1977-09-14Sep. tember 14~ 1977 (Regular-Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on September 14, 1977, 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., F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. R6udabush.
Absent: None.
Officers Present:
County Attorney.
Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and Mr. George R. St. John~
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 9:07 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: November 17, 1976 and December 8, 1976.
Mr. Fisher noted the following corrections for November 17, 1976: page 464, seventh
paragraph, second sentence, delete the word "acres" between "20" and "per" and insert
"dwelling units"; page 470, add Mr. Fisher's name to the nay vote. Dr. Iachetta noted the
following correction for December 8, 1976: page 510, fourth paragraph, last sentence,
delete "destroyed" and insert "delayed". Mrs. David noted the following correction for
December 8, 1976: page 498, second paragraph, first sentence, delete "boring" and insert
"ope~ cutting." Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the minutes with the
above corrections. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3a.
Secondary System.
Request to have roads in Milton Hills taken into the State
Mr. Agnor noted request received from Mr. Garrett W. Kirksey~ President of Milton
Hills Development Corporation dated August 29, 1977, that roads in Section I and II of
Milton Hills be accepted into the State Secondary System. Motion was then offered by Mr.
Roudabush 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
Milton Hills Subdivision:
Beginning at station 0-21 on Milton Hills Drive, a point common to
the intersection of the center!ine of Milton Hills Drive and the
western edge of pavement on State Route 729; thence, with Milton
Hills Drive in a northwesterly direction 2,237.17 feet to station
22+26.17, the end of Milton Hills Drive in Section 2 of Milton Hills.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of
way and drainage easements along this requested addition as recorded by plats
in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 503, page 87, Deed Book 546, page 298 and Deed Book 526, page 471.
Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3b.
State Secondary System.
Request to have roads in Auburn Hills Subdivision taken into the
Mr. Agnor noted request received from Mr. W. T. Withers Fennell dated August 31~ 1977,
requesting that roads in Auburn Hills Subdivision be accepted into the State Secondary
System. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion 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 roads
in Auburn Hill Subdivision:
Beginning at station 0+10 on Auburn Drive, a point common to the
intersection of the centerline of Auburn Drive and the southern edge
of pavement of State Route 732; thence, with Auburn Drive in a
southeasterly direction 919.90 feet to station 9+29.90, the end
of Auburn Drive in Auburn Hill, Section 1.
Beginning at station 0+12 on Hillview Court, a point common to the
intersection of the centerline of Hillview Court and the eastern
edge of pavement of Auburn Drive, station 5+50; thence, with Hiliview
Court in a southeasterly direction 463.00 feet to station 4+75, the
end of Hillview Court in Auburn Hill, Section 1.
September 14, 1.977 (Regular-Day Meeting)
edge of pavement of Auburn Drive, station 5+50; thence, with
Simeon Court in a southwesterly direction ~48.00 feet to station
5+60, the end of Simeon Court in Auburn Hill, Section !.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of way
and drainage easements along these requested additions as recorded by plat
in the Office of the Clerk of the Circui't Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 454, page 511.
Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the fol!owSng recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. ~d2~-
NAYS: NOne.
Agenda Item No. 3c. Appoint staff person to help prepare the six year highway plan.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of letter dated August 16, 1977 from Mr. D. B. Hope, District
Highway Engineer, requesting the Board's reaction to participation in the preparation of
the six year plan. If so desired, the highway department requsts a representative to work
with the Resident Highway Engineer in the preparation. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway
Engineer, was present and pointed out the law making it mandatory for the Board to participat
in the annual construction priority list and construction budget. Therefore, he suggested
the Board participate in the six year plan since the construction budget comes from the
first year of the six year plan. Mr. Agnor recommended Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of
Planning, or his designee, be appointed to help prepare the six year highway plan. Mr.
Tucker was present and asked for some guidelines on the preparation of the plan. He asked
if the Board desired him to follow recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher
said since improvements are based on traffic counts or development, he suggested it be
discussed with Mr. Roosevelt. Mr'. Roosevelt said he intended to work as close as possible
to the Comprehensive Plan and presented a guide on secondary road improvements to Mr.
Tucker. At this time, Mrs. David offered motion to appoint Mr. Robert Tucker or his designee
to work with the Highway Department in the preparation of the six year plan. Dr. Iachetta
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. : .
None.
Agenda Item No. 3d. Letters Accepting Roads into the State Secondary System.
Mr. Agnor read the following letters from the Department of Highways and Transportation
into the record:
"August 24, 1977
As requested in resolution by your Board on July 14, 1976, the following
addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved,
effective July 1, 1977.
ADDITION
WESTFIELD SUBDIVISION
Greenbrier Drive - From:
Route 866 northwesterly.
LENGTH
End of State Maintenance
0.17 Mi."
"August 16, 1977
As requested in resolution by your Board on July 13, 1977, the following
addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved,
effective July 13, 1977.
ADDITION
Chris Greene Lake Road - From:
southwesterly direction.
Rte. 606, 0.49 Mi. in a
LENGTH
0.49 Mi."
Agenda Item No. 3e. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Fisher noted the 1977 Annual Virginia Highway and Transportation Fall Conference
to be held at the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Virginia, on October 27 and 28.
Mr. Agnor said he planned to attend.
Mr. Agnor said he received a letter from Ms. Sarah K. M. Fricks and Ms. Dorothy
Jopling Eason requesting a sign naming the bridge near Schuyler (Route 722) which is known
as the Joplin Ford Bridge. Mr. Roosevelt said a resolution would be needed from the Board
and the Highway Department will place the sign on the bridge if someone is willing to incur
the cost. After discussion of this matter, Mr. Fisher suggested informing Ms. Fricks and
Ms. Eason of the highway department's policy and if they desire to pay this cost, the Board
will adopt a resolution. Mrs. David then offered motion to this effect. Dr. Iachetta
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
September 14, 1977 (Regular-Day Meeting)
250 West and asked if this was included in any future plans. Mr. Roosevelt said no and he
does not anticipate its inclusion in any future six year plans due to the low traffic
volume. Discussion then followed on transferring funds allocated for a project having
difficulty with obtaining right of ways.
Dr. Iachetta asked the status of the right of way on Route 643. Mr. Roosevelt said he
was trying to get in touch with Messrs. Wells, Pritchett and Reed. If these three dedicate
the right of way~ then he could proceed with the project to the Pritchett and Reed line.
Dr. Iachetta then asked about Route 651 near the Fairview Swimming Pool. The two
sections involved .are from Rio Road to Huntington which passes through Northfields Subdivision
and from Huntington Road to the bridge on the opposite side of the railroad. Mr. Roosevelt
said both sections are included in the six year plan. He said the right of way is available
on the western side but not on the eastern section across the railroad bridge.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the right of way on Route 727. Mr. Roosevelt said he has a
meeting scheduled to discuss this with two of the property owners. Mr. Dorrier said the
problem is with the intersection of Route 712 because a couple of the property owners are
unwilling to give the right of way. He asked if it were possible for the highway departmen~
to start paving from the south end forward, if the right of way could be obtained. Mr.
Roosevelt said at the present time, this is not in the six year plan, thus there is no
money available to make any improvements, if the funds were available, he would consider
widening and paving of the road if right of way was available for a mile or a mile and a
half from the south end northward.
Mr. Roudabush said the people i~ Airport Acres are upset since nothing has been done
except to put up road signs. Mr. Roosevelt said the paving will be done before winter.
Mr. Roudabush asked about the progress of obtaining right of way for Stony Point Road.
Mr. Roosevelt said some has been staked about a mile or a mile and a half north of the Key
West entrance~ He intends to correct the curve and relocate the bridge in the spring, if
the remainder of the right of way to that section could be obtained. (At 9:55 A.M., Dr.
Iachetta left the meeting to teach class.) Since no priorities have been set, Mr. Roosevelt
said any could be changed as right of way becomes available. Small allocations are received
each year ranging from $50,000 to $75,000 for work on Route 20 and the improvements will be
slow.
Mr. Henley asked about the right of way on Route 667. Mr. Roosevelt said the right of
way has been obtained from the end of the hard surface to the secondary intersection of
Route 723. There is no money available for the project.
Mr. Henley asked for some work on Route 690 which goes through Newtown. Mr. Roosevelt
said he met last week with Mr. Young and Mr. Fox and an agreement has been reached on the
sewer line.
Mr. Fisher then noted his appreciation for the yield sign at the 250 by-pass ramp.
Mr. Fisher asked that the Highway Department be furnished a copy of the Betz report
since road banks are listed as a source of erosion. Mr. Roosevelt said there are funds in
the maintenance replacement budget for reseeding of roadside banks which are eroding and if
there is someone with knowledge of such problems, it would help if they would notify the
department of such.
At this time, Mr. Walter Lumpp spoke. He discussed an incident involving his family
which occurred in the Stony Point area. The incident occurred at 2:15 A.M. whan drunks
created a disturbance at his mother's house. His daughter, who was staying with his mother,
called the Sheriff's Department and was informed by the dispatcher that there were no units
available. Mr. Lumpp went to the house and was chased by the men down Route 20. He did
not obtain any police protection until crossing the city lines. He felt this was a very
sad situation when no protection could be offered. He called Sheriff Bailey for an explanati~
and was informed that there were not enough officers and no funds are available to hire
more. Mr. Lumpp realized the problem but felt within an hour some police protection should
have been available. Mr. Roudabush said he talked to the Sheriff and was told the same
thing;~ that a personnel problem existed. After discussion of this matter, Mr. Agnor said
the answer to these personnel problems lies with the General Assembly in recognizing the
probt~ms which exist and basing the allocation of deputies on number of square miles and
not on population. ...........
Agend~ Item No. 4. Review of John Moore Site Plan.
Mr. Fisher said the reason for requesting that this site plan be reviewed was due
to the unusual actions by the health department, board of zoning appeals, planning
staff and commission. He felt this application would set a precedent for other areas
in the county to develop prior to having a regional sewer system for R-3 land. The
Zoning Ordinance requires 60,000 square feet for a septic tank and well system on a
lot. This lot is only 38,000 square feet with four dwelling units proposed. If there was
a central water system, the lot area would drop to 40,000 square feet for one dwelling
unit. At this time, Mr. Tucker presented the following history of this matter:
June 13, 1977:
Mr. Moore made application for a building permit. On his
request, a special footings permit was issued under the
standard building code provision that the applicant could
proceed with footings at his own risk until county staff had
made all proper reviews of his proposed structure, site and use.
June 14, 1977:
A zoning inspector made the preliminary zoning inspection of
the property and recommended preliminary zoning approval as to
the residential use of the property.
June 17, 1977:
A building inspector made a footings inspection and approved
the
September 14~ 1977 (Regular-Da~ Meeting)
be issued. Also, he was informed that due to the lack of a
central sewer system on the site a variance would be necessary.
He was also notified that the water supply would have to be
from an a~proved central water system. On June 27~ 1977, Mr
Moore submitted a site plan for approval by the Planning
Commission.
June 27-July 12, 1977: The building permit was denied by the Zoning
Administrator for being in conflict with the ordinance
requirement of Section 6-2-1. Mr. Moore requested a variance
based on recommendation from the Health Department that two
(2) septic systems would be better suited for the topographic
area. The Zoning Administrator requested Mr. Moore to refer
the Health Department recommendation to the County Engineering
Department for their evaluation. The Engineering Department
concurred with the proposed two systems.
July 8, 1977:
Mr. Moore applied through the zoning secretary for a variance
from Section 6-2-2 (which was the wrong provision).
August !, 1977: The Zoning Administrator ruled the variance application to be
heard August 13, 1977, before the Board of Zoning Appeals as
improper. Mr. Moore was requested to reapply under the proper
section (6-2-1), which he did.
August 4, 1977: The Technical Review Committee discussed the site plan and Mr.
Moore was again informed that the water supply would have to be
from an approved central water system, and that the variance from
Section 6-2-1 would have to be granted prior to review by the
Planning Commission.
August 23, 1977: The Board of Zoning Appeals heard the variance application and
pursuant to the Health Department recommendation granted the
variance.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission approved the site plan
subject to two conditions:
The development to be served by an approved off-site central
water system;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
entrance facilities.
Mr. Fisher asked why the health department would want to approve one septic system for
four dwelling units. Mr. Edwin Roseberry of the Health Department was present and reviewed
a similar situation in Oak Hill Subdivision which had occurred several years ago. He said
any land subdivided prior to the subdivision ordinance did not have to conform to the
ordinance and this property was zoned R-3 years ago. Ail he was interested in was getting
his Uti!~ty in. Mr. Fisher noted this site plan was filed in 1977 and the site plan ordinance
was in effect at that time. Mr. Homer Chevacci was present and said he recommended the
40,000/60,000 square feet regulations set out in the Zoning Ordinance. This particular
parcel has enough space for two systems. The Health Department could not refuse to give
the permit since the septic tank could be put in and the soil tests were alright.
Mr. St. John said the applicant can appeal the denial to the~circuit court and say the
zoning administrator and the ordinance are completely without rational basis. The ordinance
woUld be arbitrary and capricious because the Board of Supervisors has enacted an ordinance
using a standard which is above the standard recommended by the Health Department. The
argument, would be that the Board is not an expert in sanitation and they have no business
enacting an ordinance with higher standards than the health department imposes. If the
applicant brings in a certification from the health department saying a lesser standard is
good enough for them, then the judge will defend the applicant because the health department
would be the expert in the matter. After some discussion by the Board~ Mr. Fisher suggested
the Board. appeal the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr, St. John said before
appealing it should be straightened out between the health department and the board as to
whether the land would support the density. Mr. Roudabush'suggested having something
uniform for the Zoning and Health Departments to apply. He did not feel this could be
compared to other R-3 land in the County because this piece was cut off in separate ownership
before the regulations took effect. He was disturbed about the regulations being different
in each jurisdiction covered by the Health Department. Mr. Fisher pointed out when a
septic permit is issued it should be under the current laws not the zoning. Mr. Henley
agreed this was an unusual case and felt the Health Department recognized the problems and
would strive to work them out. iMr. St. John said if the standards imposed by the County
are unrealistic they shou!d be changed. At this time, Mr. Fisher requested Mr. Agnor to
organize a meeting between 'the health department, legal staff, planning and zoning staff to
discuss the ordinance in more detail. No action was taken on this matter.
Agenda Item No. 5. Robert Tucker: Request to officially name Route 651.
Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, said the Postal Service has requested officially
naming the entire length of Route 651. The Postal Services intends to reorganize the route
systems in the urban..area of Rio Road and Park Street Extended and have'suggested having
house numbers. After researching the history of Route 651~ he found it has been known as
Free State Road. However, a problem exists on the western portion which is east and west
of the Southern Railroad. It has been platted and known as Belvedere Road. Based on the
eastern side of the railroad being known as Free State Road, he recommended the name be
kept. No houses are~involved on Belvedere Road which use that address. Mr. Fisher expressed
his feelings that old names of county roads should be retained. He requested deferral
untii the matter of Belvedere Road could be resolved .....
Septemb~r~14, 1977 (Regular-Day Meeting)
Mr. Fahy G. Mullaney, Executive Director of Offender Aid and Restoration, was present
and introduced the following persons: Mr. Ed McCue, President of the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Historical Society and from the OAR office Ms. Diana West and Mr. Jay Worrall.
Mr. Mullaney said OAR started in Charlottesville seven years ago and has grown nationally.
Since OAR works exclusively in county and city jails, use of this building would attract
attention to Albemarle County as well as highlight OAR's purpose. He then presented three
ways OAR plans to use the jail: 1) One half of the old jail to be an office for OAR/USA.
The west half of the jail to be renovated to accomodate the OAR staff. 2) The ground
floor of the east section to be restored as a museum. The cage section is intact which
represents a classic jail design for the period. Historical documents and artifacts pertaini~
to jails will be on display. 3) The second story of the east section to become a place
for display and sale of prisoner's crafts: painting, leather crafts, etc.
Mr. Mullaney said four benefits of using the building would be as follows:
The historical integrity of the Court Square area is maintained by
preserving a building which was functionally part of the family of buildings
in the area.
e
A unique structure of significant historic value is restored saving it from
deterioration and ruin.
The building is used in ways which are in keeping with its own history.
Four groups in the community would benefit from use of the space:
ae
The Historical Society would be provided with space to display
books, papers, records and artifacts related to the past century
of law enforcement and incarceration.
be
Offender Aid and Restoration would have its national offices in a
building representing its work.
The touring and local public would have access to a historic structure
and related artifacts and records.
de
Prisoners at the Charlottesville/Albemarle Joint Security Complex
are encouraged to be creative and producive by the existence of a
place in which to display their art and crafts.
Mr. Mullaney then discussed the methods of sharing the cost between OAR, the Historical
Society and the County. The County is requested to fund the following: a) Removal of 12
plumbing fixtures, window repair, installation of surface electrical conduit and overhead
lights, and b) provide the building and utilities (heat and light), except for telephone
and minor maintenance. Mr. Fisher said the renovation and removal of fixtures would be a
one-time cost but the utilities would be recurring and would increase.
Mr. Agnor noted his reservations about the county becoming involved in real estate in
term~ of making space available to organizations that are not County functions. He realized
the building would deteroriate more rapidly if it were unoccupied. Mr. Agnor favored a
short term lease because, the Albemarle County Service Authority would eventually move out
of the jailor's house and the heating systems are interconnected. He recommended the
tenants pay the utility costs because he did not feel the County treasury should bear the
costs when the use of the building would not be a county function. Air conditioning being
included would also increase the current utility rate the County pays. Mr. Roudabush
suggested the current utility rate be contributed and OAR pay the difference. Since the
~urrent cost is $670.00, Mr. Henley suggested contributing $700.00.
Discussion then followed on the possibility of the County using the building. Mr.
Agnor said he had never looked at the building as use for county office space due to the
narrow aisles, doorways and stairs. Mr. Roudabush felt using it as a county office building
would destroy its character.
Dr. Iachetta questioned the federal requirements of the building. Mr. Mullaney then
explained the many provisions of the Code which could be waived due to the historical
significance of the building.
Mr. Ed McCue, President of the Albemarle Historical Society, was present and noted the
Society's endorsement for the preservation of the building.
The consensus of the Board was for a three year lease and that utilities at the current
rate be considered for funding by the County and any other costs be borne by the tenants.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. David to invite a lease for discussion for a three year
period with the above stipulation. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7.
'77-78.
Carol Stewart:
Jefferson Area Board on Aging-Area Plan for FY
Ms. Carol Stewart, Executive Director of Jefferson Area Board on Aging, was present.
She said the purpose of Jefferson Area Board on Aging is to coordinate a comprehensive
system of services for older persons in Planning District X. She then discussed the followin
objectives of the agency: !) Administration and planning; 2) Community Services System;
3) Transportation; 4) Outreach/Information and Referral; 5) Income Maintenance and
Employment; 6) Home Services; 7) Nutrition; 8) Education and Training; 9) Housing. She
noted a disagreement with the Monticello Area Community Action Agency on the nutrition
program particularly with the cost, but felt it is being worked out. She said the county's
September 14, 1977 (R~gular-Day Mee~in_~
Agenda Item No. 8.
September 7, 1977).
Floyd Bates:
Request for Dance Hall Permit.
(Deferred from
Mr. Roudabush said no objections have been received from any neighbors. He asked if
the 1971 certificate of occupancy permit allowed occupancy of the building without dancing.
Mr. St., John said no dancing has ever occurred. Mr. St. John then reviewed the past procedur
for obtaining a dance hall permit from the Circuit Court Judge. The law has changed to the
Board of Superviso~ granting such. Mr. St. John felt Mr. Bates had a vested right under
the zoningstatutes. After some discussion and review of the ordinances, Mr. Roudabush
offered motion to approve the dance hall permit for Mr. Bates. Dr. Iachetta seconded the
motion and same carried by the following recrded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
At 12:19 P.M., the Board recessed for lunch and reconvened at 1:37 P.M. Upon reconvenin
Mr. Roudabush requested reconsideration of the dance hall permit and offered motion to this
effect. Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Roudabush said the purpose of this request is to allow the staff and the County
Attorney's office time to recommend some conditions. He did not feel this request could be
turned down, but felt some specific conditions needed to be included such as hours of
operation, days of week, noise level and things that would affect it if it were in a neighbor
zoned to permit such. Mr. Roudabush noted some small parcels in the area and felt there
may be some concern.
Agenda Item No. 9. Mike Gleason: Appropriation for Levy Opera House.
Mr. Mike Gleason was present and requested the appropriation approved in the amount of
$i0,000.00 at the Revenue Sharing hearing for the Levy Opera House. Mr. Ray Jones, Director
of Finance, said the Revenue Sharing Office informed him that revenue sharing funds could
be used for the purchase of the proper~y, renovation and restoration of the building. He
noted all the requirements have been met for holding public hearings. At this time, Mr.
Dorrier offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $i0,000.00 be and the same hereby is transferred from
the Federal Revenue Sharing Funds and coded to 47-18A.20 as the
County's contribution for the acquisition of the Levy Opera House.
Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Mike Gleason: Status of Sign Commission.
'Mr. Gleason of the Sign Commission was present and briefed the Board on the status of
the Sign Commission. He felt the working relationship of the members on the commission has
been good although there is a lack of interest outside of the Commission. Mr. Gleason said
they have been unable to get press coverage of the meetings and to stimulate citizens
input. He then noted two vacancies on the Commission; one to represent the Charlottesville/J
Restaurant Association (replacing Mr. Paul Holdren) and one representing the Hotel/Motel
Association (replacing Mr. Wilkins). Mr. Fisher then read into the record letter dated
July 29, 1977, from Mr. C. G. Webber of the Charlotteville/Albemarle Restaurant Association
recommending Mr. Joe Bute as their representative to the Sign Commission. Dr. Iachetta
then offered motion to appoint Mr. Bute to replace Mr. Paul Holdren. Mrs. David seconded
the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher requested that the Hotel/Motel Association be asked for two nominees
to replace Mr. Daye Wilkins.
Agenda Item No. 11.
Report on Alternative Water Supply Sources.
Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, was present and reported the results of the
Alternative Water Supply Sources report dated July 1977 from Camp, Dresser and McKee,
Incorporated. The primary purpose of the study was: 1) to project future water'demands
on the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority raw water supplies; 2) to identify and examine
the viability of alternative sources of raw water supplies; and 3) to determine development
cost of each alternative. The alternatives examined were divided into the following three
categories:
Expansion of the existing South Fork Rivanna River Reser¥oir. This
entails expansion of the existing South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir
by the addition of collapsible flashboards to increase the raw water
safe yield of the reservoir by 6.4 million gallons per day. This,
together with the existing safe yield of 12 million gallons per day
should provide a safe yield of 18.4 million gallons per day up to the year
2040. Additionally, other existing supplies (Ragged Mountain, Sugar Hollow
.ood
b emar 1 e
September 14,~ 1977 (Re~gular-Day Meeting)
Development of new source within the Rivanna River watershed. This calls
for the use of the James River at Scottsvi!le as a raw water supply
source with construction of treatment and transmission facilities in
two stages. Sugar Hollow and Ragged Mountain Reservoirs along with
the North Fork Rivanna River will remain in operation at the existing
capacities. Under the alternative, the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
system would be discontinued as a use of water supply source. Mr. Bailey
said the James has plenty of water but space and elevation make it difficult
to transport water to the urban areas.
Development of new sources outside of the Rivanna River watershed. The sources
considered as possible raw water alternatives included are: Rivanna River,
North Fork Rivanna River, Mechum River, Moorman's River, James River,
Buck Mountain Creek, Buck Island Creek and Preddy's Creek. The Buck Mountain
Creek system is addressed as a long range raw water supply source to be
used in conjunction with the existing South Fork Rivanna Reservoir system.
Mr. Bailey said Buck Mountain Creek would not replace the South Rivanna
but rather supplement it. The water quality of the stream is probably
the best of all possible sources. The water will be treated at the South
Fork Rivanna Treatment Plant. A transmission line would not be needed for
use of the Buck Mountain Creek impoundment. It would just be a discharge
into the present reservoir.
Mr. Fisher asked what action was suggested other than improvement to the South Rivanna
Reservoir. Mr. Bailey then read the following recommendations:-
Based on comparative costs of the alternatives presented and evaluated,
expansion of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir to Elevation 386.0 by means
of the addition of collapsible flashboards to the existing dam structure
is recommended.
e
Reservoir Management for use in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir as
recommended by Betz engineers should be implemented.
Establish a monitoring program to determine the effects of the Reservoir
Management techniques implemented as recommended in Step 2 above. Such
monitoring programs should be designed to relate altered water quality to
the cost-effectiveness of continuing operation of the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir as a raw water supply source and to determine the staging of
future treatment facilities.
Where feasible, Watershed Management techniques as recommended by Betz
engineers, should be implemented.
For long range planning purposes, establish a monitoring program on the
Buck Mountain Creek system to obtain flow-related data for future use.
Monitor land use in the areas of the proposed impoundment to preclude
adverse development within the a~rea.
The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, in conjunction with the City of
Charlottesville and the Albemarle Service Authority, should establish
a comprehensive records program for the purpose of anticipating and
planning for future water requirements.
Mr. Agnor noted that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has accelerated the plans
for the increase of the South Rivanna Reservoir plant due to the extreme dry weather.
Mr. Fisher then asked for a report on conservation measures. Mr. Bailey said the
critical part of the water system is the Sugar Hollow and Ragged Mountain Reservoirs. The
Sugar Hollow system only has twenty days left and Ragged Mountain has sixty-one. He noted
there is plenty of storage in the South Rivanna but there is no way to treat it. He said
the South Rivanna has been losing three inches a week from storage but with a little rain
recently in one of its branches, it increased by eleven inches. Mr. Fisher then noted his
appreciation for the report on alternative water supplies. No action was taken.
Agenda Item No. 12.
County Code.
Set Public Hearing Date to Amend Section 8-40 of the Albemarle
Mr. Jones requested Section 8-40 of the Albemarle County Code be amended to reflect
the penalty for failure to notify a change in land use from 100~ to 10%. He said in dealing
with roll-back taxes and discussing with others throughout the State, it was found that
Albemarle County charged 90% more than other localities. Motion was then offered by Dr.
IaChett~o~i~d~er~s~Section 8-40 for public hearing on October 12, 1977. Mrs. David
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Appropriations.
Mr. Jones said as of September 9, twenty-eight requests had been received for refund
of recreation fees for Mint Springs Park. The park was closed due to the dry weather and
the refunds will be madep~o-ra~t~ depending on the date of issuance and whether they were
for single or family membership. He said the deadline for refunds was set for September 6
and a notice has been posted at the park. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt
the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $400.00 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from
Septet-Regular-Da= M e
Mr. Roudabush seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Jones then requested an appropriation for a federal program known as COPE, which
is for services to the handicapped and is totally reimburseab!e. Dr. Iachetta then offered
motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $60,000.00 be, and the same hereby is appropriated
from the General Fund and transferred to the School Fund and coded
to the following codes:
17Sab1-134 Compensation--Teachers $40,224.00
17Sab2-236 Staff Development-In Service 1,200.00
17SaC-111C Compensation-Clinical Psychologist 13,000.00
17SAG-295 Fringe Benefits; Employers' Share 5,576.00
Mr. Dorrier seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments. (To be discussed later in the meeting.)
Agenda Item No. 15. Joint Jail Agreement. (Deferred from August 10, 1977.)
This item was deferred by the Board on August I0, 1977, in order for the Joint Jail
Board to review the agreement. Mr. Sam Pruett, Jail Administrator, was present and said
the Jail Board requested two amendments in the agreement as follows: Zn the first sentence
of item 9 to insert the word "requisite" between "and" and "medical" He said the Jail
Board felt this needed to be clarified since it could lead one to believe that any and all
medical care costs needed by an inmate are paid for by the Jail. 2) Item 14 of the agreement
needed to specify exactly what was contained in the administrative fees to be paid to the
County for their indirect administrative support services.
Mrs. David asked about the language on page 3, item 5 concerning affidavits of members
of the Jail Board. Mr. Jones suggested striking the phrase and inserting the following
language "The accounts for such expenses and allowances shall be verified by the Secretary
of the Board." At this time, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to approve the Joint Jail Agreement
with the above changes and authorize the Chairman to execute same:
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 18th day of October, 1977, by and between
the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, hereinafter called the County, and the
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, hereinafter called the City;
WI TNE S S ETtt :
WHEREAS, the County and the City have previously established and
are now operating a regional jail, known as the Albemarle-Charlottesville
Joint Security Complex, (hereinafter called the Security Complex), and have
previously appointed a jail board to control the Security Complex, pursuant
to the provisions of Chapter 7.1 of Title 53 of the Code of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, in constructing the Security Complex, the County and the City
shared equally in the cost of acquisition of land and the cost of constructing
the administrative areas of the Security Complex, and, pursuant to state
requirements, shared on a two to one basis the cost of constructing the cell
areas of the Security Complex, the City's share being two-thirds of the cost
of constructing the cell areas and the County's share being one-third of the
cost of constructing the cell areas; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the Security Complex is set forth in a document
entitled "Joint Security Complex-Total CoSt of Project as Built" and attached
hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City and the County have shared on a two-thirds (City) to one-
third County basis the net operating cost (total cost less local, state and
federal reimbursement) of the Security Complex; and
WHEREAS, the County and the City have charged other surrounding counties
who have made use of the Security Complex on a per diem basis, based upon the
total number of prisoner days of each respective county for a particular month;
and
WHEREAS, the County and the City desire to memoralize the premises set
forth herein and to provide for an allocation of costs based upon actual use of
the Security Complex;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, and the mutual
covenants set forth herein, the County and the City covenant and agree as follows:
1. The establishmefit of a regional jail, known as the Albemarle-Charlottesville
Joint Security Complex, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 7.1 of Title 53
of the Code of Virginia, including the allocation of costs of construction and
September 14, 1977 (Regular-Day Meeting)
2. The Security Complex shall be controlled by a board, known as the
Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Board (hereinafter called the Jail
Board). The Jail Board, created pursuant to a resolution duly adopted by the
City Council of the City of Charlottesville on April 9, 1974, and by the Board
of Supervisors of Albemarla County on April 18, 1974, shall consist of seven
members. The Jail Board shall include the Sheriff of the City of Charlottesville
and the County of Albemarle~ who shall serve for a term consistent with their
respective terms as Sheriff; one member of City Council to be appointed by
the Council, but no longer than his term of office on City Council; one member
of the Board of Supervisors to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors and
who shall hold office at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors, but no longer than
his term of office on the Board of Supervisors, one private citizen from the
City and one from the County, to be appointed by the respective governing bodies
for terms of three years, and one additional private citizen, to be appointed
jointly by the governing bodies for a term of three years.
3. Members of the Jail Board in office on October 18, 1977, shall continue
in office until the effective date of their replacement appointments provided
for in paragraph 2, supra. Vacancies on the Jail Board shall thereafter be
filled for an unexpired term in the manner in which original appointments are
required to be made. Continued absence of any member from regular meetings of
of the Jail Board shall, at the discretion of the City Council and Board of
Supervisors, render such member liable to immediate removal from office. No
private citizen member of the Jail Board shall serve more than two consecutive
three year terms.
4. The Jail Board shall elect from among its members a chairman and
secretary, whose term shall be for one year with eligibility for re-election.
5. Private citizen members of the Jail Board shall be entitled to necessary
expenses incurred in attending meetings of the Board and in addition each shall
receive an allowance of $20.00 per day for each day that he or she shall be
in attendance on the Board. Such allowance, however, shall not exceed in any on
year the sum of $240.00, to be paid by the County or the City respectively.
The accounts for such expenses and allowances shall be verified by the Secretary
of the Board.
6. The Security Complex shall be under the supervision, control and
management of the Jail Board, who shall perform such duties as are set forth
in Chapter 7.1 of Title 53 of the Code of Virginia, and who shall be responsible
to the City and the County for the proper management and operation of the
Security Complex. The Jail Board shall submit annually to the City and the
County a report showing its activities; a budget, which shall include all
revenues and expenditures~ employee compensation schedules, and other similar
data which the City and/or the County may desire.
7. The Jail Board shall appoint a superintendent of the Security Complex
and authorize the number of employees thereof who shall serve as such for such
length of time as the Jail Board may designate or until their removal or until
others are appointed in their place.
8. The superintendent and complex employees shall have such powers and
duties as are set forth in Chapter 7.1 of Title 53 of the Code of Virginia
or are otherwise provided by law. The Jail Board may require the superintendent
and certain employees to give bond in such penalty and with such security as the
Jail Board may prescribe, conditioned faithfully on the discharge of the duties
of their office.
9. The City and County shall bear the expenses of operating and maintaining
the Security Complex and supporting the prisoners incarcerated therein, including
clothing and requisite medical attention. Such participation shall be based as
follows: In preparing its annual budget for approval by the City and the County,
the Jail Board shall determine the projected total operating cost of the Security
Complex for the upcoming fiscal year. From the tbtal operating cost shall he
subtracted the projected reimbursement from federal, state, and local
governments other than the City and the County for the upcoming fiscal year, to
determine the projected net operating cost of the Security Complex for the
City and the County for the upcoming fiscal year. This projected net operating
cost of the Security Complex shall be multiplied by the ratio of County to City
prisoner days of utilization of the Security Complex for the prior fiscal year
to determine the County's and City's proportionate share of the net operating
cost of the Security Complex for the upcoming fiscal year. Payment of each
respective local government's proportionate share of the net operating cost
shall be made during the applicable fiscal year on a semi-annual basis
within the first fifteen days of the semi-annual period.
10. Upon completion of the annual audit of the Security Complex for a fiscal
year, in the event that such audit shows that the City's and the County's
participation in the cost of the Security Complex has exceeded the actual net
operating cost of the Security Complex for the fiscal year, the Jail Board shall,
within sixty days of receipt of the audit, refund .to the City and the County
their proportionate share of such over-participation. In the event the audit
shows the actual net operating cost of the Security Complex for the fiscal year
has exceeded the City's and the County's participation in such net operating
cost, then, within sixty days of receipt of the audit, the City and the County
shall appropriate to the Jail Board their proportionate share of funds necessary
to balance the budget of the Security Complex for the fiscal year.
11. The Jail Board may contract with other jurisdictions to provide
prisoner space in the Security Complex. The Jail Board may charge such
jurisdictions a per diem cost of providing prisoner space based upon the number
of prisoner days of utilization of the Security Complex by the particular
of the Security Complex. The City and the County shall be given priority
consideration for prisoner space over other jurisdictions when the Security
Complex is filled to or near capacity.
12. The City and the County recognize that other jurisdictions may wish
to become participating jurisdictions in the operation of the Security Complex.
With the concurrence of both the City and the County, other parties may
participate in the operation of the Security Complex. At such time, a new
agreement will be entered into by the parties involved reflecting the
participation of the new jurisdiction and the terms of such participation.
13. The Jail Board shall obtain casualty and other insurance adequate
to protect the interests of the City and the County. This provision in no way
way constitutes a waiver of any defense of sovereign immunity which may be
available to the City and the County in the event of legal action against
the Jail Board and the City and the County.
14. The County is currently providing the following administrative
support services to the Jail Board:
The offices of the Director of Finance as Fiscal Agent, the offices of
the Director of Purchasing as Purchasing Agent, the offices of the Payroll
Clerk as Payroll Agent, and the offices of the County Attorney to provide
legal services to the Jail Board and the Superintendents of the Security
Complex. The cost to the County of these services shall hereafter be computed
annually and included as an expenditure item in the operating budget of the Jail
Board and payment made to the County accordingly in the form of an administrative
support fee, the County shall receive interest for any monies advanced pursuant
to paragraph 15 infra. Interest shall be determined by calculating the interest
the County could have received from such advanced monies if it had been invested
in an interest bearing certificate of deposit from the time of advancement
until State reimbursement was received.
15. The Commonwealth of Virginia contributes a major portion of the total
operating costs of the Security Complex by reimbursing the Security Complex,
generally within sixty days, for qualified costs incurred. The County, as fiscal
agent for the Jail Board, if necessary during the course of the year, may
advance monies from the general fund of the County to cover those qualified
costs of operating the Security Complex until State reimbursement is received.
If monies are advanced, the County shall replenish its general fund as State
reimbursement of qualified costs is received.
16. This agreement shall begin on the day of execution of the last party
to sign and shall continue for a period of one year. Thereafter, this contact
shall be automatically renewed for periods of one year unless terminated upon
sixty days notice by any party hereto. The terms of this agreement are
expressly subject to annual appropriations by the City and t~he County of funds
sufficient to meet the expenses of operating and maintaining the Security
Complex. In the event that no such appropriation by either party be made in any
year during the term of this agreement, either party shall have the right to
terminate this agreement.
Mrs. David seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the~Ql~'eWi~g~recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Sam Pruett: Regional Jail, Supplemental Budget Request.
Mr. Sam Pruett said the Jail Board received notice on June 23, 1977, from the State
Compensation Board that the salary scale for correctional officers was to be adjusted_by
5.8% effective October 1, 1977. Since this notice was received after budgetary process~
there was not time to include this adjustment in the 1977-78 budget. After some consideratiol
the Jail Bdard unanimously voted on August 11 to amend the current budget to allow for the
salary adjustments and to provide supplemental salary increases for jail employees other
than correctional officers. A total supplemental appropriation of $10,240 is required to
make the proposed adjustments. Of the total amount, all but $1,701 is required to provide
funds for the State's revised pay scale for correctional officers. The remaining $1,701
will revise all other salaries in line with the State's pay scale adjustment. Mr. Pruett
discussed with the Director of Finance the possibility of making this appropriation out of
the Jail's carry-over balance from 1976-77 and Mr. Jones concurred.
Dr. Iachetta asked if the employees received an increase in the budget. Mr. Pruett
said the State Compensation Board explained that correctional officers are underpaid
throughout the State and felt this increase would help alleviate them leaving their jobs.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $10,240 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from
the Joint Security Complex Fund and coded to the following:
190-109 Compensation--Assistants $ 9,021
190-127 Compensation--Medical Personnel 576
190-296 Employer's Share--Life Insurance 20
190-297 Employer's Share--VSRS
190-298 Employer's Share--FICA 562
Mrs. David seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
September 14, 1977 (Regular-Day Meeting)
'Agenda Item No. 14a Human Resources Transportation Advisory Committee.
Mr. Agnor said Mr. Robert Abbott of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
explained to him that this was a new effort to examine the University and city bus systems
an~"~possibly make it a mass joint system. The reason for~calling it this is because it
came from the Human Resources Assembly. Mr. Fisher said this study is to determine what
type of services could be offered to urban parts of'the County. Mr. Agnor said he understood
it would be interconnected with JAUNT. Mrs. David suggested Ms. Sally Thomas represent the
County on this Committee. Mr, Fisher said he would check further into the matter.. No
action was taken.
~Agenda Item No. 14b. Appointments: Jefferson Area Board on Aging.
Agenda Item No, 14c. Appointments: Park Commission.
Agenda Item No. 14d. Appointments: Fire Prevention Code Board'of Appeals.
Agenda Item No. 14e. Appointments: Sign Advisory Commission.
Agenda Item No. 14f. Appointments: Regional Housing Committee: TJPDC.
Ail of these appointments were carried over.
Agenda Item No. 8. Floyd Bates: .Request for Dance Hall Permit.
Mr. St. John brought to the Board's attention that no action was taken earlier to
defer this matter. Mrs. David then offered motion to defer action on this request pending
receipt of a recommendation from the planning staff. Mr Roudabush seconded the motion and
same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES':
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and RoudabuSh.
None.
At 3:42 the Board recessed and reconvened at 3:48 P.M.
Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher noted Mr. Roudabush would be appearing before the Compensation
Board with him on September 23, 1977 to appeal the allowances for the Sheriff's Department
for Fiscal Year 1977-78.
Agenda Item No. 17.
Privacy Protection Acts.
George' R. St. John-Discussion of Freedom of Information and
Mr. St. John. was present and briefed the Board on the Freedom of Information Act,
Virginia Code Section 2.1-340 and the Privacy Protection Act, Virginia Code Section 2.1-377.
Agenda Item No. 18. Request for Leave Without Pay.
Mr. Agnor read a request from Mr. John Shepherd for leave without pay for October 24
through October 28, 1977. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve the request. Mrs.
David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 19. Information: Report of the Department of Social Services for the
month of July, 1977, was received in accordance with Virginia State Code Section 63.1-52.
Agenda Item No. 20.
received as information.
Report of the County Executive for the month of August, 1977, was
Agenda Item No. 21. Statement of Expenses for the Director of Finances Commonwealth's
Attorney and Sheriff's Department for the month of August, 1977, were presented. On motion
by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush~ these statements were approved as read. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 22. Statement of Expenses for the Regional Jail for the month of
August, 1977, was presented. On motion by Mrs. David, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, this
statement was approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 23. Regional Jail Report (State Department of Corrections) for the
month of August, 1977. Statement of expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of
the Regional Jail for the month of August, 1977, along with statements of prisoner days and
paramedic salaries, jail physician and salary of the classification officer were received.
On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, these statements were approved as read.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Agenda Item No. 24. Other Matters Not on the Agenda from the Public and Board Members.
There was no one from the public to speak.
Mr. Fisher noted a meeting to be held with two members of City Council and two members
of the Board to discuss methods for funding the maintenance of the pollution-control devices
as proposed in the Reservoir Protection Ordinance now under discussion. Mr. Roudabush
noted his willingness to meet along with Mr. Fisher for this meeting.
Mr. Fisher requested an update on the status of the Lane High School Building. Mr.
Agnor said the consultant has finished the major portion of the work consisting of the
mechanical aspects of the heating and cooling systems. The consultant calculates finishing
in another two or three weeks.
Dr. iachetta asked if an official offer has been made to the Postal Service for the
purchase of the Post Office Building. Mr. Agnor said yes.
Mr. Fisher said communication has been received from Mr. Christopher DeYan, Director
of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library announcing the Library Board's decision to provide
monthly financial reports and minutes of meetings to all participating jurisdictions.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the Madison House reports for 1976 and 1977.
Mr. Fisher said report for the Human Resources Assembly for Charlottesville and the
County has been received for August 1977. Mr. Dorrier expressed his support of the committee
but felt more governing officials should be involved. Mrs. David felt more volunteers are
needed as well.
Mr. Fisher then distributed copies of Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom's report dated September
12, 1977, on the Reservoir Ordinance.
Mr. Fisher asked Mrs. David to review the communciations from the Virginia Association
of Counties concerning conditional zoning. He also noted that the annual meeting of the
Virginia Association of Counties is to be held in Williamsburg on November 13, 14 and 15.
Mr. Roudabush noted inquiries concerning tax exemption for the disabled. He has
discussed the matter with Mr. Ray Jones and would like the matter placed on the September
28, 1977, agenda for discussion.
Dr. Iachetta said at his regular monthly citizens meeting, a citizen requested that he
present to the Board the possibility of asking local legislators to sponsor legislation to
change the manner in which School Board members are appointed. Mr. St. John noted that the
County has more control over their School Board than most localities. Mr. Fisher said
House Bill 17 proposes that all School Boards have terms set. He asked if the Board desired
to take any action on the matter. No one could support any action being taken.
Dr Iachetta then noted his constituents preferred the alternative route being east of
town rather than through Hollymead as proposed. (Route 29 By-pass proposed in the new
Comprehensive Plan.)
Mrs. David asked about the priorities for fire hydrants. She recollected from reading
some past minutes that revenue sharing funds were allocated and asked if a decision had
been made on where to designate them. Mr. Agnor said no, this is awaiting the adoption of
a capital improvements budget. The priorities will depend on the dollars allocated.
Mr. Fisher said Piedmont Virginia Community College informed him they are planning an
expansion of the facility sometime in 1980. He had explained to them if capital outlay
funds are intended, they must plan immediately. The College is also anticipating asking
for local funding.this year. ~
Mr. Agnor noted letter .received from the Virginia Energy Office declaring October as
"Energy Conservation Month" and requesting localities to proclaim October same. Mr. Agnor
said clinics for Home Energy Cost Cutting will be held at Piedmont Community College on
October 4, 11, 18 and 25 at 7:00 P.M. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to publish a
display advertisement with these dates. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier~ Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Roudabush said the Albemarle County Service Authority believes they can clean the
Scottsville water lines. Mr. Dorrier said they are in the process of getting an estimate
for the project. If the cost is in the range of $6,000 to $8~000, it can be funded out of
the Service Authority budget. The possibility of hooking up a third main in downtown
Scottsville, which has a 125,000 gallon capacity per day, is being investigated. Mr.
Fisher asked about the financial report of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr.
Agnor said once the audit has been received, it would be worthwhile to have a meeting with
the Service Authority Board to discuss their financial operation.
:~_i.:::~: Dr~;jIa~hetta noted invitation for the Board to meet after 5:00 P.M. today to see the
Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Company pumper.
At 5:03 P.M., Mr. Agnor requested an executive session to discuss property acquisition.
Mr. Roudabush offered motion to this effect. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley~ Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
September 14, 1977 (Regular-Day Meeting)
A~ 7:39 P. M., Mr. Fisher called the meeting back to order in the Albemarle County
Courthouse.
Agenda Item No. 26. Public Hearing: Parks and Recreation Five-Year Master Plan.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 31 and September 7, 1977.)
Mr. Fisher said the meeting was scheduled to hear public comments on a "Local Parks
and Recreation Master Plan, 1977-1983", dated April 15, 1977. He then introduced Dr.
Harry Gamble, Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Dr. Gamble said it took a year of research and planning by the Parks Commission and
staff before writing this plan. The plan is based on careful assessment o~ the County's
recreational needs, the resources available, and the most cost-efficient ways of utiliz-
ing finances. In researching this question, the Parks Commission conducted a survey of
citizens regerding the present parks system. They also made an analysis of statistical
data including population densities, average age factors, income, welfare support, delin-
quency rates and projected growth patterns for the various magisterial districts of the
County. National parks and recreation standards for development of recreational systems
were also used. This Master Plan projects a five-year program of development which has
capital improvements and recreational program aspects. The plan includes three dimensions:
i) Capital improvements to existing facilities, particularly Mint Springs and Chris
Greene; 2) The establishment Of a series of new parks to complement and diversify the
parks system. This is a special park of the plan in that the proposed parks are recommended
to be located at or near County schools; 3) Development of an organized recreational
program at selected areas within the County. The Parks Commission fee~ there should be
pilot projects on the recreational programs to see if there is enough citizen interest
to justify expansion or continuation of same.
Dr. Gamble said he knows that a plan as far reaching as this one is will not be satis-
factory to everyone. The Parks Commission is suggesting general principals for development
of parks and a~ks support of those principals but they leave the specific projects to be
developed to debate. Dr. Gamble then noted a recent addendum to the Master Plan; that
being the endorsement of a proposal that a facility be constructed at Mink Creek. He said
this facility would provide for recreational needs in the Scottsville/Esmont area. Although.
the Parks Commission has not formally appended this proposal to the Master Plan, they hope
that ultimately it will be approved since it fits in the general scheme. The project calls
for ~apital expenditures, but it will not prejudice the rest of the Master Plan. However,
if this project is approved, some revisions might be needed in o~er recommendations for
the Scottsviile/Esmont area. Mr. Fisher said the Board had received nothing about this
project in writing. Dr. Gamble said the Pa~ks Commission has given tentative approval to
this project. The next stage is for a site plan to go to the Planning Commission. A
special permit will also have to be secured. Mr. Dorrier has further information and details
on the proposed park.
Mr. Fisher then asked for the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Mr. Robert
W. Tucker, Director of Planning, said the Planning Commission had basically reviewed the
Parks Master Plan in terms of its compliance with the COmprehensive Plan. Several
differences were found; one has to do ~ith standards used by the Parks Commission, but
since the proposed Comprehensive Plan does not give any standards per se, the Planning
Commission feels the standards proposed by the Parks Commission could be followed. Mr.
Tucker then read the staff's report to the Planning Commission.
"Local Parks and Recreation: Master Plan 1977 - 1983
This plan was developed by the Department of Parks and Recreation for the
Parks and Recreation Commission to aid in the decision-making regarding
the implementation of a comprehensive recreation plan. The study addresses
recreational priority needs and translates these needs into specific
recommendations for ~facilities, programs, and administration. Collectively,
these recommendations form the five-year master plan. The P~lanning Staff
has reviewed this plan in terms of proposed facilities and for compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan; no review of programs and administration was
made.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
Policies: An important difference between the Parks Plan and the
Comprehensive Plan is the Use of vocabulary in respect to park type:
Mini-park
Neighborhood Park
Community Park
Comprehensive Plan (p.69)
3 - 10 acres
10 - 20 acres
Parks Plan (p.5-6)
2 - 5 acres
12 - 15 acres
25 - 30 acres
Therefore, a neighborhood park in the Parks Plan is equivalent in scale to a
commUnity park in the Comprehensive~Plan. While these two plans vary in
terminology, staff opinion is that the Parks Plan does generally reflect the
17 park/open space policies of the Comprehensive Plan ( pp. 68-70 ).
Location: The Parks ~lan identifies needs for new park facilities' in the
1977-!983 planning period as follows:
FACILITY
7 mini-parks
4 neighborhood parks
2 community parks
TOTAL
ACRES
1--~-35 acres
48-60 acres
50-60 acres
112-155 acres
September 14, 1977 (Regular-Day Meeting)
The Parks Plan proposes establishment of 2 mini-parks and 4 neighborhood parks
as well as development of the Dam Preserve and improvements to existing parks
during the planning period ( summary pp. VII-IX; p. 117 for priorties ):
PROPOSED FACILITIES
Mini-parks
Yancey Elementary
North Garden Fire Department
Neighborhood Parks
Jack Jouett/Greer*
Woodbrook Elementary
Stone Robinson Elementary
Crozet Elementary
Major Park** Rann Preserve
*This facility is also termed a community park in the plan.
**Planning staff terminology ~as~d on acreage and not funtiion.
Mini-parks at Yancey Elementary and North Garden Fire Department: Both Esmont
and Cross Roads are proposed as villages with appropriate facilities such as
parks. Staff opinion is that these proposals are in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Neighborhood Parks - As indicated previously, these are comparable in scale
to community parks in the Comprehensive Plan. Parks shown in the Comprehensive
Plan all require acquisition, an eliminating factor in the Parks Plan, which
relies heavily on existing schools. Since Crozet, Keswick, and the Urban Area
are currently shown in the Comprehensive Plan as major growth areas, staff
agrees with the proposal of providing parks in these area, however, staff
opinion is that specific locations and park sizes require further study.
R~ Preserve - The immediate area around the Rivanna Reservoir is recommended
for stream valley park useage. Staff opinion is that this proposal complies
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment
In review of this plan, the staff noted some problems in Section 5, Analysis:
{1) 0nly enumeration districts ( ED's ) with a needs matrix score ( page 204 )
of 12 or greater were to be considered in the plan. ED 6B with a score of
.11 was mapped as a needs area. Staff would recommend either the deletion of
ED 6B from consideration, or the inclusion of ED's 8, 18, 22, and 24 which also
have needs scores of 1!.
(2) In developing priority area ( page 117 ), scores for ED's 5 and 14 were
used more than once, resulting in a duplication and exaggeration of recreational
needs in north urban area of the County. Staff recommends because of the
physical barriers of Route 29 North and 250 West, that ED's 5 and 14 be con-
sidered separately from other areas or with other areas in the northwest. The
29 North corridor, the Western Urban Area, and the Rivanna-Free Union Area
would need to be re-evaluated.
Staff Recommendations
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission not endorse the Local Parks and
Recreation Master Plan at this time for the following reasons:
!. As outlined previously, problems exist in the Analysis section of the plan.
Reconsideration may result in alteration of proposals and priorities;
2. Staff opinion is that this plan should eventually be adopted as an amendment
~o the Comprehensive Plan. The planning period of the Parks Plan is coterm-
inous with the proposed revision of the Comprehensive Plan;
3. A park facility for Scottsville ±s currently under consideration. This
facility is not proposed in the Parks Plan.
Further staff recommendations are as follows:
The Parks Plan be referred to the various recommended Citizen Task Forces to
s~rve as a guide to the refinement of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan proposals;
Increased coordination between the Parks Commission and the Planning Commission
to insure a comprehensive outlook towards provision of recreational facilities
and to prevent overlap and duplication. Suggestions in this respect are:
(a) Representation of the Parks Department on the Site Review Committee;
(b) Review and evaluation of Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances recreational
requirements by the Parks Commission;
(c) Parks Commission participation in the Monitoring/Evaluation program as
proposed for the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Tucker said at its meeting on September 6, 1977, the Planning Commission recommend-
ed by unanimous vote, that the Parks and Recreation Master Plan be adopted as a guide only ~
for capital improvements programming. There are several issues concerning the plan, however
that the Commission feels should be addressed:
Consideration in terms of future development and funding should be given to
existing local community.recreation areas, e.g., Claudius Crozet Park, Greenwood
Community Center, and other similar facilities;
(a)
SePtember 14, 1977 (Regular-DaY Meeting)
(b) Strongly urges the further investigation of the 23 acre parcel located on
Whitewood Road and owned by the Albemarle County School~ Board, for use as
a neighborhood park;
(c) Commission favors the use of existing school sites and facilities for
neighborhood recreation areas, however, they do feel that further study
should be given to the proposed Woodbrook, Gree~, and Stone Robinson
neighborhood parks;
(d) C!oser working relationship between the Parks and Recreation Commission and
the Planning Commission should be established; and
(e) The ~arks and Recreation Master Plan should eventually be made an element of
the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Tucker said that Mr. Dorrier had presented the plans for the Mink Creek Park and
the Planning Commission was receptive, however no action was taken at that meeting since
a special permit for this project will be heard by the Planning Commission and the Board
of Supervisors in October.
Mr. Clarence McClure, Superintendent of Schools, said the School Board had asked Mrs.
Rosenblum, Dr. Bauerle, and himself to appear before the Board tonight and advise the Board
of the School Board's ideas on the Parks Master Plan. The Shhool Board supports the.concept
of community recreation on school properties. At one time, there was an open school gym
program~, but because of a budget crunch and other higher priorities, this program was
dropped. One project shown in the plan is the reconstruction of tennis courts at Albemarle
High School. This is a high priority item with the School Board and must be done quickly
if the tennis courts are to be used for physical education, interscholastic tennis and
community use. Although the School Board had representatives meet with representatives of
the Parks Commission, they do not feel there was enough consultation between these two
bodies before this plan was Presented tonight. The proposed new physical education
facilities at Albemarle High School have not been considered in this plan. This new facility
is being planned as a major addition for educational and community purposes and must be
considered in any plan for recreation. The School Board has never had a formal request for
the use of the Whitewood Road property, but they feel this property could serve as a
temporary facility for recreation until such time as a school is needed. Since this site
is so close to Greet, Jouett~and Albemarle, those school sites might better serve a dual
purpose for recreational facilities for the schools and community. ~The School Board has
definite ideas about where the tennis courts should be placed. If they are constructed
at middle schools, they could serve a dual purpose of physical education and community
recreation. However, the School Board has never formally reviewed this proposal. The
School Board strongly urges an improved program of community recreation and agrees that
school property should be used for this system, blt priorities of the school system may
differ from those of the Parks Commission. Since the School Board has the responsibility
for making all decisions relating to school properties, any proposals will require full
understanding and participation by the total School Board. The School Board does not in-
tend to delay the start of any ~recreational program~ but recommend that the Board of
Supervisors appoint a committe~ including Sehoo! Board members, School Staff members and
County Staff members to deal with all of the questions relating to use of school prQperties.
Dr. Bauerle said about one-third of all students in Albemarle attend school at the
campuses of Albemarle High, Greet and Jouett. He feels that in the urban area the dove-
tailing of the bike Path plan with the parks plan would be useful. This could serve as
access for bicyclist and people walking to the school sites.
Mrs. Rosenblum said the School Board would like to have a working rel. ktionship with
the Parks Commission so that school properties could be used since they are not being
used to their best at this time.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Mr. Keith Hammond,
a resident of the Stony Point area. He said Stnny Point is not considered in this plan
for any facilities and there are about 400 children in the area. At the present, there
are only minimal facilities at Stony Point School. He hoped that something can be worked
out with the School Board so this area can have additional facilities.
Mrs. Josephine Feggans, representing the New Southside Community Organization, said
she feels the Esmont area should be considered for recreational facilities because they
are in the most need. This organization consists of five neighborhoods; Keene, Esmont,
Schuyler, Howardsville and Scottsville. She then read to the Board their recommendations.
"I. The Esmont area have a community park primary service area covering
several neighborhoods where potential users would have good accessi-
bility from a 5-10 mile radius.
II.
~he:~$~,.3 5.88~:Da~'~looated for the mini-park at Yancey School be used
to purchase land in the Esmont area for a community park; in 1977-78
fiscal year. Esmont is the most centralized area for~ the surround-
ing neighborhoods.
III. The park concept be the same as illustrated in the parks master plan
for the Woodbrook school, with plans for swimming facilities in the
near future."
Mrs. Feggans then presented to the Board a ~petition signed by 190 persons of the Esmont
community who feel the recreational facilities are needed immediately since there is no
place in the area provided by the County that supplies supervised recreation for youth and
adults.
Next to speak was Timmy Michel, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council.
presented the following statement:
He
"As a general rule, the Piedmont Environmental Council does not take any
position on specific issues which are of local concern to a county. It is the
Council's belief that, in most instances, such issues are solely the prerogative
of the county concerned, and that comments from the Council are both unnecessary
and undesirable.
September 14, 1977 (Regular-Day Meeting)
However, during the past summer, PEC has had the pleasure and the
opportunity to work jointly with the town of Scottsville and the University
of Virginia School of Architecture in the development of plans for Scottsville.
This effort has giyen PEC an opportunity to become closely and immediately
familiar with Scottsville and its problems and potentials. We have acquired
not just'knowledge about the~ town but also respect for its citizens and a
belief in its future.
It is my understanding thati~ today, consideration will be given to the
establishment of a recreation area on Mink Creek, north of the town. From a
planning standpoint, PE~ can state that this area would be a distinct asset to
the town, the community and the county; its establishment would be completely
in line with current planning for Scottsville. Hence, from a planning stand-
point, PEC would like to indicate i'ts support for this recreation area.
In stating this support, we emphasize that we have no knowledge of the
other areas in the county which may be equally or more deserving; in no sense
are we an advocate against other claimants. However, for the Scottsville
community, this recreation area can be strongly supported from all p~nning
aspects.
Frank Norris, President"
Miss Sarah Roberts said the kids in Berkeley would like to have a park for sports, such
as basketball and baseball. There are lots of kids in this area and there is not enough
room to play.
Mrs. Edith Rush of Esmont requested that the $13,500 recommended for the Yancey project
not be approved. She said the gacility would be too small and they are in need of a larger
space. Last summer there was a project at the school and there were about 77 children with-
in walking distance.
Mr. Charles Brown, president of the Progressive Club, said they were against the
mini-park at Yancey, however, they have located another site of about ten and one-half acres
and they hope the Board will consider that site, which has water and a good road.
Mr. Douglas Reid said there seems to be a lack of cooperation between the School Board
and the Parks Commission. The Yancey P.T.A. has just recently found out about this pro-
posal and they were not consulted. Since only $13,500 has been allocated, evidently no
restroom facilities are planned. He said the Men's League purchased and donated the land
on which Yancey School is built. If the land was donated by the people in Esmont for a
school, to now have the County turn around and place a park on that property without the
unanimous support of the community, seems questionable. More information is needed before
a decision is made.
Dr. Gamble said in the judgment of the Parks Commission and staff, the highest priority
area in the County for development of facilities was the Scottsville area, although they did
not think strictly in terms of Esmont, but_the southern region of the County. There is
already a regional park between Scottsville and Esmont at Totier Creek, although it is not
a full recreation area since no swimming is permitted. On the other hand, there is another
proposal for the Mink Creek impoundment area which can be used as a swi~ing area. The
Parks Commission was trying to service the most people within the money that might be avail-
able. They had to consider the greatest concentrations of people, and the greatest con-
centrations of people are not in the southern part of the County. Dr. Gamble said every
proposal in the Master Plan is negotiable. Before any capital improvements are proposed to
the Board of Supervisors, the Parks Commission will get recommendations from local groups.
Mrs. Rosa Hudson said the people in the Esmont/Howardsville/Schuyler area are almost
unanimously opposed to the mini-park at Yancey School. She said this is a low income area
and should be higher on the priority list. Last year there was a recreation program run by
Community Action Agency for the Scottsville/Yancey areas. In Scottsville there were no
children within walking distance of the Scottsville School and they had only about 20
children participate. At Yancey, there were about 73 children each day. In Esmont, there
are two ball teams who now play on rented property. There is also a Little League team that
needs a place to practice. The citizens in the area have located three parcels of land that
would be suitable for a park. One is adjacent to the Yancey School and it is for sale.
They recommend that the County buy this land for a community park.
Mrs. Mary Alice Plummer from Greenwood sa~d she favors the expansion of recreational
opportunities to the residents of Greenwood and the contiguous area the Community Center
serves. She hopes the Board of Supervisors and the Parks Commission will not close the
doors to letting people help themselves in a Community Center such as that at Greenwood.
She feels that Greenwood would like to be a part of the County-wide effort.
Mrs. Sally Wedveck from Greenwood spoke in favor of the Master Plan for Parks and
Recreation. She said the Greenwood Community Center on Route 691 is open to the public.
The Center has had financial difficulties for the past ten years since only a minimum is
charged for activities. They have 17+ acres with a social hall, roller skating rink, pool
room, pinball machines, four bowling alleys, swimming pool and baseball field. There are
presently 90 children playing Little League ball at this facility. She would like the door
left open in the event community efforts fail to keep. the Center open.
Mr. Gerald Terrell, principal of Yancey Elementary School, said he had serious questions
about his responsibilities if Yancey should become a park. Yancey has a physical education
program and to set up playground equipment on that land would interfere with this program.
He asked thzt the Board look at the school site and the land before making a decision.
Mrs. Frances Ford from Esmont did not feel there was enough room at Yancey for a
mini-park and felt that a recreation center is needed in that area.
??
September 1~4, 1977 (Regular-Day Meeting)
Mrs. Rosa Hudson asked why so much money was alloca~ed in this plan for Woodbrook
School. Dr. Gamble said it was allocated because there are more people who would be
served by that park. There is no way for the Parks Commission to anticipate in advance
any given number that will use a park. Population is the best factor that can be
used. The recommendation for a mini-park at Yancey came to the Parks Commission from
the staff. This seemed a good and appropriate place for a park and something is need-
ed in that area. In light of other recreational facilities available in the Scottsville
area, this would be a good way to diversify recreational possibilities.
Mr. Fisher said the County now has three regimnal parks. There are no mini-parks
and no neighborhood parks. The first such park proposed for funding is at Yancey
School and evidently that location creates a problem for the residents. It seems that
more work needs to be done on this Master Plan and a committee which includes people
from the School Board is needed to work out these things. In that way, the Board
of Supervisors may b~tter be able to serve the 0itizens.
Mrs. David slid the new Comprehensive Plan recommends that the plans for neighbor-
hoods, villages and communities be worked out with people living in those areas. This
might be a better way to solve these problems.
Dr. Iachetta said he thought the School Board had eliminated the possibility of
recreational facilities at the schools. Evidently this was a misconception on his
part. Dr. Iachetta said he felt the Planning Department of the County should include
planning for parks and this should not be a separate commission.
Mr. Roudabush said he agrees that the plan should be looked at again with a
committea of people. However this has not been wasted energy since it is the first
attempt to draft a plan such as this. The direction the Parks Commission took in
assuming school property was the logical place to start with recreational facilities
was a logical step since the real estate and the basic improvements are already there.
It seems that the Yancey situation is unusual. Their needs are not the same as
those in other parts of the County. Mr. Roudabush said he feels school facilities,
in some instances, will serve needs in.particular areas and he hoped the Board would
be able to find a solution within the dollars available.
Mr. Dorrier said he recognizes that there is a need for recreational facilities
in ~he southern part of the County. When the Yancey School project was mentioned,
it had the support of Mrs. Banks from Esmont, who is a member of the Parks Commission.
If there is some dispute on this particular site, he felt this matter could be
worked out. One reason that Mink Creek has been proposed as a recreational area
is because the Town of Scottsville is building a dam impoundment at that location.
This would be the most cost-efficient way to create a ~wimming area for the south-
ern part of the County. It was not recommended because it is in the Scottsville
area. He said the Yancey project needs to be looked at again in light of other
potential sites in the area. He felt the Parks Commission did a good job in
gathering data; which is the most difficult part of the work.
Mr. Henley said he felt no matter what project were listed for a public hear-
ing there would be reaction from the citizens. He felt it would have been ~ice
if the County could have had such a Master Plan when they first constructed the
parks. He did not feel it has been wasted time on the part of the Parks
Commission.
Mr. McClure said there is one project on which there is no disagreement and
that is the tennis courts at Albemarle High School. If the School Board had
thought this project would not be part of the Master Plan they would have
asked for an appropriation earlier. Western Albemarle High School has good
facilities but the ones at Albemarle High School cannot be repaired.
Mr. Fisher said the Board can take no action tonight but must consider
whether this is the way to proceed. He felt there should be a committee of two
people from the School Board, two from the'Planning Commission, and two from
the Parks Commission to go through the basic concepts contained in this plan.
He felt that would bring about a clearer idea of how to resolve the conflicts
that exist. Mr. Fisher said he has personally always supported using school
property for such uses if it can be determined how these facilities would be
operated, maintained, and who wo~ld be responsible for same.
Mr. Agnor said the total cost for parks will probably be carried in the
capital improvements budget and allocated as each project is brought to the
Board. This budget will be reviewed annually. He also recognizes the
need for coordination between the County staff and the School Board in re-
viewing and revising this plan.
/?
September 1~, 1977 (Regular-Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 27. At 9:20 P. M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded
by Mrs. David, to adjourn this meeting until September 21, 1977, at 2:00 P. M. in
the Board Room. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.