1980-04-09April 9, 1980 (Regular Day Me,ting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, ¥irginia, w
on April 9, 1980, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Cha
Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C.
Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Na'sh and Mr. W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney
Mr. G~orge R. St. John.
Agenda Item NO. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 9:10 A.M. by the Chairm
Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: November 14, December 12, December 1
(Afternoon),.and December 19, 1979 (Night); January 2, (Afternoon) and January 2,1~
(Night).
November 14, 1979: Mr. Roudabush noted no corrections.
December 19, 1979 (Afternoon): Mr. Fisher noted no corrections.
December 19, ~1979 (Night): Mr. Fisher noted a correction on page 254, agenda
#5, the first paragraph, the district should be "Samuel Miller" instead of "Jack Jo
January 2, 1980 (Afternoon) and (Night): Miss Nash noted no corrections.
Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve th
minutes with the noted corrections~6!l ~a~ic~eda~ the foregoing motion and sa:
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:. Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.~,
NAYS: None.
The minutes of December 12, 1979 had not been read and were deferred to a late:
Mr. Fisher acknowledged receipt of a notice from C & P Telephone Company regar,
public hearing on rate increases.
Agenda Item No. 3a. Highway Matters: Take road into the state system.
Mr. Agnor noted request dated March 25, 1980 from Mr. James H. Hill, agent for
Land Company, that Broadway Road be taken into the State Secondary System. Motion ~
offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the following resoluti,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby
requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final
inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road
Beginning at station 0+10, a point common to the edge of pavement
~as called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
srs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
Item No. 3b. Street Light Request.
~nor said the Engineering Department has processed an application from Mr. Fred
~r the installation of a street light on Bennington Road in the Hessian Hills
a. The request involves the upgrading to state standards for one existing light
stallation of two additional street lights to provide adequate illumination for
sn of Bennington Road. Mr. Agnor said the County Engineer recommends approval
~est and authorization to install the lighting. Motion was offered by Dr.
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept the recommendation of the County Engineer
sve street light request. Roll was called on the foregoing mot±on and same
the following recorded vote:
srs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
Item No. 3c. Proposed 1980-81 Secondary Road Improvement Budget.
~n Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present. He noted the following
ojects in priority order with the recommended allocations. These are the same
mrrently included in the approved six year plan for 1980-81. The six year plan
November 1979 had a tentative allocation of $1,475,000 for the coming year.
hat allocation has now changed to $1,315,000. Some of the projects in the Six-
had to be revised and the McIntire Extension has been deleted in this years
he reason for this deletion was the increased cost of improvements to Hydraulic
following list was then discussed:
Rout e
~'Proposed Work
Proposed Allocation
601
631
742
852
729
8O8
717
682
618
743
Bridge over Mechum River
Plant Mix - Fifth Street Extended
Plant Mix - Avon Street Extended
Pipe - Dominion Drive
New Additions
New Pipe Installations
Preliminary Surveys
Seeding and Fertilizing
Traffic Services
Widen and Hard Surface
Widen and Hard Surface
Widen and Hard Surface
Raiiroad Warning'Signal
Widen and Hard Surface
Widen - Hydraulic Road
175,500
54,600
29,400
12,000
20,000
5,000
1,000
5,000
9,000
100,000
65,000
35,000
50,000
57,100
715,000
TOTAL 1,333,600
ssion then followed on the projects. Mr. Fisher expressed his concern about the
Road project which has been on-xoinR for five years and is not expected to'be
April 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher then suggested the public hearing on the Secondary Road Improvemen
for 1980-81 be scheduled for May 7, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Cou
Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta and seconded by Miss Nash. Roll
~alled on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush
None.
Mr. Roosevelt said a decision is needed within the next six months on project
order that financing for major projects, surveys and other preparatory items can b~
If financing continues as proposed in the Six-Year Plan adopted in November 1979,1
Road will be pushed back a year and so will the McIntire/Rio Extension. He sugges'
eliminating one of the major projects, the bridge on Route 671, and transferring ti
funds to either the Hydraulic Road project, the McIntire/Rio Extension or the Park
Bridge project. His recommendation is based on traffic counts, utilization of var~
facilities and the fact that deferring the major projects makes them more expensiw
Iachetta preferred deferral of the Hydraulic Road project instead of the Park Stre~
Bridge project. Mr. Henley was opposed to the elimination of the Route 671 bridge
and stated that the bridge is not passable now for a school bus. Mr. Roosevelt ag]
Dr. Iachetta felt decreased funding each year moves projects further into the
He then suggested that the three state legislators be invited to the public hearin~
order to educate them on the problems Albemarle County is having with the funding
Mr. Roudabush felt the estimates for Hydraulic Road and the McIntire/Rio Exte~
are out-of-line because Hydraulic is through a built-up neighborhood and McIntire ~
~h~ugh undeveloped urban territory. Mr. Roosevelt said quite a bit of the cost f¢
McIntire is due to purchase of right-of-way whereas part of the right-of-way on Hy¢
is already owned by the Highway Department.
Mr. Fisher did not feel time allowed for any further discussion of this item
and suggested continuing same on May 7. He also agreed with the suggestion to invJ
three state legislators to the public hearing on May 7.
Agenda Item No. 3g. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Fisher noted letter from the Highway Department regarding the preallocati¢
public hearing to be held in Culpeper on April 15, 1980 for funding of interstate
primary highways. He said Mr. Roudabush will represent the Board at the hearing.
Agenda Item No. 3e. Set Priorities for Highway Hearing in Culpeper.
Mr. Roudabush then requested a summary of actions which have taken by the Boar
trying to get some road improvements on Route 29 North as well as emphasizing ordim
changes and amendments that have been made. Dr. Iachetta also requested reenforce~
his letter regarding the drainage problem on Route 29 North at Dominion Drive. Mr.
said in previous years funding has been requested for Route 20, Dr~ Iachetta felt
requests should be reaffirmed.
Agenda Item No. 3d. Letter from Highway Department.
letter dated March 24, 1980 from the Highway Department:
Mr. Agnor presented the
April 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
if someone is speeding. Dr. Iachetta said if the speed limit ~a~no~be~ oa
ay bother to have speed limit signs. Although, Mr. Roosevelt felt this may
~ did not feel the alternative was to lower the speed limit. If the speed limit
~ 29 North is reduced to 45 m.p.h, then the sight distance for commerical entrances
30 feet and if reduced to 35 m.p.h, then the required sight distance would be
set. Mr. Roosevelt did not favor the highway department being bound to a 350
distance on a road where it is known that half of the traffic is exceeding 45
summary, Mr. Roosevelt felt it would be a serious mistake to reduce the speed
~e mentioned road.
isher suggested that a member of the State Police and the Sheriff be invited to
meeting since the discussion today seems to revolve around legislative and
t problems.
a Item No. 3g. Other Highway Matters.
Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, said the survey on the design of the Georgetown
ay has been accomplished. Mr. Lindstrom then offered assistance to help acquire
eeded for the right-of-way.
indstrom noted a speed sign is hidda~ by a tree branch as you come from the
eorgetown Road.
achetta asked the reason why Shawnee Court in the Carrsbrook Subdivision is not
te Secondary System. Mr. Agnor said he has a report from the Engineering Department
d plans to discuss same with Dr. Iachetta and Mr. Roudabush to see what they
terms of Board action.
a Item No. 5. Woodcreek Subdivision Plat Appeal.
oudabush abstained from discussion on this matter because the firm he is associated
he survey work.
isher then noted the following letter of appeal:
h 6, 1980
Sirs:
half of Black Cat Road Associates, developers of the proposed Woodcreek
vision, I am requesting that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
w the conditions of approval set by the Albemarle County Planning
ssion at their February 26, 1980 meeting.
fically, we are appealing item 1-g of the above mentioned conditions of
val. Item 1-g states, ~Virginia Department of Mighways and Transportation
,val of the road plans from the entrance of Rt. 616 to the Junction of
~stridge Way for acceptance in the State Secondary System.'
problems involving road design and additional right-of-way for public
we are in favor of the proposed State road ending at the intersection
~pril.9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met:
ae
he
Health Department approval of two septic field locations on eac
Grading permit;
LandfiI1 permit approval by County Engineer;
Note the floodplain area on the site plan;
Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1. County Engineer approval of the road.
2. County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation commercial
approval on Rt. 616;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
plans from the entrance of Rt. 616 to the Junction of Harvestr~
for~¢~aptance in the State Secondary System;
County Engineer approval of the right-of-way to Rt. 250;
Waiver of the double frontage for lots 16, 17 and 18;
Note on the site plan Tax Map 94."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on February 26, 1980, recommended appr
subject to the above conditions changing (id) to read: "Note the floodplain area ¢
final plat;'' and (lj) to read "Note on the final plat Tax Map 94." Mr. Fisher aske
state road is recommended. Mr. Tucker said attempts are being made to require that
main collector road in all subdivisions be in the state system.
The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Tom Gale, representing the applicant,
prSsent. Mr. Gale said the reason for objecting to the state road requirement (con
g) is because there would be design problems in meeting state road requirements. A
portion of lot 9 in M~chunk Acres would have to be purchased in order to have a fif
righ~of-way and a creek would ha~e to be crossed which would require a great deal
fill.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt said the Highway Department has reviewed the road plans for
subdivision. The cul-de-sac, as designed, would be suitable to have the road accep
into the state'system. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department does not have str
feelings about this item either way. However, he wanted to make a more general com
about subdivision requirements for pri~ate roads. Even though private roads redUce
cost~iof building lots, citizens will probably be coming before the Board in five ye
requesting that these private roads be taken into the state system and the Highway
may not have funds available to accept these roads.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what has happened to state standards for subdivision roads
Roosevelt said the standards have been reduced. An additional standard has been de
for what is called a tertiary road, such as dead end roads, cul-de,sa~,l~op~s~r~
hav~ng a specific traffic count. These roads can be built on a 40 foot right-of-way
some cases 30 feet. He also noted that the pavement widths ha~e been reduced, from
normal standards. Mr. Lindstrom felt it would be helpful to have a comparison betw
state standards for tertiary roads and the requirements in the Subdivision Ordinanc
order to determine the differences. Dr. Iachetta felt the private road provisions~
being badly misused in the sense of what the ordinance was intended-to do and what
now doing. He then offered motion to adopt a resolution of intent to study the ent
problem. There was not a second so the motion died. He noted that his support of
pri~ate road provisions was to provide subdivisions with a small number of lots the
to u~se private roads but he did not feel these provisions should apply to large lot
~Reg~u 1 ar Da~
fore, I must say first that I do not represent nor will t be appearing
'e this meeting and that the two neighbors do wish to be heard on the appeal.
uest that my letter withdrawing the appeal be discarded since Mrs. Palmer
n error through no fault of her own and no fault of mine. She is now
that these two neighbors wish to express their objections to the Board per
.perfected appeal.
;ret the confusion of my clients and the time they have caused the Board
;hat I was unable to receive from all of them the desires they intended."
?ucker said he had discussed this letter with Mr. St. John and his opinion is
cannot be done once an appeal has been withdrawn. Therefore, Mr. Tucker felt this
not properly before the Board. Mr. St.. John said the appeal is dead because
lal appeal was from Mr. Dick, on behalf of his clients, and that appeal was
Therefore, it cannot be revived and the appeal is dead.
)avid van Roijen was present and noted his objections last month were primarily
~ did not understand what was going on. Now he is aware of what is taking place
~ objection.
Iames Gercke, the applicant, was present. He said he was not present to discuss
[ but rather to discuss some technical problems relating to a recent Attorney
opinion affecting the recordation of plats. Mr. St. John said this is a problem
Board cannot resolve at this time, but Mr. Tucker would like to apprise the
the Attorney General's ~p~n~nyr~g~ggv~a~n~og~p~p~r~y~l~s~ M~Tucker
~d some examples regarding vacation of plats and noted that the Attorney General's
s going to create some repercussions in the future particularly because of
~n the County's current ordinances. Basically the opinion pertains to any plat
been approved by the county and recorded, any subdivision or change of that plat
t regards the residue of the property, phasing of any development or a large R?N
ich will require the vacation of that first plat before a new plat can be recorded'
sd. Mr. St. John said he feels the opinion means that before a redivided lot can
~ from that which appears on a recorded subdivision plat, the part of the plat
ers the redivision has to be vacated, In order to do that, consent of all the
o the original plat has to be obtained. Mr. St. John felt the Attorney General's
as correct. Mr. Fisher suggested discussion of this matter next month. Mr. St.
sot feel that is necessary because there is nothing the Board could do because
something the staff has to work out. Unless the Board disagrees, the staff will
e Attorney General's opinion.
da Item No. 7. Status Report: Ivy Creek Natural Area.
Eugene M. German, Director of Charlottesville Parks and Recreation, was present
nted a summary of the project. The revenues from a federal reimbursement and the
the Nature Conservancy total $65,900. Expenditures to date for both the City
y are $41,605. The development plan for the Ivy Creek Natural Area was amended
30, 1979 and involves about 15 to 20 acres. The original development of the
for the Parking, restrooms, nature trails, etc., totaled $60,000. However, since
nal plans, the Ivy Creek Foundation has come into existence and there have been
sions. The entrance road has been adjusted with a ninety degree entrance onto
Road which is very close to the property line. The entrance road then goes back
parking area where there will be the same number of parking spaces but more
located to the area. Another map was presented which showed all of the parking
rticular area with a trail leading from the parking area by the comfort station
April 9, 1_ -~ _ .980 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. James Elmore, Executive Director of the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, ws
Mr. Elmore said this public hearing is required each year by federal regulations ¢
Older American Act. Mr. Elmore then briefed the board on the overall operation of
He-~noted tha nutritional program is the largest program operated and uses about om
of the funding received through the Older American Act. He also noted an eight pc
increase is anticipated for this program for the coming fiscal year. There are t~
objectives which are funded by local jurisdictions. The objectives are the senior
program and the administration of the JABA Board.~ He noted that the nutritional~p
is currently operated at seven sites. Mr. Elmore said the only proposal for the c
year is to expand existing programs. The home care 'program is conducted by senior
who work twenty to twenty-five hours a week and provide in-home services for those
would otherwise be forced to go into nursing homes or other institutions. Mr. Elm
emphasized the senior discount program which is a tremendous help for senior citiz
noted transportation services will continue to be provided for the nutrition cente
also general transportation for medical appointments, etc. Mr. Elmore noted JABA'
dependence on JAUNT for providing transportation. He th~n introduced staff and JA
m~b~s~whm~ present.
The public hearing was opened. Ms. Lillian Banks, resident of the Meadows, w
present in support of the Meadows project. She noted many elderly people need thi
of facility and hoped more could be provided.
Ms. Virginia Fisher, employee of the Meadows, was present and noted that a re
had been met by the Meadows project.
Mr. Edgar Paige, member of the JABA Board, was present and noted the benefit
community receives from JABA and the Meadows.
Rev. Rebecca Jordan, resident of'Esmont, spoke next and noted appreciation fo
nutritional program but urged that transportation be provided f~r the Howardsvi.lle
Mr. Elmore said negotiations are being held now with JAUNT about that need and hop
some schedule can be provided for transportation to the area at least two or three
a w~ek.
Ms. Rosa Hudson, employee of the Community Action Agency felt a housing need
in the southern part of the county for disabled senior citizens. Mr. Fisher said~
proposal for the Meadows was presented, two such units were proposed. One to be i
Crozet area and one for the southern part of the County. However~, a decision was ~
that time to start with the Crozet project since land was available. He then aske
Agnor had any information on another facility. Mr. Agnor said paperwork has begun
federal funding for a senior citizen center in the southern part of the county. M
Fisher noted that there are not many areas in the southern part of the County whicl
the federal requirements such as being in a rural area where public sewerage is ay
Therefore, Scottsville may be the only area where federal requirements can be met.
With no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Although progress is being made, Mr. Fisher felt needs still exist for housin.
transportation. He felt with the expectation that the elderly population in the n.
will increase by 20% by 1990, these needs will always exist and there may be probl
regarding funding. In conclusion, Mr. Fisher thanked those present for attending
public hearing and also the JABA staff and board for contributions made to the co~
Agenda Item No. 31. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
~ ~ri~ 9_~_~980 ~ R~R_~gu~lar~_ Meetin_~)
Item No. 9. Appropriation: Utilities Bills - Meadows Community Center.
~nor said in executing the agreement with the Jefferson Area Board on Aging for
[on of the Meadows Community Center, the County agreed to pay the cost of utilities.
~adows Community Center was opened, it was decided that JABA would operate the
~r several months to determine these utility costs. This information has been
~d an appropriation for $1500 is recommended for the period from October 1979
he 1980. The electric meter is presently in JABA's name and is being billed
rates. However, the billing will be changed to the County's name and the rates
~ed on the County's rate. Therefore, the $1500 appropriation is estimated as
to carry the building for twelve months in fiscal year 1981 and has been added
1 budget. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to
Following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of A~bemarle County,
aia, that $1,500 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
al Fund and transferred to Code 18B.13 to pay utility costs at the
ws Community Center from October 1979 through June 1980.
was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the folloing recorded
srs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
e.
a Item No. 10. Lease of Greenwood Community Center.
gnor said based upon an offer from the Greenwood Community Center Board that the
se same, he and Mr. Henley and Mr. Pat Mullaney of the County Parks Department
he Greenwood Community Center Board to discuss a written lease agreement for one
ed on this discussion, a lease has been drafted by Mr. James Bowling, Deputy
orney and is being presented today for the Board's approval. Mr. Agnor said Mr.
member of the Greenwood Community Center Board could not be present today.
e has stated his concern with the lease pertaining to the insurance on the
Cost of the insurance on the buil.ding has been paid from revenues that the
as generated. Mr. Clark has requested that a portion of the revenues for the
be made available to the CommunitY Center Board or that the County in.cur the
for this one year. Mr. Agnor said the YMCA has expressed interest in the Center.
t, the County Parks and Recreation Department has coordinated activities with
.nd will continue to do so in order to avoid duplication. However, after meeting
teve O'Neill of the YMCA it appears that the YMCA is interested in the Center
t just in conducting programs at that locat±on. ~ '
resentative from the Greenwood Community Center Board was present and noted
tion is to lease the Center to the County and the County can use the center as
'isher asked if there was anything in the lease to permit the County to allow
.oup use of.the facility. Mr. Agnor said YeS, in paragraph 4.
.avid R~thwell, representing the YMCA, was present. He said the YMCA would like
programs at the Community Center and the YMCA would be willing to either sublet
lounty or manage any type of program which could be accommodated.
'isher felt coordination with the YMCA would work out well. Mr. Fisher then
April 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
THIS LEASE, made this 9th day of April, 1980, by and between the GREENWO~
COMMUNITY CENTER, INC., Lessor (Hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Greenwo.
and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Lessee (hereinafter sometimes referred
as the "County"):
WITNESSETH :
Factual Background. (a) The Greenwood Community Center, Inc. is the
owner of all that parcel of land with improvements thereon and appurtenances
thereto shown-on the Albemarle County Tax Map 54, Parcel 52B (hereinafter ref~
to as the "Property"), and known as the Greenwood Community Center. For a nut
years the Property has served as a source of recreation and a meeting place f¢
Greenwood ~ommunity. The Property is in need of repairs. The Greenwood Comm~
Center, Inc. wants to insure that this ~roperty continues to be a benefit for~
community and the citizens of Albemarle County. Ink, this regard it has offered
give the Property to the County of Albemarle to be used as a community center.
(b) The County of Albemarle recognizes that the Greenwood Community Cent
has be~n a valuabla resource for the citizens of Albemarle County and hopes t~
Property can continue to be used as a community center. The County, however,
have a trial period of operating the Prop~r~y before it makes a decision to ac
reject Greenwood's offer of gift of the Property.
NOW, THEREFORE:
1. The Leased Property.
The term of this lease shall be gor a period commencing on the lS~d
May, 1980, and continuing for one year through April 30, 1981. Unless termina
the County hereto at the end of the term~5~ notice in writing to Greenwood th~
prior thereto, this lease shall continue thereafter for an additional one year
the terms and conditions set forth in this lease.
At any time during the term of this lease the County shall have the right
option to accept th-~ offer of Greenwood ~o give the Property to the County to
as a community center. Upon such written acceptance, Greenwood promptly by de
gift shall convey its fee simple interest in the Property to the County.
3. Ren~.
As rent for the term of this lease, the County agrees to maintain th
Property, and make such repairs to the Property as in the County's sole judgmel
necessary to use the ~roperty as a community center. The County ~hall pay for
u~llity services, including electricity and heat, for fire andoaasu~lty insural
and for janitorial services during the~term of this lease'.
4. Obligations of the Parties.
(a) Obligations of the Count~.. The County shall be responsible for
operation of the Greenwood Community Center and its various recreational and
community programs during the term of this lease. The County shall be entitle~
charge appropriate fees for use of the Property and to retain all revenues rec~
for use of the Property. The Greenwood Community Center Board shall serve as ~
advisory group to the County Executive concerning the use and operation of the
community center.
April 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
~a Item No. 13. Public Hearing: Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Section 12-29
emarle County Code to provide that no licenses shall be issued until personal
axes on all vehicles are paid. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 26 and
980.)
isher presented the ordinance for the Board's consideration.
~ublic hearing was opened.
~blic hearing was closed.
No one was present to speak for or against the ordinance
Nash noted an inquiry as to why county vehicle stickers could not be purchased
~nal property taxes are paid. Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, said April 15
.ished as the date for purchasing county stickers in order to match renewal of
.cle licenses. Mr. Fisher suggested discussion of this matter at a later date.
~n was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the followi~
Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
~srs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
le.
ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 12-29 OF THE ALBEMARLE
COUNTY CODE TO PROVIDE THAT NO LICENSES SHALL BE ISSUED UNTIL
PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES ON ALL VEHICLES ARE PAID
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
Section 12-29 of the Albemarle County Code is hereby amended and reenacted
)llows:
12-.~9. License not to be issued until personal property taxes on all
vehicles paid.
No motor vehicle, trailer or semi-trailer taxable under the provisions of this
~le shall be licensed unless and until the applicant for such license shall have
~ced satisfactory evidence that all personal property taxes on the motor vehicle,
Ler or semi-trailer to be licensed which have been assessed or are assessable
~st such applicant have been 'paid and satisfactory evidence that any other
~quent motor vehicle, trailer, or semi-trailer personal property taxes owing by the
Lcant and which have been properly assessed or are assessable against the applicant
been paid.
la Item No. 14. Public Hearing: Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Section 12-32 of
~rle County Code to increase the fee for transfer of license plates from fifty
)ne dollar. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 19 and March 26, 1980.)
~isher presented the ordinance for the Board's consideration.
)ublic hearing was opened. No one was present to speak for or against the ordinance
~blic hearing was closed.
~oudabush then offered motion to adopt the following ordinance. Dr. Iachetta
~he motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
~srs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
April 9, 1980 (Regular Da~ Mee~
Agenda Item No. 4. West Woods Subdivision -- Water Problems.
Mr. Fisher requested this be on the Board's agenda since he is concerned aboul
~..water problems which exist in West Woods Subdivision. He noted receipt of a lette]
March 17, 1980 from Mr. J. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, regarding cz
of t~he two wells in this subdivision. Mr. Fisher said he wanted to point out that
was approved in August 1976 under the new test procedures adopted by the Board in ]
he was curious if the test policy is as adequate as it should be. Mr. Fisher said
summer the homeowners in the subdivision suffered problems with the wells going dr~
concerned that same will occur this year. The Service Authority has installed atc
line into the area to provide water and arrangements are being made for a permanent
He then commended the Service Authority for the excellent Job done in responding t¢
problem. Mr. Fisher said he was surprised when he met with the homeowners of the s
and Mr. Brent of the Albemarle County Service Authority indicated that the $59,000
the line could possibly be borne out of Service AUthority funds. He had always ass
the citizens would have to pay all or most of the funds needed to extend the line.
asked if Mr. Brent desired to comment on the matter.
Mr. Wiliiam Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authorit
after obtaining easements, 'it would take about three weeks to get the line from Leu
III to West Woods with a temporary tie-in to provide water flow to the existing pi~
system. At that time, the Service Authority can begin working on fire hydrants and
changes. Mr. Roudabush asked if this water line will also serve the lots presently
served by well #1. Mr. Brent said everything will be included that is fed by the e
piping network in West Woods. Mr. Roudabush asked if the system.will be dedicated.
Brent said the internal piping system in the streets in West Woods will be dedicate
However, plans do not show any piping on 01d Ballard Road. Mr. Roudabush said thos
the first lots created before the internal streets were develoPed and that section~
has an independent system. However, he felt all the area should be served if such
is to be incurred. Mr. Brent said he would look into the matter. Mr. Lindstrom as
the $59,000 came from. Mr. Brent said from the Service Authority's construction fu
Lindstrom expressed his concern about the County having to "bail out" these type of
with user fees. Mr. Brent said the benefit to the Service Authority from a long te
is $80,000.
Mr. Fisher then noted letter dated April 3, 1980 from the Albemarle County Ser
Authority stating their approval to accept the piping system in West Woods from Dr.
Hurt and connect such to the Albemarle Counuty Service Authority in Lewis Hills III
appears that there will be a permanent supply for West Woods completed by the first
He asked if there was anything that would keep the construction from occurring. Mr
said all concerned parties have verbally agreed to the needed easements. Mr. Fishe
the problem is working out faster than he anticipated and noted his appreciation.
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Agnor had any information regarding the testing of thi
well system. Mr. Agnor said a letter dated April 4, 1980 was received from Mr. J.
Williams, Assistant County Engineer. Mr. Agnor said it does not appear that there
excessive water usage by the customers. Also it does not appear that the procedure
the County or those used by the Health Department were inadequate for the approval
well system. Mr. Williams indicates in his letter that the well just lost its capa.
recharge itself at a rate to keep up with the demand on the well. Mr. Agnor said tl
Engineer's office does not feel that the well lost its capacity by any fault of the
and there is no reasonable procedure for pump testing which can predict this type o~
Mr. Fisher then expressed his~concern about any large subdivision in this area
County having individual wells. He did not feel any action was needed on the West 1
problem because it appears all that can be done is being done and such shoUld take
April 9, 1980 (Regular D~y Meeting)
a Item No. 17. Agreement: Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department.
oard on March 12, 1980, authorized the drafting of an agreement between the County
le and the Scottsville ¥olunteer Fire Department to advance the Scottsvi!le Voluntec
tment, $100,000, for the construction of a fire station. Such an agreement has
ed by the County Attorney's office and is being presented for approval this date.
noted a letter from Mr. Frank Shumaker, President of the Scottsville Volunteer
tment where he has requested that the name of the fire department be spelled out
t appears in the document. Miss Nash agreed. Mr. Fisher asked how the funds will
ed. Mr. Agnor said the funds will be disbursed to the fire department for them to
ntractor. Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, said the procedure will be the same
r the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Company. Miss Nash then offered motion the
e following agreement.and to authorize the Chairman to execute same. Dr. Iachetta
he motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
srs. Fisher, Henley, Iahetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
e.
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 9th day of April, 1980, by and between the
y of Albemarle, Virginia (the "County"), and the Scottsville Volunteer
Department, Inc. ~
WITNESSETH :
Factual Background: (a) Citizens of Albemarle County have organized a
.teer fire company under Virginia Code Section 27-8, 27-8.1, and 27-9, designated
cottsville Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., which is current~yyproviding
protection services in Albemarle County, particularly in the town of ~
~sville and surrounding area.
(b) Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., is~he owner of all
certain lot or parcel of land in Albemarle County, ¥irg~nia, fronting on
Route 6, containing 1.393 acres, more or less, as shown on a plat of
.t L. Lum, dated April 27, 1978, and recorded in the Clerk's office of the
~it Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book ~9, page 744.
property is the same property in all re~ects that was conveyed to
svil~ Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., by deed of Scottsville Shopping
~r, Inc., dated November 16, 1978, and recorded in such Clerk's office
~ed Book ~59, page 741 (hereinafter called the "Property"). Scottsville
~t~er Fire Department, Inc., propose~ to construct a fire station on
~pperty for use in housing the volunteer fire company.
(c) The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has made annual
~priation of funds to Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., for
protection services and now wants to insure that essential fire protection
.ces continue to be provided to citizens living in the vicinity of
~sville and surrounding areas of Albemarle County.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of Yhheppremises and the mutual
~ants and obligations herein aontained, the County and Scottsville Volunteer
Department, Inc., agree as follows:
(1) Services Provided. Scotts~ille Volunteer Fire.Department, Inc.
~s, beginning July 1, 1980, and continuing thereafter for a period of
~ears, through June 30, 1990, to provide fire protection services for.
lounty, including construction, operation, and proper maintenance of a fi~e
Mr. Fisher asked Mrs. Mary Lou Matthews, member of the Committee, about the ac
which will take place in this community. Mrs. Matthews said everything is still i~
planning stage, but activities such as an historical expert on Jack Jouett visiting
the schools, radio programs, and a reenactment of Jack Jouett's ride are being plan
Mr. Fisher was not sure this should be incorporated in the appropriation ordi~
it'was not presented to the public at the public hearing on the budget. He asked M
for a suggestion on how to handle this request. Mr. Agnor said the requested amoun
be incorporated in the 1981-82 budget or could be funded from the carry-over balanc
this is a nonreptitive expense. Mr. Roudabush said he would prefer that the fundin
this expense come from the private sector, however, he did feel the event is signif
enough for the County to support same. Mr. Roudabush said since there is no immedi
for the funds he would prefer that an appropriation be made after JUly 1, 1981. Mr
noted that other localities have endorsed the celebration and committed their share
funds. Mr. Fisher said although he intended to support the request he did not supp
including the amount in the 1980-81 budget and recommended making the appropriation
more details are available.
Agenda Item No. 19. Lease:
memorandum dated March 27, 1980:
P.ost Office Building·
Mr. Agnor presented the fo
"A year ago this month inquiries were made by the City and the County of
representatives in Congress as to what assistance they could provide in the le
negotiations with the General Services Administration (GSA) for the Federal co
in the Market Street Library building. During the months of March and April,
to the inquiries were received which were basically the same, i.e. there were
limitations on the amount GSA was permitted to pay for rental space, even thou
was recognition of unusual costs associated with occupancy of the building whi
remodeling was underway.
The proposal made by the City and County to GSA for a three year lease was:
Operating/owning costs $16,061 per annum
Maintenance of environment during remodeling 33,333 per annum
Phased construction 70,000 per annum
Total $119,3~ per annum
The offer by GSA in response to the proposal was:
Rent of $49,257.60 per annum for 7655 square feet.
GSA to furnish cleaning services.
City/County to provide building maintenance and utilities-.
Lease to commence June 28, 1978 for three year term.
This offer essentially matches the first two items in the proposal. It is rec~
that the City Council and Board of Supervisors accept the offer and authorize
Manager and County Executive to proceed with execution of the lease."
Mr. Agnor recommended the lease be accepted and authorization be given for his
of same. He noted that City Council approved the lease Monday night. Motion was ti
offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve lease number GS-03-B-
between the City of Charlottesville, Virginia and the County of Albemarle, Virginia
General Services Administration for 7655 square feet of space being 600 square feet
second floor and 1655 square feet in the basement of the Market Street Library, 2nd
April 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meating)
Item No. 21. Discussion: 1980-81 County Budget.
~sher noted that the Board had been given a draft of the Annual Appropriation
this morning. He asked if this draft was prepared based on the budget on
?ublic hearing was held. Mr. Agnor said yes, with one exception. The
rd m~t before the public hearing and made some minor adjustments in the
~et which resulted in a reduction of $9,050. Those changes have been
ed into this draft.
isher said there were questions raised a~ the public hearing as to the
f the proposal for the FICA plan for County employees. He asked if this
as been resolved. Mr. Agnor said he had talked with Mr. Glenn Pond,
f the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System, since Mr. Pond was quoted
mes at the public hearing. Mr. Pond said he has asked for an Attorney
opinion and has received a verbal opinion that political subdivisions may
ployee's share of social security. There is already legislation which
itical subdivisions to pay the employee's share of State retirement and
insurance.
indstrom said the Board has discussed the fact that Congress is presently
g legislation which may change Federal law relative to the payment of
urity taxes for employees. He asked if the law which sanctions this
ere to be changed retroactively, how the County would then pay the increased
Agnor said if a change were made retroactive, any increased costs during
1 fiscal year could be paid either from monies set aside for capital
or more appropriately, from the end-of-the-year Carry-Over balance. If
on the tax rate, it would require a 15 increase on both the real estate
rsonal property tax rate.
~indstrom asked if the County receives more benefit from paying the employee's
'etirement and life benefits as opposed to the employee paying social
axes and ~receiving an increase in base salary to cover the payment of
urity taxes. Mr. Agnor said in terms of take-home pay for the employee,
social security by the County has the least effect, life insurance has a
~ct, but retirement has the largest effect. In terms of expenditures by
· , payment of social security has the largest effect, because the County is
~ial security on a reduced base salary. Life insurance and retirement will
~aid on the taxable wage.
Jindstrom asked how much it would cost to fund a 14% increase in take-home
Le County looses the option to pay FICA for the employee. Mr. Agnor said
1,000 on FICA alone, plus three-tenths of one percent on all other programs
~y such a change. Dr. Iachetta asked if the base salary would not have to
~ed to offset the reduction in take-home pay. Mr. Agnor said salaries
~ go up three-tenths of one percent.
~indstrom said he will support the FICA plan, even if he does not support
other fringe benefits, because it will represent an increase in teacher
and because it can be done without an increase in taxes. Mr. Lindstrom
he did not think the Board should vote to increase salaries by use of the
~d unless' they are also willing to increase salaries in the usual method
Federal law governing payments of FICA be repealed. Mr. Agnor said he
~hat the County as the employer would have the obligation to pick up the
L'cost if Congress changes the law; he does not anticipate the any additional
~ ~~ ~ ~ *~ ~~ ~ wn~ld ~ot ~ mua~ additional cost to
April 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom said the teachers had requested a 14% increase in salaries thi
year and he was willing to support that increase with a tax increase, because the
people have been so impacted by inflation. Mr. Lindstrom said he resents being t
that the people of the County will or will not support a tax increase because he
feels that he was elected~to make such a decision for the people in his district.
When Mr. Agnor presented the FICA plan, which would basically permit the Board to
give all employees a 14% increase in take-home pay without a tax increase, and al
save approximately $700,000, he thought it was a good idea. He said a 24th step
could be added to the teachers pay scale and it would give teachers and other
school employees a meaningful increase. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like for the
Board to adopt the extra step and he feels that when he votes to approve this bud
he is indicating his committment to replace any funds that might be lost through
change in Federal legislation.
Dr. Iachetta said he has been trying for 30 years to take some of his increa
in take-home pay and plow that money back into something that will benefit him
directly. So far he has been unsuccessful. He said that with an 18% inflation
rate, he thinks that the 14% increase in take-home pay will be used to meet needs
that are already there. He said for people who are soon to retire that have been
the school system for a long time, they get a negative effect from adoption of th.
FICA plan. He suggested that the Board find a way to add one extra step for thos.
people; estimated at about forty persons.
Mr. Roudabush said he recognizes the possibility that Federal legislation
be changed and is willing to accept the obligation this will place on the Board.
also supports the extra step for the school teachers, but said he would rather se,
what affect that would have on the same type of general county employee and was n~
sure the Board had enough information at this time. Dr. Iachetta agreed that thi:
increase should be~extended to those near retirement working in both the school
System and general county government. He asked if there was a way to calculate tl
amount of money this extra step would cost. Mr. Agnor said he did not believe th~
would be a large number of people effected so the cost would not be large. He sa~
that using the carry-over balance for this type of expense is usually avoided bec~
it is a continuing expense which must be picked up in future years, but in order
put this budget in a order for adoption, he would agree that this extra amount mil
be funded in this way. If the Board is uncomfortable with funding this expense f~
the carry-over balance, it might be funded from funds set aside for the capital
improvement program. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any indication that if these
funds are added to instructional salaries that that is the way the funds will be
used. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that all the Board does is allocate the
money to the proper category and hoPe that it will be spent in the way indicated.
At 4:08 P.M., Mr. Fisher called a recess.. The Board reconvened at 4:20 P.M.
Mr. Fisher said the staff had been working on a recommendation during the recess
the Board could vote on.the budget today in order for the School Board to issue
teacher contracts.
Mr. Agnor recommended that under the General Fund Carry-Over Balance, the
figure be changed from $194,500 to $218,125. Under Schools, Instructional-Regula~
Day School change $9,143,413 to $9,167,038. Change the total of the School Budge~
from $19,737,270 to $19,760,895. Change the total budget to $32,747,903 and othe~
appropriate changes. Mr. Agnor also suggested that in the motion for approval of
the budget, that the~Board authorize the payment of the employees share of FICA,
retirement and life insurance. Mr. Fisher said he assumes that if the Board adop~
April 9_~_ 1980 (Regular Day Meetin~g~)
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of the County of Albemarle
~ss and collect on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal
~erty, inclmding machinery and tools not assessed as real estate, used
~mptoyed in a manufacturing business, not taxable by the State on Capital;
.uding Public Service Corporation property except the rolling stock of
.roads based upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commission
certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to location and valuation;
including all boats ~nd watercraft under five tons as set forth in the Code
Tirginia; and all vehicles such as mobile homes or offices as set forth
~he Virginia Code; excluding merchant's capital, farm machinery, farm tools,
a livestock, and household goods as set forth in the Code of Virginia,
~ion 58-829 and 58-829.1.
Lindstrom seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following
vote:
~ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
Dne.
~on was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the Annual Appropriation
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1981, as amended today, with a statement
County will pay the e,mployees cost of FICA (social security), State retirement
life insurance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and same carried
~llowing recorded vote:
essrs. Fisher (said he supported the motion on the assumption that it will
all employees), Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom (said he intends that the
iscussed today be adopted because of the somewhat negative impact on certain
s with respect to retirement) and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
one.
e Appropriation Ordinance as adopted is set out on the following pages.)
April 9, 1980 (RegulardDay Meeting)
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1981
An ordinance making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary
expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1981; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions, and
provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment;
and to repeal all ordinances wholly, in conflict with this ordinance and
all ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent of 'such
inconsistency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
SECTION I
THat the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appro-
priated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1981:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of COLLECTION AND DISBURSEMENT OF TAXES
AND OTHER REFUNDS the sum'of one million two hundred thirty-two thousand
four hundred tWenty dollars and no cents ($1,232,420) is appropriated
from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Refunds $ 1,232,420
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of the function of GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND
SUPPORT the sum of two million one hundred ninety-five thousand.nine
hundred six dollars and no cents ($2,195,906) is appropriated from the
General Fund to be apportioned as follows:
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Board of Supervisors
County Executive
Personnel
County Attorney
Finance
Engineering
Planning
Ivy Landfill
Keene Landfill
Elections
Staff Services
Virginia Association of Counties
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
Bicentennial Center
Soil Survey
Watershed Management
Tourism Bureau
Surety Bonds
142,741
93,539
81,018
99 849
782 973
160 796
216,~85
257,866
47,}00
194,023
3,~20
14,~20
9,242
6'660
18,948
}2,100
Paragraph Four
For the current expenses, of the function of PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE
the sum of two million one hundred eighty-seven thousand eight hundred
ninety-six dollars and no cents ($2,187,896) is appropriated from the
General Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. County Clerk $ 161,951
2. Circuit Court 12,400
~. General District Court 9,950
4. Commonwealth's Attorney 91,655
5. Juvenile Court 21,024
6. Sheriff 925,060
7. Fire Department 257,223
8. Forest Fire Extinction Service-State 3,100
9. Volunteer Fire Departments 133,700
10. Code Enforcement 441,592
11. Protection of Livestock 42,953
12. Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad 3,000
13. Transportation Safety Commission 200
iL. Emergency Services 4,676
15. Contributions to Regional Jail Operation 40,000
16. Juvenile Detention Home 15,790
17. Magistrate's Office 2,660
18. Scottsville Rescue Sauad 5,500
19. Emergency Medical Services 5,462
20. Western Albemarle Rescue Squad 7,500
21. Community Attention Homes 2,500
Paragraph Five
For the curren~ expenses of the function of CAPITAL OUTLAYS the sum
of one million dollars and no cents ($1,000,000) is appropriated from the
General Fund and transferred to:
1. Capital Outlay Fund
$1,000,000
SUMMARY
TOTAL GENERAL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981
$9,177,937
To be provided as follows:
Prior Year's Carry-Over Balance
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Non-Revenue Receipts
Total GENERAL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981
194,500
7,091~698
1,255,762
511,000
1247977
$9,177,937
SECTION II
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for SCHOOL purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1981:
April 9~, 1980 (Reg~ular Day~ Meeting)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
ESEA Title I (Low Income)
ESEA Title I (Migrant)
ESEA Title IV-B (Libraries)
ESEA Title tV-C (ELII)
ESAA Title V! (SECC)
Crime Resistance (TIPS)
COPE
PREP
Title IV-C (Adapter/Adopter)
567,734
6O,535
31,000
39,490
119,206
22,634
87,6a~
42,523
11,500
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981
$19,760,895
To be provided for as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Trans.from Gen. Fd.)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
*Federal Revenue Sharing (Transferred from
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund)
Non-Revenue Receipts
Total SCHOOL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981
310,028,047
8,118,982
982,266
500,000
131,600
$19,760,895
*Federal Revenue Sharing monies are earmarked for payment of energy
usages of electricity and fuel in Education as set forth in Item 10,
Paragraph One of this Section (Operation-School Plants).
SECTION III
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropria
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1981
Paragraph One
For the function of CAFETERIA OPERATIONS the sum of six hundred
thousand dollars and no cents ($600,000) is hereby appropriated from the
Cafeteria Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Maintenance and Operation of School Cafeterias
$600,000
SUMMARY
Total CAFETERIA FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981
600,000
600.,000
6OO,OOO
To be provided for as follows:
Receipts from Cafeterias
Total CAFETERIA FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981
Paragraph Two
For the function of TEXTBOOK RENTALS the sum of one hundred forty-two
thousand three hundred doles, rs ~ ~ ~ (~9 ~ ~o ~~
April 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
Paragraph Four
For the function of REGIONAL JAIL OPERATIONS the sum of eight hundred
sixty-two thousand seven hundred seven dollars and no cents (~862,707) is
hereby appropriated from the Regional Jail Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Operation of Regional Jail
$ 862,707
SUMMARY
Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981
$ 862,707
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from Other Sources
Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981
100,000
718,530
a4,177
$ 862,707
SECTION IV
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1981:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the function of GRANT PROJECTS the sum of
two hundred seventy-nine thousand four hundred thirty,three dollars and no
cents ($279,433) is appropriated from the Grant Project Fund to be appor-
tioned as follows:
1. Watershed Management Grant 2 36,540
2. Clean Community Commission 9,745
3. Esmont Health Facility 27,948
4. Self-Help Project (AHIP) 200,000
5. Solid Waste Management Grant 5,200
SUMMARY
Total GRANT PROJECT FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981
279,433
To be provided for as follows:
Revenue from EPA Grant
Revenue from Litter Control Grant
Revenue from HUD
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Total GRANT PROJECT FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981
36,540
9,745
227,948
5,200
279,433
SECTION V
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1981:
April 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
BE IT FURTHER ORDAZNED that the director of finance is hereby authorJ
to transfer to other funds from the General Fund, from time to time as mo~
become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations
to these funds from the General Fund for the period covered by this appro~
ation ordinance.
SECTION VI
Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in
Sections I through IV are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, condition
and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and
those set forth in this section.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appro-
priations made out of the General Fund, the School Operating Fund, ~the
Cafeteria Fund, the McIntire Trust Fund, the Regional Jail Fund, the Textb
Rental Fund, and the Grant Project Fund are declared to be maximum, condi-
tional and~proportionate appropriations--the purpose being to make the app
priations payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then
only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during th
fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay al
of the appropriations in full. Otherwise, the said appropriations shall b
deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of all realized
revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimate
to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
Ail revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of
Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare not
included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget
as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said
agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Boar~
or by the Board of Public Welfare without the consent of the Board of
Supervisors being first obtained. Nor may any of these agencies or boards
make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation or
make transfers between specific items of appropriation without the consent
of the director of finance being first obtained.
Paragraph Three
Ail balances of appropriations payable out of the General Fund of the
county treasury at the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) day of
June, 1981 except as otherwise provided for, are hereby declared to be
lapsed into the county treasury and shall be used for the payment of the
appropriations which may be made in the appropriation ordinance for the
next fiscal year, beginning July 1, 1981. However, nothing in this para-
graph shall be construed to be applicable to the School Fund, School
Construction Fund, Cafeteria Fund, Textbook Rental Fund, McIntire Trust Fur
Contributions to Volunteer Fire Departments, or Grant Project Fund, but an~
balance available in these funds shall be used in financing the proposed
expenditures of these funds for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1981.
Paragraph Four
April 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
Paragraph Six
Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according
regulations prescribed or appraved by the director of finance.
Paragraph Seven
Ail ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions
this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Eight
This ordinance shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred
eighty.
lachetta then offered motion to advise the School Board that the additional
tded to the Instructional-Regular Day School category today should be used for
~es discussed today by the creation of a step 24 on the teachers scale and that
[ Board do an evaluation of what is necessary to do the same thing for non-
hal school personnel. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the
recorded vote:
~srs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
ia Item No. 22. Lottery Permit. Mr. Agnor presented a lottery permit application
arents and Friends of the Children's Rehabilitation Center with two changes on
cation: 1) The location of the raffle to be at the Farmington Hunt Club Building.
ae hours for April 26, 1980 from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Mr. Agnor said the
lth's Attorney, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorri~r, Jr., has reviewed the applicat±on and
s approval with the following conditions: 1) Except for reasonable and proper
costs and prizes, no part of the gross receipts shall be used for any purpose
n those lawful charitable purposes for which the Parents and Friends of the
organized. 2) No person or firm shall be employed for the purpose of organizing,
or conducting the raffle. 3) No person, firm or organization shall pay or
ny consideration in excess of current fair market rental value for use of the
where the raffle is being held. 4) The raffle shall be limited to the dates and
which the application is being made - April 25, 1980 (8:00 P.M. to 10:00 p.m.);
1980, (9:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.). 5) No person except a~a~ide member of the
nd Friends of the C.R.C. shall participate in the management, operation or conduct
ffle, and no person shall receive any remuneration for participating in the
t, operation or conduct of such raffle. 6) No door prize shall exceed $25.00
ckpot of any nature whatsoever shall exceed $1,000. Mr. Roudabush then offered
approve the lottery permit with the above conditions for the Parents and Friends
~ildren's Rehabilitation Center in accordance with the Board's adopted rules and
ns for operation of such but clarifying condition #4 for the hours on April 26 to
~:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and changing the location for the raffle as requested to be
.rmington Hunt Club Building. Miss Nash seconded the motion and same carried by
~wing recorded vote:
essrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
one.
April 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 24a.
Study Committee.
Discussion:
Proposed Charter--Joint City-County Cooper
On January 9, 1980, a proposed charter was presented to the Board and deferre,
later date in order that Mr. Lindstrom could work with the Joint City-County Coope~
Study Committee on the wording. Mr. Lindstrom said he has met with the Committee ~
presented the following revision of the charter for the Board's consideration:
"The Joint City-County Cooperation Study Committee is hereby established
action of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and by the City of Charlo~
Council.
Functions
The functions and responsibilities of the Committee shall be to undertak~
studies at the request of the Board and of the Council that hold promise for ~
the range of experience in cooperative activity, and, upon request of both ju~
to develop recommendations for institutional arrangements that will lead to mc
effective and efficient City-County cooperation.
Composition
The Committee shall be composed of five members, two residents of the Co~
nominated by the Board of Supervisors, and two residents of the City, nominate
the Council. The chairman shall be jointly nominated by the Board and the Co~
and may be a resident of either jurisdiction. The entire Committee shall be ~
jointly.
Term
Members shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing authorities.
The Committee itself may be terminated at any time by either the Board or
Council.
The Role of the Committee and Its Relationship
To Council/Board
The Committee is conceived as-an independent, nonpartisan citizen group.
working towards the goal of advancing cooperation between the City and County
provision of services the Committee is free:
(1)
(2)
(3)
To develop its knowledge.
To arrive at its conclusions and recommendations.
To disseminate its findings and recommendations directly to the Boar
and Council.
Its obligations to the Board and to the Council are:
(1) To consult regularly with each body on needs, interest and
concerns of the jurisdictions.
(2) To keep each body informed of work in progress and likely resul
(3) To promptly file studies, documents and recommendations with th
Board and Council.
April 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
Nash asked what was meant by #1 "to develop its knowledge". Mr.i Lindstrom felt
~o use whatever resources are available. Dr. Zachetta felt what was going to be
of the Committee should be made ~learer and he did not want them going off-in
~ctions. Mr. Henley could not see why the County wanted a joint committee
~ing anything, because he felt the City would investigate their side and the
~ld do their side. He felt there would be three different opinions if this is
Miss Nash felt the items under "role" gi~e the committee a great deal of freedom.
~ta felt specificity was needed. He then suggested item #1 under the "role of
~tee" be changed to read "develop a body of knowledge of topics mutually agreed
he governing bodies." Miss Nash felt the County and City are telling the committee
~ and the words~"to'' under the role of the committee should be changed to "shall".
~ta then suggested deleting #1 under "obligations" if the word "shall" was going
~rted. Mr. Fisher'preferred leaving the "obligations" in the existing form. Mr.
then amended his motion to include the suggested amendments for deleting the
under "'role of the committee" and changing same to "shall" and to change the
#1 under "role" to read "Shall develop a body of knowledge of topics mutually
~n by governing bodies"; under role of the committee, last sentence of the first
change the words "is free" to "shall"; and the County Attorney to draft a cower
City Council about the Committee being established prior to the negotiating
Dr. Iachetta accepted the amendment. Roll was called on the foregoing motion
~arried by the following recorded vote:
ssrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
Henley.
da Item No. 25.
Appointments.
Iachetta offered motion to appoint Mrs. Danielle L. Burch ~o the Board of Directors
gional Library for a term to expire on June 30, 1982; said appointment to fill
ired term of Mr. Paul David. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and. same carried
llowing recorded vote:
ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
ne.
Henley offered motion to reappoint Mr. Walter F. Perkins to the Community College
Directors; said term to expire on June 30, 1984. Dr. Iachetta seconded the
~d same carried by the following recorded vote:
~ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
)ne.
.on was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to reappoint Mr. George W. Bailey and Mr.
Higgins to the Criminal Justice Advisory Council for a term to expire on June 30,
Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
~ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
)ne.
Fisher then noted letter of resignation dated March 28, 1980 from Mrs. Micha'ela
.... ~^~ ^~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~1 Librar~ said resignation is due to
April 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
Claims againsti~he Country, which had been examined, allowed and certified for
by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for t~e~onth of Mar
were also presented as information:
Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Operating Fund
Cafeteria Fund
School Construction - Capital Outlay Fund
Textbook Rental Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scottsville-l% Local SaI~s~Tax
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
General OperatinE-Capital Outlay Bund
Debt Service Fund
McIntire Trust Fund
Mental Health Fund
$
~10,702.22
~,520,751.74
47,077.34
83,692.16
2,094.76
66,437.18
~16.68
~9,998'.00
31,739.50
39,461.50
4,616.17
144~189.~8
$'2,608,602. 4
Agenda Item No. 31. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher said a notice on the wastewater funding public hearing for the Crc
Interceptor has been received; said public hearing to be held on May 14 and 15, 19
Agnor said the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is planning to invite one of the
legislators to be present at the public hearing along with a representative from tl
Board and if the hearing is not held on May 14, 1980 for that item then the RWSA B~
going to request that Mr. Fisher and Mayor Brunton participate in the hearing on M~
He also noted a petition being circulated in the Crozet area asking that the Croze'
receive a higher priority on the funding list. Mr. Agnor said the outcome of the ]
hearing should be known by June. Mr. Fisher then requested a resolution be drafte(
order that it can be presented on behalf of the Board at the public hearing.
Mr. Fisher noted a memorandum from the Planning District Commission about A-9!
to be reviewed 'by the Planning District Commission during May. He noted an applic~
the amount of two million dollars made for the Charlottesville Transit Service. H(
concerned that if the County does not comment on this application then it will be
that this service is regional and this is not the case because the County does not
contractural agreement with the Charlottesville Transit Service to provide service
County. He felt a statement should be included in the review process that there i:
agreement nor service from the Charlottesville Transit Service within Albemarle Co~
Mr. Fisher's major concern about the application is that all the funds will be app:
the City and the County may not be able to apply for any funds. Mr. Roudabush sug~
the Board communicate with the Planning District Commission on this matter. Mr. FJ
also requested the Board representatives on the Planning District Commission keep
on the request.
Mr. Fisher then noted a letter from Dr. George Vaughan, President of Piedmont
Community College stating that day classroom space is overcrowded and some rooms a~
added on.
Mr. Fisher had attended several meetings and conferences on the question of re
the Federal Executive Institute. There is some concern that if the Institute cann¢
find housin~ in tb~s
April 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
sed Planned Residential Urban Area Addition. This staff report will
ss the proposal from two perspectives:
from the Plan point of view, i.e., generally; and
from the point of view of its potential impact on zoning in the area,
i.e., what ~parcels of land stand to be affected by the new district~.
Proposal
.rea included in the Plan proposal stretches from Garth Road along .the
'oot USGS contour to Lambs Road where it cuts straight across to the
Ireek Natural Area. The line then follows the 400 foot USGS contour ~p
~ 743 to the 500 foot contour once more, which it then follows around'to
Road. The eastern border is the watershed dividing line. Staff felt
i00 and 400 foot contours in these locations were the most logical
ting lines between relatively level land, the steeper stream and swale
Plan proposal covers approximately 850 acres of relatively level land,
~epresents the portion of the watershed most capable of accommodating
Lopment when the proper run-off controls are applied.
~tial Affect
Plan proposal would affect 79 parcels comprising a total acreage of
oximately 960 acres. Of this total acreage, 590 acres are developed in
form. This category includes the approved subdivisions of Ivy Ridge
Bquirrel Ridge, the Evergeen Planned Unit Development, the entire 218
of school property surrounding and containing Greer, Jack Jouett,
~lbemarle High School, the Ivy Creek Natural Area, and 6.3 acres of
~arlick Tract.
four approved developments above, if developed according to their planned
ities, would contain a total of 393 units. There are 637 existing
dential units in the proposed area, and approximately 12 commercial or
t-industrial establishments. The remaining, undeveloped land comprises
oximately 370 acres. If one includes in this figure the school property
developad (excluding all buildings, land immediately surrounding buildings,
proposed maintenance and parking facility), the undeveloped acreage
eases to 504 (an increase of 134 acres).
960 total acres are presently zoned as follows:
Zoning Undeveloped Total Acres
A-1 222 (356) 530
RS-1 -0- 2
R-1 14 36
R-2 -0- 13
R-3 134 217
PUD -0- 126
M-1 -0- 36
TOTAL 370 (504) 960
re are presently only two parcels within the proposed area (comprising
~0~ acres) under land use taxation.
April 9, 1980
(Regular Day Meeting)
Creek
Lincoln'
Tra,le
Park
~Ho~y
~' ~Sch~'
Proposed Planned Residential
Urban Area Addition
APril 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
ltrol Or.dinance. He noted that Squirrel Ridge did meet requirements of the Runoff
Dr. Iachetta asked if the density on Squirrel Ridge was not reduced because of
~ Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said Squirrel Ridge had R-3 zoning, but did develop with
mit per acre. Dr. Iachetta said he did not believe they could have met the Runoff
,dinance requirements at a higher density. Mr. Roudabush said that was not entirely
felt it was a matter of disposing of the property in an expedient manne~.
~indstrom asked if the Ivy Creek Natural Area was included in the developed area.
? said yes. Mr. Lindstrom asked the acreage. Mr. Tucker said about 1/2 of the
or 40 acres was included. Mr. Lindstrom said that 40 acres is obviously committed
~pen space. He then said that it appears to him that about 55% of this area is
~d A-i, therefore, if this proposal is adopted, it will reflect an upzoning for
of the area. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the staff's report was in response to
he had asked at the last meeting and he was not specific enough about definitions.
to look at what is legally committed, and if these committed areas are deleted
~rban area and the zoning is changed on those parcels, what parcels would not be
oy that action. Mr. Lindstrom noted that he had asked the Albemarle County Service
to also prepare some information on this proposal.
~ill Brent, Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, said his staff
red, at Mr. Lindstrom's request, a map of existing water and sewer facilities in
adjacent to the parcels contained in the proposal being discussed tonight. He said
arle County Service Authority and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority have a twelve-
rline in Hydraulic, Rio and Georgetown Roads. The only areas presently being
sewage disposal are the Georgetown Green area and the County schools; being
ed at present is a facility for 01d Forge Road. Sewage from Georgetown Green must
up to the crest of the hill on Hydraulic and then flows back to Route 29 North.
sed gravity and force mains in Old Forge Road will collect sewage and pump it to
Road where it will flow back to Route 29 North. There are several points along
Road where gravity sewers are in place. There is a new subdivision in the planning
Hydraulic (Townwood) which will be served by gravity sewage disposal. The Berkeley!
or line now dead-ends at Hydraulic Road near Whitewood Road. There is an existing
ewer that ends between Four Seasons and the intersection of Rio Road and Hydraulic
.ere are some gravity sewers in place in-Berkeley and Berkmar Drive and the upper
.o Road. Anything beyond the crest of the hill west of Hydaulic Road would have to
to the crest of the hill and would then flow by gravity to several possible
Mr. Lindstrom asked if most of the area being discussed tonight will have to be
pumped service. Mr. Brent said yes. Mr. Roudabush said the gravity sewer line
~cks Road which services Old Salem Apartments (the Apartments themselves being on a
~stem) was not mentioned. Mr. Brent noted that he had shown the gravity line in
Road on the map presented to the Board tonight, but did not include the i~nternal
~ Old Salem.
Roudabush said the Planning Staff's report deals primarily with information on
properties and does not'reflect the intent of the proposal he had made at the
~eeting. He then read the following statement to clarify the intent of his proposal:
med Residential - Urban Area
designation and densities may be applied to urban areas with environmental
straints for development where urban growth patterns have already been
~blished.
adard development will be allowed for single-family dwellings at densities
~ne dwelling unit per two acres.
April 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
We have ... cut trees, seen ... streams lose volume, ... watched our populat~
grow beyond expectations, and are doing nothing to keep the population withir
the bounds of the water supply .... Through siltation, the volume of our maj¢
impoundment of water, through excessive home building in the reservoir basin,
are putting into the reservoir industrial wastes, septic tank seepage, metall
deposits from automobile exhausts and drippings, and toxic fertilizer and
insecticides that were generated by the replaced farm lands.
I have read several of the professional reports on our water situation and it
seems that our only hope for more water ... is the augmentation of our presen
supply with the Buck Mountain Creek water, or ... the development of a James
River supply at a cost of nearly 45 million dollars. Obviously, the
correction of error in our present watershed ... is economically the most
feasible solution.
I realize that what we have is the public welfare on one side and the desire
of some landowners to capture wealth from the use of land near the City's
facilities. But no one should use even his own land contrary to the public
interest. The supervisors are the ruling governors of this area. They have
enormous powers to amend their own master zoning plan with a new ordinance
devoted to the whole watershed, even with eminent domain power to confiscate
objectionably located residences, at considerable cost, of course.
They can, to some extent, undo the errors already made, and they can certainl
call a halt to the further exploitation of this whole watershed area. They
can rearrange ordinances to limit dwellings to one unit per five acres
(instead of two), and then only when a drainage field is on a slope of no
greater than a 15% grade. Only a watershed wide ordinance on this restrictiol
would be fair.
To me the situation seems rather desperate and calls for a radical solution
of no more buildings in the watershed area, but if you haven't got the courag~
to forbid further building, you can at least apply the five-acre per unit
permission if a 15% maximum grade drainage field is available."
Mrs. Charlotte Humphris said she:~had~been Jattending~Baard meetings for five ye
speaking about the problem of protecting the reservoir. The solution seems simple
there is only one major water supply for the area and the hope of another is far is
future, why allow higher densities which might destroy the watershed when the Runo:
Ordinance has not been proven to be effective. Mrs. Humphris asked that the Board
the public's interest over private pocketbooks.
Mr. Roy Patterson, representing Citizens for Albemarle,.read a prepared state~
parts of which are excerpted below. (The entire statement is. on file.)
"Tonight we urge you to adopt the land use amendments for Urban Neighborhoods
One and Seven which were shown in Planning Reports Numbers ! and 2. We urge
you not to adopt the substitute Proposed Planned Residential UrbanArea Addit~
as suggested by Mr. Roudabush.
These are additional reasons for adoption of the amendments in Planning Repor~
1 and 2:
1. The western boundary generally follows a physical feature, the ridge lin~
along Georgetown and Hydraulic Roads.
April 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
~ehensive Plan which calls for the 'conservation of water supply
~ndment watersheds ... steep slopes ... water quality in streams ....
areas should bE protected from intensive commercial, industrial, and
[ential development,'
~g of up to six units per acre represents a commitment by the County
~ovide services and it thus encourages higher density, and makes it
Lcult, if not impossible, to refuse approval of any development.
~s been stated, that this area is already developed at urban density so
a trend has been set which should be continued. According to the
?, however, 55% of the land is still in A-1 zoning, and over half is
~eloped. These~undeveloPed acres are now in woodland or sod. Any
~e in their condition, be it changing contours by grading, removing
~ative cover or adding impervious surface, results in a change in
lrainage patterns so that the so-called 'one hundred year flood' comes
ever increasing frequency. Studies have shown that sedimentation is
times greater from construction sites than from forested areas.
~ all of the land in the watershed is important, some areas are more
~cal than others. In the area in question, many steep slopes drop
~tly into the main body of the reservoir not far from the in-take
s so that the water has little chance to cleanse itself of pollutants,
this area is the most in need of protection.
Id this land be developed under the Roudabush proposal, sedimentation
s would be relied on to trap sediment. Soluble pollutants would not be
ctively removed by the sedimentation process. This raises the question
ho would be responsible for the maintenance and periodic cleaning of these
ns. Would the County have to do this at taxpayers expense, or could the
loper be expected to do this important service long?
staff projects the possible addition of 1958 more dwelling units under
Roudabush proposal. Even if we could depend on the erosion and run-off
rols to work, that would mean 13,70~ more vehicle trips per day at that
ity. This would increase the run-off of heavy metals, petroleum products
other pollutants not covered by the Runoff (Control) Ordinance.
of the land already developed was &pproved before we knew the impact
evelopment on a drinking water impoundment. Those mistakes can be
.ed on ignorance, but that is no sign.that the public today is willing to
re the necessity to protect the major source of its drinking water. Whether
ike it or not, there is no substitute for the Rivanna Reservoir. Buck
.rain Creek is.seen only as a supplement to th~ Rivanna, and Buck Mountain
k may also be degraded by the time any action is taken ..... Camp,
ser and McKee estimated in 1977 that the cost of construction to use the
,s River was $44 million. It would be even m~re expensive today and we
.d not expect much help from Washington .....
~as been stated that public facilities are already available in this area.
~ally, the pumping stations now planned to relieve failing septic systems
not sufficiently large to provide public sewer to this whole area. That
.d require further outlays of funds. Pumping stations are not infallible
~er.
The basic issue here is conflict between individual property rights and
April 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Richard Collins said he lives in the City. He spoke against the substit
merit. He said in drawing a line, he hoped that the line would be ravional even i
completely supportable by scientific evidence. He said the original line propose
it may not be perfect from a legal or policy sense, is very reasonable given the
the taxpayer, the water drinker, to the County, and to all those potential inhabi
region. Mr. Collins said he can understand the concern for property values and tl
insensitivity that is in one sense attendent to this necessary act. He feels tha'
should provide a method by which a few lot owners need not suffer, while others b
most important issue is the reservoir. Reliance on the Runoff Control Ordinance.
protecting the reservoir, is misplaced. Mr. Collins said, Susan Schmidt-Fonsaca,
at the University of Virginia, recently completed a thesis entitled "An Evaluatiol
Albemarle County Runoff Control Ordinance" which he would recommend to the County
and other staff members who have responsibility under the ordinance. Mr. Collins
is no scientific basis for believing the Runoff Control Ordinance, even if diiige~
will protect the water supply from eutrophication. Every day it is becoming clea~
small amounts of materials, which were thought to be inconsequential, in interact~
other materials, produce a threat to the public health and ecology. Mr. Collins ~
that five cents be added to the wholesale price of water and let a committee of Cz
City people try to find a way to purchase buffers, to find ways to help farmers r~
and to subsidize those practices which will benefit the public.
Mr. Ron Carter, a resident of Colthurst, said he was against the original pre
he not sure about this new proposal. He also owns land on Barracks Road. He saic
the Runoff Control Ordinance is a piecemeal attempt to solve the water problem an¢
action is another piecemeal attempt. There is a great deal of land in the waters~
does not believe anything is being done to stop the run-off from that land, or thc
around Crozet. It appears that this proposal is slanted toward the builder. Mr.
agreed with Mr. Collins that more study is needed and then an overall program be~ c
to achieve the end results rather than doing site run-off control first. Mr. Car~
is totally against this amendment.
Mr. Fisher said since this problem first came to light, there have been at
different committees make five different studies. There were a lot of recommendat
presented to the Board, most which the Board attempted to implement. The Watershc
ment Committee recommended that the Board work more on the issue of farm land use~
residential, commercial and industrial development. The Board agreed to this, an~
has agreed to help pay for a person to work on existing uses. The County has beef
eight years to get funding for the Crozet Interceptor. A hearing will be held ags
on that request. There is at present a significant problem with the reservoir.
will probably get worse and there is no other major water supply where water can
at a reasonable price. Groundwater is not the answer. The Board must deal with
presently in place.
Mr. Carter said there was one item which was being overlooked in this discuss
had bought a piece of property which somebody before him had had rezoned. At a r~
meeting of the Colthurst Property Owners, Mr. Lindstrom had said that there are w~
there are wipe-outs. If this land is rezoned to A-i, and Mr. Carter had paid R-3 ~
the land, that was a wipe-out. Mr. Carter said he disagrees with that statement.
had the land rezoned from A-1 to R-3 and. he had paid A-1 prices for the property a
then returned to A-1 zoning, he would not be worried, but in this case, if land o~
can now build 20 townhouses is put in a category where he can only build one house
County should pay him the difference in cost.
Mr. Francis Fife said he lives in the City. He came to this meeting to urge
to do what it can to protect the reservoir. Mr. Fife said it would seem to him th
costs money to protect the reservoir with regard to certain property ri~hts~ it wo
April 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
.fer bank collateral from this land to other lands which will have increased
He said he favors the Roudabush proposal. He feels the proposal is good,
; is not a cure all. Mr. Garrett said the Hydraulic Road improvement has been
Irity on the list of County road improvements, and now to say that everything west
~d will be rural seems wrong to him. Mr. Fisher said the Board had discussed the~
~oad improvement this morning. The cost of that improvement is rising faster than
~e set aside. The fact that the interstate highway was built through the entire
~ four lanes did not make the area along that highway urban all the way through the
~.~ Iachetta said that Hydraulic Road does not serve just the urban area, but also
~s north of the City all the way to Earlysvitle. The east side of Hydraulic will
~velopabte at a high density. Mr. Garrett said the question was also brought up
forced or gravity sewage collection. In the areas that would fit under the Roudabu~
~rivate developers would have to pay for installing this service and not the general
~n Holden said he has listened carefully to Mr. Roudabush's proposal. He feels
~ld be better to adopt this proposal~and then let individual owners apply under
~fines for a higher density than ~2~.~ould be to just sweep all of this land into
he; this could be more damaging to the land. If some faith is put into the Runo~ff
~inance, then there would be a better situation with respect to control of land,
development by right under a straight rural classification.
~ndrick Dure spoke about Neighborhood No. 5. He asked that the Board consider
rain lands to Urban Area Neighborhood No. 5 as has been discussed previously. Mr.
that he will be filing a PUD plan this week that encompasses the Forest Lodge/Biscu~
On that plan, a major road is planned to run from the Moore~ Cree. k/Biscuit Run
on at Holiday Inn South, under 1-64 and then south through the entire property. It
hat this propose~ road will alleviate a lot of the road problems that have plagued
e plans presented to the Board previously. Mr. Dure said he feels the annexation
impinge on this area at some time in the future and for that reason he would like
to consider showing this land as low density residential.
endell Wood said he feels this is more of a political issue than sound reasoning.
eople here tonight would.leave the watershed in its natural state, but a lot of
le live in the watershed. Everybodyi!iseems to be saying,~for the good of the public,
y about a few property owners. If deletion of this land from the urban area is for
good, then the public should pay, not just a few people., Mr. Wood said he owns
for-high density in the area and he has been stopped for seven years from doing
'ith that land. He asked that the Board try to find a solution that will not work a
just a few people. Mr. Wood said Mr. Fisher had mentioned co=~ittee reports, and
wledge, none of these committees have come up with what the problem is and what
the problem. Eutrophication is a natural process and will happen anywhere. It is
.ter of how fast. Mr. Wood said when the City condemned property for the reservoir,
condemned three feet from the water's edge. Part of their argument to hold down
of money they paid was that the value' on the remainder of the property would be
because the owners would have lake-front lots. Mr. Wood said he has mellowed over
~ine years and is only asking that the.Board "give a little bit".
'rank McCulloch said he lives in Colthurst. He said if the Board adopts the Roudabus!
he will invest in Perrier water. He said the impact of what the Board does in this
.1 affect not only people in the immediate area, but also in other parts of the
~e said although there is at present more intensive urban development in this area,
not justify going ahead with more urban development when it is not known what that
~t will do to the water supply. The League of Women Voters has made a comprehensive
if various interests at stake and he subscribes to that analysis. Mr. McCulloch
~s amazed.that Mr. Carter spoke in favor-of the Roudabush plan and Mr. Holden felt
~a~d ~ermit ~reater regulation. You cannot have it both ways, and he felt the
Mrs. Joan Graves, President of the Berkeley Community Association, reminded
that the Berkeley Association has always supported the Board in its efforts to prot
reservoir.
Mr. Bob Brugh said he lives on Old Forge Road. He said one statement made tom
that there is land available for everyone, but land in Albemarle County is selling
would be paid for land three or four blocks off of Virginia Beach. It is the Board
bility to protect the reservoir, but due to inflation, there is also a responsibili
provide affordable housing for middle income people. Mr. Brugh said he supports tn
proposal.
With no one else present to speak on the matter, the public hearing was closed
At 9:54 P.M. the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:07 P.M.
Dr. Iachetta said that from remarks made tonight, some landowners assume that
area is removed from the urban area, the land will be downzoned. The Comprehensive
not a Zoning Ordinance and this action would not automatically downzone property.
has been told that the Runoff Control Ordinance is the be all and end all, and if ~
believe that, he would have voted for the ordinance originally. Dr. Iachetta said
seen the failure of a twenty-acre structure at Hollymead in which seven years of ac
silt was released on the area it was supposed to protect. Also, Dr. Iachetta said
it would be an error to assume that any non-governmental agency made responsible fo
structures would provide long term and absolute protection. The natural boundary o
watershed mades a better delineation of the urban area than arbitrary swales or pro
lines especially if the lines appear to be directed to satisfy special interests.
those considerations, this is an area that has over fifty percent of its current la
two-acre density. Putting this area into a minimal holding pattern is a better cho
more easily reversed. The Board has been working on the Comprehensive Plan for two
and that plan provides housing in areas where at some future date those houses coul
served with public utilities. He does not feel that 900 acres will deprive anyone
having proper housing. Dr. Iachetta said he could see no reason to alter what the
agreed upon several months ago. The road as a boundary is easily delineated and be
the public. It is a lot easier to deal with than a property line some distance fro
road. For that reason, he is inclined to support the original proposal.
Mr. Roudabush said he believes that everybody is trying to achieve the same th
other words, to protect the reservoir with the tools available and at the same time
where the boundary of urban neighborhoods #1 and #7 will be placed. In 1977, the B
adopted a comprehensive plan which the planning staff, Planning Commission, consult
Board and the public endorsed. Adopted in that version of the Comprehensive Plan w
urban area boundary that extended far beyond what is shown tonight. Many of the ci
present tonight supported adoption of that plan. At that time, the Board said the
would be assigned to determine exactly how each neighborhood in the urban area shou
developed. Thereafter, neighborhood committees were appointed. These committees t
recommendations to the Planning Commission. The recommendation of the Planning Com
this Board showed an area somewhat smaller than that recommended by the committees,
proposal before the Board is even smaller than the Planning Commission's recommenda
Roudabush said he made a suggestion that this Board not take action until this area
carefully studied to see exactly what was occurring in the area, what services are
what would make it an urban area, and what would cause the Board to think it is not
The issue of the reservoir has been discussed by the Board many times. Out of prio
came the Runoff Control Ordinance. The Board was told by consultants that the.Runo
Ordinance was the best means of protecting the reservoir and that it was the only w
had of suggesting any technical protection. Mr. Roudabush said if the ordinance do
what it should, then the ordinance should be looked at instead of just stopping gro~
Roudabush said a lot of the people speaking tonight seem to think this is a change
but it is not. This is an amendment to the comprehensive plan and any change in zo~
April 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
nley said he felt that Mr. Roudabush's proposal is a reasonable compromise and he
rt that proposal.
ndst~om said he cannot support the Roudabush proposal. There are many acres of ~ ~
y land proposed in the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate growth. Property rights
y values are at issue here, but the biggest issue is the reservoir. Mr. Lindstrom
recently made some calculations on the cost of getting water from the James River
hat it would cost about $106 million in 1982 so he could see no reason to take a
the reservoir. The reservoir issue will not be settled by what is decided on
cres. Mr. Lindstrom said he really does not put any trust in the Runoff Control
ecause of the things he has seen.~ What is really needed is monitoring. Last
.and Dr. !achetta said the County should consider local funding for the Crozet
One of the biggest problems in the watershed is Morton's and he feels uncomfor'
ng all the burden on landowners when the major point source polluter goes without
nt. At issue also is land use. Mr. Lindstrom said he had not known before tonight
.t Mr. Roudabush had in mind, but now thinks that the proposal has some possibilitiel
use. The concept the proposal embodies is important, but to think it has to be
,d in a comprehensive land use plan for the entire watershed is a lot of malarkey.
.ready so much land zoned heavily that growth cannot be stopped in the County. The
to move forward from this meeting, and as part of the Comprehensive Plan, develop
Lsive land use proposal to encompass not only the Runoff Control Ordinance, but
~s controls on the way other land is developed. An overlay is probably the most
~ classification for that kind of proposal and is a good suggestion. Mr. Lindstrom
Lld be willing to devote all the time that is needed to get technical information
lal proposals to deal with the whole problem. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not think
Ir. Roudabush has proposed is all that bad, but there is an implication that it
~s to the watershed area, and he feels ~t sets a legal precedent that would be hard
.sher said the Board should focus on the urban area boundaries of neighborhoods
said the Board has before them two sets of lines.
~udabush said the lines are essentially the same as far as the Comprehensive Plan
~d. Mr. Tucker suggested that an aerial Photograph, which was on display, would
~se for the Comprehensive Plan. When the staff starts working on the zoning map,
~egin to look at tax map parcels.
~udabush then offered motion that the urban area boundaries for Neighborhoods #1
~stablished in accordance with the aerial photograph map labeled "Proposed Planned
Urban Area Addition" and that the proposed uses in that area be in accordance
~scription he had furnished earlier tonight entitled "Planned Residential - Urban
out in full at the beginning of these minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr.
failed by the following recorded
Henley, Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
srs. Fisher, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
~ndstrom then offered motion that the staff (and if it takes more staff, more staff
hired) be~in to develop immediately a watershed overlay designation that will
s remarks made here tonight, to be used in the Comprehensive Plan. The staff
o think in terms of the zoning ordinance. The staff needs to work on land use
f a watershed overlay to deal with the problems of development on slopes in excess
oblems of development on large lots where there are no real controls; the whole
the problem.
Nash said before the Board votes on that motion, she would like to move that the
b the whole two urban areas in the watershed to be replaced by an overlay and there
April 97 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
A man in the audience asked what the Board had done. Mr. Fisher said he would
the motion as it affects delineation of urban area neighborhoods #1 and #7. The wat
limit at the ridge line will be used for delineation of the urban area, and tha Boar
committed itself to try to develop a stronger protection for the entire watershed ar
that is to be done has not yet been determined, only that the Board will work on bet
controls for the entire watershed, and soon. Mr. Lindstrom said the word "try" was
the motion.
Mr. Fisher said the boundary for the urban area has been determined, but that
only matter which needed to be discussed tonight. He asked if the other Board membe
to continue or adjourn. At 11:00 P.M., motion was offered by Miss .Nash, seconded
Lindstrom, to adjourn this meeting until April 16, 1980, at 3:15 P.M. in the Board
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
- - - ~IRMAN -
April 16, 19U0 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from April 9, 1980)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
on April 16, 1980, at 3:15 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Cha
vilIe, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from April 9, 1980.
Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta,
C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss. Ellen V. Nash and Mr. William S. Roudabush.
Officers Present:
Tucker, Jr.
County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Planner, Robe
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:25 P.M. with a moment
Agenda Item No. 2.
1980.)
Comprehensive Plan, Urban Area Amendments.
(Deferred from
Mr. Fisher said Miss Nash had requested this discussion today because of her cc
about the boundary line established for the Monticello Mountain area and Neighborho¢
5 south of~the City. Miss Nash said she did not think that any of the area shown or
side of Route 20 below 1-64 should be included in Neighborhood 4 and that land needc
development because of this deletion be included in Neighborhood 5 instead. She als
eliminating property on the west side of Route 742 from the industrial category. M~
asked the status of the petition for the Hillcrest PUD development. Mr. Tucker said
action was deferred several years~ ago pending completion of the AWT Plant. Mr. Fis
from what he has heard~ fundings'for Phase II of .the~AWT Plant is in trouble and tha~
affect this whole area of the County.
Mr. Lindstrom said he was concerned about eliminating the area west of Route
~treet Extended), but felt it might be worth considering deleting land to the east
on ~ ~ +~ ~~ m~ n~ ~ ~f~ ~n~ the Monticello area. Mr. Roudabush sai~