1977-01-12January 5, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
January 12__~1977 (Regular-All Da~ Meeting)__
Agenda Item No. 8. At 10:01 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mrs
David to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters and land acquisition.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Z~&chetta and Roudabush.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session and immediately adjourned.
January 12, 1977 [Regular/All Day Meet
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, V±rginia, was held
on Janaury 12, 1977, beginning at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr. and William S. Roudabush.
Absent: Dr. F. Anthony Iachetta
Officers present:
St. John.
County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2a. Purchase of Street Signs.
memorandum from J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer.
Mr. Agnor noted receipt of the following
"December 30, 197'6
To: Ray B. Nones
From: J. Harvey Bailey
Subject: Street Signs
For a number of years the County has made available to its citizens a street sign
purchase service. This allows an individual to purchase a street sign from the State
and conforming to the specifications of the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation. If the street sign is for a road within the State system, the Highway Depart.
ment will erect and maintain it. On private roads or roads to come into the State
system, the individual bears the cost of installation and maintenance.
The procedure for the purchase of the signs is as follows: the applicant gives
the pertinent data to the County Engineering Department for its review and estimate
of costs. When the applicant has agreed to pay the costs of preparing and shipping
the desired sign, the Engineer sends the application and recommendation to the Board
of .Supervisors for its approval. This being granted, he requests a purchase order
from the County Purchasing Agent. When the sign has been delivered, the Engineer
notifies the purchaser. The purchaser picks up the sign on a C.O.D. transaction.
This service has never been set up as a ~ine item in the budget, and hitherto
purchases have been made on a revolving fund basis, which is no longer acceptable.
The mechanics of the service would be greatly expedited by setting up a line item within
the Engineering Department's budget. This would allow the prompt ordering of a sign
and the payment of the exact amount due by the applicant upon arrival of the finished
product. Our experience lately has been that a minimum of three months are required
between the issue of a purchase order and the delivery.
We respectfully request that a sum of $500 by authorized and a line item desig-
nated, allowing the Engineer__to proceed directly with the purchase of signs."
Mr. Agnor also noted receipt of a memorandum from Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance
dated January 4, 1977, eoncurrmng in Mr. Bailey's recommendation. Motion was then offered
by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the following resolution.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $500 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
General Fund and transferred to Code 10A-207.1 Street Signs.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush~
None
Dr. Iachetta.
Not Docketed. Mr. Agnor said he has recently talked to Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway
Engineer about the administration of street sign requests. From the Highway Department's
point of view, it is not necessary to bring each request for street signs to the Board of
Supervisors; this could be handled administratively, however this would require that the
Board adopt a resolution providing for this administrative procedure. Mr. Fisher asked
that a staff report be drafted with more background work, particularly in the matter of
naming streets; said report to be presented at a later date.
Agenda Item 2B. Highway Matters - Request to close a portion of Summit Road.
noted receipt of the following letter dated December 8, 1976, from Fred N. Colmer:
Mr. Agnor
.ng)
January 12, 1977 (Regular-All Day Meeting)
"December 8, 1976
Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.
Albemarle County Executive
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Va.
Dear Mr. Agnor:
I represent Mrs. Frank E. Hamilton, Jr.,, who is the owner of 148 West Park Drive.
This is the last house on the left on West Park Drive which is in the Knollwood Sub-
division. The original plat-of Knollwood ~ndicates that Summit Road would go past
the Hamilton residence and join up to Georgetown Road. This portion of Summit Road
has never been opened and under present conditions I do not believe it would be
desirable from anyones point of view for this to be opened.
This results in a sort of no man~s land between Mrs. Hamilton's property and
the property on the other area of the space where such a road would be located.
No one feels an obligation to take care of the property and it is often unsightly.
On behalf of Mrs. Hamilton I request that you put the matter of officially closing
this portion of Summit Road on the Board of Supervisors agenda under highway matters.
I am enclosing a copy of a letter from Mr. Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of
Highways in which he indicates that he does not foresee that this right-of-way would
be essential to the needs of the County at any foreseeable time in the future.
Sincerely,
Fred N. Colmer"
Mr. Agnor said he had informed Mr. Colmer that if the Board looked favorably upon
his request, they would order an ordinance drafted to vacate this portion of the plat of
Summit Road and this would then be sent on to the Planning Commission for public hearings.
Mr. Colmer was present in support of the request.
Mr. Fisher said he had asked that the staff not do any work on this matter until the
Board decided whether or not it wanted to hold public hearings. He felt there were several
agencies which would have interest in this since the road is dedicated to public use.
Mr. Roosevelt was present. He said he had corresponded with Mr. Colmer earlier in
the year, went out and looked at the road on the ground and seeing no road there, assumed
that it was not in the State Highway System. However, in checking his maps, he finds that
it is shown as part of the State Highway System and has an assigned route number. There-
fore, the road will have to be abandoned or discontinued under Virginia Code Section
33.1-151. He had told Mr. Colmer he did not think the Highway Department had any interest
in having this section of road continued on through to George~own. Now that he knows it
is part of the Highway System, he feels even stronger about the matter because the Highway
Department might be required to upgrade this portion of the road to state standards. He
would rather see this road dropped from his responsibilities.
After a short discussion, motion was offered by Mrs. David ordering that this matter
be advertised for a public hearing for abandonment of this road under Virginia Code
Section 33.1-151 as soon as all necessary paper work is completed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta
Agenda Item 2C. Highway Matters - Request that Guilford Lane not be snow plowed.
Mr. Agnor read the following letter from Mrs. Ellen Vaughan.
"January 9, 1977
To:. Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
Dear Sirs and Madam:
We, the residents~of Guilford Lane, would like to have our street blocked off to
traffic and not snow plowed during heavy snows in order that the neighborhood child-
ren may sled here.
Guilford Lane is only one block long and is on a fine sledding hill. There
are only three houses with Guilford Lane addresses and two others with property ad-
joining Guilford Lane. Ail five families would like to have the street blocked off
and not plowed during snowy weather. Closing Guilford Lane will not deny access to
any other street.
We have spoken to the Highway Department and to the County Engineer, both of
whom were willing to grant our request, but first needed approval of the Beard of
Supervisors.
We would appreciate your prompt consideration in the hope that there will be
more snow ~his winter.
Yours truly,
Mr. and Mrs. Robert C. Vaughan, 140 Guilford Lane
Mr. James Simmonds, 104 Guilford Lane
Mr. and Mrs. Charles L. Johnson, 121 Guilford Lane
Mr. and Mrs. William J. Morrow, 122 Bennington Road
January 12, 1977 (Regular-All Day Meeting)
Mr. Roosevelt noted a part of the Highway Department's policy, Section 11.212, Desig-
nation of Play Areas, which says that the Code of Virginia Section 46.1-180.2 authorizes
the governing body of a county, city or town tO designate certain highways or portions
thereof as play areas for sledding and similar recreational activities. When the governing
body passes such an ordinance the department will no longer provide snow removal mainten-
ance on the designated highway. Any signs or barricades necessary to control or protect
traffic, or to protect the recreational activities, shall be furnished, erected and main-
tained by the governing body. The governing~body should be requested to notify the depart-
ment when the ordinance has been repealed and normal enow removal operations are to be
resumed.
After a short discussion concerning Guilford Lane and the County's responsib±lity in
adopting such a resolution, motion was offered by Mr. Henley authorizing the Clerk to write
a letter to Mrs. Vaughan stating that the County did not want to accept the responsibility
of erecting barricades, but if the residents could work out something with the Highway
Department so that this would be the last street plowed that would be fine. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David, Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta
Not Docketed. Mr. Agnor noted that when the Board adopted a resolution on November 20,
1975, asking for acceptance of certain roads in Section 9 of Woodbrook Subdivision, Brook-
mere Court was left out of the description; He asked that a resolution be adopted to
correct this. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Dottier to adopt
the following resolution:
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 in Section 9 of Woodbrook Subdivision, Albemarle County, Virginia:
Brookmere Court - Beginning at station 0 + 00 on Brookmere Court,
a point common to the centerline intersection of Brookmere
Court and Brookmere Road, station 6 + 00, as shown on the plan
and profile for Brookmere Road prepared by W. S. Roudabush, Jr.,
and Associates revised March 12, 1976; thence with Brookmere
Court in a north~westerty direction 165 feet to station 1 + 65
the end of Brookmere Court in Section 9 of Woodbrook.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways be and
is hereby guaranteed a $0 foot unobstructed right-of-way along this requested
addition as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 533, pages 428 through 430.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David, Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
Not Docketed. Mr. Roosevelt said~he intends to contact each Board member individually
to discuss road improvements in his or her district. Therefore, it Will be necessary to
act the Annual Highway Hearing date further into the year. It was agreed that March 23,
would be the date for the hearing.
Mr. Dottier said he had received a call from Mr. Blick in Howardsville asking that
the Howardsville road be snow plowed.
Mr. Henley asked that the Highway Department check a culvert on Buck Mountain Road
between Route 810 and Mint Springs Road which is in need of repair.
Mr. Fisher said it was nice to have the 250 By-Pass opened to four lanes of traffic
at last.
Agenda I~em 3. Matters from the public which are not listed on the agenda.
was present to present any matter for Board discussion.
No one
Agenda Item 4. Sewer Line Extension Policy. Present were Mr. Myron E. Tremain, Chair-
man, Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors and Mr. E. E. Thompson, Executive
Director of the Service Authority. Mr. Tremain began by reading into the record the fol-
lowing memorandum.
"January 12, 1977
To: Members'of Board of Supervisors
From: M. E. Tremain, Chairman Albemarle County Service Authority
SUBJECT: Policy on Mandatory Sewer Hookup
You have a request before you from the Albemarle County Service Authority asking
that you concur in a policy adopted by our Board at its December meeting, which would
require mandatory hookup on public sanitory sewers now located or to be. located,
within certain limitations. The policy would provide that property owners would be
required tO hook up within 180 days after official notice to do so.
The Albemarle County Service Authority was formed approximately 12 years ago for
-¢ ..... ~ ...... +=~ =~ =~;~ ~ f~a~l~ in those areas of
O3O
January 12, 1977 (Regular-All Day Mee~in~
the county designated by your Board as our jurigdiction.. So far the emphasis of our
body has been in the area of water, .since very little public sewer has been available.
The alternative has been for the developer to construct a lagoon system or provide
for individual septic systems. With the regional planning now underway through Rivanna,
we will be.able to provide more and better sewer service in certain areas, which will
meet water control and environmental standards - but at a price.
This new pol'icy was prompted by considerations of the feasibility of sewer con-
nections in the Hessian Hills and Westmoreland areas which now kave public health
problem aspects. A similar problem will exist in the Crozet area when that interceptor
is completed. ~Though the policy is meant to apply to all areas where sewer may be
required, we see no-problem as far as new development is concerned - the problem lies
in those areas already built up and established where private systems are now in use -
some satisfactory, some unsatisfactory or potentially so.
We recently applied for an EDA Grant for the Hessian Hills - Westmoreland project.
It now appears that we will not receive these funds. However, even though EDA at
present does not require mandatory hookup, though other Federal Agencies such as EPA
do require such a policy, I feel the Service Authority a~d the Board of Supervisors
have an obligation to the Federal Agency and to its other customers to make use of
facilities provided and to incorporate the revenues into the overall budget so as to
provide more and better services to all customers at the best overall price possible.
In other words, Federal funding in one area should benefit all customers - not just
that particular link in the overall system.
We estimate the cost to provide sewer service col
Westmoreland areas at $1,000,000 and Crozet at $3,000,
and even with Federal-funding to my mind, the only way
sion in these areas where there is a need is to have a
enforcement policy - so as to make the overall costs o.
feasible.
We regret the necessity to have to consider such
for the future."
Lectors in the Hessian Hills -
)00. Without Federal funding -
we can consider such exten-
provision for hookup and an
installation and service
policy,but see no alternative
Mr. Fisher then read into the record the resolution adopted by the Albemarle County
Service Authority in regards to this matter.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Service Authority that the Board
of Supervisors of Albemarle County are respectfully requested to concur with the Rules
and Regulations and Construction Speclfmcatmons of the Albemarle County Service
Authority, Section 2 (Water and Sewerage), subsection 2-01 (a):
Section 2 - WATER AND SEWERAGE SERVICES
2-01 POLICY
occupancy,.
Jurisdictio~
right-of-wa
a public sai
hundred
at the owne~
water facil:
public sewe~
Within one
SO.
(a). The owners of all houses, buildings or properties used for human
~mployment, recreation, or other purposes, situated within the
Lal Areas of the Authority and abutting on any street, alley, or
r in which there is now located, or ma~ in the future be located,
~itary sewer of .the Authority a~t a distance not greater than two
1) feet from such houses, buildings or propertmes', shall be required
~S' expense to install suitable toilet and other disposable liquid
_ties therein, and to connect such fac$1ities directly with the
in accordance with the Rules and RegUlations of the Authority
~undred and eighty (180) days after da~e of official notice to do
This request is being made pursuant to Code ~f Virginia, Section 15.1-1261.
Signed: Myron E Tremain, Chairman, A.C.S.A. Board
Certified: E. E[ Thompson., Secretary-Treasurer"
Mr. Fisher said last fall Mr. Thompson had indicated he thought the Service Authority's
Board of Directors wo~ld be asking for this type of a p.olicy in order to make the collector
system being built ecSnomically viable. Assumptions were made on some of the applications
for funding that everyone wou.ld be required to hook onto the collector system and this
assumption ms the basms on which the economic viability was determined. Mr. Fisher said
if this were the case! the Board of Supervisors should start to work on this policy now
instead of waiting un~il the collectors are in the ground
tained, the cost to the Service Authority will be less a~
would be difficult to require people who have no problem~
to hook onto the line.
Mr. Tremain said the Service Authority has an oblige
obtained, to make sure the collectors installed are used.
any grant funds would be spread to all of the users of th
Mr. Fisher asked what assumptions were made for reve
If any Federal funding is ob-
i, therefore Mr. Fisher felt it
with their septic drain fields
tion, even if Federal funds are
In that way, the benefits from
e whole system.
hues for the Crozet interceptor
line. Mr. Thompson s~id when this study was in the process of being made, the Board of
Supervisors had also requested the Service Authority to study Hessian Hills and Westmore-
land. In order for a feasibility study to be made, the consultant had to assume that all
customers would be serviced. There was no other basis on which to do the study. Assuming
that all three areas would have a mandatory hook up policy, it was assumed that all three
areas were feasible.
Mr. Agnor said a mandatory hook up policy has.~been d~scussed several times by the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board. It has'~been avoided for several reasons. The
Rivanna Board was concemned not only with the controversial nature of thi~ issue, but
also about the burden it places on a person who has a satisfaetorilly working system. They
also feel a mandatory hook up policy may jeopardize the funding position of the Rivanna
031
Januar_rtl2~ 1977 (Re~ular-All ~
Authority with the various Federal agencies~ H~, Agnor said he has talked with several lo-
~ i
calities who have considered mandatory prevLs, ons but has not yet found one locality which
has adopted such a policy.
Mr. Thompson said the more customers there are connected to the system the more people
there are to share in the fixed cost, thereby reducing the "per" cost to individual cus-
tomers. Mr. Fisher said from the Albemarle County Service Authority~s point of view that
is true, but the Rivanna Authority might not feel the same because this might use up plant
capacity faster. Mr. Agnor said the new advanced waste water treatment plant has an ex-.~
pected life of fifteen years. If a mandatory hook up policy is adopted, that might reduce
the expected life of the plant to ten or twelve years and required expansion sooner. The
plant was designed only for existing flow plus future growth.
Mr. Fisher said he .feels there are other ways this can be handled although he does
not know if they are economically viable. One way would he to have assessments that would
not require a citizen to hook onto the line but would require him to pay a fee. This may
or may not be acceptable but it would allow the Board of Supervisors to decide which areas
are to be connected To the collector lines.
Mr. Thompson said every project undertaken by the Albemarle County Service Authority
has to be approved by the Board of Supervisors through issuance of a special permit. In
effect, the Board will be looking at each and every project and if it is felt by the Board
that a project is not proper, the permit could be denied. Mr. Thompson said the Service
Authorityts Board is intereeted in having the right policy to handle their assigned re-
sponsibilities.
Mr. Fisher felt this matter should be deferred until February 9 in order for the staff
to review what has been discussed and to also review the feasibility studies made to be
sure the assumptions used were valid. He noted that Dr. Iachetta had asked that the Board
not take any action on this request while he is absent from the Board meeting.
Mr. St. John noted that the Virginia Code sections establishing the Virginia Water
and Sewer. Authority's acts, allows the Albemarle County Service Authority to adopt such
a policy, but the policy cannot be enforced unless the governing body concurs.
Agenda Item 5. Appropriation: Joint Jail Board. Present was Mr~ Sam Pruett, Jail
Administrator. Mr. Pruett said the Jail derives its revenues from several different sources;
the Compensation Board, Department of Corrections, the City, the County, grants, and from
contract jurisdictions. Errors were made in calculations of expected State revenues in
the 76-77 budget. The former Jail Administrator had estimated that State revenues were
reimbursed au 100 per cent and this is not true. Reimbursements are made on a per diem
based on the number of State prisoner days. There was also a projected increase in the
daily per diem rate for the contract jurisdictions, however the Jail Board chose not to
raise that per diem rate. Because of these reasons and a two-month lag time in reimburse-
ments from the State, Mr. Pruett requested an additional appropriation of $30,824 from Al-
bemarle County. He had already been to City Council to request $61,649 as their share.
Mr. Fisher asked if any of this request is oceassioned by cutbacks in State revenues.
-Mr. Pruett said no, this is caused solely by errors in calculations in the current budget.
Mr. Ray Jones was present. He said the County has received some anti-recession funds
whinh are to be used to prevent a cutback in services. He suggested that part of this
requested appropriation be taken from these funds since they must be spent in six months
or returned.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley seconded by Mrs. David to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $30,824 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated as the County's share of
a revised jail budget for the fiscal year 1976-77. This amount is to be coded
to 18C.5; said funds to be appropriated as follows, $13,544.01 from anti-
recession funds and $17,297.99 from the General Fund.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mrs. David, to approve a revised
1976-77 Jail Budget in the amount of $669,713. The motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush~
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item 6. Discussion, Library Budget.
randum on this subject:
Mr. Agnor presented the following memo-
"December 29, 1976
To: Board of Supervisors
From: Buy B. Agnor, Jr.
Re: 76-77 Library Budget
When the Fy-77 budget was adopted, $240,000 was appropriated to the Library
($262,301 had been requested). Louisa, Nelson and Greene Counties also appropriated
less than requested. Charlottesville appropriated the requested amount.
032
January 12, 1977 (Regular All-Day Meeting)
The Library Board objected to the cuts, and in meetings after the budget adoptions
and prior to the fiscal year beginning, several possible errors in the library budget
were discovered, indicating the requested budget exceeded the needs. Due to question-
able financial data upon which the budget had been built, it was agreed that a re-
vised budget would be prepared following the first FY-?? quarter of operations, and
this could be reviewed by this office in conjunction with an expected carry-over
balance from FY-?6.
In July you were advised that State and Federal funds totalling $121,040 had been
offered the Library for FY-7.7. This exceeded revenue estimates by $59,965. A pro-
posed resolution drafted by the Library Dimector providing for the Federal portion
~50,443) to be added to the FY-77 budget was amended by this office to limit the
Federal and State funds to the existing FY-?? budget. This resolution was adopted in
August, with copies furnished the Library Director and the State Library Office.
In October at a pre-budget conference on the FY-78 budget, attended by Mr. Fisher,
Mrs. David, and myself, a revised FY'7? budget was presented. This revised budget
reduced the original FY-77 requested budget by an amount of $20,63.6, but added a
separate snpplemental budget totalling $50,443 (Federal funds for FY-??) which re-
sulted in a sum total ~ncrease of $29,80? in the FY-?? requested budget.
It was learned au this meeting that the other jurisdictions had adopted the re-
solution provided by the Library Directors and that Albemarle County was the only
jurisdiction that had not approved the i~ierease in the budget by use of the Federal
funds. It was also learned that orders had already been placed for books and equip-
ment utilizing a portion of the Federal Funds.
The Chairman of the Library Board was of the opinion that Albemarle County's
resolution was not in accordance with regulations for expenditure of Federal funds.
After several letters to the State Librarian on the matter, this office was advised
by letter that the resolution was within the regulations. The major determining
factor, other than the use for which the funds are to be expended, is that local
support does not fall below that of last year. This requirement had been calculated
before the amended resolution was presented for your consideration.
Since receiving the letter from the State Librarian, confirming the validity of
Albemarle County's resolution, I have discussed w~th Mr. Devan the effect of a com-
promise solution To this matter, the compromise b~ing the use of one-half of the
Federal funds for program enrichment according to previous library plans, and the
other half for the purchase of materials for which provision already exists in the
budget but which would be qualified for purchase by Federal funds.
The net effect of this proposal would be an increase of $4,585 in the FY-77
requested budget and an increase of $36,476 in the approved budget. However, due to
the revenues from sources other than local funds being greater than anticipated, the
local fundS are reduced $30,000 below the current appropriations, and $61,892 below
the amount requested from the localities last spring. It should be noted that while
the discussions on the budget problem have been held, the FY-76 audit resulted in a
carryover balance in the Library Budget of $48,496 which has been returned to the
localities. These returned funds have not been considered in the above calculations.
Recognizing that the Library Board and staff have made a sincere effort to reduce
the FY-?7 basic budget, and further recognizing that an improved knowledge of bud-
geting procedures has been gained through this entire experience, it is my recom-
mendation that the compromised solution be approved."
Mr. Fisher asked if this proposal has been considered by the Library Board. Mr.
Christopher Devan, Director of the Library was present, and said the Library Board has
approved this budget but will not vote on it until their next meeting.
Motion was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to approve the compromise
as set out in Mr. Agnor's memorandum. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item 9.
order).
Sheriff:
Traffic control on 29 North at Sperry. (Discussed out of
Sheriff George Bailey was present. He said that on December lSth when the Board
approved his request to have a Deputy direct traffic on Route 29 North at Sperry he was
ordered to make a report to the Board on January 12th. This seems to be the only solution
to the traffic problems at this time of day and he recommends continuing as per the original
agreement of the Board.
Mr.. Charles Lumsden from Sperry was present and agreed with the Sheriff's remarks.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush,~seconded by Mrs. David to continue the present
arrangement. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David, Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta
Agenda Item 7. Report from' County Engineer-Cushman Well Number 3.
was present and read the following memorandum ~nto the record.
"December 29, 1976
TO: Mr. Guy B. Agnor
FROM: J. Harvey Bailey
SUBJECT: Well ~3. Meriwet~er Hq~
Mr. J. Harvey Bailey
033
At the request of Mr. Walter M. Cushman, we supervised the testing of a third
well which was recently~drilled to serve Meriwether Hill, and others. This testing
was performed on December 20 through 22, 1976 by C. R. Moore, Inc. Mr. Moore also
was the well driller.
Well #3 was pumped simultaneously with well #2 in order to determine whether or
not the two are on the same source. Well #I was not pumped since it has previously
proved that it is a satellite of #2. The test demonstrated that well #2 and #3 are
independent of one another.
Well #3 was p~unped to zero head over the pump and held a~ the rate of 18 g.p.m.
through 12 hours. During this time the head over the pump built up to 35 feet. It
was reduced to zero again, by increasing the pump rate. It was determined that the
rate of 19 g.p.m, would reduce the head. The capacity of the new (#3) well is 18
g.p.m.., to the nearest gallon.
#2 well was drawn down to a head of 54 feet above the pump and the pumping rate
stabilized at 30.g.p.m. This head is significant because it is just under the reported
level of the principal stream entering the well. The possibilities of obtaining
additional flow by reducing the head over the pump further are slight.
In summary, the well #3 was tested to its full capacity and rated at 18 g.p.m.
conjunction with this well, #2 well was simultaneously tested and its capacity found
to'be 3Q g.p..m. The combined system should be taken together and rated at 48 g.p.m.
I recommend that the Board of Supervisors certify the two wells together and allow a
total of 96 dwelling units to be served therefrom."
In
Mr. St. John said this report from Mr. Bailey in no way changes the effectiveness of
the bond posted by Mr. Cushman after the public hearing held on December 15, 1976. In
order for the bond to be voided, the well must be put into the water system and approved
by the State Health Department.
Mr. Fisher said he would urge the County staff to take a position of encouraging
Mr. Cushman to get-this well into the system as soon as possible in order for the County
to get out from under the provisions of the bond.
Agenda Item 8. Contract-Emergency Medical Services Communication Equipment. Mr. Fisher
said two years ago the Division of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Virginia
received a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to upgrade the communications
systems for Rescue Squads and emergency rooms in Planning D~strict 10. A lot of equipment
was bought; primarily for rescue squads in the four rural areas and some radio transmitters
and a communication tower for the sheriff in Fluvanna County. The sheriff's departments
in Fluvanna, Nelson, Louisa and Greene now act as a central dispatching office for police,
fire and rescue squad communications in their jurisdictions. There was also money in-
eluded in the grant for training dispatchers and money to pay salaries for one year. The
Charlottesville Rescue Squad was so well equipped with'radios that little money went to
them for mobile units. Sheriff Bailey received a citizen!s band transmitter so he can
monitor channel 12, the emergency channel. The contract before the Board today is to
change the title of equipment from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to the University
of Virginia and then to the various counties in which the equipment is placed. This
contract will c~ommit the counties to maintain and administer the program in accordance
with sound business practices and to establish a program for maintenance, repair, pro-
tection, etc. This contract doessnot commit the county to maintain the equipment indefin-
itely. Most of the equipment in Albemarle has gone to Scottsville. This was a pilot pro-
gram in the United States and this planning district is one of the few areas that have
received funds under this project. The agreement before the Board was drafted by the County
Attorney.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mrs. David, to authorize the
Chairman to sign the following agreement on behalf of Albemarle County. The motion carried
by the following ~ecorded vote:
AYZS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, ~isher, Henley and Roudabush,
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made thi.s 13th day of January, 1977, by and between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, party of the First part, and the .CENTRAL VIRGINIA
REGIONAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING
DISTRICT NO. 10 ("EMS") party of the second part,
Wi TNE S SETH
WHEREAS, the parties hereto ~desire to enter into an agreement concerning
certain communications equipment necessary for' the successful performance of
the Central Virginia regional emergency medical communications system;
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein
contained, the County of Albemarle and EMS do covenant and agree as follows:
1. EMS assigns and transfers title to all communications equipment set
forth and identified in Exhibit A, attached to and made a part of this agreement,
unto the County of Albemarle, which title shall vest in the party.~of the first
part upon acquisition, subject to the requirements set forth in qhis agreement.
2. Albemarle County accepts, title to the communications equipment set
forth in Exhibit A and shall use the communications equipment for the purposes
authorized by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation as long as needed, and for such
other purposes as are approved by the EMS.
034
January 12_~ 1977 (Regular All-Da~
3. The County of Albemarle shall maintain, and administer, in accordance with
sound business practice, a program for the maintenance, repair, pro%ection, pre-
sevation, control of, and accountability for the communications equipment so
as to assure its full availability and usefulness for the performance of the
Central Virginia regional emergency medical communications system. The County
of Albemarle shall maintain adequate property records as. well as effective in-
ventory, con~rot and maintenance prooedures. The County of Albemarle will be
responsible for replacing or repairing equipment for which it is accountable
if lost, damaged or destroyed due to negligence on the part of the County of
Albemarle. Proper sales procedures, which provide for competition to the ex-
tent practicable and result in the highest'return, shall be established by the
County of Albemarle for unneeded property. Disposition data, including the
sales price or the method used to determine fair market value of the proPerty,
shall be maintained accurately in the County of Albemarle~s property records.
The County of Aibemarle"s property records for the communications equipment
shall be retained for four years after acquisition of the communications equip-
ment.
4. EMS reserves the right, in the event that~the County of Albemarle
fails to maintain properly the communications equipment for so long as there
is a need for such equipment to accomplish the purposes of the Central Virginia
regional emergency medical communications system, to require the County of
Albemarle to transfer title to the communications equipment to a third party
named by EMS.
S. The parties hereto recognize t~at the communications equipment may
become obsolete or that there may no longer be a need for such property to
accomplish the purposes of the Central Virginia regional emergency medieal
communications system. The County of Albemarle shall have the right to trade
in the communications equipment for more- advanced equipment or use the communi-
cations equipment or sell said equipment as it sees fit, if there is no longer
a need for such property to accomplish the purposes of the Central Virginia
regional emergency medical communications system.
6. The County of Albemarle may terminate this agreement by giving at
least one year's written notice to EMS, which notice shall specify the effective
date of termination. Within thirty days after the date of termination, the
County of Albemarle shall return to EMS all communications equipment and pro-
perty records relating thereto.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
(signed) Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman (1/13/77)
Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle
ATTEST:
(aigned) L. E. Neher
Clerk
CENTRAL VIRGINIA EMERGENCY MEDICAL COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEM, THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT NO. 10
(signed) Andrea R. Clapp, Project Manager
(NOTE:
Exhibit A, is on permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the Board
of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia)
Agenda Item 10. Circuit Court Clerk:
Mr. Agnor noted the following memorandum:
Compensation Board Budget for Calendar Year 1977.
"January 7, 1977
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Guy B. Agnor, Jr.
RE: Compensation Board Budget - Clerk of Circuit Court
Attached is the State approved budget for 1977 for the Clerk's office. Unlike
other budgets approved and participated in by the Compensation Board for the fiscal
year, the Clerk's budget (and financial records) are maintained on a calendar year
basis.
A comparison of the current fiscal year budget with the Compensation Board
budget is as follows:
FY-1977 Comp. Board
Budget Budget for ~77
Increase
Salaries (does not include Clerk's
salary)
Postage
Totals
$41,446 $47,853 $ +6,407
1,200 1,200 -0-
$42,646 $49,053 $ +6,407
In the past, the Clerk's budget has been adopted by the State on January 1
and by the County on the following July 1. I reeommend that the State budget be
adopted this year effective January 1 with an appropriation of $3,204 to Account
4A-109 in order to correct a deficiency in salaries of the employees in the Clerk's
office.
The salaries of employees in the Clerk's office are lower than comparable
salaries of County employees and are particularly lower than employees of the General
District Court. It came to my attention several months ago that the salary schedule
of General District Court clerks, which are set by the Committee on District Courts
035
January 12, 1977 (Regular-Al! Day Meeting)
Compensation
Board
District Court
County Salary
Clerk-Stenographer
Deputy Clerk
$5,200
7,221
$6,001-$ 8,866
8,444- 12,475
$6,018-$ 7,677
8,058- 10,284
I discussed the deficiencies and the resultant problems with Mrs. Marshall
and there seemed to be two solutions:
Request an increase from the Compensation Board based on the discre-
pancies in the two courtst salaries.
Examine the feasibility of including the court employees in the County
pay plan.
Since the Compensation Board does not recognize local pay plans (which are
mandated by the State), the latter solution would probably meault in a salary
supplement from the County. Mrs. Marshall and I agree that the first solution is
the better one, and her efforts in that-dlreetion have resulted in-the Compensation
Board approving salaries in 1977 more in alignment with other employees. Rather
than waiting six months to correct a problem not .of our doing, and to provide
Mrs. Marshall with the benefits of her effomts to make the Compensation Board
recognize the deficiency, I recommend that the correction be .made effective January 1.
The new budget will change the clerk-stenographer from $5~.200 to $6,001, the
beginning salary of the District Court, and the Deputy Clerks from $7,200 to $9,000
and $9,77~, within the District Court schedule."
Motion was offered by M~. Dottier, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the following
resolution.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $3,204 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and
coded to 4A109 so that salary increases for the office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court may go into effect as of January 1, 1977.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote.
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. David and Dr. Iachetta.
Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from the Thomas Jefferson Health
Department in which they had returned to the County $26,530.66 as the County's share of
fees earned by the Health Department during the fiscal year 1976. He noted that return of
this money had reduced the County's expenditures for the Health Department by 16 per cent.
At 12:38 P,M. the Board recessed for lunch and reconvened at 1:42 P.M.
Agenda Item 11. Public Hearing· An Ordinance to amend and reenact Sections 19.1-1
through 19.1-3 of the Albemarle County Code; said ordinance regulating, limiting and re~'~?_'.~
stricting the discharge of waste into the sanitary sewer system of the Albemarle County
Service Authority.
Mr. St. John said this amendment was proposed in order to more clearly state the in-
tention of the original ordinance. The only change is in Section 19.1-1 in the fourth line
striking the words "having first obtained"
The public hearing was opened.
closed.
With no one rising to speak, the public hearing was
Motion was then offered by Mrs. David to amend and reenact the Albemarle County Code
by adopting an ordinance regulating, limiting and restricting the discharge of waste into
the sanitary sewer system of the Albemarle County Service Authority; said ordinance set out
in full below:
"AN ORDINANCE REGULATING, LIMITING AND RESTRICTING THE DISCHARGE OF WASTE tNT0 THE
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, pursuant to
Code of Virginia Sections 15.1-292 and 15.1-299, as follows:
That the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby adopt and approve
the following ordinance adopted for the purpose of regulating, limiting and restric-
ting the discharge of waste and pollutants into~the sanitary sewer system of the
Albemarle County Service Authority, and in the sewers tributary to the sanitary
sewer system of the Albemarle County Service Authority, and thereby protecting
the said sanitary sewer system and waste treatment facilities of the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority, and the health of the citizens of Albemarle County.
SecTion 19.1-1. Discharge prohibited Without permit.
No person shall discharge any industrial waste or pollutants into the sanitary
sewer, system of the Albemarle County Service Authority and in the sewers tributary
to the sanitary sewer system of the Albemarle County Service Authority without a
valid permit from the Albemarle County Serviee Authority allowing for said discharge
of industrial waste or pollutants, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the
Albemarle County Service Authority regulating, limiting and restricting the dis-
charge of waste and pollutants into the sanitary sewer system of the Albemarle
n~*v S~v~n~ Authority.
036
January 12~ 1977 (Regular-All Day M~eting~___
Section 19.1-2. Violations; penalties.
Any person violating the provisions of Section 19.1-1 herein shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000.00 or by imprisonment
not exceeding 30 days dr by both such fine and imprisonment. Each day such vi~-
lation continues shall constitute a separate offense.
The Board of Supervisors, in addition to other remedies, may institute an
appropriate action or proceeding, at law or in equity, to prevent~ violation or
attempted violation, to restrain, correct, abate such violation, or to prevent any
act which would constitute such a violation of the provisions of Section 19.1-1
herein.
Section 19.1-3. Effective date.
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after 12th
day of January, t977.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Dottier and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta
Agenda Item 12. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program. Present to present a quarterly
progress report was Tom Hill, direc.tor of the program. Also present were Ken Barbour and
Robert Ward from'the Jefferson Area Board on Aging; Ollie Marshall and Paul Shannon, VISTA
volunteers; John Weatherly, James rayne and Sheldon Walden, CETA personnel.
Mr. Hill began the presentation by showing a set of slides of housing rehabilitations
that this program has accomplished. He ended by saying that of the $S0,000 furnished by
the County for this program $10,000 went into a revolving fund which is constantly re-
plenished by families. The County also approved $15,000 for use by families who can not
pay for materials; with a maximum grant of $t,000 per family. So far the expenditure
under this part of the program has been kept down to $4,326. $12,850 has been spent through
the revolving fund but the money keeps coming back.. The total value of all improvements
made to date is $28,851 although the actual expenditure for same is only $17,176. There
are presently six major rehabilitations in the planning stage, all of which rely on F.H.A.
emergency repair loans. Mr. Hill said they are having more difficulty in processing these
loans than had been imagined, principally because families who have housing problems also
have credit problems. They had become very involved with budget eoenseling and
family management.
Mr. Roudabush said it was good to see public funds go directly to recipients. Mr.
Fisher said this program had done a remarkable job so far. Mr. Dorrier felt the County
receives more benefit with this money than with almost any other thing presently done.
Agenda Item 13A. Appropriation - Monticello Guard. Mr. Fisher said the Monticello
Guard had requested a contribution from the County and the City for purchase of new uniforms.
He is not aware that the City has taken any action and requested that this be deferred.
Agenda Item 13B. Appropriation - Piedmont Community College. Mr. Agnor said it has
come to his attention that no money was appropriated to compensate the four Community College
Board Members in accordance with the Equalization of Pay Ordinance. In order to keep this
account from being overdrawn, an appropriation of $500 is needed for this expenditure.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mrs. David, to adopt the following
resolution:
BE tT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $500 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and
transferred to Code 18B.4 for expenditures of the Piedmont Community College.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item 13C. Appropriation - Community Action Agency. Mr. Agnor said that it had
also come to his attention that the fiscal year 1977 budget does not. have an appropriation
for compensation of the MACCA Board members as provided by the Equalization. of Pay Ordin-
ance. An appropriation of $500 is needed for this expenditure. Motion was then offered
by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to adopt the fotlow~ng resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $500 be, and the~same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and
transferred to Code 18B.11.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote.
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item 13D. Appropriation - Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. A memorandum
was received from Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, stating that. the County's share of
expenditures for the Juvenile Court is underestimated for the current fiscal year for several
reasons. The Juvenile Court did not move into the Elks Bnildine until A~ust 28. 1§76. th~a
January 12, 1977 (Regular All-Da~ Meetin_g~
fore two months rent were paid for their old location. The County's share of moving ex-
penses was not allotted~.in the budget. There were also utility costs for both locations
-~from February 1976 through August 1976. There was overtime and extra help required for
janitor services due to the move and there will be an adjustment in the electric bill under'
the new VEPC0 contract. Mr. Jones requested an appropriation of $4,000 for the remainder
of the fiscal year to cover this underestimate. Motion was offered by Mrs. David, seconded
by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $4,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund
and tranaferred to Code SD Juvenile Court.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
A3SENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item 13E. Appropriation: Federal School Programs. A memorandum was received
from Clarence S. McClure in which he stated that due to new funding formulas of PL§3-380
Elementary and secondary Educationel Act, there would be an additional $?5,395 allocation
of-100 percent reimburseable funds for fiscal year 1976-77 for the ESEA, Title I, Low In-
come Program. Mr. McClure therefore requested an appropriation in this amount so that said
grant could be expended.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mrs. David, to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $75,3~5 be, and the same hereby ia, appropriated from the School Operating
Pund and c~ded to the various line items as set forth in. memo o~ Clarence S.
McClure dated January 6,. 1977, ~or the ESEA~ Title I, Low Income Program,
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
Not Docketed. Mr. Agnor said he had received an expression of concern from the Bar
Association about the work load increase and some of the procedures used in the office of
the Circuit Court Clerk. Some of the surveyors in the area have also commented on this.
He talked to Mrs. Marshall and she said she has been looking for someone who could come in
and examine documents there and make recommendations for improvement. She found a gentle-
man in Norfolk who is willing to do this at no cost, if provided with travel, lodging and
meal expenses. He is the Clerk of the Corporation Court in Norfolk and has a number of
years of experience. Mrs. Marshall does not have sufficient funds in her budget to cover
this expense and, therefore requests a $'300 appropriation for this work~
Mr. Roudabush said he had talked with a representative of the Bar Association,
Clerkts Office Procedures Committee, and they are anxious to have this work done. He
hopes the Bar Association will help to coordinate and review the report~ He then offered
motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
$30~ be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred
to Code 4A299, Professional Services, for a study of recordation procedures in the
Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item 14. Discussion: Opinion from Attorney General.
Albemarle County Code, fees for review of soil erosmon permits.
Section ?-4(d) of the
Mr. Agnor presented first for the record the following memorandums.
"January 7, 1977
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Guy B. Ag~or, Jr.
RE: Soil Erosion Control Plan Fee
In the recent edoption of the revised fee schedules for various permits, a
discussion was held related to soil erosion fees on the interpretation of Section
21-98.5(e) of the Virginia Code which says "the Plan-approving Authority may
charge an applicant a reasonable fee not to exceed twenty-five dollars based upon
and not greater than the cost to such author~ity to review and act upon the sub-
mitted erosion and sediment control plan;provided, however, this Subsection
shall not ap.ply where any county .... requmres an erosion and sediment control
plan to be filed as part of a subdivision plat, site plan, or plan of development
and a fee or charge is imposed for the review of said plats and plans".
You will recall that one interpretation was that the County could charge
more than $25 because the language "this subsection does not apply" allows a charge
more than $25 if the soil erosmon plan is a part of a plat, or plan, etc. The
038
January 12, 1977 (Regular All-Day Meeting)
other interpretation is that a maximum of $2t. is
s~te plan review $25
and that if it is part of a subdivision or
would be included in the fee for that proces~
The Zoning Administrator has rai~ed his
zation and has completed some research on thc
that the second interpretation is the coffee-
with Attorney General's office.)
I have discussed the matter with the Col
that the Board should consider amending the
control fee to comply with the Attorney Gene
request our State delegates to introduce a S-
language in this matter.
If the Board agrees to amending the Cou~
authorization be granted for reimbursement o:
permits which have been collected since enac-
the most the County can charge,
process, the
concern over the first interpre-
matter which leads to a conclusion
one. (See attached correspondence
lnty Attorney and have concluded
~ounty code covering the soil erosion
~al's opinion, and to simultaneously
:ate code amendment to clarify the
lty code, I would also recommend that
fees for several soil erosion
:ment of the revised fee. schedule."
"December 27, i976
Mr. J. Benjamin Dick
Zoning Administrator
County of Albemarle
414 East Market Street
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
"The Attorney General requested that I ~.ns. wer your letter of December 7, 1976
concerning fees for t~e review of erosion an¢. sediment control plans pursuant 'to
~ 21-89.5 (e) of the Code of Virginia (1950)4 as amended. It seems to me that
paragraph (e) authorizes a plan-approving authority to charge an applicant a
fee which is not to e~ceed $25.00 in those c~ses where there is no county, city
or town requirement for a~ erosion and sediment 'control plan to be filed as a
part of a subdivision plat, site plan, or plan of development, for which a fee
is imposed. In those cases where a county, city or town does require an erosmon
and sediment control ~lan to be filed as a ps
or plan of development, and a fee or charge
and plans, no charge ~ay be imposed by a plam
paragraph for reviewing the erosion and sedi~
believe that ~ 21-.89.5(e) does not authorize
cribed.
If you have any further question on this
kindest regards, I remain
(signed)
rt of a subdivision plat, site plan,
s imposed for the review of said plats
-approving authority under this
ent control plan. Therefore, I
the charges which your letter des-
matter, please let me know. With
Frederick S. Fisher
Assistant Attorney General
Mr. Fisher said it seems the problem has bee~ caused because the State Code Section is
vague. However he does not believe the $25 fee allowed adequately covers the cost of pro-
messing a soil erosion application, and feels the Board should ask the General Assembly
for a relief from this condition. Motion was then offered by Mrs. David to advertise for
a public hearing on February 16, 1977, amendment to the Albemarle County Code Section 7-4(d);
to also adopt the following resolutions of intent; and during the interim between now and
the public hearing to direct the Zoning Administrator not to collect a fee higher than that
allowed by the State Code. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Hez
NAYS: Mone.
ABSENT: Dr. Iaehetta
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervi
does hereby state its intent to amend the Alh
Section 17-6-6, to read as follows:
"The governing body, by resolution, may
time a schedule of fees for the examiner
for the examination and approval or disa
ment plans submitted pursuant to this ar
paid to the County of Albemarle and shal
at the time of filing of the plan. or .~la
shall apply and the remafnder prmor to f
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albem~rl
requested to hold public hearings o~n~ this ~_ro
mendations to the Board of Supervisors as ~oo
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supe
does hereby state its intent to repeal Sec
Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albem
hereby directed to hold public hearings on
their recommendati.on on same to the Board
~v:
ti~
;
ti
~t
ley and Roudabush.
sors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
emarle County Zoning Ordinance,
establish from time to
ion and approval of fees
pproval of site develop-
ticle. Such fee shall be
1 be submitted one-half
as for which such fees
inal approval."
a County Planning Commission is
posed amendment and to make recom-
a as possible.
sors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
n 18-43(c) of the Albemarle County
County Planning Commission is
proposed amendment and to send
~he earliest possible date.
039
Januaryl2~ 1977~_uiar AtlzDa~M_~)
Agenda Item 15. Discussion: An Ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code by the
addition of Section of 18-20.1 concerning the cost for construction and maintenance for
certain facilities. (This item was deferred from December 8, 1976.)
Mr. Roudabush said when he saw Section 18-20.1 as originally proposed, he was con-
cerned but did not know what that concern was at the Time. While researching this
matter, he found Section 18-7 already in the Albemarle County Code.
SECTION 18-20.1 - In the case of a.ny plat on which is shown any road, sewerage
or water supply system, or other feature, improvement, facility or element,
not to be maintained by a public agency, which is designed to serve or to be
used by more than one lot shown on such plat, the Commission may require, as a
prerequisite to approval of such plat, that provision be made for the payment
of the costs of construction, maintenance and upkeep of such facilities to be
borne ratably by the owners of lots to be served or to use the same.
SECTION 18-7. Relation of chapter'to private contracts.
This chapter bears no relation to any private easement, covenant, agree-
ment, or restriction, nor is the responsibility of enforcing a private ease-
ment, co~enant, agreement, or restriction implied herein to any public official.
When this chapter calls for more restrictive standards than are required by
private contract, the provisions of this chapter shall control "
Mr. Roudabush said these two sections sounded .contradictory to him so he proposed the
following change.
18.7 - RELATION OF CHAPTER TO PRIVATE CONTRACTS AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS
This ordinance bears no relation to any private easement, covenant, re-
striction, o~ private improvement which is.maintained, designed or constructed
to be used b~ more than one parcel of land, nor is the responsibility of enforcing
such private easement, covenant, agreement, restriction, maintenance, design or
construction of private improvements to be implied by any public official. When
this ordinance calls for more restrictive standards then are required by private
contracts the provisions 6f this ordinance shall control.
Mr. Roudabush said this change would mean that the County is adopting a disclaimer
rather than getting involved mn private agreements and leading someone to think that the
County will enforce these agreements. He felt it would be better to amend the language of
18-7 rather than adopt 18-20.1.
Mr. St. John said this amendment was suggested by the Planning Staff and the Planning
Commission. In the past every time a restricted road came to the Board, the County
Attorney's Office was instructed to make sure that before the plat went to record there
were homeowner's documents approved by the County Attorney's Office to be sure there was
some sort of mechanism to enforce repairs, etc. With respect to dams and other commonly
owned facilities, there is nothing at present in the ordinance that allows the County
Attorney's Office to do this, but his staff is normally instructed to review the homeowners
documents to make sure that they provide for the necessary repairs in ease they become
necessary. Mr. St. John said the purpose of Section 18-7 as presently constructed is to
keep the County out of the business of enforcing private restrictions. He felt that if
the Board adopted Mr. Roudabusk's proposal they would not only have to review the initial
documents but probably also, be responsible for enforcing them. One of the main reasons
for having homeowners documents on commonly owned facilities is that they become a part
of the chain of title so that a prospective buyer cannot fail to be on notice that he as
a private owner is responsible for maintaining these private facilities rather than the Count'
Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush directing the County Attorney to reword
Section 18-7 to include the proposal listed under 18-20.1 and adding a sentence which
specifically states that the County is not responsible for enforcement of private contracts.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item 16.
distribution.
Report of the County Executive for December, 1976, was not ready for
Agenda Item 17. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of November
1976 was submitted in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
Agenda Item 18. Statement of Expenses for the Director of Finance~ Con~monwealth~s
Attorney and Sheriff's Department for the month of December, 1976 were presented. On
motion by Mr. Roudabush, seconded~by Mr. Dorrier,~these statements were approved as read.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
040
January 12, 1977 (Regular All-Day Meeting)
Agenda Item 19. Statement of Expenses for the Regional Jail for the month of Dec-
ember, 1976 was presented. On motion by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, this
statement was approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item 20. Regional Jail Report. Statement of expenses incurred in the mainten-
ance and operation of the Regional Jail along with summary statement of prisoner days, the
statement of the jail physician, para-medic salaries and classification officer's salary,
were presented. On motion by Mr. Roudab~sh, seconded by Mr. Henley, these statements were
approved as read. The motion carried by the ~ecorded vote which follows:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
'ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item 2lA. Appointments - Economic Development Commission. Mr. Henley offered
the name of Roy M. Patterson. Mrs. David offered the name of David W. Pettish, Jr.
Mr. Dottier offered the name of Bruce D. Rasmussen. Mr~ Fisher offered the name of
Marjorie C. Jordan. Mr. Fisher said.Dr. Iaehetta wished to reappoint Mr. F. Alton Garrett.
Mr. Roudabush said that he would continue as the Board's representative. Motion was then
offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Dottier, to appoint the above named persons for the
calendar year 1977. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. lachetta.
Agenda Item 2lB. Appointments - Equalization Board. Mrs. David Offered the name of
John T. Sinclair. Mr. Henley offered the name of Mrs. Ethel Kindrick. Mr. Dottier of-
fered the name Of F. Pierson Scott. Mr. Fisher said that Dr. Iachetta wished to renom-
inate Mrs. Marilyn Edmunds.
Motion was then offered, by Mr. Dottier, seconded by Mr. Henley, to appoint the above
named persons to the Equalization Board for the calendar year 1977. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
None
Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item 21C. Appointments - Housing COmmittee. Motion was offered by Mr. Ronda-
bush, seconded by Mr. Henley, to'appoint Earnly 0. Chapman, Jason Z. Eckford, 'Jr., Rosa B.
Hudson, Kate S. Sandusky, R. E. Lee, Jr., John English, and Randolph D. Wade for the calen-
dar year 1977. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item 21D. Appointments - Airport Commission. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley
to reappoint Virgil H. Marshall to a three-year term expiring December 1, 1979. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item 21E. Appointments - Industrial Bonding Authority.
ordered carried over to January 19, 1977.
This item was
Agenda Item 21F. Appointments - Fire Pre~gention Board of Appeals. Motion was offered
by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mrs. David, to appoint Richard G. Roane .as a member of the
Fire Prevention Board of Appeals for a five-year term expiring on November 21, 1981. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher., .Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iaehetta.
Agenda Item 21G. Appointments-Parks Committee. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley,
seconded by Mrs. David, to appoint Don C. Sibold as a replacement for M. Roy Harris, who
had resigned; no set term being given for this appointment. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item 21H. Appointments-Community Action Agency. Mr. Dottier having volun-
terred to serve as the Board's RepresenTative to this.agency, motion was offered by
Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mrs. David, to appoint Vivian G. Gordon to replace Peter T. Way
041
January 12, 1977 (Regular All-Day~_~_~~
as a member of this agen'cy; no term being set.
corded vote:
The motion carried by the following re-
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item 21I. Appointments-Jefferson Area Board on Aging. Motion was offered by
Mr. Henley to appoint Joe C. Barbour to a term to expire on March 31, 197~, The motion
was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item 21.1 Lottery Permits. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mrs. David,
a lottery permit was approved for the BPO Elks #389, Charlottesville, Virginia, in accor-
dance with the Board's adopted rules for issuance of such permits, The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta
On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mrs, David, a lottery permit was approved for
the Doe Club of Charlottesville, Virginia, in accordance with the Board's adopted rules
for issuance of such permits. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item 22. Other matters not on the Agenda from Board and Staff Members. Mr.
Fisher noted receipt of a letter from E.O. McCue, III, dated December 16, 1976, in-
quiring to see if the County would be interested in procuring a Coat of Arms. The Clerk
was ordered to advise Mr. McCue that the Board has some interest in the project; it does
not appear that there are any funds available for this; but he may appear before the
Board at some time in the future to further explain the request.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a notice from the Virginia Association of Counties that
there will be a public hearing on January 13, lg77, before the Committee on Counties, Cities
and Towns on House Bill 855 (Annexation Bill). After a short discussion and based
on the consensus of the Board, Mr. Roudabush offered motion to authorize Mr. Dottier
and himself to represent the Board of Supervisors in unanimous opposition to House Bill
856~ to express such opposition to the Board's representatives in the General Assembly;
to note that the Board of Supervisors would prefer House Bill 1266 to House Bill 855 be-
cause House Bill 1266 provides for a referendum of the people most affected by annexatio~
but the Board does not endorse either bill and strongly urges the Committee to continue
the moratorium on annexation while there is better legislation prepared. The motion was
seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote: ~
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS; None,
ABSENT: Dr. ~aehetta.
Agenda Item 23. Claims against the Dog Tax Fund. Claim was received from Elizabeth
Sweeney for one heifer killed on December 16, 1976. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by
Mr. Roudabush, Mrs. Sweeney was allowed $150 for this claim. The motion carried by the
following recbrded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. , , , , , , , , ,
Claim was presented from Mrs. Arlene Blackwell for thirty-eight white rock chickens
killed by dogs on November 27, 1976. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush,
Mrs. Biackwell was allowed $57 for this claim. The motion carried by the following re-
corded vo~e:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
Item 24. Adjournment. At 4:12 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Dottier, seconded by
Mrs. David, to adjourn this meeting until January 19, 1977, at 3;00 P.M. in the Board Room
of the County Office Building. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
Chairman