HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-08-03O0000 t
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 1
A regular meeting of the BOard of Supervisors of ~lbemarle County,
Virginia, was held on August 3, 1994, at 9:00 a.m., Me~ting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs.
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin, Walter F.!Perkins and Mrs. Sally
H. Thomas. L
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tu ker, Jr.; County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis; Director of Planning and Community Development, V.
Wayne Cilimberg; and, Chief of Community Development, ~avid Benish.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m. by the
Chairman., Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on t~e Agenda from the
Public.
Mr. Larry Miller, representing Free Union Country!School, asked that the
Board expedite SP-94-24, a request to amend SP-90-82 t~ add 240 square feet to
the school.
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin! to expedite SP-94-24,
for Free Union Country School.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Miller the urgency of having the request expedit-
ed. Mr. Miller said this would give the School an extra month to begin
raising funds for the addition. Mr. Cilimberg said MrI. William Fritz, a
Senior Planner, indicated that this would be a minor r~view. Staff can get
the review processed fairly quickly, but it must meet ~egal requirements for
advertising.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkin , Mrs. Thomas.and Mr.
Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Mrs. Humphri~ made motion, seconded
by Mrs. Thomas, to approve item 5.1 and to accept items 5.2 through 5.12 for
information. Roll was called and the motion carried b~ the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkin , Mrs. Thomas and Mr.
Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Authorize Chairman to sign Avon Street Park and Ride Facility
Agreement, was approved as follows by the above recorded vote:
Mrs. Thomas said there is a statement in the Board's information which
said the sign must state "courtesy of Charlottesville"! and wondered if this is
truly a joint City/County project if the sign only recognizes Charlottesville.
She feels the sign should refer to this as a joint prolject.
Mrs. Humphris said when she read the legal agreement, she could not
decipher the signature of who signed it for the City ahd there was no identi-
fication. She feels these signatures should be identi!fiable.
(The following agreement was adopted:)-
PARK AND RIDE FACILITY AGREEMENT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY AND CITY OF CHARLOTTESVI!LLE
This agreement, dated July 1, 1994, betwee~ Albemarle County
(hereinafter called "County") and the City of Charlottesville
(hereinafter called "City") .
PURPOSE: The purpose of this agreement is
the use of City property as a park and ride
benefit of persons in carpools or commuters
PREMISES: The Owner hereby licenses the Cc
park and ride facility that portion of Cit'
Charlottesville Public Works Yard located
Attachment "A" (on file), hereinafter call
The number of park and ride spaces shall nc
es.
to provide County
facility for the
unty the use for a
property known as
n Route 742 (see
d "Premises").
t exceed 40 spac-
000002
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 2
TERM: The term of the agreement shall be tWelve months from
the date hereof. Either party, however, may terminate this
agreement after six months by giving one month notice to the
other party of its intent to terminate. Unless terminated,
the agreement shall automatically renew for additional terms
of twelve months.
USE OF THE PROPERTY: The County may use the premises for a
park and ride facility, for a carpooling parking facility,
for persons utilizing carpools, and all similar and related
uses.
ACCESS: The County may use City property surrounding the
premises for vehicle access and circulation for the County
and its patrons.
MARKING OF PREMISES AND PUBLICITY: The County may install
signs indicating that the premises are available for persons
in carpools or commuting as a result of City courtesy. The
County will obtain City's written approval before placing any
improvements on the premises. The City shall have the right
to review any park and ride signs for the property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and City have caused this
agreement to be executed by duly authorized persons as of the day
and year indicated below.
Item 5.2. Letter dated July 28, 1994, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident
Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re:
monthly update on highway improvement projects currently under construction,
was accepted as information.
Item 5.3. Copy of letter dated July 15, 1994, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, to General John B. Kidd, re:
Route 743, was accepted as information as follows:
"Reference is made to your letter dated June 20, 1994, bringing
three problems along Route 743 to my attention.
I have checked on the entrance location about 40~ feet north of
the one lane bridge. The Department has recently issued a permit
to the property owner for this entrance. This permit requires the
property owner to grade the bank south of the entrance for sight
distance. My staff has been in touch with the property owner
concerning this matter and he has agreed to undertake the grading
shortly. We will continue to pursue this matter and hope to
resolve it shortly.
Concerning the one lane bridge, I can offer no short term solu-
tion. Both the County and my office have long been aware of this
situation. It is but one of many improvement needs along the
secondary system in Albemarle County. Unfortunately, the funds
available in the near future to meet this and other existing needs
will cover only about five percent of these need~. The County and
my office develop a Six Year Plan for funding road improvements
and update that plan every two years. During at least the last
two updates inclusion of this bridge in the plan has been consid-
ered. In the end, however, other needs in the County have been
determined to be of a higher priority and funding has not bee
approved. While I believe our Traffic Engineer has reviewed this
situation in the past, I will request an updated review to see if
signing or pavement marking can improve the approaches to this
bridge. Beyond this, however, improvements to the width or sight
distance must await funding through the Six Year Improvement Plan.
The entrance south of the one lane bridge has existed for many,
many years. To my knowledge it functions as a field entrance and
no plans exist for using it on a daily basis. When land uses
change, the County normally consults us concerning access. Should
the land use change and the County contact us, we will certainly
recommend that sight distance to this entrance be upgraded to meet
current standards. Beyond that point, authority to allow develop-
ment to continue with or without improving the entrance rests with
the County. Rest assured, however, that development of the
property will not occur without the current access to the property
being considered.
I appreciate your concern for traffic safety on this section of
Route 743. If you wish to discuss this matter further, I suggest
you give me a call.
Item 5.4. Letter dated July 22, 1994, from Mr. J. H. Shifflett, Jr.,
Maintenance Operations Manager, Department of Transportation, to Ms. Ella W.
Carey, Clerk, advising that Route 616 (CSX bridge) between Route 22 and Route
64 will be closed to through traffic beginning July 25, 1994, was accepted as
000003
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 3
information. This is necessary so that repairs can be made to the bridge on
Route 616. This work will be undertaken by CSX personnel. Detour signs will
be in place advising motorists to use Routes 250 and 22.
Item 5.5. Letter dated July 20, 1994, from Ms. Kay Coles James,
Governor's Commission on Citizen Empowerment, to Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris,
Vice-Chair, concerning Board's response to the Governor's proposed workfare
initiative and recommendations on welfare reform and related empowerment
issues, was accepted as information.
Mrs. Humphris said she sent a copy of the Board's letter to the Chairper-
son of Virginia Association of County's (VACo) Health and Human Services
Committee. She received a call from Ms. Billie Lynch who said she found the
letter of such value that she requested permission to include it in the
materials to be distributed to VACo's Health and HumanlServices Committee for
discussion at the Local Government Officials Conference (LGOC) meeting. She
gave Ms. Lynch permission to use the letter.
Item 5.6. Letter dated July 21, 1994, from Mr. Dean L. Whitford, Staff
Counsel, The Rutherford Institute, re: church zoning, was received as
information.
Mr. Perkins said the County Attorney is looking into this matter.
Item 5.7. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apartments) Bond
Program Report and Monthly Report for the month of June, 1994, was received as
information.
Item 5.8. Copy of Thomas Jefferson EMS Council, Inc., Fiscal Year 1994
Activity Report, was received as information.
Item 5.9. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for July 5 and July 19,
1994, were received as information.
Item 5.10. Copies of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle
County Service Authority for May 19 and June 16, 1994, were received as
information.
Item 5.11. Copy of Fiscal Year 1993 Annual Report of the Virginia
Department of Health and Fiscal Year 1993 Annual Report of the Thomas Jeffer-
son Health District, were received as information.
Item 5.12. Copy of the Albemarle County Service Authority's operating
budget for Fiscal Year 1995, was received as informatiOn.
Item 6a. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Georgetown Road (Route
656) Improvements.
Mr. Tucker said in February, 1994, the Georgetown Road Task Force
presented to the Board of Supervisors a list containing six recommendations
for improvements to Georgetown Road. The Board adopted a resolution accepting
these recommendations and directed the staff to take the necessary steps to
implement all items except those requiring funding. T~e Board indicated that
it would consider the items to be funded at a later dante when the Six Year
Secondary Plan and budget were adopted.
Mr. Tucker said the Secondary Road Plan has been approved. The category
of County-wide Signs, Pipe, Seeds projects (priority #!1 in the Plan) functions
like a general fund to cover various spot improvements and minor construction
projects. These funds are not appropriated to any specific project. VDoT is
request the Board approve the use of these funds for the following projects:
Remove the slip ramp from Hydraulic Road to iGeorgetown Road and
replace it with a regular right turn lane (estimated cost $10,000)
and
Replace the current asphalt path adjacent to Georgetown Road between
Terrell Subdivision and Inglewood Drive at ~he same elevation as
Georgetown Road (estimate cost $26,000). O~e-half of this cost
would need to be funded by the County.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends the Board approve use of County-wide
Piper Sig~ns and Seeds funds for: 1) Hydraulic Road/Georgetown Road turn lane;
and, 2) replacement of asphalt path on Georgetown Road between Inglewood Drive
and Terrell Subdivision. The Board would need to appropriate approximately
$13,000 to fund its share of the pathway project. If the project is to be
funded in this fiscal year, the Board will need to apPropriate the necessary
funds.
000004
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 4
Mrs. Thomas said she noticed that the letter fromlMr. Roosevelt suggested
that these items be considered, not that VDoT recommended that these improve-
ments be made. She wants to make sure'that these impr6vements are the Board's
priority and the money is available.
Mrs. Humphris said she believes this is where the~money should go. The
Georgetown Road Task Force study took place before Mrs. Thomas became a member
of the Board. The recommendations that came forward to this Board were joint
recommendations of VDoT and the citizens of GeorgetownlRoad. This Board
approved all of those recommendations. The slip ramp is critical. The
asphalt path is below grade and when a person walks alOng the path, his/her
head is level with the wheels of vehicles. The path is on the road and people
walking the path are not visible to persons operating vehicles. She regards
both of these improvements as critical and safety items.
Mr. Roosevelt said VDoT was a part of the Task Force, supports these
changes and agrees that the improvements are needed. He, too, agrees with
Mrs. Thomas that the Board must decide where these improvements fall in the
overall priorities of the County. There is only $100,000 available for spot
improvements. He supports the improvements, but is not prepared to state that
these are the highest priorities for the County and should be done with the
money available.
Mr. Martin said he has to give Mrs. Humphris, as well as all the members
who served on the Georgetown Road Task Force a lot of credit for the effort
and work that was put into this project. He feels that when this kind of
effort and work is forthcoming and the result is a request of $13,000, it
should be approved.
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve the use of
County-wide Pipe, Signs and Seeds funds for 1) Hydraulic Road/Georgetown Road
turn lane; and, 2) replacement of asphalt path on Georgetown Road between
Inglewood Drive and Terrell Subdivision. Roll was cal~ed and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr.
Sowerman.
NAYS: None.
Item 6b. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Rio Road West (Route 631)
Improvements.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he had a Conflict of Interest on this issue and
excused himself from the discussion and vote. (Mr. BoWerman left the meeting
at 9:20 a.m.)
Mr. Tucker said VDoT has requested the Board approve a proposal to
construct the 0.3 mile section of Rio Road from the Da~ly Progress building to
Berkmar Drive as part of the Route 29 North improvement project. This will
provide four-laning of Rio Road through its intersection with Berkmar Drive.
With the completion of Berkmar Drive Extended this wil! provide an alternative
route to construction on Route 29 North. The Board had previously requested
that VDoT pursue construction of this section with the Route 29 project.
Mr. Tucker said VDoT proposed to fund construction of this portion of the
project by using funds previously assigned to the Route 678 relocation project
in Ivy, the Route 708/631 intersection project, and a balance of funds
available from the Fifth Street Extended project. The Board eliminated both
the Route 678 relocation project and Route 708/631 intersection project from
the Six Year Secondary Road Plan. Use of the funds assigned to these projects
will not affect the funding of projects identified in the recently adopted Six
Year Secondary Road Plan. However, if additional funds are necessary beyond
what is available in the above noted projects, funding of projects identified
in the Six Year Plan may be impacted. Mr. Tucker said staff recommends the
Board approve this request.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve the
proposal for Rio Road West (Route 631) Improvements as outlined in Mr.
Roosevelt's letter of July 20, 1994 (copy on file). Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman.
(Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 9:24 a.m.)
Item 6c. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Median and Roadside
Mowing.
Mr. Tucker said at the Board meeting on July 6, !994, Mrs. Thomas asked
if staff could look into the policies that exist between the various Highway
Department residencies regarding median and roadside mowing. He asked Mr. Pat
000005
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 5
Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, to review this, particularly in
the James City County/Williamsburg area. Mr. Mullaney's findings have been
distributed to the Board (on file). Mr. Tucker said he asked Mr. Roosevelt to
respond to VDoT's ability to provide similar mowing frequencies as that found
in Williamsburg and provide a brief report to the Board at this meeting.
Mr. Roosevelt said upon receipt of Mr. Tucker's letter and Mr. Mullaney's
report, he talked with Ms. Beverly Mazingo, Assistant Resident Engineer for
VDoT's Williamsburg residency. Ms. Mazingo did not knOw the cost for the
mowing, but indicated that it is done once every two weeks. Her office
received additional money from its Maintenance Division for mowing after
complaints were received from the Commissioner. Mowing of the interstate is
contract, and mowing of primary and secondary roads is done by VDoT staff.
Mr. Roosevelt said Albemarle County also has contracts'to mow the interstates
and primary road system. VDoT now intends to concentrate on the secondary
system.
Mr. Roosevelt said with the funding and people available to him, he can
only mow approximately three times a year along primary roads and twice a year
along secondary roads. In Williamsburg, it appears that the VDoT residency is
mowing approximately three miles on its own. During the Fall, this Board
asked about seven locations which totalled approximately eight miles. He
estimated mowing of these locations (not including costs of moving from place
to place or moving in and out) to be $22,000 to mow 12 times. He can make the
same request that Williamsburg made for additional money and if it is obtained
the mowing can be contracted. This is the only way that the work will be done
because he does not have the necessary staff. He feels that any extra money
is needed in his maintenance budget. He suggested that if this is the Boards
intent, it adopt a resolution to request VDoT to increase its maintenance
funds to improve the appearance of the County's seven entrance corridors. The
other option he can offer is that the County consider doing its own mowing.
VDoT did agree to change its mowing standards to mow the full width of the
seven entrance corridors.
Mr. Marshall made motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to direct the County
Executive to draft a resolution for the August 10, 1994, agenda to request
VDoT to increase its maintenance funds to improve the appearance of the
County's seven entrance corridors. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr.
Bowerman.
None.
Item 6d. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Letter dated July 13,
1994~ from Mr. Jack S. Hodge, Chief Engineer, Department of Transportation in
response to concerns regarding Route 29 North raised at the Board meeting of
July 6, 1994 (deferred from July 20, 1994).
Mrs. Humphris distributed a letter (copy on file) that she wrote to each
Board member regarding a letter the Board received from Secretary of Transpor-
tation Martinez. She provided the Board with the events which lead up to this
letter which included prior communications from Mr. Hodge, Secretary Martinez
and Mr. Hodges presentation to the Board on July 6, 1994. In a letter dated
July 13, 1994, Mr. Hodge responded to questions raised by this Board. She is
now providing the Board her response to Mr. Hodge's July 13, 1994, letter.
When she analyzed Mr. Hodge's letter, she found that he had made two contra-
dictory statements. It states in the environmental impact statement that on
Route 29 North at Hydraulic Road heavy truck traffic accounted for only seven
percent of the total traffic at Hydraulic Road and nine percent at the North
Fork Rivanna River; through heavy truck traffic as a percentage of total
traffic was only 1.6 percent at Hydraulic Road and three percent at the North
Fork Rivanna River; through heavy truck traffic as a percentage of total
through traffic was 16 percent in both places; through traffic of all types as
a percentage of total traffic was 9.9 percent at Hydraulic Road and 19 percent
at North Fork Rivanna River; and, local.heavy truck traffic as a percentage of
total heavy truck traffic was 78 percent at Hydraulic Road and 66 percent at
the North Fork Rivanna River. She feels there is a t~emendous misunderstand-
ing about the phasing of the grade separated interchanges. The study conclud-
ed that the grade separated interchanges should be built immediately following
the improvements that are now being made on Route 29 North. She believes this
Board must continue to support the construction of the grade separated
interchanges. This Board will bare the blame, if, in the future, vehicles
crawl along Route 29 or sit in clouds of exhaust fumes. The traffic on Route
29 North is for the most part local traffic. It is essential to the continu-
ing economic vitality of the quality of life for all of the citizens of
Albemarle and Charlottesville that the grade separated interchanges be
constructed as soon as possible.
Mrs. Humphris said Mr. Hodge had given two different answers to the
question of the length of the extension of the Alternate-10 bypass, if it were
extended further across the river. In one place he stated it would be
extended 1.9 miles and another place he state it would be extended 1.3 miles.
She feels it is important for this Board to know the correct distance because
supposedly the cost of the new design is the same cost as the old design. She
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 6
does not understand how extending a major road like this could be the same
cost as the original proposal. She believes there was a misconception and
that it was promoted by Mr. Hodge's statement regarding the heavy through
truck traffic on Route 29 North. This Board's responsibility is to the people
of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville.
Mr. Marshall said he is confused. He is trying to look at this in terms
of what is best for Albemarle County. On. the map, it seems to him that the
by-pass is going through the University grounds, but none of this discussion
relates to traffic impact on the University. He wonders if building the
interchanges is putting the "cart before the horse."
Mrs. Humphris said Mr. Marshall does not understand the facts of the
study. Mr. Marshall said he has read the study and it does not address his
question which is where are the cars going. Mrs. Humphris said most of the
traffic on Route 29 North is there because people are working, shopping,
living and doing business on Route 29 North. This Board has to keep focussed
on the fact that the state sent $3.7 million to come up with these findings.
Based on these findings, a plan was done which states that if the construction
on Route 29 North is done (widening, eight lanes) and it is followed by
building three grade separated interchanges at Rio Road, Hydraulic Road and
Greenbrier Road, then a bypass will be discussed and a determination made as
to whether traffic conditions warrant a bypass and if one can be funded.
Mr. Perkins said if it is not a triple-decker interchange and not taking
businesses, it should be cheaper. Mrs. Humphris said she is not objecting to
the change in the northern terminus at all. She is objecting to the statement
that it will not cost anymore money. Constructing a bridge the way it will
have to be constructed across the North Fork Rivanna River is going to be
expensive.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Roosevelt if the Board is going to receive anymore
information on traffic flow and where the traffic is going on Route 29 North.
Mr. Roosevelt said V DoT is working on two separate design projects (inter-
change and bypass). As each of these projects move forward, information about
traffic will be developed and made available to this Board as well as the
public. Costs will also be included in that information. A consultant for
the interchanges has been hired and preliminary presentations are being
developed. The consultants designing the bypass have not been hired. The
information that will be generated as part of the bypass design study is
several months away.
Mr. Marshall said he is not opposed to the bypass or the interchange. He
would like his question to be answered: If the interchange is built, is it a
possibility that the bypass will not be built and if the bypass is built
first, is the statement Mrs. Humphris made correct ("The interchanges needed
will not be built"). Mr. Roosevelt said VDoT is working through the four
party agreement. This agreement indicates that the projects will be developed
in the following order: the three projects along Route 29 will be the first
phase, the second phase will be the interchanges, and the third phase will be
the bypass, and other improvements in the CATS study will be built in conjunc-
tion with or prior to construction of the bypass. This is his understanding
of the four party agreement. The construction of the interchanges and the
bypass will depend on need and funding. His personal feeling is that the need
will be there long before the funding will be there. The amount of funds
needed is tremendous and amounts to eight years of the funds available in the
Culpeper Districts primary allocation, if no money is spent for anything but
the bypass. The bypass is estimated to cost $125.0 million and the inter-
changes are estimated to cost $48.0 million which totals approximately $175.0
million.
Mr. Marshall said if the interchanges are built, there may not be money
available for the bypass. Mr. Roosevelt said that is what Mr. Hodge has
written in his letters and seems to be overlooked. Mr. Marshall said he feels
the interchanges need to be built and if they are not built, the County may
lose altogether. He feels this County will not see the bypass built because
of lack of funding. Mr. Roosevelt said under current funding the time will be
lengthened before some of these major improvements can be built, unless there
is a change in funding. The same thing can be said about the secondary
system. The only project anticipated to be fully funded in the current plan
are the three improvements along Route 29 North.
Mr. Martin said he basically agrees with Mrs. Humphris. As long as the
numbers show what they currently show, it makes common sense that this Board
stay behind the agreement and stand behind the interchanges being built. He
thinks Mr. Marshall asked a legitimate question which has not been answered.
He would also like to know what the local traffic wou~d be like if there was a
bypass, an entrance and an exit. Many vehicles that are considered by this
study to be local traffic are actually going to UVa.
Mrs. Humphris said that moving the northern terminus 1.9 miles further
north lessens local residents access to the bypass. In addition, Uva is not
enthusiastic about this access.
Mr. Roosevelt said he thinks VDoT is committed to the four-party agree-
ment. This does not mean that as we go through this process, and as informa-
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 7
000007
tion becomes more widely available, that this agreement will not change.
feels if the agreement changes, it will be a change by all four parties
involved.
He
Mrs. Thomas said it is important that this Board have a consensus on what
is important for the local residents.
Mr. Tucker said in Mrs. Humphris' letter she indicated in the next-to-
last paragraph that Mr. Hodge's comments on the 1.3 miles or 1.9 miles need to
be addressed. He thinks it would be premature to address that now because he
does not think VDoT will know until the consultant completes his study and has
better cost data. Mrs. Humphris said her question was not the cost, but what
is the distance.
Item 6e. Transportation Matters: Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Perkins said the pavement markings on Route 250 West were scraped off
last winter and have not been replaced. He asked if these markings are
scheduled to be replaced. Mr. Roosevelt said he will check with the District
Traffic Engineers' office to see who is responsible for scheduling this.
Mrs. Humphris said when the improvements at the intersection of
Georgetown Road and Barracks Road were completed, there was a silt fence
placed to the west of the culvert under the Booth's driveway which remained
for a long time. She contacted VDoT and asked when the silt fence would be
removed. It was finally removed, but during the recent storms, the silt that
remained has washed through the culverts. On her way to this meeting, she
noticed a pile of silt that had been moved from the west side of the culvert
and deposited on the east side. She asked Mr. Roosevelt what the policy is on
silt fencing and its removal.
Mr. Roosevelt said the silt fence should remain until there is vegetation
upstream that will hold the soil. It should then be removed. He will check
on this situation.
Mr. Marshall said there are trees overhanging and limbs breaking off in
the road at the top of Monticello Mountain near Simeon. Mr. Roosevelt said
most of the tree trunks are on private property and he does not have the
authority or responsibility for those trees. This has been a long-standing
problem and V]DoT tries to clean out the dead trees periodically.
Mr. Bowerman thanked Mr. Roosevelt for the decel lane installed at "Our
Lady of Peace."
Mr. Bowerman asked if lane separators are going to be installed in the
northbound and southbound lanes on Hillsdale Drive and Greenbrier Drive. Mr.
Roosevelt explained that there was no need for lane separators at those
locations.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing on a request from Charlottesville Oil
to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority
to extend sewer service to Tax Map 59, Parcels 77 and 80B, located on Route
250 West. (Deferred from July 6, 1994.) (To be deferred until September 7,
1994.)
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to defer this request
until September 7, 1994. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr.
Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reordain
Chapter 15, Personnel, Article I, In General, of the Code of Albemarle, in
Section 15-1, Certain persons deemed part of county safety program. The
amendment will add the Blue Ridge Mountain Rescue Group and the Albemarle
County Fire/Rescue Division, as additional organizations deemed to be an
integral part of the safety program of the County. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on July 18 and July 25, 1994.)
Mr. Tucker said currently members of volunteer search and rescue teams
who are responding at the State's request are not covered under the state or
federal line-of-duty act unless their organization has been recognized by a
county, city or town pursuant to Section 15.1-136.1 of the Code of Virginia.
Staff is suggesting the County Fire/Rescue Division also be added to this
section of code.
000008
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 8
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the Board adopt an Ordinance to
amend Section 15-1 of the County Code of Albemarle to add the Blue Ridge
Mountain Rescue Group as an additional organization deemed to be an integral
part of the safety program of the County, retroactive to October 8, 1993, the
date of incorporation of the organization as certified by the State Corpora-
tion Commission. Staff further recommends that the Albemarle County
Fire/Rescue Division be included in the amendment effective retroactively to
their inception date of January 1, 1993.
Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. There being no one from the
public to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt the following
Ordinance to amend Section 15-1 of the County Code to add the Blue Ridge
Mountain Rescue Group as an additional organization deemed to be an integral
part of the safety program of the County, retroactive to October 8, 1993, and
the Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Division be included in the amendment
effective retroactively to their inception date of January 1, 1993. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr.
Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 15,
PERSONNEL, ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 15, Personnel, Article I, In
General, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section
15-1, Certain persons deemed part of county safety program, as
follows:
Sec. 15-1. Certain persons deemed Dart of county safety Droqram.
The official safety program of the county shall be carried
into effect by the following organizations or departments, whose
membership shall be deemed to be an integral part of the safety
program of the county:
(a) The county police department, together with all of its
law enforcement personnel.
(b)
Ail volunteer fire companies in the county, there pres-
ently being the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company, the
East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., the Crozet
Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., the North Garden Volunteer
Fire Company, the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company,
the Scottsville Volunteer Fire Company and the Seminole
Trail Volunteer Fire Department.
(c) The Charlottesville--Albemarle Rescue Squad, Inc.
(d) The Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad, Inc.
(e) The Western Albemarle Rescue Squad, Inc.
(f) Blue Ridge Mountain Rescue Group (nunc pro tunc, effec-
tive October 8, 1993)
(g) Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Division (nunc pro tunc,
effective January 1, 1993)
(h) Ail other law enforcement personnel of the county not
included in subsection (a) of this section.
(9-12-79; 11-14-84)
State law references-Line of Duty Act; benefits for members
of official safety program, Code of Va., §§15.1-136.1 et seq.,
18.2-340.1(a) .
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reordain
Chapter 11, Licenses, Article I, In General, of the Code of Albemarle, in Sec-
tion 11-12, Taxes-- When payable; penalties for nonpayment. The amendment
will require all personal property and transient occupancy taxes be paid prior
to issuance of a business license. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July
18 and July 25, 1994.)
Mr. Tucker said this amendment would require all personal property and
transient occupancy taxes be paid prior to the issuance of a business license.
It is estimated that this amendment would increase personal property revenues
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 9
by $15,000. Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the. Board adopt the
proposed ordinance amendment.
Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the
public, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Thomas made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt the following
Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 11, Licenses, Article I, In General,
of the Code of Albemarle, in Section 11-12, Taxes-- When payable; penalties
for nonpayment. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr.
Bowerman.
None.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ~ REORDAIN CHAPTER 11,
LICENSES, ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 11, Licenses, Article I, In
General, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 11-12,
Taxes--When payable; penalties for nonpayment, as follows:
Sec. 11-12. Taxes--When payable; penalties for nonpayment.
(a) Ail license taxes imposed by this chapter, except as
herein otherwise provided, shall become due and payable on or before
June 15 of each year.
(b) In all cases where the person shall begin the business,
profession, trade or occupation upon which a license tax is imposed
under the provisions of this chapter at any time during May or at
any time after May 31, such license tax shall become due and payable
at the time when such person shall commence business.
(c) Payment of the tax due from motor vehicle dealers who
separately state the amount of the license tax applicable to each
sale of a motor vehicle and add such tax to the sales price of the
motor vehicle shall become due and payable on or before the
twentieth day of the month following the close of each calendar
quarter.
(d) A penalty of ten (10) percent per annum, or ten dollars
($10.00) whichever is the greater; provided, however, that the
penalty shall in no case exceed the amount of tax due, shall be
added to all license taxes imposed under the terms of this chapter
which are delinquent and unpaid on the due dates thereof. A grace
period of thirty (30) days shall be allowed from the date of
beginning a business before the penalty of ten (10) percent of tax
is imposed.
(e) A license shall not be issued under this chapter until the
applicant has produced satisfactory evidence that all delinquent
business license, personal property, meals, transient occupancy,
severance and admissions taxes owed by applicant have been paid
which have been properly assessed against the applicant. (3-15-73,
§ 7; 4-21-76; 3-10-82; 4-13-88; 4-20-88; Ord. of 3-20-91)
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this Ordinance shall be effective
immediately.
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reordain
Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article XIV, Personal Property--In General, of
the Code of Albemarle, in Section 8-69, Tax valuation, etc., date for tangible
personal property, machinery and tools, and Section 8-69, Proration of tangible
personal property. This amendment will extend proration of personal property
taxes to boats and trailers. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 18 and
July 25, 1994.)
Mr. Tucker said this amendment would provide proration of tangible personal
property, specifically for boats and trailers. Revenues are estimated to
increase $10,000 to $20,000 per year. The requested amendments would be
effective January 1, 1995 for the 1995 tax year and thereafter. Fir. Tucker said
staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed Ordinance.
Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. There being no one from the public
to speak~ the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following
Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article XIV,
Personal Property--In General, of the Code of Albemarle, in Section 8-69, Tax
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) ~
Page 10
valuation, etc., date for tangible personal property, machinery and tools, and
Section 8-69, Proration of tangible personal property. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr.
Bowerman.
None.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 8,
FINANCE AND TAXATION ARTICLE XIV,
PERSONAL PROPERTY--IN GENERAL
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article
XIV, Personal Property--In General, is hereby amended and
reordained by amending Sections 8-68, Tax valuation, etc., date
for tangible personal property, machinery and tools, and 8-69,
Proration of tangible personal property, as follows:
Sec. 8-68. Tax valuation, etc., date for tanqible Dersonal
property, machinery and tools.
Tangible personal property, except as provided under section
8-69, shall be taxed as of January first of each year. The status
of all persons, firms, corporations and other taxpayers liable to
taxation on any such property shall be fixed as of such date in
each year and the value of such property shall be taken as of such
date.
The director of finance shall not make an assessment under
the provisions of this section if the assessment would result in
the issuance of a tax bill in an amount less than five dollars
($5.00) .
(Sec. 8-1.8, Ord. of 2-14-90; Ord. of 2-5-92)
State law reference--Similar provisions, Code of Va., §§
58.1-3515, 58.1-3912.
Sec. 8-69. Proration of tanqible personal property.
(a) The tangible personal property tax shall be levied upon
motor vehicles, trailers and boats which acquire a situs within
the county after January first of any tax year for the remaining
portion of the tax year; such tax shall be prorated on a monthly
basis.
(b) When any motor vehicle, trailer or boat loses its situs
in the county or changes ownership after January first of the tax
year, any tax assessed on such vehicle, trailer or boat shall be
relieved, or refunded if paid. Such relief or refund shall be
prorated on a monthly basis.
(c) Whenever a motor vehicle, trailer or boat with a situs
in the county is transferred to a new owner within the county, the
new owner shall be subject to taxation on a prorated basis for the
remaining portion of the tax year. The previous owner shall be
eligible for relief or refund as provided by paragraph (b) of this
section.
(d) For the purposes of this section a period of more than
one-half (1/2) of a month shall be counted as a full month and a
period of less than one-half (1/2) of a month shall not be count-
ed.
(e) The director of finance may apply any refunds under this
section to any delinquent accounts owed by the taxpayer. In
addition, this refund may be applied as a credit toward the tax
due on a newly acquired motor vehicle.
(f) Each taxpayer owning tangible personal property with a
situs within the county shall file a return on forms prescribed by
the director of finance on or before January 31 of each year or
within thirty (30) days of the date of purchase or the establish-
ment of a situs within the county.
(g) Tangible personal property, which was legally assessed
by another jurisdiction in the Commonwealth and on which the tax
has been paid, is exempt from taxation under this section for the
portion of the year such property was legally assessable by
another jurisdiction in the Commonwealth.
(Sec. 8-1.9, Ord. of 2-14-90; Ord. of 2-5-92)
State law reference--Similar provisions, Code of Va., § 58.1-
3516.
ooooll
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meetin9)
Page 11
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this Ordinance shall be effective
on and after January 1, 1995.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reordain
Chapter 19.1, Water and Sewers, Article II, Protection of Public Drinking
Water, of the Code of Albemarle, in Section 19.1-5, Definitions (by amending
the definition of sewage disposal system) and Section 19.1-6, Runoff control
permits -- Required for development, {a) Required. This amendment will add a
grandfather clause for the building setback restrictions for parcels recorded
prior to July 11, 1990. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 18 and July
25, 1994.)
Mr. Tucker said this amendment would add a grandfather clause for
building setback restrictions for parcels recorded prior to July 11, 1990.
Staff recommends the Board adopt the proposed ordinance.
Mrs. Humphris said in Section 19.1-5 pumps are included on the definition
of a sewage disposal system. She did not know if pumps are in the house or in
the field. Mr. Tucker said normally a pump is close to the facilities where
the sewage is pumped from the unit. A pump will more than likely be affected
by the setback which this amendment is addressing. Mr. Perkins said the pump
is usually located beside the septic tank. Mrs. Humphris said she was
questioning whether pumps are part of the sewage disposal system. Mr. Martin
said it is an integral part. Mrs. Humphris said she thought this amendment
was to allow the system not to be regarded as part of the house and not under
the same restriction. She feels if this amendment states the pump is part of
the system, but the pump is located in the house it may cause a problem. Mrs.
Thomas suggested that the word "exterior" be placed in front of the word pump.
Mr. Tucker said he had not problem with that.
Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tim Tolson, owner of a lot in Emerald Ridge, said he is directly
affected by this ordinance amendment. He urged the Board to adopt the
proposed Ordinance. He does not feel this will have a negative impact on the
runoff control and may, in fact, have a positive impact in his particular
situation by enabling him to build his home.
With no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt the follow-
ing Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 19.1, Water and Sewers, Article
II, Protection of Public Drinking Water, of the Code of Albemarle, in Section
19.1-5, Definitions (by amending the definition of sewage disposal system) and
Section 19.1-6, Runoff control permits -- Required for development, (a)
Required, with the addition of the word "exterior" before the word pump in
Section 19.1-5. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr.
Bowerman.
None.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 19.1,
WATER AND SEWERS, ARTICLE II,
PROTECTION OF PUBLIC DRINKING WATER,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 19.1, Water and Sewers, Article
II, Protection of Public Drinking Water, is hereby amended and
reordained by amending Section 19.1-5, Definitions (by amending
the definition of sewage disposal system) and Section 19.1-6,
Runoff control permits -- Required for development, (a) Required,
as follows:
Sec. 19.1-5. Definitions.
Sewaqe disposal system. Any sewerage system or treatment
works composed of a facility or combination of facilities, includ-
ing septic tanks, pipes connecting septic tanks to flow-splitting
devices and/or drainfield lines, exterior pumps, flow-splitting
devices and drainfield lines, constructed for the transport and/or
treatment of domestic, commercial or industrial sewage. This
shall include facilities which do not result in a point source
discharge and alternative discharging sewage systems for which a
permit is required. This shall not include plumbing, fixtures and
lateral pipes from a dwelling unit to a septic tank or publicly
owned facilities for the transport and/or treatment of sewage.
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 12
O0001Z
Sec. 19.1-6. Runoff control permits--Required for development.
(a) Required.
(1)
Except as otherwise herein expressly provided, it shall
be unlawful for any person to engage in any development
which is otherwise permitted by law in the watershed of
any impoundment until a runoff control permit for such
development shall have been issued by the runoff control
official pursuant to this article. It shall thereafter
be unlawful for any person willfully to fail to conform
to the provisions of such permit in carrying out such
development.
(2)
Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, it shall
also be unlawful for any person to construct any sewage
disposal system any part of which lies within the limits
prescribed in this section, as follows:
a. Within two hundred (200) horizontal feet of the one-
hundred-year flood plain of any impoundment; or
b. Within one hundred (100) horizontal feet of the edge of
any tributary stream.
(3)
Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, it shall
also be unlawful for any person to construct any struc-
ture for which a permit is required under the Uniform
Statewide Building Code within the limits as described
in subsections (2)a and. b. This provision shall not
apply to accessways, public utility lines and appurte-
nances, stormwater management facilities or other water-
dependent facilities to provide reasonable usage of the
property where no reasonable alternative exists.
(4) The foregoing notwithstanding:
a. In the event that the runoff control official shall
determine that it would be impracticable to construct a
lawful sewage disposal system on any parcel of land of
record as of October 22, 1980, except within limits
hereinabove prescribed, the runoff control official may
authorize the construction of such a system upon such
terms as he may determine to be necessary to protect the
public health, safety and welfare and upon the approval
of the state department of health. For the purposes of
this section, the construction of a sewage disposal
system shall be deemed impracticable in any case in
which construction of such a system without the limits
prescribed hereinabove would (1) be physically impossi-
ble within the geometric limits of such lot or parcel,
(2) require the pumping of effluent, or (3) require the
construction of such system on soils found to be unac-
ceptable by the state department of health for such
construction.
b. In the event that the runoff control official shall
determine that it would be impracticable to construct a
structure for which a permit is required under the
Uniform Statewide Building Code on any parcel of land of
record as of July 11, 1990, except within limits herein-
above prescribed, the runoff control official may autho-
rize the construction upon such terms as he may deter-
mine to be necessary to protect the public health,
safety and welfare. For the purposes of this section,
the construction of a structure shall be deemed imprac-
ticable in any case in which construction without the
limits prescribed hereinabove would be physically impos-
sible within the geometric limits of such lot or parcel,
considering all setbacks and encumbrances required by
law or recorded on the mubdivision plat or lot plat, and
upon a finding that such structure is necessary for a
reasonable use of the property.
(5)
In the event that the runoff control official authorizes
the construction of a sewage disposal system or struc-
ture as provided in Section 19.1-6(a) (4), above, and
such authorization includes crossing a tributary stream
with a lateral pipe from a dwelling to a sewage disposal
system, plans and construction materials to be used for
such a stream crossing shall meet any requirements
deemed necessary by the runoff control official and
shall require his review and approval prior to construc-
tion.
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 13
O000X3
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reordain
Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article II, Dogs, of the Code of Albemarle. This
amendment will regulate dangerous and vicious dogs, as defined in this
ordinance, including provisions which provide that after a dog is adjudged
either dangerous or vicious by the general district court that a vicious dog
be destroyed and a dangerous dog be restricted and registered with the animal
warden. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 18 and July 25, 1994.)
Mr. Tucker said this amendment is to regulate dangerous and vicious dogs
including provisions that after a dog is judged to be dangerous or vicious by
the General District Court, a vicious dog be destroyed and a dangerous dog be
restricted and registered with the Animal Warden. This follows state law.
Staff recommends the Board adopt the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. There being no one from the
public to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following
Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article II, Dogs,
of the Code of Albemarle. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr.
Bowerman.
None.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 4,
ANIMALS AND FOWL, ARTICLE II, DOGS,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article II,
Dogs, is hereby amended and reordained by adding Division 4,
Vicious and Dangerous Dogs and deleting the sections of Chapter 4,
as follows:
Delete: Section 4-14
Section 4-15
Vicious dogs--Keeping
Same--Impounding and disposition
Add:
Division 4
Section 4-37A
Section 4-37A.1
Vicious and Dangerous Dogs.
Definitions.
Dangerous dogs, Vicious dogs.
ARTICLE II. Doqs.
Division 4. Vicious and Dangerous Dogs.
Sec. 4-37A. Definitions.
For the purposes of this division and unless otherwise
required by the context, the following words and terms shall have
the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section:
Dangerous dog means a canine or canine crossbreed which has
bitten, attacked, or inflicted injury on a person or companion
animal, other than a dog, or killed a companion animal.
Injury. Any superficial cut, scratch, scrape, or minor tear
to the skin, or any bruise to bone or skin area. An injury shall
be presumed to have occurred when a dog knocks a person to the
ground or tears that person's clothing or any possession on his or
her person.
Leash. Any rope, strap, chain or other material not exceed-
ing four feet in length, being held in the hand of a person
capable of controlling the dog to which it is attached.
Serious injury. Any bodily injury for which medical atten-
tion was sought and obtained, which involves a serious laceration
requiring stitches or more than one puncture wound or which is
serious in the opinion of a licensed physician.
Vicious dog means a canine or canine crossbreed which has (i)
killed a person; (ii) inflicted serious injury to a person,
including multiple bites, serious disfigurement, serious impair-
ment of health, or serious impairment of a bodily function; or
(iii) continued to exhibit the behavior which resulted in a
previous finding by a court that it is a dangerous dog, provided
that its owner has been given notice of that finding.
Sec. 4-37A.1 Danqerous Doqs; Vicious Doqs.
(a) The animal warden upon reasonable belief that a canine
or canine crossbreed within the County is a dangerous dog or
O000 L4
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 14
vicious dog shall apply to a magistrate for the issuance of a
summons requiring the owner or custodian, if known, to appear in
general district court at a specified time. The summons shall
advise the owner of the nature of the proceeding and the matters
at issue. The animal warden or owner shall confine the animal
until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered.
The court, through its contempt powers, may compel the owner,
custodian or harborer of the animal to produce the animal. If,
after hearing the evidence, the court finds that the animal is a
dangerous dog, the court shall order the animal's owner to comply
with the provisions of this ordinance. If, after hearing the
evidence, the court finds that the animal is a vicious dog, the
court shall order the animal euthanized in accordance with the
provisions of section 3.1-796.119 of the Code of Virginia.
(b) No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a
dangerous dog or vicious dog solely because it is a particular
breed. No animal shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious
dog if the threat, injury or damage was sustained by a person who
was (i) committing, at the time, a crime upon the premises occu-
pied by the animal's owner or custodian, (ii) committing, at the
time, a willful trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied
by the animal's owner or custodian or (iii) provoking, tormenting,
or physically abusing the animal, or can be shown to have repeat-
edly provoked, tormented, abused, or assaulted the animal at other
times. No police dog which was engaged in the performance of its
duties as such at the time of the acts complained of shall be
found to be a dangerous dog or a vicious dog. No animal which, at
the time of the acts complained of, was responding to pain or
injury, or was protecting itself, its kennel, its offspring or its
owner or owner's property, shall be found to be a dangerous dog or
a vicious dog.
(c) The owner of any animal found by a court to be a danger-
ous dog shall, within ten days of such finding, obtain a dangerous
dog registration certificate from the animal warden for a fee of
fifty dollars ($50.00) in addition to other fees that may be
authorized by law. The animal warden shall also provide the owner
with a tag which identifies the animal as a dangerous dog. The
owner shall affix the tag to the animal's collar and ensure that
the animal wears the collar and tag at all times. All certifi-
cates obtained pursuant to this section shall be renewed annually
for the same fee and in the same manner as the initial certificate
was obtained.
(d) Ail certificates or renewals thereof required to be
obtained under this section shall only be issued to persons
eighteen years of age or older who present satisfactory evidence
(i) of the animal's current rabies vaccination, if applicable, and
(ii) that the animal is and will be confined in a proper enclosure
or is and will be confined inside the owner's residence or is and
will be muzzled and confined in the owner's fenced-in yard until
the proper enclosure is constructed. In addition, owners who
apply for certificates or renewals thereof under this section
shall not be issued a certificate or renewal thereof unless they
present satisfactory evidence that (i) their residence is and will
continue to be posted with clearly visible signs warning both
minors and adults of the presence of a dangerous dog on the
property and (ii) the animal has been permanently identified by
means of a tattoo on the inside thigh or by electronic implanta-
tion.
(e) While on the property of its owners, an animal found by
a court to be a dangerous dog shall be confined indoors or in a
securely enclosed and locked structure of sufficient height and
design to prevent its escape or direct contact with or entry by
minors, adults or other animals. The structure shall be designed
to provide the animal with shelter from the elements of nature.
When off its owner's property, an animal found by a court to be a
dangerous dog shall be kept on a leash and muzzled in such a
manner as not to cause injury to the animal or interfere with the
animal's vision or respiration, but so as to prevent it from
biting a person or another animal.
(f) If the owners of an animal found by a court to be a
dangerous dog is a minor, the custodial parent or legal guardian
shall be responsible for complying with all requirements of this
section.
(g) After an animal has been found by a court to be a
dangerous dog, the animal's owner shall immediately, upon learning
of same, notify the local animal control authority if the animal
(i) is loose or unconfined; (ii) bites a person or attacks another
animal; (iii) is sold, given away~ or dies; or (iv) has been moved
to a different address.
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 15
oooo .
(h) The owners of any animal which has been found by a court
to be a dangerous dog who willfully fails to comply with the
requirements of the division shall be guilty of a Class 1 misde-
meanor.
(i) Ail fees collected pursuant to this division, less the
costs incurred by the animal control authority in producing and
distributing the certificates and tags required by this section,
shall be paid into a special dedicated fund for the purpose of
paying the expenses of any training course required under sec-
tion 3.1-796.105 of the Code of Virginia.
The Board recessed at 10:32 a.m. and reconvened at 10:46 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 17. Update on E-911 Address Notification.
Mr. Tex Weaver, an Information Resource Planner in the Department of
Planning and Community Development, said staff has been working with GTE
Government Information Services, Inc. (GTEGIS) and Network Design Engineers,
to covert all the County's rural route/box number addresses to standardized
road name addresses. A standardized address will shorten response time for
police, fire and rescue vehicles. The Board received a packet of information
containing an address conversion process flow chart with process details,
manpower suggestions and answers to commonly asked questions to effectively
process inquiries County residents may have during and after the new address
notification phase of this project. Also included in the packet are examples
of the notification cards which will be distributed to County residents.
Mr. Weaver said at the end of August, new address notification cards will
be distributed to County residents currently using a rural route on box number
address to notify them of their new standardized road name address. In
addition, where adequate information has not been provided by County residents
necessary to convert the addresses, a separate request for the information
will be distributed. It is staff's recomluendation that Board members refer
citizen questions to the designated project line at 296-5890. Past experience
indicates the call volume could be as high as 300 calls per day. This summary
is provided for the Board's information.
Mr. Marshall said he feels the information requested on Attachment D
regarding neighbors will be difficult to provide. Mr. Weaver said the
consultants are aware that in rural parts of the County a lot of people do not
have neighbors. When people have called regarding this question, they are
told to provide the information to the best of their ability. This informa-
tion is requested so that the location can be physically determined. Mrs.
Thomas asked if Attachment D has already been printed. Mr. Weaver said staff
will be revising the language on Attachment D. Mrs. Thomas said Attachment D
has a reading level of a high school graduate and the average reading level is
an eighth grade level. She feels the attachment should use smaller, more
understandable words. She also thinks the information on the right should be
a plea for their help.
Mrs. Humphris said on the instruction at the bottom of the "Attention
Form," Attachment D, it states "*Neighbor on right/left when facing the front
of your house from the outside." Her house is perpendicular to the road. Mr.
Weaver said the wording could be revised and replace "facing the front of your
house from the outside" with "facing the house from the driveway entrance."
Agenda Item No. 13. Appeal - SDP-94-006. Carrsbrook Retail Center
Preliminary Site Plan. Proposal to locate approx 111,464 sq ft of retail
supported by approx 660 spaces on 15.87 ac zoned HC and EC. Properties de-
scribed as TM45,P'sl10,1001A,111,111A&lllB, are located on E side of Rt 29
across from Keglers Bowling Center. Charlottesville Dist.
Mr. Cilimberg said this request was appealed to the Board in a letter
dated July 20, 1994, from Ms. Edith Turner, an adjacent property owner.
He then summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's
office and a part of the permanent records of the Board. A Certificate of
Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval from the
Architectural Review Board (ARB). Mr. Cilimberg said this is a by-right use
and staff's review is limited to administrative aspects of the site plan.
Staff recommended approval of SDP-94-006, Carrsbrook Retail Center, with a
positive finding of modifications of Section 4.2.3.2, 32.7.2.2 and 4.12.6.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance, subject to conditions. The ARB, on July 18, 1994, also
recommended approval subject to certain conditions. The Planning Commission,
at its meeting on July 19, 1994, by a vote of 4:3 approved the site plan,
subject to the three modification of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr~ Cilimberg said adjacent property owners made request at the
Commission's meeting that a solid wall be provided around the exterior of this
site that is adjacent to residential areas. This request was not discussed
with the applicant who needs to agree to the provision. The Zoning Ordinance
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 16
0000, 6
states that screening, buffering, natural landscaping or fencing can be
required, but staff does not feel it can require a solid wall. There was an
objection to the name of the proposed development which is not something that
can be dealt with during site plan review. Concerns regarding grading,
erosion and runoff control on the site were also expressed. There was also
concerns about appearances of buildings not related to this particular
development which are not part of this site plan review.
Mr. Martin said the only issue this Board can consider is the road. Mr.
Cilimberg said there are three modifications requested that were granted as
part of the approval. Mr. Martin said the modifications were compromises
agreed to between the staff, the ARB and the applicant. Mr. Cilimberg said
"yes."
Mr. Bowerman asked how this site will work with the entrance only and
main entrance at the crossover. Mr. Cilimberg said part of the site would
still be served by the private road and the design may be changed. He feels
it can work, but the question is where the property would be accessed.
Mr. Martin asked who owns the property that would have to be accessed°
Mr. Cilimberg said it is owned by the applicant, but there is some legal
interest by other parties. A site plan will be submitted before development.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board has to assume that the northern property can
be developed. There are questions that the homeowners have as to access.
Mr. Davis said he understands this property is zoned commercial, but has
a restrictive covenant requiring residential use the same as the rest of
Carrsbrook. There may be a private action that the homeowners could take to
challenge the commercial use of that property for an entrance. This is not an
issue that is appropriate for the County to get involved in, but one that is
solely the responsibility of private parties.
Mr. Bowerman asked where would the fencing and 20 foot undisturbed buffer
be located. Mr. Cilimberg said if it is kept as a undisturbed buffer, it
would be on the development side. Mr. Bowerman asked if there is a spring
house shown on the site plan. Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner for the County
Department of Planning and Community Development, said there is a well and a
spring house located towards the middle of the site plan. Mr. Bowerman asked
when a spring is removed and filled, how does Engineering deal with the water
from the spring. Mr. Don Franco, from the County Engineering Department, said
it can be handled with a spring box and is a common procedure.
Mr. Cilimberg said the concern by the Planning Commission that a Certifi-
cate of Appropriateness and the final site plan would not be reviewed by the
Commission. Therefore, as a condition of this approval, the Commission
included its review of the final site plan.
Mr. Davis said on a site plan appeal, the Board has to base its decision
on a ministerial review and is limited to interpreting and making sure the
planning complies with Ordinance requirements. If this Board denies the site
plan, the Code of Virginia requires that the reason(s) for denial be specified
as part of the action,
Ms. Edith Turner, a resident of Carrsbrook Drive, asked everyone present
in objection to the name of the proposed development being Carrsbrook Retail
Center to stand (approximately 25 people stood). Mr. Marshall said this Board
has no legal authority over the name of the development. Ms. Turner said she
wanted to demonstrate the dislike of the proposed name. The applicant has
told some residents that he would agree to changing the name and the residents
would like to insist on it being done. The fencing around the development
should be tall and of masonry because sound gets through an ordinary fence.
This would also avoid litter from destroying adjacent private property. The
residents are going to try and address the appearance of the development with
the ARB and the appearance of the other buildings. There are no definite
plans as to whether the northern part of the development will be developed.
There remains residential zoning where the northern entrance is planned. The
residents protest the northern entrance and feel the other entrance is
sufficient. VDoT also prefers that there only be one main entrance. The
northern entrance will cause problems on Route 29. Generally, the whole
matter of intrusive development in a residential area is unlike the other side
of Route 29 North. This property would be better if it were not developed or
used for other purposes.
Mr. John Bennett, resident of 105 Powhatan, said he feels three entranc-
es/exits are too many for a small shopping center. Sams Club, Wal-Mart and
the Sheraton have one single entrance and this development will not have the
number of vehicle trips as those. People have a right to go into the shopping
center, the owner has a right to build the shopping center, and have an access
and egress side, but 99 percent of cars travelling Route 29 will not go into
this development. By installing a turn-off 500 feet in front of another turn-
off will cause grid lock on Route 29. Soon, no one will come to these centers
because they will not want to face the traffic problem. He knows the appli-
cant has a legal right to build the development, but feels the rules and
regulations for water runoff must be met. He wants to make sure that this
development is developed to the "letter of the law."
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Mee%ing) 0000~7
Page 17
Mr. James Craig, a resident of carrsbr°°k'Subdivision, said he oWns the
property immediately adjacent to the north side of the proposed development.
He feels it is unfortunate that there is property zoned commercial which
extends deeply to the east between two well-established residential neighbor-
hoods (Carrsbrook and Woodbrook). The residents realize that even though it
is unfortunate, those are the facts and they will have to accept some type of
commercial development on this property. His purpose is to insure that
residential character and physical environment of the neighborhood is pre-
served to the greatest extent, as well as the monetary value of properties.
He hopes the developer will be required to take all reasonable measures to
protect the neighborhood and those measures should be described in sufficient
detail and documented before the developer is allowed to proceed. He also
would like to make sure that there are sufficient bonds or funds in escrow so
the major parts of the plan can be carried out.
Mr. William Lee Anderson, an attorney representing Carrsbrook Homeowners
Association and a homeowner in Carrsbrook, said the Carrsbrook Homeowners
Association is concerned about this development. The residents know that the
land can be developed, but the concern is the Board's responsibility to insure
that the development is consistent with its surroundings. Carrsbrook is a
residential development and locating a Golden Skillet with buildings is not in
harmony with the surroundings. The Association believes that this property
can and should be developed in a manner befitting its name, if called
Carrsbrook Retail Center, and will not devalue property values. The northern
most entrance involves taking property that falls under the covenants of deed
restrictions. No one has pointed out the middle entrance and the fact that
there is no stop light. The Association feels that these issues have not been
sufficiently addressed to bring the plan forward. This plan is not suffi-
ciently developed in two respects: there is no way to handle traffic; and,
only one building will be developed. The Association feels this proposal
needs more work.
Mr. Don Walker, a resident of Woodbrook, said his property abuts the
property line behind Building B. He is speaking for three property owners,
himself and the people to the east of him. He does not want to lose anything
positive that is in the plan. He feels the grade separation will protect his
property. His dining room is approximately 145 feet from the corner of
Building B. The distances from the lot line are 75 to 80 feet where his
property is located and the properties to the east of him, from the corners of
the buildings. Approximately 40 feet of that distance between the property
line and the building is buffer (20 feet of undisturbed buffer, plus the grade
and trees to be planted). The rest of the space is given to driveways and
service areas from traffic during the day. It seems like a long distance, but
is actually very short. He has a small deck on the back of his house which
will be closer than the dining room to the development. He thinks the grade
separation is a positive requirement and does not want to see this changed.
He would like to support the recommendations of the ARB for a gradual slope
because it will change the degree of the grade and probably force the build-
ings to be moved somewhat away from the residences. He would like to see the
buildings moved away from the lot line as far as practical in order to
increase the separation. He hopes that at some point, with no opportunity for
public hearing, negotiations continue to force change for the worst in regard
to the residents. He is also concerned about the impact on the residents day-
to-day living.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Walker if he is saying that from his point-of-
view, he and residents beside him in Woodbrook feel the plan is acceptable as
it currently exiSts. Mr. Walker said it is not the best thing he can ask ford
but he does not see any legal reasons for objecting to it. He would like to
see the buildings located further from the lot line. He feels this would have
the least impact on him that he has seen thus far. This proposal is better
than the suggestion made earlier that the grade not be disturbed and the
buildings be put on the higher grade because the residents would be looking at
brick walls or fencing, as well as truck traffic. There are certain aspects
of the proposal that he feels are essential (grade separation, retaining wall
and fencing as an additional buffer) and he would like the grade changed to
move the buildings away from the lot lines.
Mr. Wendell Wood, the applicant, said over a period of three years he has
worked with staff on developing these plans. The proposal before the Board
did not arrive without a lot of compromises and negotiations. Some things
presented to the Board are libelous statements and he feels the Board must
deal with the facts. He has dealt with the neighbors and made compromises.
This site can be developed in a number of other ways and with more entrances.
He has compromised to lessen the number of entrances than is allowed by-right,
install two walls and fencing. The Golden Coral has a legal right and this is
a sale of property. The Golden Coral can submit a site plan with both an
entrance and exit to that parcel by-right and has chosen to do so, if this
plan is not approved, but has agreed at this stage to go along with this plan.
Mr. Wood said he would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Marshall said the first building can submit a site plan with both an
entrance and an exit as opposed to this plan with an entrance only. Mr. Wood
said there can be four separate entrances and exits by-right. Mr. Bowerman
asked if the property is four separate parcels. Mr. Wood said there are five
separate parcels. Mr. Bowerman said the Golden Coral is looking at one
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 18
000018
separate parcel. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Wood if the Golden Coral has
purchased the parcel and asked him to explain the legalities of purchasing the
property. Mr. Wood said the Golden Coral will purchase the property if this
plan is approved and have agreed to an entrance only with cross easements to
exit at the main entrance of the development. Mrs. Humphris said she does not
understand what Mr. Wood meant when he stated "if the entrance is not granted,
the Golden Coral could obtain an entrance and an exit." Mr. Wood said the
Golden Coral is looking for 105,000 square feet to meet corporate criteria,
but wanted an entrance and exit. He is selling the Golden Coral one parcel
with an entrance only. The Golden Coral will not accept the proposal if the
entrance only is not granted. If, for whatever reason, this Board chooses to
deny the plan because of this entrance, the plan will not go forward and the
Golden Coral will purchase this parcel and submit a site plan for the develop-
ment of this parcel which would allow an entrance and exit by-right. If this
plan is not approved, he will probably develop the property in four parcels.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the Golden Coral would be connected into the rest of
the development or separately with no access to or from the development if
approved, as presented. Mr. Wood said the Golden Coral would be connected to
the rest of the development. Mrs. Humphris asked if the two-acre parcel would
allow the Golden Coral circulation and parking spaces. Mr. Wood said "yes."
Mrs. Humphris said she needs an explanation of the northern parcel, its
ownership, current zoning and restrictive covenant or restrictions. Mr. Wood
said the northern parcel is owned by Gold Leaf Land Trust which he owns (and
is the general partner). It is zoned commercial but has a deed restriction
that was imposed on it in the 1950's, stating that it could only be used as
residential. Those deed restrictions have been contested on two other
occasions and the court has ruled that they are invalid. He has not, at this
point contested the restriction and fully intends to develop this property as
commercial. Mrs. Humphris said it is her understanding that deed restrictions
supersede the Zoning Ordinance, but Mr. Wood is stating that he believes the
court would rule otherwise. Mr. Wood said "yes." Mr. Davis said the basis of
the decision would not be that the Zoning Ordinance supersedes the restric-
tions, but that the restrictions are invalid. Mrs. Humphris asked under what
conditions would a court decide that the restrictions have become invalid.
Mr. Davis said the Zoning Ordinance would still apply, unless the restrictions
are more restrictive than the current Zoning Ordinance. Typically, whatever
is more restrictive would apply. He has not examined this particular situa-
tion as to why the restrictions may be invalid, but typical reasons would be
because they were not uniformly enforced or were ambiguous. Mrs. Humphris
said she needs to separate the differences between the parcels, where the
restrictive covenant was invalidated by the Court, and the parcels currently
being discussed. Real Estate III was not at the entrance to Carrsbrook and
this parcel is the parcel at the entrance to Carrsbrook. Mr. Wood said the
same restrictions apply. There is another parcel on the north side of
Carrsbrook Drive that also has the same restriction, but those restrictions
began and apply all the way to the North Fork Rivanna River. Mrs. Humphris
said the restrictions still currently exist on both sides of the entrance to
Carrsbrook Drive. Mr. Wood said "yes," because when the parties took it to
court there were different owners and did not ask that all parcels be included
in the decision.
Mr. Wood said he was trying to achieve, in this plan, a better solution
and this makes the northern parcel exit onto Route 29 as opposed to Carrsbrook
Drive. He feels this is a major compromise and is a condition of approval.
Emotions on this development have run high and created a lot of untrue
statements. Mr. Anderson, who is an attorney, has made statements of fact to
this Board that are incorrect.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Wood if he has a preference as to the name of the
Center. Mr. Wood said this has not been an issue with him, but someone stated
that he said he would change the name. This name was picked by the engineer
because the project had to be named. He does not feel the name is a major
issue. Mr. Bowerman said this is not an issue before the Board, but asked if
Mr. Wood cares about the name of the Center. Mr. Wood said "no," but at this
stage it may be Carrsbrook Retail Center for the fact that he does not have
another name. He never said he would change the name.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the project will be done in phases. Mr. Wood .said
it is a three-phase plan. He does not have signed tenants for any of the
parcels except the Golden Coral.
Mr. Bowerman said Ms. Marcia Joseph, Design Planner, had indicated to him
that there was some concern with the phasing (the adjacent properties as well
as Route 29 being properly buffered and screened during construction). He
asked Ms. Joseph if the condition that staff must approve phasing plan
satisfies her concerns. Ms. Joseph said "yes."
Mr. Bowerman said this request is not an easy decision for him. He has
talked with a number of people who live in Carrsbrook and has been surprised
by the lack of outright objection to this plan. The residents recognize that
the applicant has a right to do this, but they would like to see their
interests preserved in terms of impact and conditions. He thinks there is a
willingness to work this out and he feels a lot of compromises have been made.
He thinks with more cooperation between staff, the neighborhood, and Mr.
Wood's willingness to provide these amenities, it can work out to the reason-
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 19
OOO019
able satisfaction of the homeowners and Mr. Wood. He has problems with the
third entrance, but will not object to it because the property is zoned
commercial, notwithstanding the restrictions. If the property is to be devel-
oped, he feels it should develop as shown with a controlled access and only
one additional access. He thinks that a light is critical and VDoT would
require one because of Kegler's and this development. He would like to get
some idea of traffic generation of this site from VDoT so the applicant and
citizens know upfront what will happen.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Cilimberg if the wording which appears in the
conditions of approval from the Planning Commission is sufficient to make sure
that the bonding will cover the replenishing of the entire site. Mr.
Cilimberg said this would be addressed by approval of a phasing plan and
whatever is called for would have to be done. The phasing plan should take
into account the ultimate development and the proper requirements should be
made there to insure that the ultimate development will fit the full plan.
Mrs. Thomas asked if this is part of the final site plan that will be sent to
the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes." Mrs. Thomas said she thinks part
of the concern was that the homeowners would not have access, but the phasing
plan and final site plan are to be heard by the Commission and she does not
feel this will happen.
Mr. Bowerman said this request can still be called before this Board by
any Board member after the Commission has seen the final site plan. He thinks
it would be best for the developer and the community to get all issues
resolved before it goes to the Commission.
Mrs. Thomas asked if there can be earth moving activity before the final
phase is submitted. Mr. Cilimberg said if that occurs, it will need to be in
conformance with the overall site plan, and staff will determine what needs to
meet the intent of the full plan as far as soil erosion control, landscaping
and other improvements necessary.
Mrs. Humphris asked if staff determines upfront the bonding needs to
insure that the project is carried out. Mr. Cilimberg said all aspects of
what is physically developed as part of the approved plan will have to be
bonded in accordance with County requirements.
Mr. Bowerman asked if a driver on Route 29 North would see a finished
site on the perimeter and an undeveloped site on the front, except for the
Golden Coral, if the entire site was graded and only the Golden Coral occupied
a building. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes." Mr. Bowerman said he hopes that the
compromising can continue until the plan is finalized and there is reasonable
satisfaction by all of the parties.
Mr. Bowerman made motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to reaffirm the
Planning Commission's action.
Mrs. Humphris said she will support the motion, but with reservations.
She is disappointed to hear how Golden Coral feels about the entrance because
she feels it is a safety hazard and the whole community would be better served
with only the major entrance and exit further along.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Marhin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr.
Bowerman.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Request to amend the service area boundaries of the
Albemarle County Service Authority to extend water service only to Tax Map
55A, Parcels 1, 6 and 13; and Tax Map 55, Parcels 79B, 79D5 and 90 in Yancey
Mills (Route 684).
Mr. Cilimberg said several property owners in the Yancey Mills area along
Route 684 have requested public water due to concerns about fire protection
and quality/quantity of existing well water. They are also requesting that
the County pay to extend the water line. Jurisdictional area designation for
water only to existing structures exists south of these properties in Yancey
Mills, and for water and sewer service north of these properties in the Crozet
Growth Area. The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) indicated that a
water line exists in Yancey Mills along Route 797 from which to extend water
service to Route 684. However, the existing line currently has very marginal
flow and the upgrade of the Brownsville water line scheduled for this winter
should take place before any extensions aIong Route 684 take place. To
staff's knowledge, the County has not funded utility extensions in recent
years. Funding for this request could be available through ACSA's Capital
Improvements Program (CIP). The property owners would have to petition the
ACSA for such consideration should this jurisdictional area request be
granted.
Mr. Cilimberg said based on the Comprehensive Plan policy regarding
jurisdictional area designation outside of growth areas, available
documentation, and prior Board actions, staff would not recommend approval of
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 0000~0
Page 20
this request. Should the Board decide to proceed to public hearing on the
request, staff would evaluate and report on any additional documentation that
might be made available to justify the request.
Ms. Nellie Michael said she can bring statements from the residents that
the water problem is a detriment to their health. Mr. Perkins said the Board
will first have to decide if it wants to proceed with this and schedule a
public hearing to hear the request.
Mr. Perkins asked why Yancey Mills was not included in the jurisdictional
area designation since it is close to the Crozet growth area. Mr. Cilimberg
said this area was considered for inclusion during the last Comprehensive Plan
review, but the Board decided against the action. Mr. Perkins asked about the
areas shown on the map in pink. Mr. Cilimberg said those areas have water
only to existing structures. Mr. Tucker said these properties were served
because water lines existed, then the growth area changed somewhat and
excluded some of the areas. Mr. Perkins asked if the growth area ever
included Yancey Mills. Mr. Tucker said he believes it may have included parts
of Yancey Mills at one time. Mr. Perkins asked if Route 684 had been included
in the jurisdictional area designation. Mr. Tucker said he does not recall
that being included. Mr. Perkins said those areas all have the same drainage.
Ms. Michael said Yancey Mills is located between two water lines. There
is a water line at Jarmans Gap Road and at Route 250. Ms. Michael said the
closest fire hydrant is approximately one-half mile.
Mr. Perkins said the applicants may need to do some work to justify this
request. He asked if residents are currently having problems with their
wells. Ms. Michael said currently there are two families using one well.
Mr. Martin said since he has been a member of the Board, this type of
request has only been approved if it is a health and safety issue. He thinks
Mr. Perkins is willing to take this request to public hearing, but it is
important that the residents prove that this is a health and safety issue.
Mr. Perkins said from a wider spectrum, the~Board may need to look at
including this area in the Crozet growth area. If this were done, it would
make it easier to extend the water lines.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the group of Crozet residents who are reviewing the
Comprehensive Plan discussed their boundaries. Mr. Perkins said "yes," and
there is a map in the report which states that this area is believed to be in
the Crozet community which is beyond what the Comprehensive Plan shows.
Mrs. Humphris said if the Board decides to take this request to public
hearing, the residents need to understand what will be required in the form of
documentation.
Mrs. Thomas said she was trying to make sure the applicants knew whether
this Board wanted to keep this as a rural area, in which case these extreme
health and safety issues have to be addressed, or whether the Board wants to
review the boundaries of the Crozet area when it reviews the Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said for the request before the Board, the Board needs
verifiable documentation of the problems. He has asked Mr. Carl Pumphrey,
Fire/Rescue Divisions Chief, to obtain something in writing from the fire
companies as to their problems. He feels it is fair to ask the applicants to
provide any information that is verified through well drillers, the Health
Department, etc.
Mr. Marshall asked that staff give the applicants advise as to what
information needs to be obtained.
Mr. Bowerman then made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to set a public
hearing for October 5, 1994, to consider amending the service area boundaries
of the Albemarle County Service Authority to extend water service only to Tax
Map 55A, Parcels 1, 6 and 13; and Tax Map 55, Parcels 79B, 79D5 and 90 in
Yancey Mills (Route 684).
Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director, ACSA, said he feels it is important
to mention that even if the Board amends the jurisdictional area, this project
is foreign to ACSA's CIP. Getting capital funding is a timely process. He is
not sure what external funds are available, but if the primary concern is fire
protection, he is sure the Fire Official would state that he would like to
have fire protection in all rural areas.
Mrs. Humphris said she understands that if this request were approved,
the "ball is in the ACSA's court" and would have to be included in its CIP and
prioritized. She feels it is important that the citizens understand that the
process could still be years away. Mr. Brent concurred.
Mrs. Thomas said this Board is asking the residents to go to a great deal
of effort and expense to determine the flow, safety of wells, fire protection,
etc. This Board is asking the applicants to come up with a lot of information
for a solution that, at best, is many years away. It seems to her that this
is a situation where someone should look at the whole picture and think about
a short-term solution for this area.
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 21
000021
Mr. Bowerman said the Board is looking at the Comprehensive Plan for the
Crozet area and it may be that the Board wants to consider changing the juris-
dictional area. Mrs. Thomas said that is one thing she is suggesting, but it
still may be many years away.
Mr. Marshall asked if there are any nearby ponds. Mr. Perkins said there
is one pond along Jarmans Gap Road. These residences are not that far from
fire hydrants in Yancey Mills, but it hampers fire fighters if they have to
haul water.
Mrs. Thomas said it may be that with the improvement of the Brownsville
line, this situation will become a lot safer. Mr. Tucker said an engineer or
the Water Resource Manager may need to meet with the residents to find an
interim solution.
Mr. Cilimberg said he discussed with the applicants the possibility that
it might be a long time before anything could be built if they were relying on
some other source of funding. He thinks the residents were hoping that there
would be some type of opportunity for funding along with the jurisdictional
area designation. He advised the residents that there was not a precedent for
that with the Board of Supervisors. He can try and get a representative from
the Engineering Department and Fire Official to meet with the applicants to
talk about the alternatives. Mr. Martin said he feels this would be good so
that everyone understands what is expected and the possibilities. Mr. Tucker
concurred.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicants have already paid the fee. If this
Board sets a public hearing, the understanding is that the Board wants to have
information about the situation. To obtain the information, the residents
will have to spend money to have tests done. If the Board is not sure that
this is the best route, then he would advise the Board to hold off on setting
a public hearing and give staff time to work on alternatives.
Mrs. Thomas asked if there is any advantage to the Board having an
indefinite approval of a public hearing so that a representative will not have
to come back before the Board because if staff meets with the residents and
works out an interim, the residents may still want a change in jurisdictional
area designation for the long-term. Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board defer
any action on this request until September 5, 1994, to give staff, the
Engineering Department, the Fire Official and the residents an opportunity to
discuss the situation and submit a report.
Mr. Bowerman then withdrew the motion to hold a public hearing on October
5, 1994, and Mr. Martin withdrew the second.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to defer the request to
amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to
extend water service only to Tax Map 55A, Parcels 1, 6 and 13; and Tax Map 55,
Parcels 79B, 79D5 and 90 in Yancey Mills (Route 684) until September 7, 1994,
to allow staff and the applicants time to discuss alternatives. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr.
Bowerman.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Request from Crozet Park Board for Pool Funding
Assistance.
Mr. Tucker said for several years the Crozet Park Board has been discuss-
ing the need to repair or replace their aging swimming pool. The Park Board
recently received repair estimates which amount to nearly half of the amount
estimated for building a new pool. Since much of the replacement work would
not be under warranty, the Park Board has decided that a new pool is neces-
sary.
The Park Board is now requesting that the County provide financial
support for the construction of a new pool. The estimated total cost for
replacing the pool is $300,000. The size, shape and placement of the new pool
has not been determined. Also, the Park Board is interested in the possibili-
ty of the new pool serving as a year-round facility. Until these decisions
are made, a firm cost for the new pool cannot be determined. The Park Board
has a replacement fund of $100,000 and is willing to borrow another $100,000.
While no specific dollar amount has been requested, the Board should consider
this as a request for a minimum of $100,000, which would allow for replacement
of the existing pool.
Mr. Tucker said the purpose of this report is to review the history of
previous discussions related to funding for swimming pools by the County.
With this request by the Park Board, the Board must examine its philosophy on
providing funds for swimming facilities. The County Parks and Recreation
Department recently received inquiries about the possibility of providing
funds for swimming pools in Earlysville, Scottsville and Esmont. Until now,
the response has been that it is the County's present philosophy to provide
swimming on a County-wide basis at the three County Parks. In examining this
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 22
000022
philosophy, it should be considered that if these areas are served by swimming
pools, then several pools may need to be built in the more densely populated
urban area. Also, it should be considered that the Parks and Recreation staff
has identified 15 private swimming pools in Albemarle County, excluding Crozet
Park. Potentially if these pools were to get in financial difficulty, they
could approach the Board and offer to serve a public function in exchange for
funding.
It should be noted, however, that Crozet Park currently is the only
private pool that is being operated as a public pool allowing admission to all
residents through daily admission or season pass fees. It should also be
noted that if the Board decides to change its current philosophy and get
involved with funding swimming pools, the cost sharing approach being offered
by Crozet Park would be the most cost-effective way. The decision to fund
future requests could then be based, in part, on the type of cost sharing
arrangement being proposed. Mr. Tucker said this information is presented for
the Board's consideration in providing direction to staff and respond to the
Crozet Park Board.
Mr. Perkins said he serves on the Claudius Crozet Park Board and asked
Mr. Davis if he considers that a Conflict of Interest in participating in this
request. Mr. Davis said in his opinion, since Mr. Perkins has no financial
interest in the Park, under the Virginia Conflict of Interest Act, there is no
legal conflict.
Mr. Perkins said the report refers to the Claudius Crozet Pool as being
private and he would like to clarify that it is a public pool, owned by the
community and open to everyone.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the pool is privately owned. Mr. Davis said it is
owned by a 501-C corporation and is a non-profit, private corporation which
serves a public purpose. Mr. Tucker said staff made that statement in the
report because it is not owned by the County.
Mr. C. T. Pace, President of the Board of Directors which operates the
Park, said there are four speakers present. Crozet Park is a public facility
and will remain as such. This request is not limited to the Crozet community
because people from Batesville, Ivy and western Albemarle are served by this
facility.
Ms. Fran Witt, a member of the Board of Directors, said she has been
interested in the pool since the concept for a park was developed in 1958. In
1959, a committee saw the need for a pool because of the lack of such a
facility in the western part of the County. At that time, this group thought
a pool was needed for young people of the County. Her father was instrumental
in forming this group and went to Alabama to visit the pool company that
ultimately built the pool. The pool was built by volunteers (only a represen-
tative from the pool company was present) from Crozet and overseen by her
father. The pool was opened in August of 1959. The pool has been successful
since it opened. People from Greenwood, Batesville, White Hall and Ivy come
to use this pool. She asked the Board to consider this request because the
young people of Crozet need this facility. This facility does not only
provide great exercise, but a good place to go and spend the day. The Crozet
community has shown for many years that they care about its community and
young people. The Board of Directors have worked hard on this and is now
requesting help from the County.
Mr. Scott Brown, Pool Manager and Coach of the Swim Team, said he has
been in the pool business for over 20 years and coached for over ten years.
The pool is in terrible disrepair. In his estimation it cannot be repaired.
The pool is losing six to eight inches of water each day. Including the
chemicals, he estimates that the loss of water is costing approximately $3000
per year. The quality of the water is not up to his standards and he feels it
presents health problems to people using the facility. In 1992, one year
before he began coaching the swim team there were 50 swimmers; the first year
he coached there were 82 swimmers; and, this year there were 107 participants.
The pool facility and participation is growing. He feels if the pool is
closed, which is possible due to the condition of the pool, it would be a sad
time in Crozet history. If the pool stays in the same condition as it
currently is, he may not continue to manage the facility because he does not
want to be held liable. He has repaired sections at the bottom of the pool
two feet by one foot with proxy while water was still in the pool. Chips of
paint have come off the side of the pool and people have been taken to the
hospital. These are serious situations. He feels, with the present state of
the pool, he would be putting himself in jeopardy by managing the pool if no
repairs are made.
Ms. Megan Kiernan said she is 14 years old and has lived in the Crozet
area for nine years. She attended Brownsville Elementary, J. T. Henley Middle
School and will be attending Western Albemarle High School this coming year.
She has been swimming on the Crozet swim team for the past five years and is
present to represent members of the swim team. She said the swim team is a
very important part of her summer and keeps her in shape during the summer,
teaches her about teamwork, provides structure to her summer and has enabled
her to swim better than she could have if she had not joined the team. The
swim team practices are fun and there is a lot of team spirit. Finally, being
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 23
000023
a member of the swim team has allowed her to socialize with kids in grades
below and above her which she would not otherwise be able to do. She feels
making the safety changes and providing the new facility suggested today are
appropriate and important. She thinks the proposed facility is a wonderful
idea. She, along with other members of the Crozet Swim Team, have been
interested in swimming year-round, but find it difficult to drive the distanc-
es to Charlottesville or Waynesboro to do so. If the recreational facility
were built, it would enable "kids like her" to swim year-round. The facility
would also give them a chance to work out together, get fit and build communi-
ty spirit. The facility would not only draw kids from public schools, but
also kids from private schools and home-taught children, as the swim team
already does. This recreational facility would not only bring the children
together, but the community as well. She hopes the Board will consider this
request.
Mr. Pace said he realizes the County has said it is not in the pool
business. The Claudius Crozet Park Board is thinking about a facility which.
will offer year-round usage. Crozet is a growth area. If the facility were
built, with year-round usage, Windham and the Meadows could be incorporated,
as well as continue the use for the community of Crozet and Albemarle County
residents. Crozet is one of the few public swim teams that have minority
membership and this is vital to the community.
Mr. Pace said at this time he does not have all of the facts. The Pool
Board is coming to this Board to discuss the possibility of a continued
partnership. The County's help has been vital to the existence of the pool
(maintenance, additions, repairs, etc.). The Arts and Crafts Festivals that
are held twice a year lend themselves to the main fundraising of the Park.
The Park Board is completely volunteer, but has been able to save over
$100,000 and feels there could be an additional $19,000 to $20,000 raised to
fund the construction of such a facility. Before the Board of Directors and
community attempts to build this type of facility, it wanted to make sure that
the County was willing to help fund it. The Board of Directors wants to know
what information the Board would like them to provide. Once this project gets
going, there is probably a lot of volunteer work that the community would
provide in terms of labor.
Mr. Marshall asked if the Board of Directors is requesting a $100,000
donation or requesting a loan in hopes to raise this money and repay the
County at a future date. Mr. Pace said he does not feel a dollar figure can
be placed on what they are requesting. The Board of Directors has talked with
National Pool from Roanoke, Virginia, and for the type of facility they are
reviewing, the price is approximately $300,000 which does not include the
plumbing, skirting, etc. He feels this would take the place of the funds the
County appropriates during a five year period.
Mr. Marshall asked if the County can legally do this. Mr. Davis said the
Code allows for the County to give a monetary donation to a non-profit
recreational organization.
Mr. Martin said this organization has over $100,000 and is placing it in
a money market fund and plans to borrow another $100,000. He asked if the
organization has checked on borrowing $200,000. Mr. Pace said "no," the Board
of Directors does not want to assume a big debt since all members are volun-
teer. The Board of Directors is currently raising $50,000 to $70,000 per
year. Instead of borrowing $200,000 they would like to look into some type of
community fundraising. He thinks there is a wealth of possibilities that
could be reviewed, but the area needs a year-round facility.
Mr. Marshall asked if by "year-round facility" it meant including a
bubble over it. Mr. Pace said "yes." Mr. Marshall asked if the construction
of the bubble was included in the $300,000 price. Mr. Pace said "no," and
that is why they wanted to come before this Board and get its feelings about
this type of facility. Last year two volunteers worked on the pool more than
180 hours each to get it patched so it could operate this year. If there were
a facility like the one proposed, the membership would continue to increase.
Mr. Martin said he has read the information, reviewed the history and
understands the rationale that former members of the Board of Supervisors
used. He feels that rationale is still present. The second speaker stated
that her father pulled a group of people together to build the pool and it
seems that there is a much larger pool of people to pull together now than
there was then. He knows the cost has increased in today's dollars versus
yesterday's dollars but the rationale still stands. There are a lot of ways
to raise the money to build this facility and he feels the community can do
this. Mr. Pace said the community is strong and it does not just include
Crozet. Any financial help the County could give would help the Board of
Directors build the facility. If the project were to proceed, it is envi-
sioned that completion would be the summer of 1996. Mr. Pace said pool
companies are willing to come and work on the current pool, but are unwilling
to guarantee the work.
Mr. Perkins said there are many ways to look at this request. The way he
looks at the request and would like the other Board members to look at it is
what this park provides to the County, and the citizens of Crozet. If the
Board reviews the request from that standpoint, it will find that this is the
0000 o
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 24
cheapest recreation the County is providing anywhere. It was not until a
number of years ago that this park received any financial help from the
County. The funds that the park has received in the last two years amount to
approximately $12,000 per year and have been used to repair the existing
facilities. He feels the County is getting a good deal because of the
volunteers that work without compensation. He does not want to look at this
request as the County getting into the pool business and that is not what the
Board of Directors is requesting. The Park Board is asking this Board to
allocate money for recreation.
Mr. Pace said there is a summer program that the County oversees at the
Park. This program could also expand if there were a larger year-round
facility.
Mr. Roy Patterson said he has been a member of the Park Board longer than
any other member. He gives his full support to the concept of establishing a
partnership with the County. This pool is a great asset, not only to the
community, but to the whole County.
Mr. Pace said membership to this facility is affordable for many fami-
lies. In the Past the Board of Directors has awarded scholarships or acquired
the funds to pay for a person. They do not turn anyone away.
Mr. John Marston said he is originally from Greenwood and his father
founded the Greenwood Community Center. He feels this Board is missing a
great opportunity if it does not approve this request. In 1971, it would have
cost $25,000 to keep the Greenwood Community Center's pool in operation. He
is sure that if the community had known this, they would have funded it. He
feels this pool is a great asset to the community and if the Board could help
fund this facility it would be great.
Mr. Bowerman said he has a few constituents that have approached him
about a public facility located in Arlington, Virginia, which has swimming,
skating and a number of recreational uses that this Board has discussed as
private applications and the. operation is paid for by the public. If this
request is granted, he feels the Board will be forced to do this in other
areas. As the community grows, this is the type of issue the Board will have
to consider. He feels granting this request would set a precedent even though
it is a non-profit corporation and there is a lot of internal fundraising
because it is providing something that the County has not previously provided.
Mr. Marshall said he feels granting this request is a good thing. There
is public money as well as County money to fund this project. He feels this
is the most economical way to keep children off of the streets. This is
something that he feels the County is going to have to provide eventually. He
is willing to support the request, but at what extent or where the Board will
find the money he does not know. He feels this concept is better than the
County having to build a facility of its own. He feels if this request is
denied, a private individual will open a similar facility and charge outra-
geous prices that only a privileged few could afford to use. He would like
the County to have a facility that all residents can enjoy.
Mrs. Humphris said there is no question of the value of the Crozet pool
and the park to this community. This Board has to view the existing philoso-
phy of the Board of Supervisors in providing a public pool and has to be
concerned with the precedent that would be set. In the Jack Jouett District,
where Albemarle High School, Jack Jouett Middle School and Greer Elementary
School are located, the residents are "screaming" for a pool. She does not
know of a more logic place to locate a pool than in that urban area which
serves such a dense population of people and schools. It will be difficult
for this Board to approve this request for Crozet and later decide what will
be done for the residences of Esmont, Scottsville, Earlysville, Jack Jouett,
Key West, etc. This Board has to consider the future and what it will be
faced with if this request is granted. She understands what the pool does to
keep children out of trouble and give them something wholesome to do. She
serves on the Jail Board and neither this Board or City Council have been
willing to devote several hundred thousand dollars to ventilate the jail
facility. All of the correctional officers at the Joint Security Complex are
working in an unventilated facility and in full uniform. The $100,000 for
this pool is a great idea, but she feels making humane conditions for the
employees at the Joint Security Complex is more important. She thinks there
needs to be a big plan if this Board is going to go into the swimming pool
business. She would also like to know how much this will cost, what is
planned down the road, the original cost and upkeep. She also wants to know
that Mr. Perkins and Mr. Marshall are going to vote for the additional taxes
and tell the taxpayers that they believe this is something that should be
done. She feels this is great for the Crozet pool, but is concerned about the
rest of the community.
Mr. Perkins said one thing the Crozet community has reviewed is the
service district to add additional taxes to the people of Crozet. According
to the Deputy County Executive, if this were done in the Crozet growth area it
would only add approximately $8000 per year which is not really enough to make
a big difference. The County is in the recreation business and he does not
think the Park Board is asking for anything specific at this time, but is
requesting the opportunity to discuss this issue further with staff and try to
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 25
O000, $
establish a funding formula. He thinks this is a good deal since the Crozet
BOard is willing to fund one-half of the project.
Mrs. Thomas said she thinks all of these are good ideas, but feels this
request needs to get in line with all of the other Capital Improvements
Program (CIP) requests, many of which are worthy. She also thinks this should
be looked at in terms of where recreational programs can best be offered.
These questions need to be answered. The idea that has been raised for
regional parks is a wonderful addition to the quality of life in Albemarle
County and she wonders if these parks could be used for swim teams and what
changes could be made with $5000 as opposed to $100,000.
Mr. Pace said Crozet Park has existing membership and a dilapidated
facility. This is a fairly inexpensive way for the County to become involved
in a larger recreational facility because this park has dedicated families
volunteering. To develop this in another area would be more difficult than
what has already at this facility.
Mrs. Humphris said there is another ingredient in the decision-making
process which is discussion about whether Chris Greene Lake will remain a
swimming lake or be removed and used as a water supply. If this were to
happen, a very popular recreational swimming facility would be lost. This
Board also has to consider what it would do to replace that facility.
Mr. Tucker said his concern is fairness because of all the requests the
County receives for funding in its CIP are for five year periods. Since 1996
is the target date, that gives the Board time to consider this request when it
considers items of similar nature. The deadline for the next fiscal year CIP
review has passed, but he feels this item could be interjected. The request
for $100,000 could be spread over a two year period and still meet the target
date. If this is done, the Board would consider the request along with all
other CIP requests. It seems to him that if this request is approved apart
from other requests it would set a precedent.
Mr. Patterson said the Park Board has 23 acres of very valuable land.
This land is available and does not have to be purchased. The land is in two
parcels; one of the parcels has a permanent easement on it dedicated to public
recreation and can only be changed with the Board of Supervisor's consent.
For all of these reasons, he emphasized that this is the kind of partnership
that would be operating this facility. Mr. Pace said that the restrictive
covenant is such that if anything were to happen, it would come back to the
County of Albemarle. This Board could grant the request and continue the
relationship.
Mr. Robert McKinley said he thinks the Crozet Park is unique and feels if
Albemarle County residents were surveyed there would only be approximately
three percent who said that Crozet Park is a privately owned facility. All
residents assume that Crozet Park is owned by the County. He feels the County
is getting a free "ride" out of this deal. Crozet Park is the only facility
in the County that charges public rates and is open to anyone. If this
facility had not been here, this Board would have considered building a
similar facility. He does not feel there is $200,000 in the Crozet community
available to fund this project. He feels that this is a worthwhile project.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks this project can be put in the CIP cycle and
would like staff to work with representatives from the Park to look at funding
alternatives.
Agenda Item No. 22. Executive Session: Personnel Matters.
At 1:31 p.m., Mr. Bowerman made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to go
into executive session under Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under
subparagraph one to consider three personnel matters, one regarding discussion
of appointments to boards and commissions, one regarding an administrative
review, and the other regarding an employee reassignment. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr.
Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 23. Certify Executive Session.
At 3:01 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and adopted the
following Certification of Executive Meeting.
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 26
MOTION: Mr. Bowerman
SECOND: Mrs. Thomas
MEETING DATE: August 3, 1994
0000 6
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirma-
tive recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The
Virginia Freedom of Information ACt; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that
such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia
law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each
member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were
discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification
resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as
were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were
heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs.
Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
Agenda Item No. 20. Discussion: Lease/Purchase Plan for new voting
machines.
Mr. Tucker said in June of 1992 the Electoral Board applied for funding
through the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for the purchase of new direct-
recording electronic voting machines to replace the current mechanical lever
machines at an overall project cost of $330,000. The application proposed
funding over a three-year period, however, the State Board of'Elections
prohibits incremental implementation of new voting systems. Consequently, the
CIP request suggested that financing arrangements be required in order to take
delivery of the new machines during the first year of funding the appropria-
tion. The request was recommended for funding in the winter of 1993 with
$109,000 (approximately one-third the estimated cost appropriated and
available as of July 1, 1994.
Anticipating Board approval of the CIP request, the Electoral Board
reviewed the two brands of direct-recording electronic machines certified for
sale in Virginia. At its meeting of April 5, 1994, the Electoral Board agreed
to purchase the AVC Advantage machine. This decision was based on: 1) the
availability of a Virginia-based vendor of good reputation to service and
program the machines, 2) a suspension on sale of the competing machine imposed
by the State Board of Elections, and 3) overall satisfaction with the design
of the AVC Advantage machine. Voting machine purchases are exempt from
requirements of the Virginia Public Procurement Act.
At issue is whether to proceed immediately with arrangements to finance
the purchase of all new voting machines or to wait until the second or third
year of funding is available. In the opinion of the Electoral Board, it is
highly desirable to proceed with the puxchase now for the following reasons:
1) It is desirable that the electorate have at least two years experience in
operating new machines prior to a high-turnout Presidential election. The new
machines are totally different from the old ones and will require public
education. Although they will be quite simple for the new voter, they will be
a major transition for "veteran" voters, 2) It is desirable for election
officials to have two years of relatively low-volume elections to familiarize
themselves with the operation of the new machines prior to the next Presiden-
tial election, and 3) 1994 is a good year to implement new machines since the
ballot will be very simple relative to other years.
Mr. Tucker said the issues of competition and possible future price
reductions have been raised. Since the State Board of Elections require at
least two years to certify any new machine, and since none are in the applica-
tion process, there will be no competition prior to the Presidential election.
Since there is no competition, the Electoral Board sees little likelihood of a
price reduction in the next two years. According to Finance Director, Melvin
Breeden, a lease/purchase agreement can now be obtained at an interest rate of
000027
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 27
approximately seven percent with a total finance charge of $18,000 to $20,000
through July 1996.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that, if the Board feels that lease
purchase financing is appropriate in this instance, approval be granted for
staff to procure the most advantageous financing to allow the necessary
equipment to be purchased. Any such financing agreement would contain
language that makes the purchase subject to subsequent appropriations for the
balance of the payments (non-appropriation clause).
Mr. Bowerman asked what is wrong with the current system and what will
the County gain with the new system. Mr. John Wright, Chairman of the
Electoral Board, said a number of machines have broken during the last five
elections. The machines are old and are no longer manufactured. Rebuilt
machines can be purchased, but the parts in those machines come out of other
old machines. This has caused great consternation especially in the larger
precincts. As the population grows, something will have to be done. The
machine inventory is low and machines would have to be bought for the next
election to meet regulations. It seems ridiculous to buy the machines at
approximately $5000 per unit when better machines can be leased for purchase.
The Electoral Board feels it is time to do this. The machines would have to
be in place by the first of October to allow time to work with and train
people for the next election.
Mr. Bowerman made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to direct staff to
procure the most advantageous financing to allow the necessary voting equip-
ment to be purchased. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr.
Bowerman.
None.
Agenda Item No. 18. Approval of Revision to Overtime/Compensatory Time
(P-61 & P-62) Personnel Policies.
Mr. Brandenburger said the Overtime/Compensatory Time Policy was revised
August 4, 1993. A review of the policy by the County Attorney indicated
further clarification was warranted. In addition to clarifying the provisions
of the Board policy, additional changes are proposed for Law Enforcement
personnel as allowed under section 7(k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The policy distributed to the Board (on file) reflects the following
significant changes:
Work Periods, page 2, E.2.: Stipulates 171 as the maximum allowable
hours for law enforcement.
Status of Paid/Unpaid Time, page 3, F.3.: As was the Board policy prior
to August 4, 1993, this clarifies that this type of time will not be
counted as time worked for overtime determination. The current policy
revision adopted in August is unclear.
Compensatory Leave, page 4, F.i.: Provides supervisors the discretion to
grant compensatory leave or payment for additional hours worked but that
do not qualify for time and one half. The current policy does not
address this issue.
Holiday Pay, page 6, G: Employees currently have 11 paid holidays. If
an employee works a holiday they are provided an alternative holiday
during the year. This revision provides two alternatives for the
supervisor to compensate for working a holiday. Either reschedule the
holiday or provide payment for the missed holiday.
Call Back Pay, page 7, H: Clarifies that call back pay will be paid when
less than 24 hours notice is given to an employee.
Law Enforcement Positions, page 7, I: Clarifies how court time and
voluntary contractual time will be compensated for law enforcement
employees.
Mr. Brandenburger said staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve
the proposed policy changes.
Mr. Marshall asked how the County policy differentiates between hourly
employees and department heads. Mr. Brandenburger said there are three
provisions under the Fair Labor Standards Act that allow an organization to
place someone in an exempt status (employee exempt from overtime provisions)
which are various professional, executive level and administrative positions.
There are specific tests in terms of the number of hours, base salary and
other criteria that have to be met to be eligible for an exempt status. For
County personnel, the position is reviewed, an assessment is made and a
recommendation is submitted to the County Executive for approval. There have
not been any significant changes except in the reorganization of Information
Services where managerial positions were created. This information is
000028
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 28
maintained in Human Resources so individuals and supervisors know which
positions are hourly and exempt. The tests required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act are not by title, but duties and responsibilities must be
included.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the revisions
to the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy, Overtime/Compensatory Time (P-61
& P-62) Policy, as set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr.
Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PERSONNEL POLICY
OVERTIME/COMPENSATORY TIME POLICY
A) Responsibility.
The authorization and control of all overtime work is the
responsibility of the department head. Overtime shall be permit-
ted only when required by operational necessity. Department heads
shall assure that adequate funds are available for payment for
overtime work and be responsible for the scheduling of compensato-
ry time. Department heads may re~ire that employees work addi-
tional time or overtime to meet the needs of the department.
Whenever possible, notice of this requirement will be provided in
advance so that the employees can arrange their personal sched-
ules.
B) Eliqibilit¥.
Employees are eligible to earn overtime except for those
employees in bona fide professional, administrative or executive
positions, elected officials, and certain seasonal employees, all
as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The County Executive
will approve a list indicating positions determined to be exempt
or non-exempt from overtime requirements. This list shall be
maintained in the Human Resources Department and the status of
individual positions shall be indicated in the personnel files.
C) Computation of Overtime Pay.
Monetary overtime compensation shall be one and one-half
times the employee's hourly rate of pay for each hour of overtime
worked. The hourly rate of pay shall be determined by dividing
the employee's annual salary, as defined by the Fair Labor Stan-
dards Act by the required number of hours per year that an employ-
ee in that position would be regularly required to work.
D) Reportinq of Overtime.
Additional hours shall be recorded, in writing, on the day
that it is worked. Such records shall be maintained by the
employee's supervisor. Overtime hours shall be reported at the
end of the work period.
E) Computation of Overtime Hours.
1. Overtime shall be earned when, due to operational
necessity, a non-exempt employee works in excess of the maximum
number of allowable hours in the work period.
2. The work periods and maximum allowable hours for County
employees are as follows
Category of Personnel Work Period (Consecu- Maximum Allowable
tire Days) Hours
Law Enforcement 28 171
All Other 7 40
The County Executive has established the official work
period as extending from Saturday at 12:01 a.m. to Friday at 12
midnight. The Chief of Police shall determine the beginning and
ending time for the 28 day work period for law enforcement offi-
cers eligible for this work period under section 7(k) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act. Changes to the established work period may
be determined by department heads to meet the needs of the depart-
ment provided that the revised schedule is provided in writing to
the employees and a copy is on file in the Human Resources Depart-
ment.
000029
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 29
3. Paid or unpaid time off during which the employee is
absent from the service of the County shall not be counted as
hours worked in determining if the maximum allowable number of
hours has been exceeded. Such absences include, but are not
limited to, sick, annual, compensatory, civil, personal and
military leave, holidays, leaves of absence, lunch periods and
inclement weather days.
4. When non-exempt employees work during the scheduled
lunch period, such time shall be considered as hours worked.
Employees shall report this time to their supervisor and it shall
be documented on forms designated for that purpose.
5. When non-exempt employees are required to attend meet-
ings or conferences that occur outside of the County and which
require travel time, the hours involved in the actual travel as
well as the hours involved in the training/meeting shall be
considered hours worked. Employees shall report this time to
their supervisor and it shall be documented on forms designated
for that purpose.
6. Department heads shall manage their employees' hours
worked whenever possible within the official seven day work period
or, for law enforcement purposes, the 28 day work period, to avoid
the accrual of overtime. For example, if an employee works more
than eight hours in one day, the number of additional hours worked
that day may be given off during another day in that work period
so that the maximum number of hours (40) for that work period is
not exceeded. Similarly, for law enforcement employees, such
additional hours worked should be offset with scheduled time off
during the 28 day work period to avoid the maximum number of hours
(171) after which time and one-half compensation is required.
F) Compensatory Leave or Compensatory Time.
1. Non-exempt employees who work in excess of their regu-
larly scheduled workhours, but who do not exceed the maximum
allowable number of hours as defined in (E), above, may be granted
compensatory leave in the amount of one hour of leave for each
hour worked or may be paid their regular hourly rate in lieu of
compensatory leave for hours worked.
2. Non-exempt employees who work in excess of their regu-
larly scheduled work hours, and the hours exceed the maximum
allowable number of hours as defined in (E), above, shall be given
the choice of overtime pay or compensatory leave in the amount of
one and one-half hours of leave for each hour worked during the
work period in excess of the maximum allowable hours. This choice
shall be made prior to working the hours constituting the over-
time. Notwithstanding the choice option above, contractual
overtime shall only be compensated monetarily. Contractual
overtime is defined as work hours assigned to an employee, other
than a sworn law enforcement employee, at the request of an
outside entity and for which the County is reimbursed by the
outside entity the wages of the employee.
3. No compensatory leave shall be used unless specifically
approved by the department head in advance of it being taken.
4. Compensatory time shall be used within one year of its
accrual or the employee shall be paid for it. Department heads
shall be responsible for scheduling compensatory leave so that it
is used within one year or assuring that adequate funds are
available for payment of compensatory time in lieu of compensatory
leave.
5., Employees in sworn law enforcement positions may accrue
up to 480 hours of compensatory time. All other employees may
accrue up to 240 hours of compensatory time. Employees shall be
paid for all compensatory time in excess of the maximum allowed
for accrual.
6. Non-exempt employees who are transferring to another
department or who are promoted from a non-exempt into an exempt
position shall, prior to assuming the new position, reach an
agreement with their department head to use their accumulated
compensatory leave or to be paid for the unused compensatory time
balance. The employee's compensatory time balance must be zero
prior to the starting date for the new position.
7. Upon termination, non-exempt employees shall be paid for
unused compensatory time.
8. Any payment for unused compensatory time shall be based
upon the employee's current regular hourly rate.
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 30
000030
9. Exempt employees shall not accrue compensatory time nor
will they earn additional compensation for hours worked in excess
of the regularly scheduled hours in a work week. This does not,
however, preclude department heads from using their discretion and
granting time off to exempt employees in recognition of time
worked beyond normal work schedules.
G) Holiday Pay.
Any non-exempt employee who is required by the department
head to work on a holiday which is observed by the County shall
be: (1) compensated for that holiday for the hours worked plus
the hours normally accrued for the holiday, all at the regular
daily or hourly rate; or (2) at the discretion of the department
head, be paid the regular daily or hourly rate for the hours
worked and accrue a day of compensatory leave. If an observed
holiday falls on a day an employee is not otherwise scheduled to
work, the employee shall earn one day of compensatory leave for
the observed holiday.
H) Call Back Pay.
Any non-exempt employee who is required by the department
head to report back to work outside of regularly designated work
hours on less than 24 hours notice shall be compensated for the
call back work hours at one and one-half times the employee's
regular hourly rate regardless of the number of hours worked in
that work period. Hours required to be worked beyond regularly
scheduled work hours which require an employee to stay at work
rather than report back to work shall not be deemed call back
hours and shall be compensated as otherwise provided herein.
I) Additional Provisions for Sworn Law Enforcement Positions.
1. Court time worked by sworn law enforcement employees
outside of the regularly scheduled work hours for that day shall
be compensated at one and one-half times the employee's regular
hourly rate regardless of the number of hours worked in that work
period.
2. Voluntary contractual hours worked by sworn law enforce-
ment employees shall not count as hours worked for the
County. Employees shall be paid for contractual hours worked at a
fixed flat rate established by the County Executive.
J) Additional Provisions for Child Protective Service Posi-
tions.
Child protective service workers serving on-call are enti-
tled to compensation as approved by the County Board of Social
Services pursuant to the Virginia Department of Social Services
administrative regulations, as follows:
1. For all workers covering on-call responsibilities, one
hour of compensatory time will be given for each eight hour shift
of stand-by-duty.
2. When a worker is actually called out to provide direct
door-to-door service more than two hours in any eight hour shift,
he or she will be compensated at one and one-half hours for each
hour spent in the field.
3. No worker shall receive both stand-by and door-to-door
compensation in any one eight hour shift.
Agenda Item No. 15. Update on the County's Land Use Value Taxation
Program.
Mr. Tucker said at the July 6 meeting, the Board requested an update on
the County's Land Use Value Taxation Program. The summary provided to the
Board (on file) of the Program is an update of a report that was presented to
the Board in November, 1991. It includes a brief summary of enabling legisla-
tion, general policies and procedures, updated figures on the size and
deferred value of the program, and several options available to the Board, if
program changes are desired. The report is presented for the Board's informa-
tion and discussion.
Mrs. Humphris said she requested the updated information and thinks it
is helpful to know where the County stands. It seems to her the only problem
is that the 8618 acres in the program is located in growth areas. She is
unsure if the cure is worse than the problem. She would like to hear what
other Board members think about this issue.
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 31
Mr. Bowerman asked what is wrong with having land use only in agricul-
tural/forestal districts and how does this conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan and the County's desire to keep as much land as possible in agriCultural/
forestal use. Mr. Tucker said under current provisions it is simple to get in
and out of land use, but agricultural/forestal districts are created by the
Board and there would be more administrative involvement to get in and out of
these districts. If the Board chooses to do this, staff feels an obligation
to work with those individuals who are not currently under an
agricultural/forestal district to help them enroll. Staff feels there would
be administrative time (approximately two years) required to help people
through this process. It may be difficult to put everyone in an agricultur-
al/forestal district because land has to be a certain size and located within
a certain area. There is the possibility that there would be parcels that are
currently classified under land use that would not qualify for an agricultur-
al/forestal district.
Mr. Martin said the people who would get hurt the most would probably be
those who could least afford it because their property may not be large enough
to qualify for an agricultural/forestal district. Ms. Roxanne White, Assis-
tant County Executive, said if the landowners owned at least 25 acres, he
could qualify for a mini-agricultural/forestal district. Mr. Bowerman said
this could be done regardless of whether the property was located in the
growth area. Ms. White said the land would have to be used for an agricultur-
al area and consist of at least 25 acres. There could be a mini-agricultur-
al/forestal district in a rural area.
Mr. Marshall asked how a landowner could remove property from an
agricultural/forestal district after it has been tied up for ten years and
sell or develop that property. Mr. Davis said the request would come to the
Board.
Mrs. Thomas said weaning out the speculators sounds popular, but when
the speculator is anyone that owns property that suddenly has to be sold and
whomever withdraws land is going to be penalized, it does not have the same
popular ring to it.
Mr. Bowerman asked how is this different from a landowner dying and that
landowner's family having to sell the home. Often proPerty has to be sold
upon the death of people. Mr. Tucker said the death of a landowner almost
automatically releases the land from an agricultural/forestal district. Mr.
Davis said the Code states that land can be withdrawn for good and reasonable
cause which must be demonstrated to the Board of Supervisors and it is the
Board's discretion as to whether the burden is met.
Mr. Marshall gave an example of an individual whose father owns a large
amount of land in an agricultural/forestal district and wants to take a small
portion out of the district. The landowner is terminally ill and his son is
going to inherit the property. The land he wants to take out is to be used
for a commercial venture. This person is going to come to the Board and
request that this be done based on this hardship. If he had been this
individual, he would not have put the land in an agriculturat/forestal dis-
trict, but would have put it in land use so that it could have been taken out
easily. Mr. Marshall said an individual is better off to put land in land use
rather than an agricultural/forestal district in anticipation of some unknown
reason or hardship where a person must sell the property.
Mr. Bowerman said it does not seem that there are many situations where
property is being taken out of land use to be developed. Property is con-
stantly changing, but 15 to 20 percent of all landowners have their property
in land use. There is suppose to be a public benefit for land use that
accrues to all members of the community. There is no revenue produced on a
lot of this property in land use. Mr. Perkins said property in land use is
supposed to be used for a commercial crop, timber or livestock.
Mr. Bowerman said he believes in the principle of land use, but he is
not sure that it is equitable the way it is being used in Albemarle County and
elsewhere. He is not sure that he can show how it directly accrues benefits
to the public. Mr. Perkins said the public gets Clean air, water and aesthet-
ics from land in land use. If landowners did not have their property in land
use, a lot of them would probably be forced into selling their property. A
lot of this property would be purchased by speculators.
Mrs. Thomas said she feels there is a major value in the fact that
landowners are forced to have an agricultural use on land in this designation.
There is a lot of land that is marginal as far as agriculture is concerned
that is kept in an agricultural use because it must be kept there. Land use
keeps the countryside from turning into scrub cedars and unkept land because
there are not enough people to buy and develop every piece of land on the
market. This land is now at least being mowed for hay. Whether this is worth
16 cents on the tax dollar is a question that each person has to ask himself.
She thinks this is one value that the County is getting from the program.
Mrs. Humphris said the numbers seem to show that there is not a big
enough problem to cause a change in policy. It is difficult to correct the
publics misconception of land use. She thinks land use is extremely valuable
to Albemarle County in what it has tried to keep here for residents to enjoy
0000 2
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 32
and tourists to view. It is extremely important to what makes this County
attractive. She is in favor of land use, but there seems to be a glitch about
property in the growth area. The numbers show that the problem of conversion
is not large, but it is possible to require all of that land to be in an
agricultural/forestal district with a commitment and if the Board were to
consider doing that, the public could be assured that it is getting what it is
paying for. To cause this to come about, the eight to ten year commitment
would be required if the land us in an agricultural/forestal district,
regardless that the administration of the changeover might be difficult and
expensive. She thinks it is easily understandable and the prospect of
retaining the land at the lower tax rate will cause landowners to sign the
agreement. Mr. Tucker said the landowner would also have to consider flexi-
bility. Mrs. Humphris said the taxpayers deserve to get what they are paying
for. The taxpayers are paying their money and in some instances, there is no
commitment.
Mrs. Thomas asked if it would be possible to find out how much land
currently in land use would not qualify for an agricultural/forestal district.
Mr. Tucker said if a mini agricultural/forestal district were created, there
would probably only be a few landowners who would not qualify.
Mr. Perkins said land in land use is taxed at a rate that is beneficial
to the County. The County collects more dollars on that land than what it
spends. Perhaps there needs to be a change in the State Code which states
that various types of property will be taxed on what it costs the locality
(i.e. residential property that may cost the County $1.25 for each $1.00
collected would increase, whereas agricultural property that costs the County
$0.16 for each $1.00 collected would dec~ease). Mr. Perkins said he thinks
going to an agricultural/forestal district requirement will force people out
of land use and the land will be sold. He sees it as one piece of land being
kept one year longer equaling that much clean air, water and aesthetics that
people have enjoyed from that land.
Mr. Marshall said if land use was taken away and he was forced to put
his land into an agricultural/forestal district, he would put it on the market
for subdivision.
Mr. Martin said the key to him is realizing the perception of land use
and he does not feel it is a big problem. Mrs. Thomas said one perception is
that there are a number of wealthy people in Albemarle County who are not
getting taxed what others regard as "their fair share," because they are in
the land use program.
Mrs. Humphris said perceptions are a major problem and most people who
talk about land use taxation do not have any understanding that the person
owning this property is paying the regular $0.72 per $100 on the house and the
acreage immediately around it and the deferral is only on the agricultural
land. People do not understand that the County does not have the authority to
tax the rich. As long as the County labors under this method of taxation
where people do not pay according to their ability to pay, this problem will
remain. Mr. Tucker said there is a concern that people feel the County is
deferring $5.4 million that could reduce the tax rate if land use were
eliminated, but no one wants to accept what benefit that land is providing the
County as a whole.
There was no further discussion.
Agenda Item No. 19. Update on Regional Economic Development Partnership
Steering Committee.
Mr. Tucker said at its July 20, 1994 meeting, the Board requested a
progress report from staff on the Regional Economic Development Partnership
Steering Committee. A summary of the first meeting of the Steering Committee
has been provided (on file), which was held this past Tuesday, July 26. After
some introductory comments and discussion, the Steering Committee began to
address the Committee's charge adopted by the Planning District Commission
(PDC) at its July 7 meeting which is to:
To prepare an agreement to establish a regional economic develop-
ment partnership which includes the roles and responsibilities of
the partnership, the relationship to local programs and policies,
the structure, the budget and a financing program.
The committee then proceeded to list the major components or issues that
must be addressed in the agreement. These are listed at the bottom of the
summary provided to the Board. The two other issues addressed at the meeting
were the addition of the Chair of the Governor's CounCil to the regional board
for a total of twenty members and a proposed outline of the basic purposes of
the partnership. The four purposes, listed on the sheet provided, will be
edited and elaborated upon by Dr. DiCroce at the next meeting.
Mr. Tucker said in an attempt to have a draft agreement prepared by
September 1, the committee set three meeting dates in August. The agenda for
the next meeting on August 3 is a discussion of various budget options
prepared by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC),
000033
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 33
discussion and approval of the purpose, and a possible meeting with a repre-
sentative from the Department of Economic Development to discuss regional
partnerships. Mr. Tucker said this update is provided for the Board's
information and discussion.
Mrs. Humphris said she found the minutes of the Steering Committee
interesting. There was an editorial in the Daily Progress calling this Board
hypocritical in the action it took. She did not understand this statement and
felt she should collect her thoughts. She feels that as this moves forward,
all sides of the issue should be laid on the table and everyone should
understand the pros and cons. She is willing to recOgnize the benefits that
economic development can bring to the community, but there is a downside to
the idea of promoting economic development with taxpayers dollars.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board was recently asked to support a proposal to
establish a regional economic development partnership. She voted in favor of
the Board going to the table on the regional proposal with the interest from
the other localities and private interest groups for the purpose of opening a
discussion, insuring that all the pros and cons were considered and getting
answers to all of the questions that surrounded this proposal. She felt it
was important for the Board to have some basic understandings as the proposal
was considered. Since 1980 the County's population has increased by 25
percent (approximately 1200 new residents per year); the County's tax base has
increased by 71 percent ($700 million); unemployment in the County is current-
ly 2.6 percent (the average rate of unemployment has been just under 3.5
percent); and the medium family income in the County is currently above
$50,000 (having grown by over 14 percent since 1990); The County achieved this
enviable record of economic development without spending one cent of taxpayers
money, but this growth has also had negative effects: increased taxes,
decreased quality of life, overcrowded schools, roads and significant en-
croachments on rural areas. The question is how much and how fast should the
County grow in the coming years and at what sacrifice. This Board needs
answers to these and a lot of other basic questions before consideration to
changing the County's present direction and taking the risk of destroying the
qualities that make this County special. The consistency of these changes
need to be reviewed with the Comprehensive Plan. The Board must know whether
any change made by this partnership will increase the burdens of the local
taxpayers without giving them a significant benefit. The Board has to make
sure that the public has ample opportunity to understand and provide input to
this proposed change. Currently, there are more than 500 square feet of land
zoned for office retail and light manufacturing in the County. Much of this
land is being promoted for development by sophisticated developers who have
substantial financial resources. She does not believe that the County
taxpayers need to subsidize these private development efforts through a
government run promotional program.
Mrs. Humphris said regional cooperation sounds like "motherhood and
apple pie." The program being proposed does not seem to her to compute. In
order for a regional economic development to work to the advantage of this
region, it seems it would have to work to the detriment of Albemarle County.
Albemarle County's tax dollars would be spent to promote development in these
other localities so their tax bases could grow rather than Albemarle's because
its tax base is already sound. In order to help the whole region, which is
the idea of this proposal, the County would have to absorb the more costly
residential growth by paying for additional needed schools and services while
business that would generate a positive net revenue would be encouraged to
locate elsewhere. She does not believe, as an elected official, she could
justify the expenditure of taxpayer's funds on a plan like this. The promo-
tion of "regional economic development" may make sense to those special
interests who are the ones pushing this idea, but it violates the proven and
more limited role for government which has always worked so well for the
County. The proper role for County government is insuring the right kind of
economic development. The proper role for this Board to insure the right kind
of economic development is to make sure that it provides a stable and attrac-
tive environment which business finds desirable, careful long-range planning,
apply zoning laws fairly, rationally and consistently, not giving preferential
treatment to anyone, efficient services, offering an educational system and
marketable job skills. Local government must fairly weigh and measure the
wishes and needs of everyone in the community, many of whom will not benefit
from growth and may be hurt by such growth. Active promotion of economic
development means additional pressure on availability of affordable housing,
higher taxes to pay for new schools and increased services for new residents
who must come to fill the new jobs and additional taxes to staff a new
bureaucratical office which duties will include travel and wining and dining
new prospects. Albemarle County should continue to insure a steady course of
sound planning and fiscal conservatism and leave the promoting to those who
would be direct beneficiaries of such auxiliaries.
Mr. Martin said Mrs. Humphris quoted figures in regard to the unemploy-
ment rate and medium income. He feels one way of reviewing this issue is to
look at those figures, not as medium income, but average salary versus the
average cost of a home. The averaHe waHe earned in the County is low in
comparison to the price of a home. He feels that the type of jobs available
need to be diversified. He supports the reHional effort to attract economic
development and feels industry is needed to increase the averaHe wage. If
this type of industry is not increased, his son, upon~graduation from high
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) ~~
Page 34
school or college, will be unable to purchase a house because he will not be
able to earn the type of wage to allow him to afford the price of the house.
Mrs. Humphris said the whole thrust of the regional effort is to
encourage new companies to go where they are needed the most. Those companies
will have to be encouraged to go to the surrounding counties and not to
Albemarle County. Mr. Marshall said he agrees that businesses will go to
surrounding counties and those counties will get business tax dollars.
Albemarle County will still get the houses and children, but will also get
people on the higher income because poor people cannot afford to live in the
County. This County is growing and will continue to do so in terms of houses.
Mrs. Thomas said a regional effort will try and improve the areas in greatest
need which are the outlying counties.
Mrs. Thomas said she would like to know how this~organization defines
success. She feels an organization is succeeding when there are jobs in the
community paying cost-of-living wages. She is concerned that the people in
this organization will think it is succeeding when there are more people in
the County. Mr. Tucker said the objectives will be discussed at the next
meeting, as well as the scenarios that have been developed by the TJPDC for
the budget. This ultimately will come back to the various localities,
probably during the budget cycle. He does not think localities will be asked
to fund any of the costs of a program in this current fiscal year, if the
locality chooses to implement the program.
Mr. Martin requested that the Board continue to receive minutes of the
Regional Economic Development Partnership Steering Committee.
Mrs. Humphris said she feels there should be a better basis for repre-
sentation (i.e., Albemarle County has one representative and the private
sector has nine representatives) than equating Albemarle County with the
smaller rural counties, given the County's population. She also would like to
know more about how a regional partnership works. She does not feel Albemarle
County should encourage businesses to locate in other localities and expect
Albemarle County's taxpayers to fund this effort.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like a report on six localities with the same
standard of living, cost of living, tax base and unemployment rate as
Albemarle County that have implemented a Regional Economic Development
Partnership. Mr. Martin suggested that Martinsville, surrounding counties of
Patrick Henry and Franklin be reviewed.
Item 2la. Appropriation Request: SLIAG Program - $2000 (Form #940001).
Mr. Tucker said the School Board approved the acceptance of a $2000 gift
from the Southland Corporation on June 13, 1994, and requested its appropria-
tion to the SLIAG Program. These funds will be used to provide literacy
services to Migrant and Chapter I students and their families. Mr. Tucker
said staff recommends the Board adopt a Resolution of Appropriation in the
amount of $2000.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following
Resolution of Appropriation. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr.
Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR:
NUMBER:
FUND:
PURPOSE:
1994/95
940001
GRANT
FUNDING FOR STATE LEGALIZATION IMPACT ASSISTANCE
GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1311063380601300
REVENUE
INST/REC SUPPLIES
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
$ 2,000.00
$ 2,000.00
AMOUNT
2311018100189900 SLIAG-DONATION/GIFTS
TOTAL
$ 2,000.00
$ 2,0O0.O0
Item 2lb. Appropriation Request: Department of Criminal Justice
Services Grant - $44,554 (Form $940002) .
Mr. Tucker said this grant funds a non-crack cocaine drug team to serve
the County of Albemarle, City of Charlottesville and University of Virginia.
The IDEA funded team will investigate drug violators/organizations that deal
in drugs other than crack cocaine. The County of Albemarle will be reimbursed
for its expenditures by a Department of Criminal Justice Services Grant
000035
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 35
administered by the City of Charlottesville as fiscal agent. Mr. Tucker said
staff recommends the Board adopt a Resolution of Appropriation in the amount
of $44,554.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt the following
Resolution of Appropriation in the amount of $44,554. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr.
AYES:
NAYS:
Bowerman.
None.
FISCAL YEAR:
NUMBER:
FUND:
PURPOSE:
940002
GRANT
FUNDING FOR IDEA GRANT FOR NON-CRACK DRUG
ENFORCEMENT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1152029403110000 SALARY-REGULAR
1152029403120000
1152029403210000
1152029403221000
1152029403231000
1152029403241000
1152029403540100
DESCRIPTION
OVERTIME-REGULAR
FICA
RETIREMENT
HEALTH INSURANCE
LIFE INSURANCE
LEASED EQUIPMENT
AMOUNT
$ 31,930.00
100.00
2,521.00
2,784.00
2,010.00
209.00
5,000.00
TOTAL $ 44,554.'00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2152019000160502 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
TOTAL
$ 44,554.00
$ 44,554.00
Agenda Item No. 24. Appointments.
Mr. Tucker recommended that Dr. Juliet Jennings be appointed as the
Director of Human Resources, effective September 1, 1994.
Mr. Bowerman made motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to appoint Dr.
Juliet Jennings as the Director of Human Resources, effective September 1,
1994. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr.
Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Martin made motion to appoint Ms. Janice Frye to the Albemarle
County Housing Committee, with term to expire December 31, 1996.
Mrs. Thomas made motion to reappoint Mr. Andrew Middleditch and Mr. G.
David Emmitt, and to appoint Mr. Daniel Montgomery to the Public Recreational
Facilities Authority, with terms to expire December 13, 1997.
Mr. Bowerman made motion to appoint Mr. Richard E. Huff, II, to the TJ
Emergency Medical Services Council, with term to expire December 31, 1997.
Mrs. Humphris made motion to reappoint Ms. Lisa Keyes Glass to the
Jordan Development Corporation, with term to expire August 13, 1995.
Mr. Marshall seconded all of the above appointments and reappointments.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr.
Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 25. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Martin said he has been appointed by Governor George Allen to
represent this region on the Regional Economic Development Council.
Mrs. Humphris said the VACo newsletter asks for input from localities on
problems of the Comprehensive Services Act be forwarded to the Health and
Human Services Committee. She asked if this has been done. Mr. Tucker said
he will find out.
August 3, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 36
0000 36
Mrs. Humphris said she was contacted by someone from one of the newspa-
pers to answer questions on the survey questionnaire for the Comprehensive
Plan. She was concerned about this because this questionnaire was to be used
as a decision-making tool at a later date. She asked if this Board saw and
approved the final draft of the questionnaire.
Mr. Martin said he recalls that the Board was not going to approve the
final questionnaire because of time constraints. TheBoard made suggestions
and left it to the professionals to determine whether any of the suggestions
were to be implemented into the questionnaire.
Mrs. Humphris then expressed concerns that the media had obtained a copy
of the questionnaire when the Board had not received a copy.
Agenda Item No. 26. Adjourn to August 10, 1994, 6:00 p.m., for Joint
Meeting with School Board.
At 4:57 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, to adjourn to August 10, 1994, 6:00 p.m., for Joint Meeting with
School Board. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr.
Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Chairman