HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-02November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~[.'7~
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on November 2, 1994, at 9:00 A.M., Room 7, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Mumphris, Messrs.
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin, Walter F. Perkins and Mrs.
Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:02 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 the Agenda from the
Public. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation: Certificates of Appreciation.
A certificate of appreciation was presented to Lieut. James L. Higgins,
Jr. upon his retirement from County service on October 31, 1994. He began his
career with the Albemarle County Sheriff's Department in 1961 under Sheriff W.
S. Cook, as a road deputy. In 1969, he was promoted to the rank of investiga-
tor, in 1971 he became lieutenant in charge of criminal investigations, and in
1975 he was promoted to captain supervising criminal investigations. When the
Albemarle County Police Department was created in 1984, he transferred to the
Police as commander of criminal investigations. In 1991 this unit was renamed
Support Services and reorganized to include general investigations, the youth
division, traffic, narcotics, canine, evidence, tactics units, DARE officers,
school resource officers, and animal control. Lieut. Miggins commanded this
unit until his retirement in October after 33 years of service to Albemarle
County law enforcement.
A certificate of appreciation was presented to Dan S. Roosevelt,
Resident Highway Engineer in Albemarle County, Virginia Department of Trans-
portation, for 18 years of service. Mr. Roosevelt has moved on to another
department with VDoT.
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs.
Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the consent agenda as present-
ed. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall
and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Item 6.1. Resolution to Support Location of National D-Day Memorial in
the City of Bedford, Virginia. A letter dated October 3, 1994, was received
from Mr. G. Michael Shelton, Mayor, City of Bedford, requesting the Board's
support for a National D-Day Memorial to be located in the City of Bedford.
He noted that on D-Day, Bedford, Virginia paid an enormous price by losing 23
of its sons, the highest per capita loss of soldiers of any locality in the
United States. A group has been formed in Roanoke, Virginia, known as the
National D-Day Memorial Foundation whose goal is to select a site and con-
struct a monument to the memory and honor of all those who were a part of this
most famous invasion. Bedford City Council and the Bedford County Board of
Supervisors support the location of the Memorial in the City of Bedford and
seek support from other communities in which Companies of the ll6th Infantry,
29th Division, are located.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was
adopted:
RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT LOCATION OF NATIONAL D-DAY MEMORIAL
IN THE CITY OF BEDFORD~ VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, on June 6, 1944, Allied forces embarked on and
carried out the greatest land invasion the world has known~ which
ultimately changed the course of history; and
WHEREAS, in June 1994, on the 50th Anniversary of the D-Day
Invasion, national and international attention centered on Bedford
as the result of its soldiers from Company A, ll6th Infantry, 29th
Division being in the first wave of the Invasion, and Bedford,
Virginia, having the solemn distinction of being the community
that had the highest per capita loss of lives during the Invasion;
and because of this historic event Bedford assisted in changing
the history of the world; and Bedford being located between two
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
major metropolitan areas, Roanoke and Lynchburg, with an excellent
transportation access system and within a one-day drive of fifty
percent of the population of the United States; and
WHEREAS, by and through this distinction Bedford has earned
the right to be the site of the National D-Day Memorial because of
the deep community interest in its history and in this particular
event, and this Memorial will provide a means of continual remem-
brance and ongoing education about D-Day in the world's history
and specifically the role of the ll6th Infantry and Bedford's role
and impact in this event; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Bedford strongly
encourages and supports the location of the National D-Day Memori-
al to be in Bedford and is willing to commit to providing a
significant contribution toward this initiative to be estimated in
excess of $250,000. These contributions are to include the
donation of the site and improvements such as access and parking,
infrastructure to include water, sewer and electric to the site,
as well as rest room facilities. As a means to provide for the
perpetual care and maintenance of the Memorial and improvements,
the City will incorporate the facility into the City's parks and
recreation system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby supports the
location of this memorial in Bedford, Virginia, based upon its
historic significance, its central location of those communities
who are within the 116th Infantry, and the national and worldwide
knowledge of Bedford's role in the D-Day Invasion. It is a suit-
able, logical location for a monument that honors all branches of
the armed forces and specifically those soldiers who were involved
in D-Day.
Item 6.2a. Establishment of a Contribution Fund, $50,000 (Form
$940024).
Staff had noted that on occasion, the County receives offers from
citizens to make contributions to different projects. In most cases, this has
been in the form of equipment. However, if a citizen wishes to donate cash,
it requires that the Board appropriate the funds for a specific purpose. In
the past, citizens have sometimes been asked to pay bills directly to the
vendor. This can create problems in coordinating a project and cause concern
for the donor as to the tax deductibility of the contribution. In order to
show that the donor clearly makes a tax deductible, charitable contribution
and to more efficiently handle donations (which are often relatively small
amounts), the Board is requested to approve an appropriation in the amount of
$50,000 to be offset by an equal amount of estimated revenue. Once this is
done, certain departments will institute programs, through public service
announcements and other media, to encourage citizen contributions for various
projects. An annual report will be made to the Board of Supervisors listing
all receipts and disbursements.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation was adopted setting up a Contribution Fund for Fiscal Year 1994-95.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95
NUMBER: 940024
FUND: CONTRIBUTION
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ESTABLISHMENT OF CONTRIBUTION FUND
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1840590910940050 Contributions Reserve
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
REVENUE
2840518110181109
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Contributions $50,000.00
TOTAL $50,000.00
Item 6.2b. Appropriation: Gypsy Moth, $62,171 (Form $940025). Staff
noted that the Gypsy Moth program was initiated in 1988. A full-time coordi-
nator, one full-time technical aide, 12 part-time surveyors, and the opera-
tional cost of pest management have been funded by Federal grant funds, State
spraying funds, local tax funds, local tax funds and fees from landowners°
The current fee level is $10 per acre of land sprayed. The local share of
$24,121 was approved in the 1994-95 General Fund Budget.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution o~ appro-
priation ($940025) was approved setting up the operating fund for Fiscal Year
1994-95 for the Gypsy Moth program.
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95
NUMBER: 940025
FUND: GYPSY MOTH
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ESTABLISHMENT OF FY 94-95 OPERATING
BUDGET
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1123034010110000
1123034010130000
1123034010160900
1123034010210000
1123034010221000
1123034010231000
1123034010232000
1123034010241000
DESCRIPTION
SALARIES-REGULAR
PART-TIME WAGES
SALARY RESERVE-BONUS
FICA
VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEM
HEALTH INSURANCE
DENTAL INSURANCE
VRS GROUP LIFE INSURANCE
1123034010242000 GROUPLIFE/PART-TIME
1123034010270000 WORKER'S COMPENSATION
1123034010360000 ADVERTISING
1123034010390000 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES
1123034010520100 POSTAL SERVICES
1123034010520300 TELECOMMUNICATIONS
1123034010550100
1123034010550110
1123034010550400
1123034010580100
1123034010600100
1123034010601400
1123034010601700
1123034010800100
1123034010800701
1123034010800710
TRAVEL-MILEAGE
TRAVEL-POOL CAR EXPENSES
TRAVEL-EDUCATION
DUES & MEMBERSHIPS
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OTHER OPERATING SUPPLIES
COPY SUPPLIES
MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT
DATA PROCESSING EQUIP-REPAIRS
DATA PROCESSING-SOFTWARE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$28,253.00
11,031.00
1,129.00
2,230.00
2,441.00
1,540.00
60.00
247.00
80.00
3,410.00
350.00
4,300.00
250.00
900.00
1,500.00
800.00
500.00
50.00
500.OO
2,000.00
200.00
200.00
100.00
100.00
$62,171.00
REVENUE
2123016000160502
2123016000160526
2123018000189913
2123024000240253
2123024000240900
2123033000330001
2123051000512004
DESCRIPTION
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
PRIVATE PROPERTY SPRAYING
MISC LOCAL REVENUE
COOP SUPPRESSION SPRAY (CS)
MISC STATE REVENUE
GRANT REVENUE-FEDERAL
TRANSFER-GENERAL FUND
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$8,500.00
4,000.00
25O.00
1,000.00
300.00
24,000.00
24,121.00
$62,171.00
Item 6.3. Towe Park Colnmittee Charge. Staff noted that The Towe Park
Committee (originally the Rivanna Park Committee), consists of two members of
the Board of Supervisors and two members from City Council. The Committee was
appointed to develop~the original agreement providing the basis by which the
park would be developed and operated. The agreement was signed in 1986 and it
established a staff supervisory committee and outlined its responsibilities,
but the Towe Park Committee was never given a formal set of duties.
After the original agreement was signed in 1986, the Towe Committee
continued to meet and~"~was instrumental in making difficult decisions in
reordering the development plan outlined in the agreement when funding ~or
Phase I and II was insufficient. When the Phase II development was completed,
the Committee did not meet for some time because it did not have a formal
charge which is necessary so that both governing bodies are in agreement on
the authority of the Committee, and so staff is clear on what issues need to
come before the Committee. The Towe Committee directed staff to draft a
charge for review and they then reviewed and approved the following list of
responsibilities for presentation to Board and Council.
TOWE PAI~K COI~4ITTEE
COI~ITTEE CHARGE
1. To deal with new capital development issues such as:
Determine the use of Phase III funding;
Receive input from Staff Supervisory Committee on new devel-
opment beyond Phase III and establish priority and funding
Schedule recommendation for inclusion in the Capital Im-
provement Program (CIP) of both localities;
Determine the use of funds budgeted for future new develop-
ment and reorder priorities as necessary when construction
bids are received;
Resolve any differences on policy issues between the governing
bodies as they may pertain to the Park;
3. Provide direction to the Staff Supervisory Committee as requested;
40
Meet as directed by Board or Council to resolve issues, make
recommendations, etc.~
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 000178
(Page 4)
5. Make recommendatiOns to the g0~e~ning bodies for alterations to
the City/County agreement·
By the recorded vote set out above, the charge for the Towe Committee
was approved as presented.
Item 6.4. Vacation of right-of-way of public road (Raleigh Mountain
Trail) in Colston Subdivision. It was noted that the plat for Colston showing
Raleigh Mountain Trail was approved on April 29, 1986. During construction of
the road, the actual location of the road deviated from the approved right-of-
way location. The road has been built and the design is acceptable. The
property owners along the road have agreed to the change. A subdivision plat
for the vacation has been approved. This vacation/dedication is to permit
acceptance of the road into the state system.'
By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was authorized
to sign the necessary documents to complete the vacation of unneeded right-of-
way in Colston Subdivision.
Item 6.5. Amended resolution to accept roads in Forest Lakes Phase II
into the State Secondary System.
As requested by the County's Engineering Department, the following
resolution was adopted by the vote set out above
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Forest Lakes Phase II described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 2, 1994, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Forest Lakes Phase II as described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 2, 1994' to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease-
ments for cuts; fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
***
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Cross Timbers Road from edge of pavement of State
Route 1720 0.51 mi. to edge of pavement of State Route
1720, recorded 11/22/89 in Deed Book 1077, pages 333-
349, with a 60 foot right-of-way, total length, 0.51
mi.;
Edgewater Drive from edge of pavement of Cross Timbers
Road 0.09 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 10/14/88
in Deed Book 1018, pages 403-416, with a 50 foot
right-of-way, total length, 0.09 mi.
Malbon Drive from edge of pavement of Cross Timbers
Road 0.16 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 10/25/89
in Deed Book 1072, pages 663-673, with a 50 foot
right-of-way, total length 0.16 mi. Additional drain-
age easement recorded in Deed Book 1316~ pages 89-90;
Baron Court from edge of pavement of Malbon Drive 0.05
mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 10/25/89 in Deed
Book 1072, pages 663-673, with a 50 foot right-of-way,
total length 0.05 mi;
Becker Lane from edge of pavement of Malbon Drive 0.06
mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 10/25/89 in Deed
Book 1072, pages 663-673, with a 50 foot right-of-way,
total length 0.06 mi;
Heather Glen Road from edge of pavement of Cross Tim-
bers Road 0.14 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day M~eting)
(Page 5)
000 .79
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
11/22/89 in Deed Book 1077, pages 333-349, with a 50
foot right-of-way, additional sight easement recorded
in Deed Book 1437, pages 337-342, total length 0.14
mi;
Locke Lane from edge of pavement of Heather Glen Road
0.14 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 11/22/89 in
Deed Book 1077, pages 333-349~ with a 50 foot right-
of-way, additional sight easement recorded in Deed
Book 1437, pages 337-342, total length 0.14 mi;
Whispering Woods Drive from edge of pavement of Cross
Timbers Road 0.18 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded
11/22/89 in Deed Book 1077, pages 333-349, with a 50
foot right-of-way, total length 0.18 mi;
Tavernor Lane from edge of pavement of Whispering
Woods Drive 0.09 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded
11/22/89 in Deed Book 1077, pages 333-349, with a 50
foot right-of-way, total length 0.09 mi;
Highland Ridge Road from edge of pavement of Cross
Timbers Road 0.18 mi. to edge of pavement of Water-
crest Drive, recorded 9/5/90 in Deed Book 1118, pages
120-138, with a 50 foot right-of-way, additional sight
easement recorded in Deed Book 1432, pages 568-569,
total length 0.18 mi;
Poplar Ridge Road from edge of pavement of Highland
Ridge Road 0.07 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded
11/22/89 in Deed Book 1077, pages 335-349, with a 50
foot right-of-way, total length 0.07 mi;
Linlier Court from edge of pavement of Poplar Ridge
Road 0.03 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 11/22/89
in Deed Book 1077, pages 335-349, with a 50 foot
right-of-way, total length 0.03 mi;
Autumn Woods Drive from edge of pavement of Highland
Ridge Road 0.07 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded
9/5/90 in Deed Book 1118, pages 120-138, with a 50
foot right-of-way, total length 0.07 mi;
Acorn Hill Court from edge of pavement of Autumn Woods
Drive 0.05 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 9/5/90
in Deed Book 1118, pages 120-138, with a 50 foot
right-of-way~ total length 0.05 mi;
Ridgefield Road from edge of pavement of Highland
Ridge Road 0.10 mi. to end of cul-de-sac~ recorded
9/5/90 in Deed Book 1118, pages 120-138, with a 50
foot right-of-way, total length 0.10 mi;
Mollifield Lane from edge of pavement of Ridgefield
Road 0.23 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 9/5/90 in
Deed Book 1118, pages 120-138, with a 50 foot right-
of C~ay, total length 0.23 mi;
Winterfield Circle from edge of pavement of Mollifield
Lane 0.05 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 9/5/90 in
Deed Book 1118, pages 120-138, with a 50 foot right-
of-way, total length 0.05 mi;
Summerfield Court from edge of pavement of Mollifield
Lane 0.06 mi. to end of cul-de-sac~ recorded 9/5/90 in
Deed Book 1118, pages 120-138, with a 50 foot right-
of-way, total length 0.06 mi;
Watercrest Drive from edge of pavement of Cross Tim-
bers Road 0.27 mi. to Station 14+15, recorded 9/5/90
in Deed Book 1118, pages 120-138, with a 60 foot
right-of-way, total length 0.27 mi;
Watercrest Drive from Station 14+15 0.11 mi. to end of
cul-de-sac, recorded 9/5/90 in Deed Book 1118, pages
120-138, with a 50 foot right-of-way, total length
0.11 mi;
Copper Knoll Road from edge of pavement of Watercrest
Drive 0.16 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 9/5/90
in Deed Book 1118, pages 120-138, with a 50 foot
right-of-way, total length 0.16 mi~
Echo Ridge Road from edge of pavement of Watercrest
Drive 0.07 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 9/5/90
in Deed Book 1118, pages 120-138, with a 50 foot
right-of-way, total length 0.07 mi;
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
000 $0
23)
Waterford Way from edge of pavement of Watercrest
Drive 0.05 mi. to edge of pavement of Clear Springs
Court, recorded 9/5/90 in Deed Book 1118, pages 120-
138, with a 50 foot right-of-way, total length 0.05
mi;
24)
Clear Springs Court from end of cul-de-sac 0.10 mi. to
end of cul-de-sac, recorded 9/5/90 in Deed Book 1118,
pages 120-138, with a 50 foot right-of-way, total
length 0.10 mi;
25)
Timber Pointe Road from edge of pavement of Timber
Wood Parkway 0.21 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded
5/3/91 in Deed Book 1151, pages 710-716, with a 50
foot right-of-way, additional drainage easement re-
corded in Deed Book 1437,'pages 343-346, total length
0.21 mi;
Total mileage 3.23.
Item 6.6. Resolution to accept Raleigh Mountain Trail in Colston
Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
As requested by the County's Engineering Department, the following
resolution was adopted by the vote set out above:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Colston described on the attached
Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 2, 1994, fully incorporated
herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Colston as described on the attached
Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 2, 1994, to the secondary
system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia,
and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease-
ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER ~SOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transport at ion.
* * *
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
1. Raleigh Mountain Trail from the edge of pavement of
State Route 708 0.35 mile to the end of the cul-de-
sac, as shown on plat recorded 5-2-86 in Deed Book
876, page 514-516 with a 50 foot right-of-way; addi-
tional right-of-way shown on plat recorded in Deed
Book 1439, pages 724-744, total length 0.35 mi.
Item 6.7. Resolution to accept roads in Highlands in Mechums River 2A
Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
As requested by the County's Engineering Department, the following
resolution was adopted by the vote set out above:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Highlands at Mechums River 2A
described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 2,
1994, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Highlands at Mechums River 2A as
described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 2~
O001$1
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
1994, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to
§33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision
Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease-
ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
Mechums River Road from the edge of pavement to State
Route 1240, 0.10 mile to end of pavement, as shown on
plat recorded 6-23-93 in Deed Book 1319, pages 134-
143, with a 50 foot right-of-way, total length 0.10
mi.
Amber Ridge Court from edge of pavement of Amber Ridge
Road 0.05 mile to end of cul-de-sac, as shown on plat
recorded 6-23-93 in Deed Book 1319, pages 134-143~
with a 50 foot right-of-way, total length 0.05 mi.
Amber Ridge Road from edge of pavement of Mechums
River Road, 0.38 mile to end of cul-de-sac, as shown
on plat recorded 6-23-93 in Deed Book 1319, pages 134-
143, with a 50 foot right-of-way, total length 0.38
mi.
Total miles - 0.53
Item 6.8. Resolution to accept Homestead Lane in Burruss Branch
Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
As requested by Mr. Brian P. Smith of Gloeckner, Smith, Coleman, Inc.
for Mr. George Logan, the following resolution was adopted by the vote set out
above:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Burruss Branch described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 2, 199&, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County~
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Burruss Branch as described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 2, 1994, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease-
ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
Homestead Lane from the edge of pavement of State
Route 601 0.70 mile to end of cul-de-sac, as shown on
plat recorded 10-5-89 in Deed Book 1070, pages 331-
338, with a 50 foot right-of-way, additional drainage
easement in Deed Book 1432v pages 664-670~ total
length 0.70 mi.
Item 6.9. Letter dated October 20, 1994, addressed to Ms. Ella W.
Carey, Clerk, was received from Mr. J. H. Shifflett, Jr., Maintenance Opera-
tions Manager, Department of Transportation, providing notice that necessary
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~82
(Page 8)
repairs to Route 616, CSX Bridge, have been completed and the road is now
open.
Item 6.10. Copy of letter dated October 24, 1994, from Ms. A. G.
Tucker, Assistant Resident Engineer, addressed to Mr. Mark E. Keller, McKee/
Carson, re: maintenance responsibility for Route 782, was received for
information.
Item 6.11. Copy of letter dated October 17, 1994, from Dr. Carole A.
Hastings, Acting Superintendent, addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
County Executive, expressing appreciation for the assistance provided by local
government staff to the School Division in fiscal matters, was received for
information. Mr. Marshall said he is glad to see this letter. It shows that
there is good cooperation between general government and the school system
which is something he had hoped for while he was a member of the School Board.
Item 6.12. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apartments) Bond
Program Report and Monthly Report for the month of September, 1994, received
for information.
Item 6.13. Notice of application filed with the State Corporation
Commission by Appalachian Power Company giving notice that it wants to revise
its fuel factor pursuant to Code § 56-249.6, was received as information.
Item 6.14. Notice of application filed with the State Corporation
Commission by Appalachian Power Company giving notice of application for a
decrease in electric rates, received as information.
Item 6.15. Copy of draft strategic plan Toward A New Reality from the
Virginia Cooperative Extension was received for information.
Mrs. Humphris said VPI-SU Extension is asking for comments from the
Board, but she did not understand all of the study. She asked if the other
Board members would consider support for 4-H and the youth programs. These
are particularly important programs for both urban and rural kids.
Mr. Tucker said the Board will soon receive a request from the Extension
Service asking support of funding from the state or, that at least, funding
for 4-M and other programs, be maintained. The Board will be invited to meet
with the Extension Service and the legislators for a breakfast in early
December. What has been distributed today is a strategic plan for the entire
Cooperative Extension that they wanted to share. He said he had handed out
today information showing the specifics of where their shortfalls are and the
reductions they had in their budget this past year. Mrs. Humphris said she
hopes that in the interest of efficiency and economy we do not strip away
items that are essential to our well-being. Mr. Tucker said Virginia is
falling behind other states in its support of the Cooperative Extension
Programs.
Mrs. Thomas said this reflects what is happening in higher education,
and they are regarded~'as a piece of higher education. She noticed that they
are putting an emphasis on career development and she thinks they should be
commended for that. They seem to want to provide non-duplicating services and
that is something this Board should support. Later today, the Board will hear
from David Hirschman, Water Resources Offices, about an important public
water/private well water program they are planning for later this year. It
may be a program this Board should encourage them to do.
Mr. Tucker said he sympathizes with what is happening to them, but Mr.
Goodman said he believes the local legislators are very supportive of coopera-
tive extension, and will support their funding needs. What Mr. Tucker senses,
just as with the constitutional officers, is that the state is pushing this
type of program down to the local level, and the Board will have to decide if
it wants to start providing local funding for these positions.
Item 6.16. September 1994 Financial Report. Mrs. Thomas asked why the
County is getting less from the State. Mr. Tucker said he does not believe
that revenues have been received yet. As far as he knows, there is nothing to
indicate there will be less revenues than projected.
Item 6.17. Copy of the Albemarle County Service Authority's Comprehen-
sive Annual Financial Report For the Year Ended June 30, 1994, was received
for information.
Item 6.18. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for October 4, 1994~ was
received for information.
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~8~
(Page 9) ~
Item 6.19. Letter dated October 26, 1994, from Ms. A. G. Tucker,
Assistant Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, re: spot improve-
ments on Route 712, was received. She noted that this project was approved by
the Board on February 2, 1994, and the Highway Department has since attempted
to acquire the necessary right-of-way and easements to improve sight distance
and drainage, but the property owners are unwilling to donate. Of the
property owners contacted, one refused to donate right-of-way or easements
unless the entire section of Route 712 was reconstructed. Another property
owner refused to donate under any circumstances and a third property owner did
not respond at all. She noted that the Highway Department is no longer
pursuing the donation of right-of-way to make these improvements since it
appears unlikely that the right-of-way will be donated.
Item 6.20. Copy of letter dated October 19, 1994, from Ms. Christy
Vines, Acting Education Coordinator, Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, to Ms. Jo
Higgins, Department of Engineering, expressing appreciation for help with the
"Great State Trash Off" project, was received as information.
Item 6.21. Letter dated October 31, 1994, from Ms. A. G. Tucker,
Assistant Resident Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, providing monthly
update on highway improvement projects currently under construction, received
as follows:
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
NOVEMBER 1¢ 1994
20 FROH 3.4 MI S RT 53
TO ~.8 MI S RT 53 CONSTRUCTION 80~ COMPLETE NOV 94
29 FROH HYDRAULIC ROAD
TO NORTH OF RIO ROAD COHSTRUCTION 40% COHPLETE DEC 95
691 TABOR ST (CROZET) INT
ROUTE 240 & INT HIGH STREET CONSTRUCTION CO#PLETE
* REVISED DATE
** NEW PROJECT
Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes: September 16(A), October 15(A),
and December Ii(A), 1992; August 11, 1993; March 24(A), July 13, September 21,
October 5,October 10(A), October 12, and October 24(A), 1994.
Mr. Perkins had read October 10(A), October 12 and October 24(A), 1994,
and found them to be~in order.
Mr. Marshall had read August 11, 1993, and said that to the best of his
recollection, they were correct.
Mr. Bowerman had read October 5, 1994, and found one typographical
error°
Mr. Martin had read September 16(A), 1992, and found them to be in
order.
Mrs. Thomas had read July 13, 1994, and found them to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris had read December ii(A), 1992, which were in order. She
had also read March 24(A), 1994, and turned in a list of typographical errors.
~otion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve
the minutes which had been read, as corrected. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall
and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8a. Other Transportation Matters. Ms. Angela Tucker,
Acting Resident Engineer, was present.
Mrs. Tucker mentioned the location of three traffic signal matters. At
the intersection of Route 250 West and Route 677 at the Ivy Nursery signal
warrants have not been met, but a flasher will be installed at that location
next spring. The flasher will be installed on full mast arms in anticipation
of a signal being installed at a later date.
000 .84
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mrs. Tucker then mentioned Routes 635/240/250 where there is now a
flasher. The intersection now warrants a full signal which will be installed
next spring.
Another location is Rio Road at Penn Park. That location does not meet
all signal warrants at this time, but it will continue to be monitored. There
seems to be a problem with the right-hand turn out of Penn Park, and VDoT
wants to install a right-turn acceleration lane up to the first entrance into
Dunlora.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned a problem where Owensville Road comes into Route
250 and the commercial area in Ivyo She said there have been some serious
accidents in that area, and this Board decided not to undertake a major change
of Owensville Road. This Board has discussed what type of funds can be used
to effect the improvement. People in the area assume there will be some type
of light put in, and she thinks they will be amazed to see a light go up at
Route 677 and not in this area. She receives letters all the time suggesting
that, at the least, the speed in Ivy be slowed down. There were counters out
on October 26 and people assumed they were VDoT counters.
Mrs. Tucker said a signal analysis was performed at that location and a
signal is not warranted at this time. A review of recent accident data shows
that accidents have actually decreased. In 1990, there three~ in 1991 there
were seven; in 1992 there were two; in 1993 there were zero; and so far in
1994 there has been one.
Mrs. Tucker said that since 1980, VDot has looked at different things in
an effort to "clean up" the "Y" intersection from Route 678 into Route 250e
At this time, each leg of the "Y" intersection receives two-way traffic. VDoT
is going to place signs on one leg so it becomes just a slip ramp onto Route
250 only. As a short-term improvement, signing will be enhanced and the
pavement marked to help traffic focus. VDoT will continue to work with the
County on a solution to the overall problem. At one time, Route 678 was in
the Secondary Road Improvement Plan, but VDoT is now looking into Primary
funding for improvements to Route 250. In the interim, the pavement marking
changes and signing improvements will be made this fall and winter.
Mr. Tucker asked for the warrants used for installation of flashers.
Mrs. Tucker said she did not know, but could get that information. Mr. Tucker
said it might help during this proposed change in routing to have a flasher
installed so people would be aware of the change. He suspects that a lot of
people do not know that they are making an illegal move.
Mrs. Thomas asked about Route 718. She said a citizen asking for
additional gravel on this road was referred to her from VDoT. She asked for
information from VDoT as to what people are told in reply to questions of this
sort, and a report on what is happening on Route 718. Mrs. Tucker said
additional gravel is a pure maintenance problem that can be handled by VDoT.
Unless the pers6n had asked for paving an additional width of roadway, there
is no reason for the call to have been referred to Mrs. Thomas.
Mrs. Tucker mentioned the question of abandoning Route 782 (see Item
6.10 on the consent agenda). She said UREF is interested in abandoning this
road. She has sche~6~ed a meeting in her office on November 14, 1994, at
10:00 A.M. to discuss the request. She hopes to have information available at
that time as to where the abandonment would be terminated~
Mrs. Thomas said this came about through the illegal trash dumping
committee. The road has essentially become a trash dump, and also all terrain
vehicles are going up and down eating away the banks and undermining UREF
property. The letter implied that a repair would be done on the road. She
wondered about doing that when the road may be abandoned. Mrs. Tucker said
VDoT will provide ordinary maintenance for the road.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that at the time the rezoning for the Fontaine
Avenue Research Park occurred it was mentioned that Route 782 would probably
need to be abandoned in the future.
Mr. Perkins asked if the Highway Department is studying the Bellair/
Route 250/Route 29 Bypass intersection. He recently talked with Mr. Carter
Meyers who suggested that some of the barricades be removed. He asked that
the Board be kept informed of anything going on at this intersection.
Mr. Perkins said he understands the improvement at the intersection of
Route 712 at Keene cannot be improved because the property owners will not
dedicate the right-of-way. Mrs. Tucker said that is correct. Funds had been
allocated for spot improvements, in lieu of long-term improvements to that
road. The property owners have refused to give right-of-way and easements at
this time in the hope of keeping the full improvements in the Six-Year Plan.
Mrs. Thomas said she warned people that if North Garden is removed as a
village from the Comprehensive Plan, their standing in the Six-Year Plan by
this Board's policy and priorities, will fall drastically. These people are
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 00018~
(Page 11)
willing to gamble that they Will remain a.Village and get full paVing. They
are afraid that if they accept the spot improvements, the more extensive
project will be dropped down on the priority list.
Mr. Perkins asked about the improvements at the intersection of Route
713/712. Mrs. Tucker said work on this project just past the Highway Depart-
ment's Keene Headquarters in conjunction with the Kluge farm entrance, is
proceeding.
Mr. Perkins said that Mr. Tom Jenkins, a member of the Planhing Commis-
sion, mentioned a minor maintenance item to him. At the intersection of Route
811 with Beaver Creek Road, the culvert becomes closed off with debris after
storms° This causes water to run across the road. Me thinks this is some-
thing that should be checked after storms all over the COUnty. Mr° Perkins
suggested that Highway maintenance people be reminded of this.
Mrs. Thomas asked about the "rumble" strips on Route 250. Mrs. Tucker
said in reference to the Bellair situation, yesterday and today, the pavement
will be cut prior to installation of "rumble" strips in order to alert drivers
to potential backups under the railroad overpass just prior to the Bellair
Exxon and the Bellair entrance. This should allow the section between St.
Anne's/Belfield and Route 601 to be opened again. After it has been deter-
mined if all are satisfied with this change, VDoT will make a permanent
modification and remove all of the barricades. Modifications will need to be
made to the slip ramp on the other side of the railroad underpass at Route
250/Bellair where no left turn is allowed. The concrete island may need to be
reset or pavement removed. It will probably be another month before this is
finalized.
Mrs. Thomas said this is an example of politics getting involved in
highway design, and no one has been happy with it. About fifteen months ago,
the people living in the immediate area got the ear of a candidate for office
who proceeded to go over the local highway office to a higher level in the
Highway Department. The change did not turn out to be satisfactory from an
engineering standpoint. Now, that change is being redesigned. Mrs. Thomas
said she appreciates the patience of the Highway Department in the face of
what has been a great deal of conflicting neighborhood and political pressure.
Mr. Marshall thanked the Highway Department for fixing the shoulders of
the road at the intersection of Avon Street with Route 20 South. He said it
is a big improvement.
Mr. Marshall said he would need to meet with Mrs. Tucker and residents
in Marshall Manor to discuss the improvements where a temporary road was put
in and trees were removed. Mrs. Tucker said VDoT will restore some trees in
the area between now~and the end of the year, if possible.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned a letter dated October 17, 1994, she had
received from Mr. Robert A. Garland, Jr., Secretary for the Board of the
Canterbury Hills Association regarding the revised southern end of Alternative
10 of the Route 29 Bypass. Mrs. Humphris said there was a letter received
from the same group in February, 1994, when they called the Board's attention
to the new proposal which would cause a number of homes to be either taken or
affected. The Association had "opposed relocating this interchange from the
approved Alternative 10 route and made suggestions for modifying this design
to lessen the impact on our neighborhood." They had recommended that the road
be moved further onto University property since the North Grounds connector
and other things there had to do with so-called improvements that would
benefit the University.
Mrs. Humphris said that on October 21, 1990, when she first heard the
recommendation of the Commonwealth Transportation Board about a bypass and
heard that it contained a recommendation for a North Grounds connector, she
sent a letter to Secretary of Transportation John Milliken, to all members of
the CTB, to Mr. John Casteen, to Mr. Jack Haas, and to Mr. Leonard Sandridge
about this. The pertinent part of her letter is: "While I am most certainly
in favor of the exploration of this possibility, I believe that it is prema-
ture for such a proposal to be before you for your final approval. Such a
North Grounds access was not a part of the consultant's study of the Route 29
North corridor. No plan has been made available to show the public how this
access might be achieved. Since it is possible that such an access facility
might have harmful impacts on the Canterbury Hills neighborhood and/or the St.
Anne's/Belfield campus, I ask that the Board's approval for this recommenda-
tion be delayed until such time as the staff provides a design to which the
public has an opportunity to respond."
Mrs. Humphris said she sent this letter by Federal Express to every one
mentioned above, never had an acknowledgment, nor a reply from anyone of those
20+ people, and now, four years later~ that neighborhood and that school are
being faced with a change in design for a road which has been approved without
any part of the puzzle being studied by the consultants. What they are
looking at is an overpass and an interchange between Canterbury Hills and St.
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) O'_____~,OO~
(Page 12) '
Anne's/Belfield, with a road going over that will be 30 to 40 feet high over
the bypass. This will have an incredible impact on the neighborhood and on
the school.
Mrs. Humphris said when she brought this up some months ago, she thought
the Board had agreed that the Neighborhood Association would be given a seat
on the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Bypass since they were not involved
when the committee was originally set up. This is the only way the Associa-
tion will have any say about the impact on their neighborhood.
Mr. Tucker said the County did not appoint that committee, he thought
the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) was to do it. Mrs. Humphris said
the MPO could, but the request should come from this Board. Mr. Cilimberg
said there has only been one meeting of that committee since the original
discussion.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to request
that the MPO appoint someone from Canterbury Hills to this committee. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mro Marshall
and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Wilson Cropp of 769 Rocky Hollow Road was present again to make a
plea that the road be improved. He said there is only one place on the road
where cars can pass, and that is in a section where a subdivision was built
and the developer required to widen out the road. He said the residents
complain continuously. The Highway Department comes out and puts on gravel,
and then the next time it rains, all the gravel ends up in the creek. He,
personally, believes the Highway Department could work within the existing
boundary of the road and fix it.
Mr. Martin said Mr. Cropp was present to make this request a year or so
ago, and he understands that there are two property owners who will not give
the right-of-way. Mr. Cropp said that is right. They do not want the
character of the area to change, but there are at least 50 property owners
beyond that point° Mr. Cropp said that he has put in culverts before and
knows that he could fix this road. Mr. Tucker said VDoT has standards they
have to meet when doing road construction. Mr. Cropp said if he thought long
enough he, too, could think of a reason to do nothing.
Mr. Perkins said he thought improvements had been made to the road. Mr.
Martin said the Board definitely signed off on a list of improvements for the
road. Mr. Perkins suggested that Mr. Cropp talk with Mr. Martin and Mrs.
Tucker again about what might be done.
Mrs. Thomas said it had been suggested to her that Virginia do what
Connecticut has done, that is, not to pave the first 100 yards or so of the
road, and then pave ~he rest. That way, someone looking for a road to speed
down would be faced with a gravel road. The residents would have what is
essentially a speed bump, and have a nice road that does not create a lot of
traffic.
Agenda Item No]~9. Work Session: Ivy Road Design Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said PACC authorized a study of the Ivy Road corridor from
Emmet Street out to the Route 250 Bypass. That occurred over a years period
of time, and was completed this year. There were several public meetings and
presentations involving the City, the County, the University, VDoT people from
both Culpeper and Richmond and resulted in the study presented today. Mr.
Cilimberg said Ivy Road (Route 250 West) is a "front door" to Charlottesville,
Albemarle County and the University of Virginia. As such, its appearance is
second only in importance to its safety. The study makes recommendations
regarding both° The proposed design elements within this study must have a
strong relationship in scale, texture and sensibility to those elements
cherished in each community. As one of the primary entrances to the City, the
County, and the University, Ivy Road's appearance and its function is a strong
determinant of the general public's perception of the area.
The Ivy Road corridor falls under the jurisdiction of the City, the
County, and the University. Ivy Road is flanked by a number of small busi-
nesses that offer a range of services. It is an area with significant
University property, and has an adjacent residential neighborhood that
continually monitors activities occurring in and proposed for the area.
The proposed design is to make Ivy Road a beautiful, welcoming place,
easy to walk, bike, shop and move through. This study presents both a long-
term strategy (Proposed Long-Term Plan) and an interim strategy to achieve the
proposed design. The long-term strategy is tied to the improvements called
for in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study. In the Proposed
Long-term Plan, Ivy Road is to be four lanes from the 29/250 Bypass to Emmet
Street, with separate bike lanes and a raised planted median, continuous
sidewalks, landscape planting, lighting, relocated utility wires, sign
guidelines, benches, and trash cans. Shared parking lots, entrances and exits
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) O001~7
will have to be installed and will require the creation and review of appro-
priate agreements.
In the near future, identified as the interim strategy in the document,
Ivy Road will accommodate a shared bike/car lane, continuous sidewalks, and
landscape planting. The interim improvements will require some pavement
widening in portions of Ivy Road and restriping of the roadway.
Mr. Cilimberg said this is a Technical Manual to be used in conjunction
with a set of plans for the Ivy Road improvements. The document is intended
to be used by the County, the City, the University, developers, civic organi-
zations, private landowners, churches and other interested parties for
projects both within the rights-of-way and on private property.
Mr. Cilimberg said there will be a short-term strategy to add bike lanes
only to Ivy Road by widening the pavement until the long-term project is
undertaken. This would happen as part of the VDoT Primary Plan in the County,
and the Urban Plan in the City. Both the City and the County requested this
project, but it is not in the Six-Year Plan at this time. In some sections,
there is sufficient right-of-way to do the project, while in other sections
there will have to be acquisition of property. The County Planning Commission
endorsed the Plan as a document to follow for both short-term and long-term
planning, and suggested that staff look at the lighting scheme proposed to be
sure it is sensitive to the area and is not overwhelming. Second, they asked
that utilities be placed underground, if at all possible.
Mr. Tucker said PACC reviewed this document last week and they support
the bike lane improvements. The study shows the bike lanes for FY '98. Since
that meeting he has discussed with City staff and they intend to try for ISTEA
enhancement money for these bike lanes, which is a 80/20 share of funding (20
percent local). They feel there may be an opportunity to get the some funds
in the next fiscal year. If the Board has no objection, staff will file an
application this year, and hope to get money by FY '96.
(Note: Mr. Marshall left the room at 10:10 A.M.)
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to accept
the "Ivy Road Design Study" Final Recommendations 9/94, Prepared by Lardner/
Klein Landscape Architects, P.C. with Deleuw Cather & Company of Virginia for
the University of Virginia, the City of Charlottesville, and Albemarle County,
for planning purposes. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mro Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall
Mr. Martin asked how this study came about. Mr. Cilimberg said it was a
recommendation of the Planning and Coordination Council Technical Committee a
couple of years ago. The participants in the PACC funded the study equally.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it was not a part of the "Area B - Lewis Mountain"
study. Mr. Cilimberg said yes, and that lead to this study°
Mr. Martin asked how one would initiate a similar study for the Pantops
area. Mr. Cilimberg said the County has the neighborhood study for that area.
Such a study would be for this Board to initiate, it would not need to go
through the PACC. It is not an area identified in the Three-Party Agreement
for study. Mr. Tucker said it might be helpful if Ms. Marcia Joseph brought
the Board up-to-date on December 7, 1994, to what has been planned for Route
250 East because the County did get some grants for landscaping. Also, Mr.
Cilimberg did not know if the neighborhood study which has been endorsed for
the area by the Planning Commission has been seen by this Board. Mr. Tucker
suggested it be looked at in December.
(Note: Mr. Marshall returned to the meeting at 10:15 A.M.)
Agenda Item no. 10. Discussion: Right-to-Farm Legislation.
Mr. Cilimberg said the General Assembly, during the 1994 Session,
enacted two different bills to amend sections of the Code of Virginia; the
first relating to right-to-farm legislation (§§ 3.1-22.28 and 3.1-22.29), and
the second relating to permitted provisions in zoning ordinances (S 15.1-491).
Together, the amendments are generally referred to as the new right-to-farm
legislation.
The effects of the amendments are that:
1)
The County can no longer require a special use permit for any
production agriculture or silviculture activity (such as a hog
farm) in an area zoned for agriculture. "Production agriculture
or silviculture" does not include activities related to the
processing of agricultural or silvicultural products (such as
custom slaughterhouses or sawmills) or the above ground applica-
tion or storage of sewage sludge. Therefore, uses which fall
000188
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
under these two categories can still be regulated by special use
permit.
2) The Zoning Ordinance cannot unreasonably restrict or regulate farm
structures, or farming and forestry practices, in an area zoned
for agriculture unless the restrictions are related to the health,
safety and welfare of citizens.
3) The County may adopt reasonable setback, minimum area and other
requirements that apply to agriculturally-zoned land on which
agricultural and silvicultural activity is occurring.
4) The amendments become effective April 1, 1995.
The County's Zoning Ordinance currently allows by right in the Rural
Areas (RA) DiStrict, "Agriculture, forestry, and fishing uses except as
otherwise expressly provided." The only type of production agriculture which
currently requires a special use permit in the RA District is a hog farm. All
other production uses are permitted by right as noted. Therefore, the only
zoning change the County is required to accomplish by April 1, 1995, under the
new legislation, is to remove hog farms from the special use permit category
in the RA zoning district. (Note: Hog farms also currently require a special
use permit in the Village Residential (VR) zoning district; this will still be
permitted because VR is not an agricultural zone.) If the County chooses to
regulate hog farms once they are a by-right use, it may do so by amending the
Zoning Ordinance to include supplementary regulations for hog farms (no such
supplementary regulations currently exist).
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board appointed an Agricultural and Forestal
Industries Support Committee to find ways for the County to encourage agricul-
tural and forestal activities in the County. Pertinent recommendations of
that committee are: County policies and regulations should support agricul-
tural/forestal interests; existing regulations are sufficient to ensure good
forestry practices; the Board should follow the Comprehensive Plan when making
decisions; and, County policies should support the farmer regarding nuisance
conflicts in the Rural Areas.
Mr. Cilimberg said if supplementary regulations are adopted, they should
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Current policy supports concern
for water quality, but not nuisance issues. The types of uses to be regulated
must be defined, possibly by the number of animal units per acre. Also,
existing DEQ regulations need to be reviewed to avoid redundancy.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommends that: 1) The Zoning Ordinance
should be amended prior to April 1, 1995, to remove hog farms from the special
use permit category in the RA zoning district; and, 2) Continue to research
possible supplementary regulations for hog farms and for other intensive
livestock operations. Also, consider such regulations as part of the Compre-
hensive Plan review, and make further recommendations to the Board of Supervi-
sors as part of that process.
Mrs. Humphris asked what happens if the Ordinance is amended by April,
1995, to remove hog farms, and there are no supplementary regulations ready by
that time. Mr. Davis said the April 1, 1995, date does not restrict the Board
from adopting supplementary regulations in the future.
Mrs. Humphris said she believes agricultural areas should be used for
such purposes, and residential uses should not infringe on what they have a
right to do.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to support
the recommendations in the staff's report, to-wit:
The .Zoning Ordinance should be amended prior to April 1, 1995, to
remove hog farms from the special use permit category in the RA
zoning district. (Mr. Davis said a resolution of intent to amend
can be brought back at a later date and placed on the consent
agenda.)
Continue to research possible supplementary regulations for hog
farms and for other intensive livestock operations. Consider such
regulations as part of the comprehensive plan review, and make
further recommendations to the board of supervisors as part of
that process°
Mrs. Thomas said in reference to No. 2, she asked if that will include
looking at how the State Water Control Board regulates certain things. She
understands that large hog operations, particularly if they have a lagoon, are
tightly regulated. She thinks there is already a layer of regulations in
effect that would not have to be added to.
Mr. Davis said there is a water quality permit required by the State for
certain levels of intensity of animal units. He noted that in his research on
this matter, the one issue that is difficult to deal with is smell. If a
large hog farm, or chicken farm, is in operation, smell will be the factor
that is not easily controlled by supplementary regulations. Mr. Marshall said
smells are controllable, you just have to work with it. Mrs. Humphris said
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 000189
(Page 15)
that may be true, if you want to, but there is no legislation that requires it
be done.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall
and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. lla. Public Hearing on An Ordinance to Amend and
Reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article I, In General, of the Code
of Albemarle, in Section 8-1.1, titled "Erroneous assessments". This amend-
ment will conform the County Code with the State Code requirement that an
aggrieved taxpayer must request a correction of a tax assessment within three
years from the last day of the tax year for which such assessment is made.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 10 and OctOber 17, 1994.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the reasons for this ordinance amendment.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to
speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mo%ion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt
An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article I,
In General, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending
Section 8-1.1, Erroneous assessments. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall
and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
(The ordinance, as adop%ed, is set out in full below.)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXA-
TION, ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBE-
MARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxa-
tion, Article I, In General, is hereby amended and reordained by
amending Section 8-1.1, Erroneous assessments, as follows:
Sec. 8-1.1. Erroneous assessments.
(a) The director of finance of the county, after diligent
investigation and upon being satisfied that he has erroneously
assessed a taxpayer with any local levies shall, if the levies
have not been paid, exonerate the taxpayer from payment of so much
thereof as is erroneous, and if such levies have been paid, shall
refund to the taxpayer the amount erroneously paid together with
any penalties and interest paid thereon.
(b) When the director of finance who made the erroneous
assessment has been succeeded by another person, such person shall
have the same authority as the director making the original
erroneous assessment; provided, that he makes diligent investiga-
tion to determine that the original assessment was erroneously
made and certifies thereto to his local governing body.
(c) Any application by an aggrieved taxpayer for correction
of a tax assessment must be made within three (3) years from the
last day of the tax year for which such assessment is made.
(d) Reports itemizing such refunds shall be made to the
board of supervisors on a quarterly basis.
Agenda Item No. 1lb. Public Hearing on An Ordinance to Amend and
Reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article I, In General, of the Code
of Albemarle, by adding a Section 8-1.5 entitled "Payment of administrative
costs and collection fees". This amendment will require a delinquent taxpayer
to pay a fee in addition to all penalties and interest of $20.00 for taxes
collected subsequent to filing a warrant or legal document but prior to
judgment, or a fee of $25.00 for taxes collected subsequent to judgment. In
addition, reasonable attorney's or collection agency's fees not to exceed 20
percent of the delinquent tax bill will be charged. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on October l0 and October 17, 1994.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the reasons for this ordinance amendment.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to
speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris to adopt An
Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article I, In
General, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by adding Section
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16) ·
8-1.5, Payment of administrative costs and collection fees.
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
O00 SO
Roll was.called,
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall
and Mr. Martin.
None.
(The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXA-
TION, ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBE-
MARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxa-
tion, Article I, In General, is hereby amended and reordained by
adding Section 8-1.5, Payment of administrative costs and collec-
tion fees, as follows:
sec. 8-1.5. Payment of administrative costs and collection fees.
Delinquent taxpayers shall pay a fee, as required by this
section, to cover the administrative costs associated with the
collection of delinquent taxes. This fee shall be in addition to
all penalties and interest, and shall be in the amount of twenty
dollars ($20.00) for taxes collected subsequent to filing a
warrant or other appropriate legal document but prior to judgment,
and in the amount of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for taxes
collected subsequent to judgment.
In addition, delinquent taxpayers shall pay reasonable
attorney's or collection agency's fees associated with the collec-
tion of delinquent taxes; provided, however, the amount paid by
the delinquent taxpayer shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of
the delinquent tax bill. Attorney's fees shall be added only if
such delinquent tax is collected by action at law or suit in
equity.
No tax assessment or tax bill shall be deemed delinquent and
subject to the provisions of this section during the pendency of
any administrative appeal under § 58.1-3980 of the Code of virgin-
ia, provided the appeal is filed within ninety (90) days of the
date of the assessment, nor for thirty (30) days after the date of
the final determination of the appeals.
Agenda Item No. llc. Public Hearing on An Ordinance to Amend and
Reordain Chapter 11, Licenses, Article I, In General, of the Code of Albemarle
by adding a Section 11-22.1 entitled "Payment of administrative costs and
collection fees." Provisions of this section are the same as those set out
under #2 above. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 10 and
October 17, 1994.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the reasons for this ordinance amendment.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to
speak, the public hea~ing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt
An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 11, Licenses, Article I, In
General, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by adding Section
11-22.1, Payment of administrative costs and collection fees. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall
and Mr. Martin.
None.
(The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 11, LICENSES, ARTICLE
I, IN GENERAL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 11, Licenses, Article
I, In General, is hereby amended and reordained by adding Section
11-22.1, Payment of administrative costs and collection fees, as
follows:
Sec. 11-22.1. Payment of administrative costs and collection
fees.
Delinquent taxpayers shall pay a fee, as required by this
section, to cover the administrative costs associated with the
collection of delinquent taxes. This fee shall be in addition to
all penalties and interest, and shall be in the amount of twenty
dollars ($20.00) for taxes collected subsequent to filing a
warrant or other appropriate legal document but prior to judgment,
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
and in the amount of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for taxes
collected subsequent to judgment.
In addition, delinquent taxpayers shall pay reasonable
attorney's or collection agency's fees associated with the collec-
tion of delinquent taxes; provided, however, the amount paid by
the delinquent taxpayer shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of
the delinquent tax bill. Attorney's fees shall be added only if
such delinquent tax is collected by action at law or suit in
equity°
No tax assessment or tax bill shall be deemed delinquent and
subject to the provisions of this section during the pendency of
any administrative appeal under § 58.1-3980 of the Code of Virgin-
ia, provided the appeal is filed within ninety (90) days of the
date of the assessment, nor for thirty (30) days after the date of
the final determination of the appeals.
Agenda Item No. lld. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to Amend and
Reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article VI, Utility Tax, of the Code
of Albemarle. This amendment conforms the County Code to the new requirements
of Section 58.1-3812 of the Code of Virginia, adopts the State Code defini-
tions relating to local telecommunications services, including the term local
telephone service; sets both a new utility tax rate for mobile service
customersv and requires a seller of utility services to remit the tax each
month to the county which was collected by it for the preceding month from its
customers. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 10 and October 17,
1994.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the reasons for this ordinance amendment.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to
speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt
An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article
VI, Utility Tax, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia by amending
Section 8-12, Definitions, Section 8-13, Imposed; amount, Section 8-15,
Telephone Service, and Section 8-16, Duties of seller generally. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall
and Mr. Martin.
None.
(The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXA-
TION, ARTICLE VI, UTILITY TAX, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxa-
tion, Article VI, Utility Tax, is hereby amended and reordained by
amending Section 8-12, Definitions, Section 8-13, Imposed; amount,
Section 8-15, Telephone service, and Section 8-16, Duties of
seller generally, as follows:
Article VI. Utility tax.
For state law authorizing county to impose tax on consumers
of utility services, see Code of Va., §§ 58.1-3812, 58ol-3814.
Sec. 8-12. Definitions.
Any term not defined herein shall, unless the context
clearly requires otherwise, have the meaning ascribed to it in
§ 58.1-3812(I) of the Code of Virginia, and any future amendments
thereto. In addition, for the purposes of this article, the
following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively
ascribed to them by this section:
Person. Individuals, firms, partnerships, associations,
corporations and combinations of individuals of whatever form and
character.
Purchaser. Every person who purchases a utility service.
Residential. In addition to the normal word usage, build-
ings having single or multiple meters for the furnishing of
electricity or gas used in maintaining a place of abode or in
normal farming operations or having local telephone service to one
or more buildings making up a place of abode.
Seller. EVery person, whether a public service corporation
or a municipality or private corporation or not, who sells or
furnishes a utility service.
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) ~0~[~19~
(Page 18) : ".' ~
Utility service. Local telecommunications service, electric
service, and gas service furnished Within the county.
Sec. 8-13. Imposed; amount.
There is hereby imposed and levied by the county upon each
and every purchase of utility services as set forth herein a tax
for general purposes in the following amounts:
(a) on purchasers of electric service for residential
purposes, the tax shall be in the amount of twenty (20) percent of
the charge on meter readings taken, exclusive of any federal or
state tax thereon, made by the seller against the purchaser with
respect to such residential electric service; provided, however,
that in any case a monthly bill submitted by the seller for
electric utility service for residential purposes shall e~ceed
twenty dollars, there shall be no tax computed on so much'of such
bill as shall exceed twenty dollars; except that there shall be no
tax computed on bills submitted for electric service for water
heating where a separate meter is used solely for water heating
service.
(b) On purchasers of electric service for commercial or
industrial purposes, the tax shall be in the amount of ten (10)
percent of the charge on meter readings taken, exclusive of any
federal or state tax thereon, made by the seller against the
purchaser with respect to such commercial or industrial electric
service; provided, however, that in any case any monthly bill
submitted by the seller for electric service for commercial or
industrial purposes shall exceed three thousand dollars, the tax
computed on so much of such bill as shall exceed three thousand
dollars shall be two (2) percent.
(c) On purchasers of local telephone service for residen-
tial purposes, the tax shall be in the amount of twenty (20)
percent of the charge made, exclusive of any federal or state tax
or mileage charges thereon, made by the seller against the pur-
chaser with respect to such residential telephone service; provid-
ed, however, that in any case a monthly bill submitted by the
seller for telephone service for residential purposes shall exceed
twenty dollars, there shall be no tax computed on so much of such
bill as shall exceed twenty dollars.
(d) On purchasers of local telephone service for commercial
or industrial purposes, the tax shall be in the amount of ten (10)
percent of the charge made, exclusive of any federal or state tax
or mileage charges thereon, made by the seller against the pur-
chaser with respect to such commercial or industrial telephone
service; provided, however, that in any case any monthly bill
submitted by the seller for telephone service for commercial or
industrial purposes shall exceed three thousand dollars, the tax
computed on so much of such bill as shall exceed three thousand
dollars shall be two (2) percent.
(e) On purchasers of gas service for residential purposes,
the tax shall be in the amount of twenty (20) percent of the
charge on meteS'readings taken, exclusive of any federal or state
tax thereon, made by the seller against the purchaser with respect
to such residential gas service; provided, however, that in any
case a monthly bill submitted by the seller for gas service for
residential purposes shall exceed ten dollars, there shall be no
tax computed on so much of such bill as shall exceed ten dollars.
(f) On purchasers of gas service for commercial or indus-
trial purposes, the tax shall be in the amount of ten (10) percent
of the charge on meter readings taken, exclusive of any federal or
state tax thereon, made by the seller against the purchaser with
respect to such commercial or industrial gas service; provided,
however, that in any case any monthly bill submitted by the seller
for gas service for commercial or industrial purposes shall exceed
three thousand dollars, the tax computed on so much of such bill
as shall exceed three thousand dollars shall be two (2) percent.
(g) On mobile service consumers with a service address
within the county, the tax shall be ten (10) percent of the
monthly gross Charge, provided, however, that in any case a
monthly bill submitted by the mobile service provider shall exceed
three thousand dollars in gross charges, the tax computed on so
much of such bill as shall exceed three thousand dollars shall be
two (2) percent:
It is further provided that, effective on and after July
1995, that in any case a monthly bill submitted by the mobile
service provider exceeds one hundred dollars in gross charges,
there shall be no tax computed on so much of the bill as shall
exceed one hundred dollars.
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19) ~
000 1.93
It is further provided that, effective on and after July 1,
1996, that in any case a monthiy'bill submitted by the mobile
service provider exceeds fifty dollars in gross charges, there
shall be no tax computed on so much of the bill as shall exceed
fifty dollars.
It is further provided that, effective on and after July 1,
1997, that in any case a monthly bill submitted by the mobile
service provider exceeds thirty dollars in gross charges, there
shall be no tax computed on so much of the bill as shall exceed
thirty dollars.
Sec. 8-15. Telephone service.
This tax imposed and levied by this article on purchasers
with respect to telephone service shall apply to all charges made
for local telephone service except as follows:
(a) Coin box telephone. The total amount of the guaranteed
charge on each bill rendered for semi-public coin box telephone
service shall be included in the basis for the tax with respect to
the purchaser of such service, but no other tax shall be imposed
on telephone service paid for by inserting coins in coin-operated
telephones.
(b) Flat rate service. With respect to flat rate service,
the tax shall apply to only the amount payable for local area
service and shall not apply to any specific charge for calls to
points outside the county or to any general charge or rate differ-
ential payable for the privilege of calling points outside the
county or for mileage service charges.
(c) Message rate service. Where purchasers of telephone
service are charged on a message rate basis, the tax shall apply
only to the basic charge for such service and shall not apply to
any charge for additional message units.
sec. 8-16, Duties of seller generally.
(a) It shall be the duty of every seller in acting as the
tax collection medium or agency for the county to collect from the
purchaser for use of the county, the tax imposed and levied by
this article at the time of collecting the purchase price charged
therefor. The seller shall remit monthly to the county the amount
of tax billed during the preceding month to the purchaser.
(b) In all cases where the seller collects the price for
utility service in stated periods, the tax imposed and levied by
this article shall be computed on the amount of purchase during
the month or period according to each bill rendered; provided, the
amount of tax to be collected shall be the nearest whole cent to
the amount computed.
(c) A seller of local telecommunication services shall
collect the tax from the purchaser by adding the tax to'the
monthly gross charge for such services. The tax shall, when
billed, be stated as a distinct item separate and apart from the
monthly gross charge. Until the purchaser pays the tax to the
seller, the tax shall constitute a debt of the purchaser to the
county. If any purchaser refuses to pay the tax, the seller shall
notify the county. After the purchaser pays the tax to the
seller, the taxes collected shall be deemed to be held in trust by
the seller until remitted to the county.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after February 1,
1995.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 10:30 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 12. Request to set a public hearing to amend Section
4-19(b) of the County Code to include Thurston Subdivision under the County's
Dog Leash Law.
Mr. Tucker noted that a petition had been received requesting that the
County's dog "leash" law be extended to Thurston Subdivision near Crozet.
Approximately 82 percent of the homes which have been built within the
subdivision are in favor of the dog leash law. Vacant lots within the
subdivision are all owned by one owner.
Notion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to set a
public hearing for December 7, 1994. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
November 2v 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Agenda Item No. l~Appeal: SDP-93-063. 1781 Productions Outdoor
Theater Preliminary Site Plan. Proposal' t0 Construct a 1850 seat outdoor
theater served by approx 400 parking spaces on approx 100 ac portion of TM94,
Ps21&25o Property located on S side of Rt 250 approx 0.4 mi W of Rt 616.
Rivanna Dist.
000 194
Mr. Martin said h__e had received a request from the attorney representing
the Jacobs that this discussion be postponed for another week. He (Mr.
Martin) did not think that would be appropriate. Mro George Gilliam (the
Jacobs attorney) should be present this morning by 11:45 A.M., so Mr. Martin
suggested the Board delay this discussion until that time so that all parties
could receive a full hearing.
Mr. Fred Payne, attorney for the McRaven's, said he strongly objects to
this procedure. He and Mr. Kurt Gloeckner are present and ready to go. They
were not consulted as to this time and made arrangements to be present at this
time. The McRavens are not here because they had a business trip out of town.
He feels it is grossly unfair for this type of request to be made at this late
date. This only costs these people (the McRavens) more money, and for no
purpose.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Payne was notified yesterday of Mr. Gilliam's
request. Mr. Payne said Mr. Davis did call him yesterday and tell him the
request had been made. That does not change the fact that he and Mr. Gloeck-
ner do not know what the Board is going to dov so they have to be here°
Mr. Martin said the Jacobs' attorney did not find out about this being
on the agenda until Friday. Mr° Gilliam called Mr. Martin Monday, but he was
not able to take the call that day. He called Mr. Gilliam on Tuesday, and
they decided it could be delayed until 11:45 A.M. today when Mr. Gilliam could
be present. Mr. Martin did not feel it was inappropriate to make the request
that the discussion be delayed since this Board has often delayed a discussion
until an interested person could be present at the meeting.
(Notes Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 10:34 A.M.)
Mr. Perkins said it is a board decision. He suggested a motion be made
for the board to vote on. Mr. Martin moved that the board delay this dis-
cussion for about an hour and ten minutes. Mr. Marshall asked what would
happen to the scheduled item at 11:00 A.M. Mr. Tucker said as soon as the
Board finishes its meeting with the legislators, it can come back to this room
and continue with this item.
Mrs. Humphris asked that the motion state that the board go back to this
item when the discussion with the legislators is completed° Mr. Martin
agreed. Mrs. Thomas said the applicants will not be sure when this will be
heard. Mr. Perkins said it is difficult to set agendas, but he thinks this
Board should try to have the hearings at the times for which they are adver-
tised.
Mr. Martin said he made the motion, and if the rest of the Board thinks
the hearing should go forward at this time, that is the way it is. He agreed
to ask for the delay since the attorney for the people requesting the hearing
did not find out about it until last Friday. Mr. Tucker said the Board could
go ahead and hear the appeal and then defer action until after the legislative
session is over. Mrs. Humphris then seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowerman said he did not want to vote until he found out about Mr.
Tucker's suggestion. Mr. Martin said that would be fine with him, and he
withdrew the motion. Mrs. Humphris withdrew the second.
Mr. Cilimberg proceeded to present the staff's report. He said the
special use permit (SP-93-07) for this use was approved in May, 1993. A plat
creating the one hundred acre parcel for the use was signed in December, 1993.
The Planning Commission approved the preliminary plan on appeal on October 11,
~994. An appeal of the Planning Commission's action has been filed by the
adjacent property owners, Ivan W. and Teresa O. Jacobs.
Mr. Cilimberg said the site plan was reviewed by the site review
committee and has been recommended for approval. Two waivers, 1) development
on critical slopes, and 2) location of parking, were granted by the Planning
Commission. Staff is of the opinion that the site plan complies with provi-
sions of the Zoning Ordinance and the special use permit, and that the
Commission's action to approve the request was appropriate.
Mrs. Humphris asked the concerns of the people requesting the appeal.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission's discussion centered around two
modification requests. A seating area is proposed in an area of critical
slopes. This was anticipated when the special use permit request was reviewed
and approved by this Board. At that time, there was no detailed site plan to
indicate the area of critical slopes, but after a field inspection, the
seating area appears to be on slopes of 25 percent or greater. The applicant
is required by the ordinance to submit engineering information on changes to
the slopes. The other issue is location of some parking more than 500 feet
from the actual activity and that was also discussed during approval of the
special use permit because of a desire to locate parking in an area that is
the least visible from adjacent properties and would not involve the clearing
of trees.
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day. Meeting)~ 00019~,~
(Page 21)
Mr. Cilimberg said another issue that came up had to do with the sound
study. There was an initial sound study done, and there were site visits for
sound testing done. There was not a final sound study submitted as part of
the preliminary site plan, but it is a requirement of the final site plan.
Mr. Marshall asked for an explanation of what Mr. Cilimberg just said.
Mr. Cilimberg said there will be a sound study required for the final site
plan. Preliminary site plan procedures are geared more to the "up-front"
preliminary work. Mr. Marshall asked why anyone would want to spend all of
that money and hinge it all on something like a sound test. Mr. Cilimberg
said he thinks the applicant can address that question in terms of where they
are in their process.
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, said there were several
reasons which led to the conclusion that it was appropriate to do the sound
study for the final site plan. One of the most practical reasons is that it
would be premature since the applicants have not determined the construction
materials which will be used for the seating, the exact grades, etc. All of
these things will dictate what they purchase in the way of sound equipment and
what kind of sound study they do. What they have done so far is satisfactory
with the County Engineering Department, and is in compliance with County
regulations. For this applicant, final action on the site plan will be
administrative.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the site plan is before the Board because of the
two waivers, or is the entire preliminary site plan open for discussion
because it has been appealed? Mr. Davis said the Planning Commission took
three actions. They approved two waivers and they~approved the preliminary
site plan. Technically, the only thing before the Board today is approval or
denial of the site plan. The appeal language does not address the waivers
specifically, so technically the waivers have been granted by the Planning
Commission. The Board needs only to determine if the site plan requirements
have been met by the preliminary site plan.
Mr. Marshall said the sound test is not part of the preliminary site
plan, but the final plan. Mr. Davis said that is correct.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned a letter from Mr. Gloeckner dated September 22,
1994, which mentioned some "amenity buildings which may or may not be on
critical slopes." She asked which buildings these will be. Mr. Cilimberg
pointed to an area on the plan which shows seating on critical slopes. There
is a staging area as well as the seating. There is a footpath on critical
slopes and part of the area for dressing rooms and a storage building.
Mrs. Humphris said obviously the seating area is on the critical slopes
because a natural bowl is provided in that area. The question is whether the
design and engineering of the amphitheater will be executed in such a way as
to minimize the erosion and sedimentation of the critical slopes. Mr. Cilim-
berg said that would be a primary concern of the Engineering Department. Mr.
Don Franco is present to answer questions.
Mr. Franco said the reason they picked this location is because of the
bowl effect or the natural terrain which should minimize the amount of cut and
fill required. The final site plan will require that an erosion control plan
be approved. At that time, any impacts that do occur will have to be taken
care of before they hit a receiving stream or go off the site. There is also
a requirement concerning surface treatment and design of the theater seating
area and the walk-around area.
Mrs. HUmphris asked if the Engineering Department oversees this at the
time of construction. Mr. Franco said there are erosion control officers who
do routine inspections of the site, and the applicants must post a bond also.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the Planning Commission discussed the location of
the so-called amenity buildings at its meeting. Mr. Cilimberg said he does
not recall that they did. Mrs. Humphris asked why they did not discuss that.
To her it is important. She can understand the amphitheater being on the
slopes, but not the other buildings. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board would need
to ask the applicant why they decided to build on those slopes. He noted that
they are trying to run with the grades with the gravel access lanes, and he
assumes they need these buildings close to their operations area. Mr. Franco
said these are things which are controllable through a soil erosion plan and
technical engineering oversight of the plan.
Mrs. Humphris asked in what part of the process extra screening of the
parking lot could be required if it is found to be necessary. Mr. Cilimberg
said conditions usually include a final landscaping plan and there are
requirements for screening a parking area in the ordinance. They applicants
have shown some screening along the property line. Mrs. Humphris said she was
talking about the handicapped and staff parking closest to the facility. Mr.
Cilimberg said that would be looked at with the final landscaping plan. He
said that when he was last on the site it contained mostly deciduous trees,
and that is still the case. Mr. Franco said he was on site about six weeks
ago. To his knowledge that area is still wooded. It is moStly deciduous, but
there are some pine trees on site, as well.
Mr. Fred Payne said he would like to note for the record that the
McRavens could not be present today because of a previous out-of-town business
O00 lgG
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
trip. As to the basic issues, the Board Should not be misled, there have
already been extensive sound tests on this property. There is no doubt in the
applicants' minds that there willbe no problem in complying with the require-
ments in the County's ordinance. If there should be a problem, the sound that
will be produced can be adjusted. This is not a "make or break" situation.
It will be simple for the applicants to comply. The main way in Which they
have not complied is that the tests that were done were not certified. They
can be redone essentially the same way.
Mr. Payne said Mr. Cilimberg had said one thing of interest; the
ordinance is designed to save money at the preliminary site plan stage. He
said this Board needs to know that to develop this plan to this point has cost
these developers well over $60,000. Two-thirds of that comes from the
procedural problems the applicant has had with the plan. As far as the
discussion of deciduous trees, there have been no changes on the site with
respect to the area around the handicapped parking and the employee parking.
It is heavily wooded and most of it is in deciduous trees. He noted that this
is a summertime use. The facility cannot be used before Memorial Day or after
Labor Day, so the deciduous trees will be fully leafed when the facility is in
operation.
Mr. Payne mentioned the 25 percent slopes and said there is no reason to
go into that in any detail. What is important is that the ordinance does not
prohibit construction on 25 percent slopes, but requires it to be controlled.
The buildings need to be put next to the stage because that is what they
serve, and the stage is there because that is where the amphitheater needs to
go. The path follows the natural terrain, and the placement of the buildings
is the logical place for them.
Mr. Payne said procedural issues in this case are important, and he
thinks the Board should be aware of where the applicants are with this permit,
because they feel this whole hearing is unlawful. The timing on this should
be remembered° The special use permit was approved about 18 months ago. From
that time, these people had the right to build the theater. This Board, at
that time, ordered staff to be the ones to review the site plan. The site
plan was submitted in September, 1993. The statue requires approval in not
more than 90 days. A month later, staff decided that it would not review the
plan because it did not think it complied with the permit. It took two months
for the Zoning Administrator to decide she agreed with that position. That
decision was made in December, 1993. The 90 days had all ready passed by the
time staff decided they would not look at the plan. Three months later, the
Board of Zoning Appeals overruled the Zoning Administrator. In the meantime,
in December, 1993, the property was subdivided and a plat was approved in due
course by the Planning staff. In September, 1994, a year after the plan was
submitted~ the staff decided that the plan did comply with the special permit
and the ordinance. Despite that, there was a request made by the Jacobs that
the plan go to the Planning Commission, although they did not state any reason
or any specific objection to the plan. Mr. Payne said these people are not
adjacent property owners to the site, and have not been since December, 1993.
The nearest point of their property to the subject property is about 700 feet.
The applicants objected at that time that these people do not have standing
and that the appeal to the Planning Commission was unlawful. The Planning
Commission went ahead and approved the site plan and basically ratified the
staff's action. That was on October 11, 1994, thirteen months after the plan
was submitted. The plan is now before the Board of Supervisors brought by the
same people who did not have standing in October, and they still don't have
standing. The applicants ask the Board to mean what it said in May of 1993
when it instructed the staff to approve the site plan. The staff has done a
thorough, exhaustive review and determined that it does comply with the
ordinance.
At this time, Mr. Perkins said the Board must recess to meet with the
legislators. He expects the Board will be back in this room at 11:45 A.M. He
said Mr. Payne will be given an opportunity for rebuttal to anything said by
Mr. Gilliam at that time.
Agenda Item No. 14. Recess at 11:00 A,M. and Reconvene in Meeting Rooms
5/6.
The Board recessed at 11:00 A.M. and reconvened in Meeting Room 5/6 at
ll:10 A.M.; for a meeting with the State Legislators.
Agenda Item No. 15a. Meet with Legislators to Discuss the County's FY
1995 Legislative Program.
Present at this time were Senator Ed Robb, Ms. Jo Blue, representing
Delegate Mitchell VanYahres and Delegate Peter T. Way. Also present was Ms.
Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive.
Ms. White said each year, staff prepares a proposed Legislative Program
for the upcoming General Assembly, which is then used by the Legislative
Liaison, as well as County stafff to insure that the County's interests are
actively supported during the session. A separate legislative program from
the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJDPC) has also been
submitted to the Board for approval in prior years, although the two programs
have been almost identical.
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 000197
(Page 23)
This year, County staff and TJPDC staff worked together to prepare and
submit a joint document which will hopefully simplify the Board's review
process and avoid duplication of effort.
Ms. White said that although many of the issues will be familiar to
Board members, the format of the document has been revised. Major components
of this year's legislative program report are:
· An initial Priorities section that states the three overriding position
statements or priorities.
· An Action Agenda section that defines the specific issues to be focused
on during the 1995 session. These include three requests specific to
Albemarle County, restoration of FY 1995 state budget cuts, and respons-
es to Welfare Reform, the JLARC study of planning district commissions,
and the Governor's Commission on Government Reform. Since specific
legislation has not been drafted for either Welfare Reform or the
Governor's Commission Report, specific positions on these issues will be
brought back to the Board as bills are introduced.
· A Standing Position section that lists the ongoing positions on ten
major policy areas. These will provide direction to the Liaison for any
legislation that relates to these positions, but these are not antici-
pated to be major issues in the 1995 session.
Ms. White said there are only three issues which the County is asking
the legislators to support in the upcoming session. Copies of the three were
forwarded to the Board earlier along with a copy of VACo's draft 1994 legis-
lative program which may provide more detail on legislative issues coming
before the General Assembly, many of which are also reflected in the TJPDC
program°
1) To amend the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority Charter
to include the power of eminent domain;
2) To expand the membership of the board of equalization to six
members to reflect the number of magisterial districts;
3) To provide Albemarle County with the authority to issue parking
tickets. Senator Robb asked that the County get an Attorney
General's opinion as to whether the County already has this
authority.
Mr. Way asked for more information on the request by the Airport
Authority. Mr. Tucker said Federal regulations require that an airport
operator maintain a sufficient property interest in land areas located within
runway protection zones. The FAA has deemed that a "sufficient property
interest" equates to fee simple ownership. Therefore, without the power of
eminent domain, the Authority cannot currently fulfill its obligation to the
FAA and comply with the provisions of the Federal Aviation Act since the
Authority does not have sufficient control over the property within these
zones either through purchase or eminent domain. Mr. Robb asked if the County
Attorney's office has rendered an opinion. Mr. Davis said there are two
instances whereby an authority is granted the power to condemn property. The
power would have to be outlined in the authority's charter or there would have
to be a legislative amendment giving the power to all authorities. Currently
airport authorities are created either by statute or by charter. Those
created by statute have the authority of eminent domain. The charter for the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority did not contain the power of
eminent domain. The City Attorney's office, which represents the Authority,
recommended that the charter be amended. Mr. Tucker commented that all other
authorities created by the Board, i.e., the Albemarle County Service Authori-
ty, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, and the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority, have the power of eminent domain. Mr. Tucker said, as far as he is
aware, all other airport authorities in the state have this power.
Mr. Robb asked if there is an emergency in getting this legislation
introduced. Mr. Tucker said there is no "real" emergency except the issue
will be facing the Airport soon and the Airport must comply with these FAA
regulations. Mr. Robb asked if the Board unanimously supports this proposal.
Mr. Martin said there was not much discussion because Board members felt that
it was common sense. Mr. Bowerman said it seems reasonable to him. It would
put the Airport in a position to realistically bargain with a property owner
to get a fair exchange price for property. Me thinks the personal property
rights are protected, but the public's rights do not seem to have any stand-
ing. Mr. Robb said this would require a charter change which has to be filed
by the first day of the session. He will discuss the issue with Delegates Way
and VanYahres, and they will decide how best to move forward in drafting the
legislation.
Mr. Martin said he appointed a gentleman to the Board of Equalization.
This person was trained, but by the time he finished training it was time for
him to rotate off the Board. Mr. Bowerman said it makes sense to have six
members on the Board since there are six magisterial districts. Mr. Way
agreed. Ms. White said if the Legislators are supportive of this request,
staff will work with the County Attorney to draft the language° There is
language outlined in the County Executive's form of government for writing
000'198
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
legislation that would reflect the number of magisterial or voting districts
rather than setting a sPe~ffic number... Th:~s Would then apply to either Prince
William County or Albemarle County. The legislators agreed with supporting
this request. Mr. Robb asked if there is any reason Prince William County
would object to this legislation. Ms. White replied that she does not think
so, but staff can check with officials in Prince William. Mr. Robb asked that
the County be represented in Richmond when these bills appear before commit-
tee.
Mrs. Humphris said she had the same experience with her appointment to
the Equalization Board as Mr. Martin. She also served on the Equalization
Board. She cannot imagine any reason not to allow each magisterial district
to have a representative. Since the Board considers a lot of cases at one
time and it takes a couple of full days, it helps to have as many members
present as possible. She feels it is a waste of everyone's time, effort and
energy to train and then rotate off the Board. Mr. Robb said he~ supports the
proposal.
Mr. Martin underlined the need to adequately fund the Comprehensive
Services Act. The goals of this Act are admirable. It is a worthwhile Act,
but it is not adequately funded. He gave an example of a child at Mollymead
Elementary School in which one person has been hired solely to take care of
the child all day. The child needs to be placed in an appropriate facility,
but it costs too much money. The child is disruptive to the entire school.
He feels this child is not being placed because of lack of funding of the
Comprehensive Services Act. Mr. Way said examples like that are good for the
legislators to know.
Mrs. Humphris said VACo conducted a survey around the state and asked
what the experiences of counties were for the Comprehensive Services Act.
They got a high rate of reply and across-the-board most of the counties felt
that the administrative costs of the Act had escalated tremendously. The
ideas and services that the Act is providing is good, but it is taking a lot
more administrative people power and time that is not being funded, and it is
putting a hardship on many of the counties.
Mr. Robb said the report by the Governor's commission that is dealing
with the downsizing of government should be available some time near the end
of November. Ms. White commented that the target date for the report is
November 15. Mr. Robb said the Governor has promised that there will be no
cuts in funding for education as a result of the recently passed parole reform
bill. The question remains where the money will come from. The State needs
$367.0 million to pay for what has already been committed. The money will
need to come from somewhere. There are several options being discussed, but
the Governor is initiating a bond package similar to the last one passed.
Mrs. Mumphris asked what would be used to repay the bonds. Mr. Robb replied,
existing revenues. Mr. Robb said he does not think any expenditures for
education can be cut other than whatever streamlining can be done to make the
educational system more efficient which means providing better services for
less money. Mr. Martin said he hopes that somebody realizes that better
services with less money cannot be provided unless the people who are provid-
ing the services are involved in the decision-making loop. Too often provid-
ing better services with less money mean decisions are made by people far
removed from the service delivery and when that happens less services are
provided with less money. Mr. Robb said that reason justifies downsizing and
streamlining government.
Mr. Way said he has no problem with giving the Police the authority to
issue parking tickets, but every year it seems like this issue keeps coming
back. Mr. Robb said he is confused. He feels like he has been in this battle
before. Mr. Tucker said the previous legislation requested by the County
dealt with allowing the Police Department to ticket for decals. This specifi-
cally addresses citations for parking violations. Mr. Robb said when he
initiated legislation in 1992 the Senate legislators all argued that the
County already had the authority to do all the things it was asking to do. He
argued that the County said it did not have the authority. The bill got
carried over to the following year° They finally got it passed, but all
through the debate, Senator Calhoun, an attorney who is a very knowledgeable
about local government, argued that Albemarle already has this authority. He
knows that debate will happen again. Mr. Robb said he would like an Attorney
General's opinion as to whether the County has this authority. Mr. Davis said
Title 46.2 of the Code of Virginia specifically addresses the authority to
issue parking tickets. During the last six or seven years about twelve
counties were authorized to issue parking tickets. Mr. Robb's discussion came
up periodically when those counties were added to this bill. When the
counties were added, the Dillon Rule was construed to mean that the counties
did not have such authority.
Mr. Martin asked what happens if the police exercises the authority and
issues tickets. Mr. Robb said he thinks the police should go ahead and issue
the ticket. If the court determines the police do not have the authority, it
will throw out the ticket, and then the issue can be dealt with on that basis.
Mr. Way also felt the County should get an Attorney General's opinion on the
issue and then go on from there. Mr. Robb said he will proceed with the
request.
Mr. Robb said he initiated legislation last year that would make
unfunded mandates illegal and all unfunded state mandates determined to be
000199
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
unnecessary would be eliminated within a.five year period. The bill is
"slumbering" in the Senate Finance Committee. If he can muster support from
localities at the Senate Finance Committee meeting and get the bill reported
out, he is prepared to amend it to eliminate the part that relates to mandates
that already have been passed. There are two unfunded mandate bills in the
General Assembly that were carried over to the next session. One bill has to
do with unfunded mandates on education and the other is his bill. He asked
for the county's support of this bill.
Mr. Martin said he does not support the way the bill is now written in
that all unfunded mandates become illegal. If the bill is amended to say that
all future mandates be funded, he could support it. Mr. Robb said the actual
wording is that all unnecessary unfunded mandates be eliminated by the year
2000.
Mr. Robb then asked the Board's support for legislation he initiated
last year. He plans to meet with all superintendents and school boards in an
effort to generate support for a bill that would cause all new first year
teachers in Virginia to have criminal background checks done through the FBI
using fingerprinting cards. This is a one-time occurrence. The fingerprints
would be sent to CCRE and the FBI to determine that the person is not a felon.
This is required of all police officers, day care providers, elder care
providers, but not teachers. He believes there are currently 19 school
divisions in the Commonwealth that require this kind of background investiga-
tion. Of those 19 school divisions, he was told that 19 applicants applying
for jobs in Fairfax were identified as felons. This will only cost between
$35 and $50 per applicant. If the applicant was identified as a convicted
felon, it would be up to the locality whether to hire the person. Mrs. Thomas
asked if this would be funded by the state. Mr. Robb said last year he could
have had the bill passed, but he wanted the applicants to pay the associated
costs. The Virginia Education Association (VEA) did not support that recom-
mendation. He would not allow the localities that he represent to have an
unfunded mandate, so he let the bill lie. He is asking the County's support
of this bill. He will try to get the state to pay the cost, but in the event
he is not successful, Albemarle County will pay the costs. Albemarle County
currently requires a police records check which does nothing more than
identify a person using a name check. Fingerprinting is the only thing that
is accurate relative to identity other than genetic testing. He thinks the
time has come that Albemarle needs to address this issue. He has asked every
county school division that he represents to support this bill. Mrs. Thomas
said if the county wanted to do this with its own money, it could be doing it
right now and not require state legislation. If the state is going to require
the County to-do this, she thinks the state should pay for it like all other
mandates. Mr. Robb said the County does not need legislation to do this, but
he wants to do it and thinks it should be done.
Mrs. Humphris asked how much the would mandate cost. Mr. Robb said if
the County was hiring 100 first-time teachers, it would cost between $3500 to
$5000 to guarantee that it is not hiring a convicted pedophile to teach the
children. The County needs to know who it are hiring and he thinks it needs
to be state-wide.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the teacher had worked elsewhere in the state and
fingerprints were already on record, would the County still be required to
fingerprint. Mr. Robb replied, "no" this would only be for a first-time
teacher in the state. Mrs. Humphris said she would like to know how the
School Board feels. '~'~r. Marshall said he has no objection to supporting the
bill. Mr. Martin said he has no objection to the legislation as long as it is
paid for by the state. Mr. Robb said he will attempt to get state funding,
but in the event he is not successful, he needs to know if the Board wants him
to include Albemarle County on the bill.
Mr. Robb said it seems to him that teachers should have a means to
summon help to a classroom if a student is disruptive, difficult to deal with,
violent, or whatever. The ways to do that is either making intercom systems
two-way communication, providing teachers with an electronic device to summon
help, using cellular equipment or wiring the rooms with telephones. The
school associations agree there should be some kind of communication capabil-
ities in the classrooms. He does not know what the cost would be. At
present, if a teacher sees a problem in the classroom, that teacher has to
either send another young person to get help, leave the classroom or somehow
stay and deal with the situation. He does not think he can get this bill
passed by the General Assembly because there is a lot of objections. He has
asked for state funding of the bill, but got resistance. He is trying not to
pass any mandates that are unfunded. He would like to urge Albemarle County
schools to support this proposal; it is strictly from a safety standpoint in
classrooms. The objections lie in that some legislators think there will be
abuses of the communication system. He will meet with all the school superin-
tendents before the session begins to discuss the proposal.
Mr. Tucker suggested that Mr. Robb's requests be discussed with the
School Board at the next joint meeting. Board members concurred.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned that the funding formula for police departments
show a six percent decrease in FY 1996. Mr. Robb said the Senate Finance will
be meeting in December and this is one of the items that will be addressed.
ooo 0o
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
There being no further discussion, the Board recessed at 12:10 p.m.
The Board reconvened in Room 7 at 12~16 P.M. and continued with Agenda
Item No. 13.
Mr. Perkins recognized Mr. George Gilliam and said the Board would take
his statement at this time.
Mr. Gilliam thanked the Board for keeping the discussion open until he
could be present. His clients, Mr. and Mrs. Jacobs, are neighboring property
owners to this site, and have been intensely interested in development of this
property for the proposed use. They recognize that this project will be built
in some form or another and they are interested in seeing that it is built in
accord with the instructions that came down with the Board's May, 1993
decision. At this time, they believe it is impossible to express an intelli-
gent position on the question of the waivers until the sound issue is re-
solved. How does one know that additional berming, or other turning of this
project on the site will be required until it is known how the amplified sound
will play off of the natural and man-made components of this project? The
Jacobs have no particular objection to the location of the amphitheater on the
property, but until it is known whether there will be metal or concrete seats,
until the acoustic properties of those things are known, until it is known
what might have to be done to meet sound standards the County imposed on this
project, the Jacobs think any final approval of the plan, or granting of the
requested waivers would be premature. The condition imposed on the permit
required that there be a certified engineer's report (that has not been
submitted yet); it is to be provided at time of final site plan submittal.
Until the Board has that report in hand, Mr. Gilliam said it will be difficult
to make final decisions on some of the other issues. He knows the McRavens
want to pursue this to the next stage and want to keep the project moving. If
the Board approves the plan before it today, he wants the Board to note that
the condition has not been satisfied. If the McRavens bring in a certified
engineer's report at the time of final site plan, the Board should reserve the
right to reexamine and reopen any of these other issues where changes might be
dictated as a result of what the acoustic engineer reports.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Payne if he wished to make further comments. He
replied "no".
Mr. Martin said he would like to move that the Board approve the site
plan realizing it is in the preliminary site plan stage, and noting Mr.
Gilliam's argument, and taking into consideration the logical and reasonable
argument that until it gets to the final site plan stage, and they start
talking about the materials being used, and the amount of amplification
desired, there will not be a comprehensive sound study until that point is
reached. At this time, the Board is dealing with the preliminary site plan
with two waivers. He feels that both waivers make sense. He recommended that
the Board approve the preliminary site plan for SDP-93-63 for 1781 Produc-
tions.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the plan is not already approved, and if the Board
wishes to do that, it would just let the Planning Commission's action stand.
Mr. Davis said since it is on appeal, the motion can either be to approve it,
or to affirm the Planning Commission's decision. The action would be the
same. Mr. Bowerman ~id, in that case, he believes a positive statement of
what the Board intends would be appropriate, and he offered second to the
motion.
Mr. Perkins asked if there were other comments.
Mrs. Humphris said she did not agree that the present site plan is
similar enough to the one the Board of Supervisors approved, but she was
overruled on that. She is concerned about building on the critical slopes
because she is not sure those buildings need to be built on those slopes. It
does not seem that that question has been addressed by staff or the Planning
Commission. She hopes staff will pay attention to that. As to the question
of additional parking (she has not been to the site since the change was
made), she hopes that if screening would be helpful to the neighborhood both
acoustically and aesthetically that the staff will look at that carefully.
The acoustics problem is a major concern. The applicants need to know more
before they go too far, but need something on which to base the study° Mrs.
Humphris said she finds it difficult, and although she finds no reason to
disagree with what the Planning Commission did on the request for waivers, she
is uncomfortable about what the outcome will be. Since staff has final site
plan approval, she asked that they be extremely careful about the way this is
done so critical slopes will not be infringed upon, and acoustics will be
taken care of.
Mrs. Humphris said one more letter appeared before the board today, and
that concerns the condition that the drama be on documented history. She
asked where this will be dealt with. Ms. McCulley said at the point when the
script is completed, she will refer it to an appropriate historical source and
ask that the script be reviewed.
Mr. Cilimberg said that is not a site plan issue, but as a condition it
has to be met for the use being established. Mrs. Humphris asked who will
enforce the condition. Mr. Davis said it is a special use permit condition
00020i
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
which is enforced by the Zoning Administrator. Ms. McCulley said it must be
satisfied before the use itself begins and before they finish building and get
occupancy of the site and begin performances on the site. Mrs. Humphris said
she thinks there could be a problem if the theater is already built and it is
found that the script does not conform. Ms. McCulley said they will be
advised to work on that condition much sooner. Mr. Martin said the McRavens
know the condition exists, and the Board also revisited that issue on one
other occasion.
Mr. Marshall said he contends that people should have the right to do
what they want with their property as long as it does not infringe on the
rights of others. Me has been concerned from the beginning about the problem
with the sound. He came in today saying he would not support the plan because
he thought the sound tests had to be done before they formulated the site
plan, now he finds out that is not true, it is for the final site plan. He
asked that staff look at this thing real close to be sure it does not infringe
on the neighbors. If it does, and the McRavens are willing to spend money to
get it built and then maybe lose it, he guesses he will have to support it,
but he will be looking at sound.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks sound can be adjusted in many ways and it
would be heard only a certain distance away. He understands the loudest thing
they have is the firing of muskets or black powder rifles, weapons of that
time. Mr. Marshall said he is not opposed to the project for any reason other
than it might infringe on the rights of the neighbors. He will support the
motion because there is no other alternative. He does not want another law
suit such as the one on Route 29.
Mrs. Humphris said there is more to the sound issue than the crack of
the musket. There is applause (2000 people in the audience), and much of that
will be when people are sleeping, at bedtime. Recently, in her own home with
all the doors and windows shut, she heard music and found that it coming from
the Albemarle High School Band which is a mile or more from her home, so
controlling the sound has to be a very sticky and difficult problem. She
agrees with Mr. Marshall that this has been a major concern from the very
beginning. To think that sound can be directed so that 2000 people in the
audience can hear everything correctly, and not have it go off site will be
difficult and it is a gamble. She said the applicant has to be aware that
this is not a given. It has to meet the standards.
Mrs. Humphris said that even with all of her misgivings about the
location of the parking lot, the critical slopes and the acoustical problems,
she can find no reason not to support the Planning Commission, given the
regulations that have been established.
Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall
and Mr. Martin.
None.
Not Docketed: Mr. Tucker said with the understanding that the Board may
at any time direct staff to follow and/or support or oppose specific issues as
they are presented during the Session, staff would like to have the Board's
acceptance of the 1995 Legislative packet, and also recommends acceptance of
the proposed TJPDC's 1995 Legislative Program.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to accept
the Legislative Program as presented.
Mrs. Thomas said she feels disenfranchised by this process. She has
already shared this feeling with the County Executive. Since she was not a
member of the Board last year, she had no hand in the development of the
program, and she has lots of questions, comments and suggestions, but it will
be taken up by the Planning District Commission and it can be discussed there.
Mr. Perkins said he does not believe the program would ever satisfy
everybody on both sides. Mr. Tucker said he indicated to Mrs. Thomas that
this has been presented a month earlier than normal. This was done at the
behest of the Legislators so they would have more planning time. Therefore,
the Board did not have an opportunity to review and approve any proposals
before this meeting.
Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: Mrs. Thomas.
At 12:34 p.m., the Board recessed for lunch, and reconvened at 1:33 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 16. Adopt Resolution of Intent for State Funding of the
Joint Security Complex Expansion.
000202
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Tucker said that to address the needs of an expanding inmate
population and limited capacity at the CUrrent joint security complex, as well
as meeting requirements of the State Board of Corrections for State reimburse-
ment, the Jail Board contracted for a comprehensive needs assessment study.
Subsequent to that study, an additional planning study which identified
potential alterations and additions to the complex was also completed.
Based on the studies, the Jail Board determined that a full jail
facility expansion is required to ensure that Charlottesville and Albemarle
will have adequate jail space by the year 2003 when the inmate population is
projected to be 367. Preliminary architectural plans indicate that the
expansion will cost approximately $16.0 million, 50 percent of which may be
reimbursed by the State with the remaining $8.0 million being the shared
responsibility of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County.
A resolution for approval by the Board of Supervisors and City Council
requesting reimbursement from the State for this expansion project has been
prepared. The reason for requesting approval of this resolution on such short
notice, and without prior discussion of the planned jail expansion, is that in
order to get the 50 percent reimbursement request before the General Assembly
in the 1995 session, the Planning Study must be approved by the Board of
Corrections at its November 16 meeting and that must accompany the request for
funds from the Board of Corrections. A letter of explanation from William
Hefty, the Jail Board's attorney, has previously been forwarded to the Board.
Mr. Tucker said the resolution will not bind or commit the County to its
share of the costs should the scope of the project change or should local
funds not be available. The major thrust at this time is to get the funding
request into the State pipeline in order to get General Assembly approval.
During the time the request is being considered by the State, the Jail Board,
in conjunction with City and County staff~ will be reviewing the proposed
project and all possible funding mechanisms.
One option being discussed is the immediate creation of a Jail Authority
which would then have the ability to issue revenue bonds to be repaid through
a combination of local funds and federal per diem revenues or through an
increased per diem charge for the City and County. Funding options other than
an authority are being investigated, although they are more limited due to the
County's inability to borrow funds without a referendum and the City's prior
commitment of their debt service to other capital projects.
Mro Tucker said that staff recommends approval of the resolution with
the understanding that approving the resolution does not commit, the County to
funding the jail expansion at this time. It is also recommended that the
Board have subsequent briefing sessions with Jail Board members as funding
options are considered.
Mr. Bowerman said if the Board did not create an authority, and decided
to proceed with this, the County would have to put up $4.0 million up-front,
and then wait to be reimbursed. Mr. Tucker said the County would actually
have to front $16.0 million, but in terms of the County's actual share, the
City would pay $4.0 million, the County would pay $4.0 million, and then there
is another $8.0 million the State probably would not front-end. Mr. Bowerman
asked how the County would logistically deal with such a large out-lay. Mr.
Tucker said the County would not be able to borrow the money without first
having a referendum. Staff has talked to City staff because the City has the
authority to borrow funds, but they are reluctant to recommend that. A jail
authority is the only other option that has been identified at this time.
Mr. Marshall asked if the County has any money put aside on certificates
of deposit. Mr. Tucker said "yes", but these are the funds that are used
during the year to fund County operations. Mr. Bowerman said this would be a
real issue for Albemarle County without the formation of a jail authority.
Mr. Tucker said the basic thing on a jail authority is that it allows for a
mechanism to borrow money.
Mr, Perkins asked if there could be a bond referendum "piggy-backed"
with a school bond referendum. Mr. Tucker said that is possible. Mrs.
Humphris said the bottom line is that the space must be provided. Based on
all projections, and the crime rate is not going down, the number of inmates
that must be housed by law will go up by huge numbers, and no one has been
able to show why that will not happen. The beds must be provided, a certain
condition for the beds must be provided, and a certain amount of space for
programs must be provided.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the projections would allow for the housing of some
federal prisoners which would be a revenue source. Mrs. Humphris said these
projections do not, but the Jail Board's plans do for 20 or 25 prisoners. Mr.
Mitchell Neuman, Chairman of the Jail Board, said that at this time, they are
housing about 20 federal prisoners per day and receive reimbursement from the
Federal government. The Jail Board was offered almost $1o0 million if it
would commit to a long-term contractual agreement to house 25 prisoners for 15
years. The Jail Board proceeded with applying for that money, but the Jail
Board does not want to tie up that number of beds for that period of time
based on the current population. Since 1988, the population at the Jail has
been expanding at the rate of twelve percent a year. For fiscal year 1995,
the percentage is up to fifteen. Based on these figures with an average daily
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
O00BO
population of 173 prisoners in 1988, the prisoner housing needs will be
doubled by 1996. They have only a maximum of 318 beds at this time.
Mr. Martin asked if the Jail Board is still looking at the possibility
of having a juvenile detention facility in the expanded jail. Mr. Neuman said
they have discussed the possibility of providing that kind of space. They did
look at replacing the current jail with a new facility, and then using the
current facility for juvenile detention, work release, short-term, the week-
end type of folks who come in and out. Obviously that would take a new site
and a lot more money. At this time, the projected expense is about $57,000
per bed for an additional 230 beds. Analyzing figures from around the state,
this is in the median range of construction figures.
Mr. Martin said this Board had earlier discussed agenda items for a
joint City/County meeting, and he had thought this might be discussed with
council. A juvenile detention facility is similar to that of a jail in that
the state will pay a portion if approved by them first. If it is no longer
important to the Jail Board to provide that detention facility, then he feels
it is time to discuss this with City Council.
Mrs. Humphris said the request before the Board today is to meet a
deadline for getting this resolution to Richmond in order to be considered by
the General Assembly next Session. If the request gets in (this might be the
last time the fifty percent funding is available for expansion of the facili-
ty), then the Jail Board will have to make decisions on whether it will
continue to use the current facility, or whether it should be converted to
another use. There has not been time to make that decision yet.
Mr. Tucker said only 30 beds are needed for a detention facility. A
massive amount of space need not be created unless the Jail Board wants to
encourage other localities along Route 29 North to join in. He said the
Juvenile Detention Board is wresting with expansion of that facility, but if
Charlottesville and Albemarle pull out, that expansion may not be necessary.
Mrs. Humphris said the first step is the approval of the resolution today.
Beds have to be added, and this gives the Jail Board the best chance of doing
that. The Jail Board will then go back to the Planning Study and decide what
is the best way to provide the space that is needed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt the
following resolution requesting fifty percent matching funds from the state.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall
and Mr~ Martin.
None.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville
currently operate, pursuant to an Agreement between them, the
Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Security Complex; and
WHEREAS, the County and the City have submitted a Community
Based Corrections Plan to the Board of Corrections, which has
received approval, and have submitted a Planning Study for
approval; and
WHEREAS, the County and the City desire to apply for fifty
percent (50%) reimbursement for the eligible costs of renovation
and new jail construction pursuant to § 53.1-81 of the Code of
Virginia and the Standards for Planning, Design, Construction and
Reimbursement of Local Correctional Facilities effective July l,
1994.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the County hereby
requests reimbursement from the Board of Corrections and. Common,
wealth of Virginia of fifty percent (50%) of the eligible costs of
construction and financing for the proposed renovation and expan-
sion of the Joint Security Complex, as outlined in the Planning
Study, pursuant to § 53.1-81 of the Code of Virginia and the
Standards for Planning, Design, COnstruction and Reimbursement of
Local Correctional Facilities.
Mrs. Mumphris asked when the Board should take up the proposal to form a
jail authority. Mr. Tucker said staff has talked about the issues involved,
but would like to get them in a format that can be understood by all. Initial
discussions with the City about the one.option he mentioned earlier have been
negative. There may still be something to talk about with them, and in a
month or so he will bring back a list of options for this Board to consider.
Mrs. Humphris said one of those options is a bond referendum for a jail.
She knows how difficult it was to try and sell the meals tax when it was to be
used for school capital expenditures. She worked hard and it was successful
in her district, but not around the County. She would not welcome trying to
sell a bond referendum for a jail to the public. She would like to see if
there is a vehicle which would allow the Board to do it without a bond
November 2, 1994 (Regular DaY Meeting) 000204
(Page 30)
referendum because she thinks it would be a futile effort. Mr. Tucker said
the difference in creating ~a jail aUthority is that it onlY requires tha~ a
resolution be adopted. It is simple to do.
Mr. Davis said once the Jail Board finds out what the requirements of
the Treasury are, the next step will be to obtain approval of funding for the
project outlined in the planning study. This resolution gets past a November
16 meeting of the Corrections Department, but it may not be adequate to meet
the requirements of the Treasury. Mr. Roger Wiley said they have typically
required a preliminary agreement as to how the local share will be funded. To
have, at least, "the wheels turning." An authority does not necessarily have
to have been created.
(Note: Mr. Martin said he has an emergency situation that he has to
deal with at 2:30 P.M. at Hollymead. He asked that the Board skip to No. 21.
He asked if anybody on the Board has a problem with the appropriation for the
School-Based Accounts. There was no such indication.)
Agenda Item No. 21. Discussion: FY 1995-96 Preliminary Revenue
Projections and Budget Guidance.
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"Attached (on file) for your review in developing budget guidance
for FY 1995-96 is the preliminary estimate of General Fund reve-
nues. Overall revenues are projected to increase by $5.3 million,
or a 7.14 percent increase over FY 1994-95. Of this total,
property taxes are projected to increase by $4.75 million or 9.9
percent, other local revenues by $1.36 million or 6.8 percent, and
state and federal revenues by $124,256 or 2.3 percent. On a
preliminary basis, the FY 1995-96 revenues look positive, as do
the revised projections for FY 1994-95.
The second attached sheet (on file), Scenario I, shows again by
major category the $5.3 million increase in revenues followed by
the committed new expenditures which reflect for the first time
level funding for Debt Service. The Debt Service payment for
FY 1995-96 will actually decline by $600-$700,000 depending on the
adopted capital budget (due to the extraordinarily large first
year payment for Sutherland Middle School in the current year when
debt service increased by $1.3 million). However, it is recom-
mended that the General Fund transfer to the Debt Service Fund.
remain level in order to retain the savings for future debt
service and to also eliminate the see-saw effect on the operating
budget by changing debt service levels.
The increase in the Revenue Sharing payment reflects a 12.8
percent increase over FY 1994-95, bringing the total revenue
sharing payment to approximately $5.0 million. The Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) transfer increases over the current year
by $640,000, which reflects the Board's commitment to increase the
General Fund transfer for capital projects in a reassessment year.
The proposed FY 1995-96 CIP transfer of $2.0 million is approxi-
mately 2.5 percent of the total General Fund. The Board's Reserve
Fund increases.by approximately $175,000 over the FY 1994-95
adopted reserve of approximately $25,000 for a FY 1995-96 reserve
fund of $200,000.
Based on net remaining revenues of $3.9 million and the current 60
percent/40 percent distribution policy between the School Division
and General Government, $2.4 million in new revenues would be
allocated to the School Division and $1.6 million to General
Government. For both operating budgets, this reflects an approxi-
mate 6.4 percent increase in operational funds over FY 1994-95.
Although the above distribution is historically how available new
revenues have been allocated and committed, the next attachment
(on file), Scenario II, puts forth a second option for your
consideration. Under committed new expenditures, an additional
$300,000 is allocated to the CIP transfer, which would then
increase the percentage of General Fund revenues going to capital
projects to 2.9 percent, just shy of attaining the three percent
stated goal in the approved financial policies.
Additionally in this scenario, $250,000 of the new revenue is re-
commended to be placed in a Capital projects/Debt Service Reserve
Fund, which will begin to help offset increasing debt service
and/or capital costs over the next four years as construction on
the new high school commences and the County considers the possi-
bility of a major jail expansion project.
This proposed distribution of revenues not only supports the
County's approved financial policies by increasing the capital
transfer and building capital and debt service reserves for
anticipated one-time needs, it also supports staff's goal of
limiting increases in operational budgets to the combined rate of
growth and inflation, which for 1995 is estimated to be 5.5
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 000205
(Page 31)
percent, i.e., two percent population increase, 3.5 percent CPI
(Consumer Price Index). As can be seen, operating budgets for
both the School Division and General Government will stay within
the 5.5 percent guideline.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the FY 1995-96 revenue
allocation proposed in Scenario II as part of a comprehensive
approach to budgeting that addresses short-term operational needs,
as well as anticipates and funds long-term capital requirements.
Staff recognizes that these revenue projections may well change
when January estimates are completed. Staff also recommends that
the same distribution formula be used (Scenario II) should reve-
nues increase or decrease."
Mr. Martin said there is a compromise between Scenario I and Scenario
II. Mr. Tucker said staff could look at what the allocation would be using
the CPI and population growth for local government, and use enrollment growth
and CPI for the school system. He does not yet know the expected enrollment
figure for next year. Me could then check the percentage breakdown on those
figures. The money could be taken from the Board's Reserve Fund, from the
Capital Project Debt Service Reserve, or the CIP.
Mr. Martin asked if this item is on the agenda today for action. Mr.
Tucker said that is correct. The Schools and local government, as December
approaches, are beginning to formulate their budgets for next year. Staff
needs to know what types of revenues will be available for this process.
Mr. Marshall said the School Board is going to submit a balanced budget
for approval this year. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. They do have some
priorities, and it would be helpful for this Board to hear what those priori-
ties are. One that has been mentioned is the pupil/teacher ratio, and another
issue is what to do with teachers' salaries. Those are "big ticket" items,
and depending on what the pupil/teacher ratio is, it could wipe out most of
their new revenue.
Mrs. Mumphris said although the Board has established the formula of the
combined rate of growth and inflation, it must be realized that although
population growth can be determined, the Board does not really know the CPI
because everything affects it differently. Some of the increase in the
schools population might be offset by some of the amount that is labeled as
CPI. Mr. Tucker said staff uses the University's Center for Public Service
and Kiplinger's, and other recognized sources when making these projections.
Mr. Perkins said it is "so early in the game" that a conservative ap-
proach needs to be taken. Mr. Tucker said that is what staff has attempted to
do. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the revenue projections are very conservative
and he hopes they are better, but the economy might take a down turn in the
near future.
Mr. Martin said the difference between Scenario I and Scenario II is
that in Scenario II the increase is being held to 5.5 percent, while in
Scenario I it is a 0.4 percent increase. Mr. Tucker said it is the same
revenue, just redistributed. Scenario II is a more conservative approach.
Building permit activity, which is one gauge used by staff in determining
revenues, is still good, and staff expects a positive revenue adjustment in
January.
Mr. Perkins said he sees no end to the demands for CIP funds. Not just
schools and jails, but there are many other things this communitY needs that
must be addressed. People will be demanding even more in coming years. Mr.
Tucker said the Board will get the CIP soon and it will see a substantial
change in requests. Staff tried to anticipate that in Scenario II where there
is almost three percent put into the CIP as anticipated in the financial poli-
cies.
At this point, motion was offered by Mrs. Mumphris, seconded by Mr.
Marshall, to approve the FY 1995-96 revenue allocations proposed in Scenario
II. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall
and Mr. Martin.
None.
Mrs. Thomas said this is a goal, and it will influence what the depart-
ments can request. She feels "we are beginning to eat our own seed corn" in
terms of what the Board expects the staff to do with the population growth.
It may be two percent, but every two percent in population growth impacts more
than two percent on services being required of the County.
(Note: Mr. Martin left the meeting at 2:10 p.m.)
Mr. Tucker said compared to last year, the County is in a good position
at this time. Mr. Marshall asked about the new real property assessments.
Mr. Tucker said a report will be coming to the Board soonv but they look
fairly flat.
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~06
(Page 32)
Agenda Item No. 17. Presentation: Pilot Groundwater Study.
In a staff report, it was noted that in 1990 the Board accepted the
"Groundwater Protection Study" in principle, and assigned program implementa-
tion to the Water Resources Manager. In 1993, the Water Resources Committee
updated the study. One of the high priority recommendations in this updated
report was to undertake a pilot groundwater study to analyze data collection
and policy issues on a small scale so that lessons learned could be applied to
a County-wide program, and to provide information for the next update of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The County's Department of Engineering teamed with the Virginia Depart-
ment of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation,
to undertake the pilot study which involved preselecting ninety private water
systems (springs and drilled, bored, and dug wells) that provided representa-
tion across the variables of bedrock geology, depth to bedrock, land use
density, and well construction type and age. A survey addressing water
quality and quantity issues was administered to the users of these water
systems, and a water quality analysis was performed. The results were
analyzed, mapped, and are presented in a report entitled "Pilot Groundwater
Study for the North Fork/South Fork Hardware River Watershed, September 29,
1994."
The most widespread water quality problem evident from the study was
acidic water, which is very common for well water in the Piedmont. Positive
total coliform and nitratemnitrogen levels in excess of one milligram per
liter were each present in 24 percent of raw water samples. Older water
systems, springs, and shallow bored and dug wells were particularly suscepti-
ble to contamination.
On the user survey, a disproportionate number of low flow problems were
reported for wells in particular geologic units. The report discusses the
land use policy options for low flow areas, including hydro-geologic testing
for new development proposals.
The report contains six recommendations based on the pilot study for
consideration by the Board. Staff recommends that the Board accept the Pilot
Groundwater Study report in principle and assign implementation of study
recommendations to the Water Resources Committee, and, that it support the
formation of an ad hoc committee of the Water Resources Committee to draft
policy guidance for hydro-geologic testing for review by the Board of Supervi-
sors.
Mr. David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager, was present. To start the
discussion, he presented a slide show to familiarize the Board with the study
which had been furnished to them.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the County requires information from well drillers
as to location of well sites and the amount of flow. Mr. Hirschman said the
Health Department requires that information. In gathering information for
this study, he got well reports on almost all of the 90 wells studied, but
since individual well drillers use different procedures to get the number, he
was told not to rely too much on the number. Also, the original use can
change after someone moves into a house and pumps the well for a number of
years. The yield could drop.
Mr. Bowerman asked how the original yield correlated with what Mr.
Mirschman actually observed. Mr. Hirschman said he looked at geologic units
which seemed to be problematic from a flow standpoint, took the average well
unit from the report, and there was a difference. For those units, the
initial yields were less than for the overall study. In terms of bringing it
down to what is going to happen in a square mile, the information could not be
used.
Mrs. Humphris said she found the report overwhelming. There is so much
that needs to be done. She said that No. 5 relating to central well systems
is not an option with her considering all of the problems the County has had
with failed systems. An easy one to deal with is that the County fully
support the Cooperative Extension Household Water Quality Testing program
planned for the Spring/Summer of 1995. She asked how the Board would fully
support this program.
Mr. Hirschman said VPI has an agreement with the laboratory at Virginia
Tech to do 12 or more water quality parameters at about $30 a sample. What
other counties have done to promote this program is help to lower the price to
$12 or $15. There would also be some funds required for publicity and
promotion of the program. There would need to be educational forums to
explain the results, but there are no funds budgeted for this item.
Mrs. Thomas said the Comprehensive Plan questions what to do with North
Garden in terms of its being a growth area. If the Board were to hinge North
Garden being a growth area on finding more information about their water
situation, what additional information could be found out? Would additional
information cost millions? Mr. Hirschman said one of the objectives of the
study was to focus on what further work could be done. The growth area is
such a small area, that a detailed map would not be cost-prohibitive. There
does seem to be some correlation with geology, so it might be good to focus on
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 000207
(Page 33)
where good and bad units ar_e !o~ated even gOing a little beyond the growth
area boundaries to allow f°r so~e ~a~'ment'
Mr. Bowerman said as a practical matter, and as a policy matter, he is
convinced that any area designated for that type of growth should be on public
water and sewer, at least public water. The one exception that the county has
now is Earlysville where Earlysville Forest is still on a central well system.
Based on the problems experienced in small lot subdivisions, he feels strongly
that the Board will have to make a commitment for service by public utilities.
Mrs. Thomas said in Ivy (which once was designated as a growth area), a
number of wells failed, and central well systems also; the whole history of
the area is definitely a worse case lesson that is right in front of the
Board. She does not think the County should encourage growth in some place
like North Garden given this underlying picture before the Board today, which
was sort of expected.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Bowerman what he meant by "commitment". Did he
mean a tax dollar commitment or a planning commitment. Mr. Bowerman said he
was talking about planning, and not public tax dollars. He thinks he is
talking about Albemarle County Service Authority dollars. He is saying that
if the Board is going to designate a growth area, it should reasonably expect
that the only way that designation could be supported is with public water,
and perhaps, public water and sewer.
Mrs. Humphris said if it is an Authority responsibility, then the water
users are the ones who have to pay for providing that water. She asked if
that is fair. Mr. Bowerman said he does not know the answer as to how to pay
for it. He is only saying that he thinks it is unrealistic to look at an area
like North Garden and designate it a growth area without allowing for the fact
that it needs to be served by public water. Mrs. Humphris asked if there are
other options. Mrs. Thomas said, as a County, the Board can decide that it is
so important to have a growth area in that location that the Board is willing
to extend the waterline at taxpayer expense. She doubts that the Board will
arrive at that conclusion, but it could.
Mr. Marshall said he knows there is a committee of the State Health
Department looking into this, and he feels they will be getting involved at
some time in the future. Mrs. Thomas said there is already a well head
protection statute which applies only if there are three or more houses on a
well. Mr. Hirschman said groundwater sources, certainly small ones, are in
jeopardy, not only with testing requirements, but possible treatment require-
ments. Most small groundwater systems are not filtered at this time, or
treated in any way. EPA is thinking about doing that in the near future.
That would make a major increase in the cost for the customer.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the County is going to get serious about groundwa-
ter protection, what Mr. Hirschman recommends as the first step. Mr. Hirsch-
man said he feels strongly about the voluntary test programs. For the cost
involved, they have a great benefit in terms of preventing contamination and
educating the homeowner. He would also consider the hydro-geologic testing
option, taking a careful look at what other localities have done. Other than
that, it depends on basically land use scenarios.
Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Hirschman is recommending that the Ad Hoc
Committee for the Water Resources Committee draft the policy guidance for
hydro-geologic testing and the research just mentioned. Mr. Hirschman said
that is correct. He would want to bring in people from other counties to
check on their experiences. He would also want to get the knowledge of some
geologists and hydro-geologists, and then bring back to this board a set of
policy guidelines and what it would cost to try and implement them.
Mrs. Humphris asked what kind of funding would be necessary for this
committee. Mr. Hirschman said there is no money in his budget for the Water
Resources Committee, so he would ask people to volunteer. He has already
talked to some people at the Division of Mineral Resources who have expressed
an interest in serving.
Mrs. Humphris said she would like for the Board to go forward with both
of these things. Mr. Tucker said staff will get an estimated cost for this.
Since there is no specific funding necessary for some of the items, Mrs.
Humphris offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, that the Board request the
Water Resources Committee to form an Ad Hoc Committee to draft policy guidance
for hydro-geologic testing for this Board's consideration. As to participa-
tion with the Virginia Cooperative Extension Household Water Quality Evalua-
tion Program scheduled for Spring/Summer 1995, staff should bring back cost
information so the Board can decide whether to fund it.
Mrs. Thomas said she does not want to do anything that encourages sprawl
in the County and she feels the Board endangers its fiscal resources if it
allows people to build in areas where wells are failing. It must be recog-
nized that there is stress being put on resources by the constant development
taking place in inappropriate areas, often without recognition by the people
doing the development that it is an inappropriate area. There needs to be a
lot of education, and she thinks the voluntary well testing program would be a
good step in that direction.
000: 08
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34) ·
Mrs. Humphris said this will.focus ~the attention of a lot of people on
the fact that the water supply in different areas is questionable, and they
need to be aware that the faUcet may be dry one day. The more attention
brought to bear on the fact that the drinking water supply is not infinite,
the better off all will be.
Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 18. Adopt Resolution to Provide Three Percent Benefit
Increase for Current and Future Retirees. ~
Mr. Tucker said Senate Bill 2008, which was passed by the July 1994
session of the General Assembly, provides for a three percent benefit increase
for current and future state retirees, retired elected constitutional officers
and their state-funded staff, and professional school board retirees (teach-
ers, administrators and clerical staff). Retirees of political subdivisions
and non-professional school board retirees are not eligible for the increase
unless it is authorized by the political jurisdiction which may elect to
provide the benefit effective October 1, 1994, upon adoption of the appropri-
ate resolution. The estimated incremental cost of this benefit for Albemarle
County General Government employees is 0.74 percent of payroll, or approxi-
mately $75,000. The cost will not be reflected in the County's actual dollar
contribution until July 1, 1996.
For the School Division, the state only funds the increase for the
professional classification, which means that additional costs for their
classified retirees must be covered by County funds, estimated to cost an
additional $16,000 to $20,000. However, the State plan does not cover the
full cost even for their professional School Division retirees for three
reasons: funding does not cover any FTE's (full-time equivalents) over the
Standard of Quality (SOQ); only the State average SOQ salary is funded; the
funding is based on the County's composite index (the County pays its share).
The School Division is in the process of calculating the additional costs and
will be discussing this issue with the School Board at its November 14
meeting.
Mr. Tucker said the State has presented a difficult situation by
mandating a three percent Virginia Retirement System (VRS) increase for
certain employees of the local jurisdiction and not others. To not elect to
provide this increased benefit to all county employees implies that the County
endorses a policy of preferential funding treatment for specific employees
cited by the State. Treating one group of County employees differently in the
benefits they receive has not been the basis of the County's personnel policy
in the past and should not be in the future. For that reason staff recommends
approval of the resolution, which will enable all current and future County
employees to receive the increased retirement benefit.
Mr. Tucker said the School Board has not taken any action on this matter
yet, so the Board may adopt the resolution conditioned upon the School Board's
doing the same later this month.
Mr. Perkins asked if the only School employees affected are janitors,
etc. Mr. Tucker said the Schools must pay for the number of teachers hired
above the number allowed by the SOQ criteria. Even if the County were not
required to pay, how would the County determine which teachers are SOQ
teachers, and which are not. Mr. Tucker said he got a letter from the Compen-
sation Board today, and they have indicated that the County is required to pay
for the locally-funded deputies of the Sheriff's Department.
Mrs. Thomas said the Board saw earlier at the legislative session, how
unfunded mandates seem to just "slip" in, and this is certainly one that no
one will admit is an unfunded mandate.
Mrs. Humphris said the cost of this will be over $100,000. Mr. Tucker
said that is true. It is a question of how the County treats its employees.
The State has mandating that for certain employees the benefit will be
provided by either the State or the locality. For other employees, the
benefit is not required and that is not equitable. Mrs. Thomas said that many
of the nonprofessional School Division retirees devoted many years of their
lives to the County.
Mr. Perkins asked how this effects the resources of the Virginia
Retirement System. Mr. Tucker said it will be reflected in an increase in the
County's payroll.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this is a cost which will be added every year.
Mr. Tucker said it begins in 1996. The rates change from time to time, but it
will still be reflected in that rate. Mr. Bowerman said it is a "bitter
pill".
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve
the political subdivision resolution (set out in full below) to provide a
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) ..... 000209
(Page 35) .
three percent benefit increaSe for current and future Albemarle County
retirees. Although, thOBOard~doesi~iti~rei~'c~antly, MrsITh~mas Said she hopes
the word goes out to the retirees that it is done with generosity.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
RESOLUTION
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE A THREE PERCENT
BENEFIT INCREASE FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE RETIREES
BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle does hereby
elect to provide a three percent (3%) retirement allowance in-
crease as provided in the Code of Virginia, §§ 51.1-130, 51.1-155,
55.1-157 as applicable for its eligible current and future retir-
ees under employer code (5-SXXX); and
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle agrees to
accept all liability for any current or future additional employer
contributions and any increases in current or future employer
contribution rates resulting from its election to provide the
increase in benefits to its current and future retirees; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle elects
to allow its eligible current and future retirees to receive the
benefit increase effective October 1, 1994.
NOW, THEREFORE, Walter F. Perkins, Chairman of the Board of
County Supervisors, Albemarle County, Virginia, and Ella W. Carey,
Clerk of the Board of County Supervisors, are hereby authorized
and directed in the name of the County of Albemarle to execute any
required contract in order that said eligible current and future
retirees of the County of Albemarle may participate in the benefit
allowance increase as provided for in the Code of Virginia. In
execution of any contract which may be required, the seal of the
County of Albemarle shall be affixed and attested by the Clerk,
and said officers of the County of Albemarle are authorized and
directed to pay over to the Treasurer of Virginia from time to
time such sums as are due to be paid by the County of Albemarle
for this purpose.
Agenda Item No. 19. Request to set a public hearing to amend Chapter 3
of the County Code to add Sections 3-20 through 3-28 relating to Bingo and
Raffle Permits.
Mr. Tucker said the County has been issuing bingo and raffle permits to
qualified organizations since 1973. Permits issued from 1973 to 1979 were
regulated by conditions adopted by the Board of Supervisors on November 14,
1973. In 1979, the General Assembly enacted Code of Virginia Sections
18.2-340.1, et seq, which placed additional restrictions and requirements on
permits. The Board then appointed the Director of Finance as the local
official to administer the bingo statutes. The County has been issuing
permits since 1979 under these Code Sections in conjunction with the guide-
lines established by the Board.
The 1994 General Assembly changed Code of Virginia Section 18.2-340.3(5)
which deals with permit issuance. The change requires the local governing
body, by ordinance, to require that a certain percentage of an organization's
gross receipts from bingo games be used for those religious, charitable,
community or education purposes for which they were chartered or for expenses
relating to the acquisition, construction, repair or maintenance of real
property used for their chartered purpose.
Since an ordinance must be adopted, staff reviewed the Code of Virginia
for other local options which should be included in this ordinance. Staff
recommends that the draft ordinance be set for a public hearing.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded Mrs. Thomas, to set for
public hearing on December 7, 1994, an ordinance to amend Chapter 3 of the
County Code adding Sections 3-20 through 3-28 relating to Bingo and Raffle
Permits. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None°
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No 20. Discussion: Name change for Charlottesville
Magisterial District. (This item was deleted from the agenda and will heard
instead on December 7, 1994.)
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 0002~0
(Page 36)
Agenda Item No. 22a. Appropriation: Virginia Retirement System (VRS)
Early Retirement Payment, $386,839 (Form #940021).
Mr. Tucker said that in order to pay the County's share of the VRS Early
Retirement Incentive Program, the School Board budgeted $264,380 in their FY
1994-95 operating budget (based on the option of 20 annual payments allowed by
VRS). Since budget funds were appropriated, the School Board voted to use a
portion of their surplus health insurance funds to make an additional payment
of $129,459 toward the cost of the Early Retirement Program (based on the
difference between the ten-year and the twenty-year repayment option). The
School Board also expressed its intent to use any surplus funds in the future
to continue payments at the ten-year repayment level.
Since the total cost of this program ($2,595,723) is considered as debt
owed by the County, it is recorded as an obligation in the Debt Service Fund.
In order to remit payment to VRS, an appropriation is required in the Debt
Service Fund with an offsetting recognition that the actual funds are being
transferred from the School Fund. The additional funds ($122,459) approved by
the School Board are also shown in the total transfer of $386,839 to the Debt
Service Fund .
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation approving the request.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Mumphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95
NUMBER: 940021
FUND: SCHOOL/DEBT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL
PAYMENT ON VRS EARLY RETIREMENT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1242093010930003 TRANSFER TO DEBT SERVICE-VRS
1210061101231000 HEALTH INSURANCE
1990068000910110 VRS EARLY RETIREMENT
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$122,459.00
(122,459.00)
386t839.00
$386,839°00
REVENUE
2990051000512011
DESCRIPTION
TRANSFER FROM SCHOOLS-VRS
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$386,839.00
$386,839.00
Not Docketed: ~r. Tucker noted that the Board members had received a
copy of a letter from the Wythe County Board of Supervisors who expressed
concern because they (Wythe County) had estimated what the cost of the early
retirement program would be on their county (they estimated that amount of be
approximately $900,000). Later they received the estimate from VRS and it was
$3.2 million. Wythe takes issue with VRS.
Mr. Tucker said Albemarle County had only three General Government
employees retire, and the School Division had 36 retire. Albemarle County
staff did not make its own calculation, it was done by VRS. The cost estimate
furnished to the two boards in 1991 was $3.6 million over twenty years. VRS
over-estimated at that time, and it will actually be only $2.595 million.
It appears to County staff that Wythe County did an estimate on their
own which was erroneous. They are obviously concerned because of the discrep-
ancy between the two the estimates.
Mr. Perkins said he had received a letter from Mr° Bill Finley, Chairman
of the School Board, which he thought had been copied to all Board members.
Mr. Finley said the County is spending the equivalent of ten full-time
teaching positions to pay off the early retirement program. Ne enclosed a
copy of the School Board's minutes when the School Board voted on the question
which was said to be a cost neutral program. Mr. Perkins said it is $11,053
per year for each of the 35 early retirees for a total of $110,000 for ten
years per retiree. Mr. Tucker said that is a different issue from what Wythe
County had expressed.
Mr. Perkins said what Mr. Finley is addressing, is that so often things
like this program are sold as being cost neutral or a way to save money
because the salaries for these positions will be replaced with cheaper
salaries, and it never works out that way. Mrs. Thomas asked if the people
who retired were replaced with entry level people. Mr. Perkins said he is not
saying that, but it never seems to happen. Mrs. Thomas said there must be
some cost savings. Mr. Tucker said it would take a fair amount of time to
calculate the savings.
(Page 37) ~
Mr. Perkins said his biggest complaint is the interest rate the County
is paying. Why should the County pay eight percent? Mr. Tucker did not know.
Mrs. Humphris said a long-term, thirty-year bond is eight percent now, so that
is a very high rate for the County to be paying. Mr. Bowerman said that a
year ago, it was less than seven percent, so he does not know where they got
their actuarial assumptions for the interest rate. Mr. Tucker said that is
one more reason to pay it off as early as possible. He said that Mr. Finley's
letter is about something different from the situation brought up by Wythe
County
Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board can request information as to why the
interest rate was set at eight percent. Mr. Tucker said Wythe County has
written the Virginia Retirement System and raised that question so he thinks
Albemarle County will get an answer. He said he will make the same inquiry.
Agenda Item No. 22b. Appropriation: Virginia Public SchOol Authority
(VPSA), $321,165 (Form #940022).
Mr. Tucker said that in January 1994, the County received a $379,165
rebate resulting from VPSA's decision to refinance two previous bond issues.
The terms of the rebate agreement were that the funds must be used for school
purposes and that 15 percent, or $58,000, of the rebate had to be used prior
to July 3, 1994. Since this was prior to purchasing the buses, this amount was
appropriated in June 1994 for equipment at Sutherland School.
During the last budget process, it was decided to use the rebate for the
purchase of school buses and the School Board's request for FY 1994-95
operating funds was reduced accordingly. Since $58,000 of the rebate was
appropriated in June, the remaining $321,165 needs to be appropriated at this
time for payment of the buses.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt
the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95
NUMBER: 940022
FUND: SCHOOL/CIP
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1243262320800500
1900093010930001
TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM CIP TO SCHOOL
FUND AND APPROPRIATION OF VPSA REBATE
FOR PURCHASE OF SCHOOL BUSES
DESCRIPTION
PURCHASE OF SCHOOL BUSES
TRANSFER TO SCHOOL FUND
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$321,165.00
321,165.00
$642,330.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION
2200051000512000 TRANSFER FOR CIP
2900051000510100 APPROP FROM CIP FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$321,165.00
321,165.00
$642,330.00
Agenda Item No. 22c. Appropriation: FY 1993-94 Unexpended School Based
Allocations, $181,432 (Form #940023).
Mr. Tucker said that on August 4, 1993, the Board of Supervisors adopted
a resolution which allows unexpended funds in school-based accounts to be
reappropriated to the next fiscal year. This resolution contained certain
conditions (a copy is on file in the Clerk's Office).
Mr. Tucker said the Acting Superintendent has requested that FY 1993-94
unexpended funds in the school-based accounts be reappropriated back to the
individual schools. The Finance Department calculated the amounts, based on
the conditions set forth in the resolution, which allows up to ten percent of
the budget to be reappropriated.
The School Division is currently compiling justifications for reappro-
priations of the amounts in excess of $1000 as required by the resolution.
Mr. Perkins said some of the amounts seem large, particularly that for
Albemarle High School. He asked why it is that high. He also inquired about
the $16,000 for Henley Middle School. He has heard complaints that the
schools do not get enough money to buy necessary supplies. This $65,000 would
buy a lot of supplies.
Mr. Tucker said he will check and get a breakdown on the figures.
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs.
Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation (Form #940023),
November 2, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
with a request that Mr. Tucker find out why some of the schools had such large
carryover balances.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Mumphris and Mr. Marshall,
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95
NUMBER: 940023
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
REAPPROPRIATION OFFY 93-94 UNEXPENDED
SCHOOL BASED ALLOCATIONS
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1220161101601300 BROADUS WOOD
1220261101601300 BROWNSVILLE
1220361101601300 CROZET
1220461101601300 GREER
1220561101601300 HOLLYMEAD
1220661101601300 MERIWETHER LEWIS
1220761101601300 RED HILL
1220961101601300 SCOTTSVILLE
1221061101601300 STONE ROBINSON
1221161101601300 STONY POINT
1221261101601300 WOODBROOK
1221361101601300 YANCEY
1221461101601300 CALE
1221561101601300 VIRGINIA.L MURRAY
1221661101601300
1225161101601300
1225261101601300
1225361101601300
1225461101601300
1225561101601300
1230161101601300
1230261101601300
1230361101601300
AGNOR-HURT
BURLEY
HENLEY
JOUETT
WALTON
SUTHERLAND
ALBEMARLE
WESTERN
MURRAY
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$6,575.00
6,424.00
3,666.00
9,549.00
5,908.00
5,397.00
5,002,00
4,806.00
7,541.00
654.00
5,149.00
4,304.00
3,855.00
1,110.00
(9O.O0)
3,707.00
16,068.00
9,610.00
4,481.00
446.00
65,702.00
7,081.00
4w487.00
$181,432.00
REVENUE
2200051000510100
DESCRIPTION
APPROP FROM SCHOOL FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$181,432.00
$181,432.00
Agenda Item No. 22d. Appropriation: FY 1994-95 Educational Grants,
$56,727.90 (Form #940026).
Mr. Tucker said the School Board has approved and requested the appro-
priation of funds for five educational grants.
1) The General Adult Education Grant (GAE). The State Department of
Education's Office of Adult Education approved an application from Albemarle
County Schools for $7,987 to support its GAE Program. This program provides
instructional services to meet the needs of adults who are working toward a
high school diploma.
2) The Adult Basic Education Grant (ABE). The State Department of
Education's Office of Adult Education approved an application from Albemarle
County Schools for $32,672.00 to support the ABE program. This program
provides instructional services to adults whose skills in reading, math and
other subjects are below the eighth grade level in order to prepare them for
the GED exam.
3) The reappropriation of the State Legalization Impact Assistant Grant
(SLIAG). The grant had a fund balance of $1,755.49 at the end of the 1993-94
fiscal year. The funds will be used to provide family literacy services to
migrant and Chapter I students and their families.
4) The reappropriation of the G.E. Extra Curricular & Science Grant.
The grant had a fund balance of $14,213.41 at the end of the 1993-94 fiscal
year. The funds will be used to defray the cost of the program in the middle
schools. This program brings teachers, parents, students and engineers from
General Electric together to pursue an integrated science experiment and
project°
5) The reappropriation of the Teacher Incentive Grant awarded to the
Math/Science Center. The grant had a fund balance of $100 at the end of the
1993-94 fiscal year..The funds will be used to continue to strengthen the
qualitY of arts education in the schools and to encourage innovative projects
which integrate the arts into the basic curriculum of the classroom.
November 2, 1994 (Regular D&y~Meeting) 0002~
(page 39)
Mo%ion was offered.by 'Mrs, Humphris, se¢on4e4 by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt
the following resolution of appropriation (Form #940026) approving the
request. Roll was called, and the motion carried bY the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95
NUMBER: 940026
FUND: SCHOOL/GRANTS
PURPOSE-OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF SCHOOL GRANTS-
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1211361107112100 sALARIES-TEACHER
1211361107210000 FICA
1211361107111400 SALARIES-OTHER MANAGEMENT
1211361107112100 SALARIES-TEACHER
1211361107210000 FICA
1211361107221000 RETIREMENT
1211361107231000 HEALTH INSURANCE
1211361107232000 DENTAL INSURANCE
1211361107550100 TRAVEL
1211361107601300 REC/EDUC SUPPLIES
1311063380132100 PART-TIME WAGES-TEACHER
1311063380210000 FICA
1311063380550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE
1310460000312500 PROF SERVICES-INSTRUCTIONAL
1320661311601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$7,420.00
567.00
4,792.52
22,726.23
2,105.18
544.40
280.32
12.00
738.54
1,472.81
1,375.00
105.49
275.00
100.00
14,213.41
$56,727.90
REVENUE DESCRIPTION
2200024000240240 GENERAL ADULT EDUC GRANT
2200024000240225 ADULT BASIC EDUC GRANT
2311033000300001 SLIAG PROGRAM
2310451000510100 TEACHER INCENTIVE GRANT #94-856
2320651000510100 G E GRANT-FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$7,987.00
32,672.00
1,755.49
100.00
14,213.41
$56,727.90
Agenda Item No. 23. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Perkins asked about the joint meeting with City Council. Mr. Tucker
said it is scheduled for November 18, 1994, at noon in this building. There
is no specific agenda scheduled, but based on things mentioned by individual
Board members, items which could be discussed are: the regional economic
development partnership, skateboarding, combining the Parks & Recreation
departments of the City/County, juvenile detention needs and jail expansion.
Mrs. Humphris asked that if the meeting goes forward, a meaningful
agenda be set. Mr. Tucker asked if any of the items he just mentioned should
be a part of an agenda. Mrs. Humphris said she is not in favor of discussing
the economic development partnership.
Mr. Tucker asked about the Parks & Recreation issue. Mrs. Humphris said
a report the Board received earlier concluded that the City spends much more
on the parks function than the County so it would cost the County a lot of
money. She does not want to have a meeting just to be social. It is not a
social occasion, and she does not want to do it unless there is something to
be discussed with Council.
Mrs. Thomas said she is one of the two people who suggested this
meeting. She cannot imagine that a year has gone by without talking to City
Council. She realizes there is the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC).
She is not happy that a year has gone by, and the Board members have ess-
entially not talked to "ourselves" either. She thinks it is a strange Board
that does not have discussions about plans or whatever. She said there is a
Revenue Sharing Agreement that says the two localities will constantly look
for ways to combine services, and the Board and Council should get together
and talk.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board and Council have met. Staff studies of the
departments of Inspections, Parks and Recreation and Purchasing, were done and
they reached a conclusion on all three in the last couple of years. She feels
strongly about this. It is nice to cooperate and be sociable, but those
meetings have not proved fruitful. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mrs. Humphris would
like to talk about the Four-party Agreement and the interchanges on Route 29
North. Mrs. Humphris said there is an agreement, and if somebody wants to
break it, they need to decide that and let the Board know why. Mr. Bowerman
said, in that case, there is no agenda for a meeting with City Council.
November 2, ~994 (Regular Day Meet£ng)
(Page 40)
Mr. Perkins asked'ab°ut~ the jail. Mrs. Humphris said she heard Council
is going to deal with the jail issue soon. Mr. Tucker said it is next week.
Mr. Perkins said he met with the MayOr several weeks ago, and they went
through some possible items for discussion. Most of them had been talked
about before. The only new issue has to do with the skateboarding issue.
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees with Mrs. Humphris that unless there is an
agenda which is meaningful, he would rather not take the time to get together.
Mrs. Thomas said the same thing will happen next year when she makes the
suggestion that the two localities meet, and then it will have been two years
since the last meeting. She asked what period of time should elapse between
meetings.
Mr. Bowerman said if the Board looks at the agreement on transportation,
he definitely would want to sit down. Mr. Marshall said he heard that this
started out to be a twenty-year plan and now it is being condensed and "we"
are wasting money. Mrs. Humphris said if the interchanges are not built in
the approved fashion it will kill that whole corridor for shopping because
people will not go there. They will get on that not too utilized bypass and
go as far as they can go. Route 29 will be right back to where it was before
construction started. The whole thing is a political, smudge screen to hide
the real facts. It is scare tactics and what is upsetting to her is that the
people who did it, took advantage of being able to go to the meeting at the
Rotunda when only Mr. Perkins was invited, but these people went and used the
information way ahead of when the public received it. Mrs. Humphris said
there was a "gentlemen's agreement" and the Board would never go to a meeting
like that and take information away from it and use it in an untimely fashion
for its own political agendas to scare people before people had a chance to
make an unbiased decision on something. The Board would never tell all of its
employees they had an hour off from work to go and sign a petition at the
meeting. It could never be said that "the Board of Supervisors did not take
this up publicly and never discussed it legally". It could never be said that
"the Board of Supervisors mandated this and we don't have anything to do with
it, it is the Commonwealth Transportation Board." All of this is a bunch of
garbage, and you have to look behind the smoke screen to see who is putting
out the smoke and interpret it for what it is, selfish self-interest. If the
City Council is to be persuaded for whatever political reasons, then all this
Board can do is respond to it, but she does not think this Board should be a
party to whatever they do.
Mr. Tucker said if the Board does not have an agenda, the Board should
say there is no need to meet since there is a meeting scheduled. Council may
come up with an item, and then it would be their meeting. If the Board wants
to cancel the meeting, he needs to know that.
Mr. Bowerman said if Council has an agenda and they provide a copy to
the Board to look at and there is need to meet, then he would be agreeable to
meeting. Mr. Tucker said he thinks it will be same items that were mentioned
earlier.
Mr. Perkins suggested the meeting be canceled, and the two bodies can
meet in December or January if a meeting is needed.
Mr. Bowerman said when the Mayor and the Chairman can settle on an
agenda, he will be agreeable to meeting. Mr. Marshall said he thinks they
need to talk about the interchanges. Mr. Perkins said Mr. Martin brought up
this idea first, and he is not speaking for him in his absence, but he
believes Mr. Martin wanted to meet just to socialize if for no other reason.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board members don't even take the time to meeting
socially with each other.
Mrs. Thomas said she would make one last suggestion. There is an
agreement that both bodies will work constantly on what services and areas can
be combined. The last thing she will say is that in talking a person from the
South Boston area, which is going through a reversion, this person thought the
whole problem was that the City and County never talked to each other and grew
so far apart that finally they were hardened in their stands.
Mrs. Thomas said she gets the picture that the Parks and Recreation item
was left dangling because this Board decided it had no interest, but if that
never got back to City Council, how do they know the County's feelings on the
subject? Mr. Tucker said a study was done and the County did not see a
significant savings in the areas of Purchasing or Parks and Recreation. He
does not how that was presented to Council. He thinks it was presented to
them, but it never was discussed jointly. Purchasing was.
Mr. Tucker said he will call the City Manager and make him aware of this
discussion. He said it would be helpful if Mr. Perkins would talk to the
Mayor. Unless there is an agenda item which he can present to this Board on
November 16 to review, the meeting is canceled.
Agenda Item No. 24. Adjourn.
At 3:43 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs.
Humphris, to cancel the regular meeting scheduled for November 9, 1994, and to
adjourn this meeting until November 16~ 1994 at 5:00 p.m. for a joint meeting
with the School Board.
November 2 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~,~
(Page 41)
Roll was called, 'and themoti°n carrled bY the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs;i:Thom&s~; Mr, B0w~m~", Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Chairman