.
Mrs. Cooke said she felt it was unfair for members of some professions to pay taxes
while members of others are exempted. Just because taxing some professions may be difficult,
she said, is no reason to exempt them.
Mr. Lindstrom said this was an important consideration, and he asked that the Board to
set aside an hour, after learning more about the scope of the tax and the revenues it brings
in, and discuss this further. Mr. Bowie said he agreed with Mrs. Cooke, but would not mind
learning more about the issue and discussing it further. Mr. Fisher said he would work with
the staff to set up a work session on this matter.
Agenda Item No. 20. Authorization to Create Internal Service Fund - Duplicating Costs.
Mr. Breeden presented the following memorandum, dated May 2, 1986:
"In an effort to better monitor the costs incurred for purchase and opera-
tion of duplicating equipment we have established an internal service fund
in which all expenses will be recorded and coded to the individual machines
involved. These costs will be redistributed to the various County depart-
ments based on number of copies actually made.
The establishment of this fund will not result in any additional expendi-
tures by the County, only a different method of accounting for these
expenses. Revenues recorded in this fund will be from the charges to the
various County departments where appropriations have already been made for
this type of expense.
State guidelines set out by code however do require approval by the Board of
Supervisors for expenditure of these funds. Therefore, I am requesting
approval of the appropriations as listed on the attached appropriation form.
I will also be submitting in the near future a budget for this fund for
fiscal year 1986/87."
Mr. Fisher said his experience with the system proposed by Mr. Breeden is that it
requires more bookkeeping: somebody has to keep track of all the copies made and who will
pay for them. Mr. Breeden said he thought the plan would be worth the extra bookkeeping in
the long run. Most of the copying, he said, has already been centralized. All the new
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
~Paqe 22) :_
system would do would be to gather the copying machines scatted throughout various depart-
ments into the system and make sure that employees from one department who use a copying
machine in another department record the copies they made so that these copies are charged to
the right department.
Mr. Bowie asked why it mattered if one department used a copying machine belonging to
another department. Mr. Breeden said staff was not concerned about a few copies. What is
important, he said, is the purchase of a copy machine, which costs a lot of money and dis-
torts the budget of the departments that buy them. Mr. Breeden said establishing an inter-
nal service fund for duplicating costs would eventually provide the funds necessary to
purchase copiers so that the money would not have to come out of any department's annual
operating budget. He also reminded the Board that the Audit Committee had recommended the
establishment of internal service funds.
Mr. Fisher said he still questioned how cost-effective it would be to track every copy
made in General Government. He said he would support trying the system for a year and asked
the staff to note how much time it took for bookkeepping.
Mr. Way offered motion to approve an appropriation of $36,172 to establish an Internal
Service Fund as outlined in the memorandum from Mr. Breeden. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the
motion. There was no further discussion. 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. 21. Discussion of Services Received from the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission (TJPDC). Mr. Tucker presented the following report on the TJPDC.
"TJPDC was formed by charter in 1971, representing the City of
Charlottesville, Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson counties.
Since its inception, the TJPDC has been involved in many different activi-
ties which have involved Albemarle either directly or in most cases indi-
rectly. Some of these include:
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
Charlottesville - Albemarle Regional Wastewater Plan (early 70's);
Various Housing Plans;
A-95 Review now referred to as Intergovernmental Review Process
(IGR);
Involved in the establishment of various service agencies such as
JAUNT, JABA, Jordan Development Corp., Thomas Jefferson Housing
Improvement Corp., Job Training Partnership and others;
Economic Development;
Small Business Loans;
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); and
Depository for Demographic and Statistical Data
Should Albemarle decide to withdraw from the Commission, most of the respon-
sibility for continued coordination of some of these activities would be
assumed by the County's existing planning staff. As the need for some
additional regional cooperative effort may arise, separate task forces may
need to be appointed to deal with each need and the staffing responsibility
may be cumbersome and at times burdensome.
There are two activities which the TJPDC currently administers which should
be discussed. The IGR Process, which is the review of any project which
uses federal or state funding, we believe would be handled by the state
simply notifying the locality most directly impacted by a project and
soliciting their comment. Costs to the County for that process would be too
small to be calculable, and would be absorbed within existing appropria-
tions.
The other activity involves the MPO. TJPDC currently serves as the fiscal
and administrative agent for the MPO. If the County and/or City were to
withdraw from the Commission, the MPO Policy Committee would have to assign
the fiscal and administrative responsibilities to either the County or City
staff. Funding for those tasks are available from the Urban Mass Transit
Administration (UMTA), and therefore would not require County funds.
The County maintains a very active and responsible planning effort and
coordination between the County, City and University (which are the areas
most frequently impacting one another) exists and continues to improve.
However, the benefits gained through monthly meetings with the surrounding
localities is important to the region. Staff does question the cost benefit
of our participation. We would suggest that the County's representatives
explore the option of a more administrative staffing of the Commission, a
staff that would handle the day-to-day needs of the Commission, providing a
liaison with state and federal agencies and technical expertise only when
contracted for specifically by the locality in need of a service. One
example could be for the County to contract for the services of a housing
specialist as was funded earlier this year in our Planning Department. This
was a part-time funded position which could be made a full-time position at
TJPDC if needed by other localities.
To conclude, our current staff and budget can handle any additional workload
that may be needed as a result of the County withdrawal fr. om the TJPDC.
There will be occasions in the future, however, when the TJPDC could provide
572
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
the mechanism for obtaining information or establishing a cooperative
solution to mutual issues."
Mr. Fisher said the TJPDC was once the conduit which carried Federal money for sewers
and other projects to the County and the City. Now that Federal funds are no longer forth-
coming, he said, the review function the TJPDC once filled may no longer be important. What
remains important, he said, is that the County and surrounding areas continue to communicate
and cooperate. The County is the only jurisdiction in the TJPDC that borders all the member
localities. If there is going to be a TJPDC, if there is going to be any cooperation in this
area, he said, the County must be a part of it. He said he hoped the County representatives
to the TJPDC would work to find a new role for the organization, rather than threaten to
withdraw their support.
Mr. Lindstrom said he agreed with the staff's recommendation that the TJPDC retain a
core staff consisting of a director and secretarial assistance, to monitor the paperwork
concerning the use of State funds and to provide planning assistance as it is needed. He
said he thought this structure could be funded through the State and, when additional funding
was necessary, on a continuing per capita basis. He said it is difficult to assess the value
of some of the TJPDC's programs to the County. He said the County benefits from residents of
the surrounding Counties: they come to the County and City to work and shop. If the other
jurisdictions are interested in restructuring the staff of the TJPDC, he thinks it would be a
good idea. Mr. Lindstrom also suggested that the TJPDC's charter be changed to reduce the
number of representatives required from each County, since he thought the current number of
representatives was unwieldy.
Mr. Fisher said he thought it would be helpful to reduce the number of meetings. Mr.
Bowie said the TJPDC has tried that, as well as voting by mail and telephone whenever it was
legal.
Mr. Bowie said he thought the TJPDC sometimes served the County well and mentioned an
incident in which Orange, Louisa and Greene Counties planned to dump sludge near the
Albemarle County line. There was a good chance that the sludge might drain into the County
water supply, Mr. Bowie said, yet the County would not have known of this possibility without
the TJPDC. Earlier this year, Mr. Bowie said, members of the TJPDC formed a committee to
study a better way to fund the services the TJPDC offers. The committee recommended that
the per capita rates be raised 30 percent, but the jurisdictions did not fund this increase.
Although he feels it would be a mistake to disband the organization, Mr. Bowie said, it
cannot continue to provide the same services at the same level of funding. He said the TJPDC
should accept a smaller role in planning at the jurisdictional level.
During a meeting on May 22, 1986, Mr. Bowie continued, the TJPDC will hear a staff
briefing and a general overview by each member jurisdiction. Then the members will vote
whether to disband the organization. He said he hoped the TJPDC could come up with some
alternatives to disbanding during the preceding discussion.
Agenda Item No. 22. Approval of McIntire Associates Letter of Credit.
When McIntire School was sold to McIntire Village Associates, Mr. St. John said, the
County received a deed of trust for $550,000, which was the larger part of the purchase
price. The original agreement provided for the deed of trust to be substituted by a letter
of credit, which means that the County would have given up its security in the real estate
itself in return for a letter of credit. This was done so McIntire Village Associates could
sell all or parts of the property without having to come to the County for a partial release
for every transaction. Mr. St. John said this arrangement was in the County's interest, as
well.
Mr. St. John said the agreement to be presented to the Board today will implement the
original agreement. He said the chief provision is that the letter of credit will be renewed
annually, because Sovran Bank did not wish to issue a letter of credit for ten years. If
Sovran Bank or a substitute bank (drawn from a list of banks found acceptable by the County)
will not renew the letter of credit one year, the balance of the purchase price will be put
into escrow with the County and the McIntire Village Associates as the beneficiaries. This
escrow account would be drawn on each date a payment was due. The interest on the escrow, he
said, would go to the McIntire Village Associates, because the original promissory note did
not call for interest. Mr. St. John said he believed this arrangement implemented the
original agreement and introduced Mr. Landess of McIntire Village Assoiates to answer any
questions the Board may have.
Mr. Landess said McIntire Village Associates had a third alternative if Sovran Bank
refused to renew the letter of credit: representatives from the County and McIntire Village
Associates agree that the current value of $550,000 over ten years is "x", and the County
agrees to accept "x" as payment for the note. Mr. Landess said there were two errors in the
copy of the agreement before the Board: the date on the original letter of credit was wrong
and the year in which the final payment will be made should be 1997, not 1998.
Mr. St. John pointed out that the two parties must agree on the value of $550~000;
otherwise, he said, there would be no third alternative.
Mr. Fisher asked what would happen if, near the end of the ten years, Sovran Bank
refused to renew the letter of credit and McIntire Associates was bankrupt. Mr. Landess said
his company would try to get a letter of credit from another bank. If this proved impossi-
ble, the bank whose letter of credit is in effect will fund the full $550,000. Mr. Fisher
asked if it were up to County to make sure that the letter of credit never expired before it
was renewed. Mr. Landess said Sovran Bank will notify the County if it decides not to renew
the letter of credit. Otherwise, he said, the letter will be renewed automatically. Mr.
Agnor added that the bank must notify the County no less than 60 days before it intends to
deny renewal of the letter.
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
.( P a.g_~ 24)
573
Mr. Fisher asked who would track this agreement.
bility be assigned to the Director of Finance.
Mr. Agnor suggested this responsi-
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if he thought the proposed agreement was a wise and
prudent course of action for the County to take. Mr. St. John said he saw nothing wrong with
the proposal. If he had the choice, he said, he would rather have a provision stating the
$550,000 must be paid immediately in the case of a default or failure to renew the letter of
credit.
Mr. Bowie asked why this provision could not be added to the proposed agreement. Mr.
Landess said it would not be fair to McIntire Village Associates if Sovran Bank were bought
by another bank who did not wish to issue letters of credit, leaving the company to pay the
County the lump sum of $550,000. Leaving the funds in escrow, Mr. Landess said, would fully
protect the County and save McIntire Village Associates some money. Mr. St. John said the
escrow would not apply if McIntire Village Associates were to default on the loan; in that
case, the County would be paid immediately.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution to approve the
agreement and authorize the Chairman to sign it and to approve the deed of trust modification
agreement and authorize the Chairman to sign this, to accept the proposed form for the letter
of credit and to designate the Director of Finance responsible for tracking this agreement.
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. 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.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby take the following additional actions in reference to
the sale of McIntire School property to McIntire Village Associates, Ltd.:
1) Approves "THIS AGREEMENT" dated May 15, 1986, by and between
McIntire Village Associates, Ltd. and the County of Albemarle, setting forth
the parties agreement in the event "the letter of credit" is not renewed in
some future year; and authorizes the Chairman to execute "This Agreement" on
behalf of the County.
2) Approves "This Deed of Trust Modification Agreement" dated May 15,
1986, by and between McIntire Village Associates, Ltd., a Virginia Corpora-
tion, Grantor, of the first part, George R. St. John of Albemarle County,
Virginia, and Fred S. Landess of Albemarle County, Virginia, Trustees, of
the second part, the County of Albemarle, Former Beneficiary, of the third
part, and Sovran Bank, N.A., New Beneficiary, of the fourth part; and
authorizes the Chairman to execute same on behalf of the County.
3) Approves the form of an Irrevocable Letter of Credit No.:
from Sovran Bank, N.A. in the amount of $550,000.00.
SN-7039
4) Designated the Director of Finance of Albemarle County, Virginia,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22901-4596, Telephone
296-5831, as the Board of Supervisors' agent to receive notices regarding
the above mentioned letter of credit and to take appropriate action in the
event of nonrenewal.
THIS AGREEMENT made as of this 15th day of May, 1986, by and between
McINTIRE VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, LTD,, a Virginia corporation, of the first
part, herein "McIntire", and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivi-
sion of the Commonwealth of Virginia, of the second part, herein "County",
WITNESSETH :
Factual Recital. McIntire is the maker and County is the holder of a
deferred purchase money note dated December 6, 1985 and payable to County in
the principal amount of $550,000.00. A copy of such note is attached hereto
as Exhibit A.
The above described note has been secured by a deed of trust constitut-
ing a first lien on certain real property situated in the City of
Charlottes%ille which was conveyed by County to McIntire. In order to
obtain the release of a portion of such property from the lien of the deed
of trust, McIntire has tendered and County has agreed to accept as substi-
tute security for the payment of the above mentioned note, a letter of
credit issued by Sovran Bank, N.A., which letter of credit is dated May 15,
1986, and runs in favor of County in the amount of $550,000.00. A copy of
such letter of credit is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
The parties recognize the possibility the letter of credit may not be
renewed even though McIntire is not in default in the payment of the
deferred purchase money note. It is the intent of this document to set out
the parties agreement in such event.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and
obligations set out herein, the parties agree to the following actions in
the event Sovran Bank, N.A., elects not to renew the letter of credit
attached hereto as Exhibit B and McIntire is not in default under the terms
of the deferred purchase money note:
574
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
1. County agrees to accept a replacement letter of credit with identi-
cal terms to Exhibit B, or a letter with similar terms upon approval by
County or its counsel, issued either by Central Fidelity Bank, Jefferson
National Bank, United Virginia Bank, Wachovia Bank, N.A. or Investors
Savings & Loan Association. It is further agreed such replacement letter of
credit may itself be similarly replaced in the event of non-renewal thereof
when McIntire is not in default.
2. In the alternative, in the event McIntire does not obtain and
deliver to the County a new letter of credit as described in paragraph 1.
above, or in the event such replacement letter or letters of credit is or
are obtained and delivered and subsequently is not renewed by the issuing
financial institution and McIntire is unable to obtain such a replacement
letter, but is not in default in the terms of the deferred purchase money
note, County shall call upon the issuing financial institution to disburse
pursuant to its letter of credit, in the full principal amount due under
such note as of the date of the call by the County. The proceeds of such
call shall not go directly to the County, but shall be deposited in an
interest bearing escrow account at Sovran Bank, N.A. or any of the financial
institutions listed in paragraph 1. above. Such escrow account shall be in
the name of both County and McIntire and administered as set out in para-
graph 3. below.
3. The account referred to in paragraph 2. shall provide for (a) all
accrued interest thereon to be paid to McIntire; (b) the principal amount of
$55,000.00 to be paid to County on the 6th day of December in each year,
beginning on December 6, 1988, and on the 6th day of each December thereaf-
ter until December 6, 1997, or the entire principal amount of the deferred
purchase money note is paid in full, whichever first occurs; and (c) the
entire principal balance may be disbursed upon mutual written direction by
the duly authorized representative of both County and McIntire. The parties
agree to enter into an escrow agreement with the depository bank in accor-
dance with the terms of this agreement.
4. As a third alternative, McIntire may prepay the note by a total
principal payment of less than $550,000.00, such amount to be agreed to
between County and McIntire, based on the concept of time value of the
money.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has caused its name to be
signed hereto by its duly authorized representative.
THIS DEED OF TRUST MODIFICATION AGREEMENT is made this 15th day of May,
1986, by and between McINTIRE VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Virginia corpora-
tion, Grantor, of the first part, GEORGE R. ST. JOHN, of Albemarle County,
Virginia, and FRED S. LANDESS, of Albemarle County, Virginia, Trustees, of
the second part, the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, Former Beneficiary, of the third
part, and SOVRAN BANK, N.A., New Beneficiary, of the fourth part,
WI TNES SETH :
This document is exempt from recordation tax pursuant to the provisions
of $58.1-809 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended).
Recitals: By deed of trust dated December 6, 1985, of record in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Charlottesville in Deed
Book 471, page 865, as corrected by correction deed of trust dated
January 13, 1986, of record in such Clerk's Office the Grantor conveyed
certain real property therein more particularly described to the Trustees to
secure a deferred purchase money note of the Grantor payable to the First
Beneficiary in the principal amount of $550,000.00. Sovran Bank, N.A., as
the New Beneficiary has now issued to Albemarle County as the Former
Beneficiary a letter of credit in the amount of $550,000.00, which the
Former Beneficiary has agreed to accept as substitute collateral for the
payment of such note, in lieu of the deeds of trust. The New Beneficiary
now wishes to have the lien of such deeds of trust secure the repayment to
it of any payments which it is required to make pursuant to the terms of its
letter of credit, and all of the parties are agreeable thereto.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and
agreements contained herein, it is agreed the lien of the deed of trust
dated December 6, 1985, of record in Deed Book 471, page 865, as corrected
by correction deed of trust dated January 13, 1986, of record in Deed
Book , page , shall henceforth be In Trust to secure a maximum of
$550,000.00, evidenced by any payments required to be made by Sovran Bank,
N.A. pursuant to the terms of' the letter of credit dated May 15, 1986, in
favor of the County of Albemarle, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
It is agreed the lien of such deeds of trust may be released without
any release fee or payment of principal as to a tract of 4.555 acres shown
as Tract 2 on plat of Gloeckner, Lincoln & Osborne dated May 6, 1985, a copy
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
It is further agreed that in the event the former McIntire School
building located on the property is divided, a portion of such building and
accompanying land will be so released upon a conveyance thereof to the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Young Men's Christian Association.
May 14, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
LPage 26.)
575
Except as herein modified, all of the terms and provisions of the deed
of trust dated December 6, 1985, as corrected by a deed of trust dated
January 13, 1986, shall remain in full force and effect.
Agenda Item No. 23.
Public.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and the
Mr. James Crosby, who was to have been present for Agenda Item 6b, arrived and apolo-
gized for his tardiness. He requested the Board consider naming Route 240 from the Mechum
River into Crozet, "Allview Drive". He said he and other residents of Crozet felt that
naming this portion of Route 240 would make giving directions to their homes and businesses
easier. He said he conducted a poll of Crozet residents and they prefered the name "Allview
Drive" on a two-to-one basis. He said the name "Allview Drive" has been used by ACME Visible
Records for their legal mailing address and their employees wanted this to be the name.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would prefer using the historic name, "Three Notch'd Road". Mr.
Crosby said "Allview Road" was the name many of the residents used, as well as employees for
ACME Visible Records. Moreover, Mr. Crosby asserted, "Three Notch'd Road" did not traverse
the roadbed of Route 240 from the Mechum River to Crozet.
Motion was offered by Mr. Henley and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to hold a public hearing
on June 4, 1986, to hear public comments on the naming of Route 240. There was no further
discussion. 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.
Mr. Agnor said the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) was holding
workshops. He said the School Board and staff were sending representatives and asked if the
Board wished to send anyone. Mr. Fisher said he believed any changes in the School Funding
formula would hurt the County. He said he believed the School Superintendent could represent
the County's interest at the meeting.
Agenda Item No. 24. At 4:15 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adjourn into execu-
tive session to discuss property matters and personnel. Mr. Way 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 25. Adjourn.
adjourned immediately.
After emerging from executive session at 4:30 P.M., the Board
CHIRMAN