HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-12-07December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 0002~
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on December 7, 1994, Room 7, County Office Building,
McIntire Road, Charlottesville,~Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs.
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin, Walter F. Perkins and Mrs.
Sally H. Thomas.
A~SENT: 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 9:00 A.M., by the
Chairman, Mr. Walter F. 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.
Mr. James Clark said he is concerned about Governor Allen's proposal to
do away with business licenses. He feels this will hurt the County finan-
cially. He understands that business license fees account for $4.0 million in
County revenue each year. He feels such a revenue loss will cause tax rates
to increase. He asked that the County take a stand on this issue.
Mr. Marshall said he attended a meeting in Richmond last week and he
thinks the Governor is proposing to do away with the gross receipts tax which
is a tax local businesses pay on sales, rather than profit. He does not think
the proposal is to do away with the business license tax, but nothing has been
formalized. Mr. Clark said the City of Charlottesville took a position on
this proposal last week. Mr. Marshall said he thinks the Board needs to wait
and see more about the proposal. Mr. Clark said he wanted the BOard to be
aware of the proposal because if implemented, the County will lose revenue.
Mr. Tucker said he had planned to discuss this issue at the end of the
meeting. He wanted to make the Board aware of how much revenue would be lost.
He met with Delegates Way and Van Yahres this morning and discussed this issue
with them.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded
by Mrs. Thomas, to approve items 5.1 through 5.7b, and to accept the remaining
items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
Item 5.la. Appropriation: Capital Improvements Program - ($13,580),
(Form #940033). It was noted in a staff report that there are a number of
capital projects which will exceed their current appropriation. Funds to
complete these projects can be transferred from the Western Albemarle High
School (WAHS) Pedestrian Crossing project which will cost about $60,000 less
than anticipated.
The sidewalk along Rio Road was constructed by the Highway Department
per an agreement signed September 13, 1989, and completed in 1992. VDoT
verbally confirmed that the final bill had been submitted to the County, so
the appropriation balance was returned to the General Fund. After the final
audit of the project, the County received two invoices totaling $17,524.
When the developer of Langford Subdivision defaulted on road construc-
tion in the subdivision, the bond was called and the funds appropriated to
complete the road to VDoT requirements. The County Attorney at that time said
funds could not be recovered from the developer's corporation. Due to the age
and deterioration of the road, plus increased cost of materials, the cost to
the County was greater than originally estimated. The road has now been
completed and taken over by VDoT.
As a requirement of taking Hillsdale Road and Branchlands Boulevard into
the State System of secondary roads, the new ADA requirement for ramping was
imposed at seven locations where sidewalks did not already exist. It was
agreed that the County and developer would share this cost; one-half was
received from the developer. Since the project cost is greater than estimat-
ed, the County's share increased. The additional appropriation will be.
matched by work provided by the developer.
Commonwealth Drive was extended to Greenbrier Drive last year and then
Peyton Drive was taken out of service. VDoT requires a one-year performance
bond at the time of road acceptance. At the one-year performance inspection~
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
000: 46
minor repairs were required and VDoT agreed to do the work at a cost estimated
to be less than $2000, ~:
The WAHS Press Box project.overran its budget by $6000 due to unantici-
pated expenses associated with meeting code requirements.
THE WAHS Pedestrian Crossing project was accomplished at-grade instead
of tunneling under Route 250. The total savings for the project was $60,000.
Since $8500 has already been transferred to the paving project at the Health
Department, the remaining $51,500 may be transferred back to the Fund Balance.
The cost of the projects listed is $37,920, so the appropriation form
shows a positive transfer of $13,580 into the Fund Balance.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation approving the request, was adopted.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95
NUMBER: 940033
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1900041000950038
1900041000950096
1900041000950043
1900041020950065
1900060302800901
1900060302950020
TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR PROJECTS THAT
HAVE OR WILL EXCEED BUDGET PROJECTIONS
DESCRIPTION
RIO ROAD SIDEWALK
LANGFORD/PIPPIN
HILLSDALE/BRANCHLANDS
COMMONWEALTH DRIVE
WAHS PRESS BOX
WAHS PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$17,524.00
11,696.00
700.00
2,000.00
6,000.00
(51,500.00)
($13,580.00)
REVENUE
2900051000510100
DESCRIPTION
APPROP FROM FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
($13,580.00)
($13,580.00)
Item 5.lb. Appropriation: Regional Jail Board - $5,600, (Form
#940034). It was noted that the State Compensation Board granted its employ-
ees pay for performance increases effective December 1, 1994. However, the
General Assembly did not include Block Grant personnel and the Superintendent
in their funding allocation. The Jail Board has approved an increase for
these personnel to be deducted from Inmate Telephone funds. The one-time
request is for $5600. The Board of Supervisors must approve the transfer
since Albemarle County is the fiscal agent for Jail funds.
Mrs. Thomas asked if this is a one time request because it is an equity
issue. Mr. Tucker said it will be a budgeted item in the future. This will
be an on-going expense for the County and the City.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation approving the request, was adopted.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95
NUMBER: 940034
FUND: JOINT SECURITY
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR SALARY INCREASES FOR
EMPLOYEES NOT FUNDED BY THE STATE
COMPENSATION BOARD
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1400033020110000 SALARIES-REGULAR
1400033020210000 FICA
1400033020221000 RETIREMENT
1400033020241000 LIFE INSURANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$4,750.00
400.00
350.00
100.00
$5,600.00
REVENUE
2400016000160527
DESCRIPTION
TELEPHONE SYSTEM REVENUE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$5,600.00
$5,600.00
Item 5.1c. Appropriation: Migrant Education Coordination Grant -
$34,976.77, (Form #940035). It was noted that Migrant Identification and
Recruitment Grant funds are used to hire a local migrant recruiter to coordi-
nate identification and recruitment of migrant children and families in the
Commonwealth. This person will hire and train recruiters around the state to
make sure all eligible migrant students are located and adequately served.
This account had a fund balance of $34,976.77 at the end of FY 1993-94~ and
the School Board has requested reappropriation of the funds.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation approving the request, was adopted.
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: i994'95 ......
NUMBER: 940035
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE
MIGRANT IDENTIFICATION & RECRUITMENT GRANT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1311461101110000 SALARIES-REGULAR
1311461101210000 FICA
1311461101550400 TRAVEL
TOTAL
REVENUE
2311433000300001
DESCRIPTION
MIGRANT EDUC GRANT
TOTAL
000247
AMOUNT
$28,331.43
2,167.34
4,478.00
$34,976.77
AMOUNT
$34,976.77
$34,976.77
Item 5.1d. Appropriation: Emergency Operations Center Donation - $900,
(Form #940036). It was noted that the Emergency Operations Center received a
donation of $900 for their assistance at the July 4, 1994, fire at the
Piedmont Health Care facility. In order to expend the funds, an appropriation
must first be approved by this Board.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation approving the request, was adopted.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95
NUMBER: 940036
FUND: EMERGENCY OPERATIONS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: AUTHORIZATION TO DISTRIBUTE DONATION
RECEIVED FROM PIEDMONT HEALTH CARE FACILITY TO OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1410031040560000 CONTRIBUTION TO OTHER ENTITIES
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$900.00
$900.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION
2410018000189902 OTHER REVENUE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$900.00
$900.00
Item 5.1e. Appropriation: Department of Social Services Vendor
Payments - $73,535, (Form #940037). It was noted that prior to 1981 when the
Albemarle County Department of Social Services instituted a pilot program for
the State, the County was required to expend funds for state vendor payments
which were then reimbursed by the State. The 1981 pilot program instituted a
State vendor payment system where the State directly paid the vendors with no
County involvement. Since there are only three programs in the State that are
using the state vendor payment and there is no plan to implement it statewide,
the State has asked the County to discontinue this practice. To do this means
returning to the old system whereby the County must appropriate funds for the
State "up-front". The Social Services Department is requesting a total
appropriation of $75,535 to cover vendor expenditures. There are no local
funds requested. All appropriations will be reimbursed by State and Federal
funds.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation approving the request, was adopted.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95
NUMBER: 940037
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1100053013570600 ADC-FOSTER CARE
1100053013570610 ADOPTION SUBSIDY
1100053013570620 ADOPTION-SPECIAL NEEDS
1100053013571006 AFDC DAY CARE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$36,000.00
8,585.00
18,950.00
10,000.00
$73,535.00
REVENUE
2100024000240111
DESCRIPTION
SOCIAL SERVICES-ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$73,535.00
$73,535.00
Item 5.2. Authorize staff to seek enabling legislation that would allow
Albemarle County to implement Linked Deposit Program for affordable housing.
It was noted in the staff's report that in 1993, State legislation was
adopted which permits any county or city with an affordable housing program
pursuant to State law to consider the affordable housing activities of a
financial institution when determining the award of a contract for investment
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day'Meeting) 000248
(Page 4) ~
of funds'. Such activities include providing mortgages with reduced interest
rates or down payment fuh~~dih~ h6~ihg Counseling or providing loans
for housing rehabilitation.
No more than 25 percent of the locality's funds, calculated on the basis
of the average daily balance of the General Fund during the previous fiscal
year, may be deposited or invested considering such affordable housing
activities. This amendment to the State Code expires July 1, 1997. Prior to
considering implementation of this program in Albemarle County, enabling
legislation must be obtained. Albemarle County currently does not have an
affordable housing program adopted pursuant to State law. The County's
program pre-dates state provisions and is grandfathered under State law.
Albemarle County will need to initiate an amendment to the original linked
deposit enabling legislation to permit localities with their own affordable
housing program to adopt the linked deposit provisions.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized staff to take
the appropriate steps to secure enabling legislation that would allow Albe-
marle County to implement the program. Once the enabling legislation is in
place, staff is to proceed with a detailed analysis of the program impacts and
provide a recommendation to the Board as to the feasibility of adopting the
program.
Item 5.3. Resolution for the addition and abandonment of sections of
Route 20 and Route 742 due to the reconstruction of Route 20 at the intersec-
tion of Route 742. At the request of Mr. Gerald G. Utz, Contract Administra-
tor, Virginia Department of Transportation, the following resolutions were
adopted by the vote set out above~
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has
constructed a portion of Route 250 on a new alignment under
Project 0250-002-105, C501, B601, and
WHEREAS, the project sketch attached and incorporated herein
as part of this resolution, defines adjustments required in the
primary system of state highways as a result of this construction,
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the
Virginia Department of Transportation to abandon from the state
system of highways, that portion of road identified as Section 1
on the sketch, a distance of 0.24 miles, pursuant to Section 33.1-
148, Code of Virginia, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this
resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has
constructed a portion of Route 1421 on a new alignment under
Project 0250-002-105, C501, B601, and
WHEREAS, the project sketch attached and incorporated herein
as part of this resolution, defines adjustments required in the
primary system of state highways as a result of this construction,
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the
Virginia Department of Transportation to add to the secondary
system of state highways that portions of road identified as
Section 4 on the sketch to be added, a distance of 0.04 miles,
pursuant to Section 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board abandons as part of the
secondary system of state highways, that portion of road identi-
fied as Section 3 on the sketch, a distance of 0.04 miles, pursu-
ant to Section 33.1-155, Code of Virginia, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this
resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
Item 5.4. Resolution to accept St. Ives Road (bulb) in Camelot Subdivi-
sion 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 street in Camelot Subdivision described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 7, 1994, fully
incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and
[
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
000249
WHEREAS,.the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of TransportatiOn nas ~d~-th~~that the street meets 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 road in Camelot Subdivision as described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 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 ALSO 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
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees the perfor-
mance of St. Ives Road (bulb) for a period of one year from the
date of acceptance into the secondary system of state highways
against-defective materials and/or workmanship up to a maximum of
$3750; 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:
1)
St. Ives Road (bulb) from the edge of pavement of
State Route 1551, 91 lineal feet to the end of the
"bulb" as shown on plat recorded 10-22-68 in Deed Book
450, pages 127-128, with a 100 foot right-of-way
(guaranteed width of right-of-way exclusive of any
necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage),
total length 0.02 mile.
Item 5.5. Withdraw without prejudice SUB-94-053, Northfield Recreation
Area Preliminary Plat. Letter dated November 23, 1994, was received from Mr.
Frederick W. Payne, attorney for the applicants, requesting withdrawal of the
application for approval of the noted subdivision plat. By the recorded vote
set out above, the request to withdraw without prejudice SUB-94-053, was
approved.
Item 5.6. Adopt Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to
permit hog farms by-right in the Rural Areas District. This matter had been
discussed at the November 2, 1994, meeting of the Board. By the recorded vote
set out above, the following resolution of intent was adopted:
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance for purposes of public necessi-
ty, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice, in
Section 10.0 Rural Areas District, to remove hog farms by special
use permit (10.2.2.11), and to add hog farms by right (10.2.1.xx),
as required by Virginia Code Sections 3.1-22.28 and 15.1-491.
FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to
hold public hearing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance,
and does request that the Planning Commission send its recommenda-
tion to this Board at the earliest possible date.
Item 5.7. Set public hearing for January 4, 1994, to amend Article II,
Section 4-19, of the County Code to include Glenmore Planned Residential
Development as one of those areas where dogs are prohibited from running at
large. By the recorded vote set out above, this matter was set for a public
hearing on January 4, 1994.
Item 5.7a. Authorize County Executive to sign necessary documents for
vacation of right-of-way for public road (Amber Ridge Court) in Highlands at
River 2A. It was noted that the plat for Highlands showing Amber Ridge
Court was approved on October 14, 1993. The dwelling constructed on Lot 84
does not meet the required minimum setback from the edge of the right-of-way.
The road has been built and the design is acceptable. The property owner
along the road have agreed to the changes. This vacation is to permit an
existing dwelling to remain as constructed and allow issuance of a certificate
occupancy. By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was
to sign the necessary documents to complete the vacation of
right-of-way.
Item 5.7b. Resolution for the addition and abandonment of sections of
250 and Route 1421 due to the reconstruction of Route 250 on Pantops
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
ooo o
Mountain. As requested by Mr. Gerald G. Utz, Contract Administrator, Virginia
Department of Virginia, th~i~6~~l~tlons were adopted by the vote set
out above~
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has
constructed a portion of Route 20 on a new alignment under Project
0020-002-105, S17, C501, and
WHEREAS, the project sketch attached and incorporated herein
as part of this resolution, defines adjustments required in the
primary system of state highways as a result of this construction,
and ·
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the
Virginia Department of Transportation to abandon from the state
system of highways, that portion of road identified as Section 1
on the sketch, a distance of 0.08 miles, and Section 2 on the
sketch, a distance of 0.13 miles, a total of 0.21 miles, pursuant
to Section 33.1-148, Code of Virginia, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this
resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has
constructed a portion of Route 742 on a new alignment under
Project 0020-002-S17, C501, and
WHEREAS, the project sketch attached and incorporated herein
as part of this resolution, defines adjustments required in the
primary system of state highways as a result of this construction,
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the
Virginia Department of Transportation to add to the secondary
system of highways, that portion of road identified as Section 3
on the sketch, a distance of 0.01 miles, pursuant to Section 33.1-
229, Code of Virginia, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this
resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
Item 5.8. Letter dated November 30, 1994, from Mrs. A. G. Tucker,
Assistant Resident Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, in response to
transportation issues discussed at the Board's meeting on November 2, 1994.
The first item concerned Owensvitle Road (Route 678) at Route 250 in the
commercial area in Ivy. A signal warrant analysis was conducted, but a
traffic signal is not supported at this time. During the twelve-hour count,
operational concerns were noted with the turning movements allowed by the
existing intersecti6~'~configuration. The Department presently proposes
modifying the pavement markings and signing in accordance with Figure i on a
sketch sent to the Board (on file). The tentative schedule for this work is
Spring 1995. The Department is currently working with Mrs. Sally Thomas to
review possible long-term solutions to this intersection, including review of
a potential primary funded improvement project on Route 250. Such a solution
could include signalization when the ultimate geometries are finalized.
Mrs. Tucker said a question was asked about the warrants used for the
installation of flashers: Basically there are no specific warrants for the
installation of an overhead flasher other than safety concerns. This may be
best explained by specific examples. As one proceeds westbound on Route 250
toward its intersection with Route 677, the motorist encounters a vertical
curve just east of the intersection. With the isolated nature of this inter-
section, a full operated signal in itself may violate motorist expectations
thereby increasing the potential for rear-end type collisions at the stop
condition point. Compounding the problem is any queue which develops in the
westbound direction backing up toward the crest thereby hampering the motor-
ist's reaction time to the signal-induced stop condition. At this particular
intersection, the existing accident history is not significant and may in fact
become more severe following a signal installation where the above described
conditions are prevalent (there are studies which have confirmed this phenome-
non). It is the Department's stance that an emphasis on the impending condi-
tions which the motorist will encounter is needed rather than to stop all
traffic and possibly create more serious complications on the main road (Route
250), than were present under pre-existing conditions.
At the Route 250/678 intersection, operational concerns should be ad-
dressed prior to a flasher or traffic signal being installed. It is consid-
ered most cost-effective to review the need for a traffic signal concurrently
with the need for primary road improvements and the potential realignment of
this intersection. In any location where a signal is being considered, the
Department must weigh all factors in its decision as to whether a fully
operational signal is the best option.for the conditions at hand. Presently~
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
traffic signals at interseCtions R°utei250/677 and Routes 250/678 are not
supported until road impr~gements 66~"~d/0r additional signal warrants are
met.
Department of Transportation policy regarding the application of gravel
to roadways for purposes of ordinary maintenance applies to all non-stabilized
public roads. Public requests for such maintenance should be directed to the
appropriate VDoT maintenance area headquarters listed in the phone book or to
the main residency office at 293-0011. Priority will be given to these
requests in accordance with relative safety concerns and area headquarters
general workloads. It is not necessary to request support from one's local
board of supervisor member for such action. Only for purposes of supporting
gravel road improvement projects is one guided to contact their board repre-
sentative.
The Bellair Task Force will hold a meeting on Monday December 5 at 4:00
p.m. to discuss final improvements to the Routes 250/601 intersection/area.
The maintenance superintendents have been notified of the Board's
concern regarding the cleaning of culverts after storms. They have been
directed to attend to these needs as soon as possible.
Item 5.9. Letter dated November 22, 1994, from Mrs. A. G. Tucker,
Assistant Resident Engineer, to Mrs. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, providing notice
that the advertisement date on the Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) project between
Lamb's Road and Rio Road has been revised to a tentative date of December,
1995. This change is due to revising an alignment in order to minimize the
impact of construction on several properties.
Item 5.10. Letter dated November 22, 1994, from Mrs. A. G. Tucker,
Assistant Resident Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, forwarding the
monthly update on highway improvement projects currently under construction in
Albemarle County. It was noted that the Route 20 project from 3.4 mile south
of Route 53 to 3.8 mile south of Route 53 is 80 percent completed and should
be completed in December, 1994.
Item 5.11. Letter dated November 21, 1994, from Mr. G. Michael Shelton,
Mayor, City of Bedford, announcing that the National D-Day Memorial Foundation
has selected Bedford, Virginia, as the location for the National D-Day
Memorial Monument, received for information.
Item 5.12. Status Report: Skateboard Park. Furnished to the Board was
an updated status report of discussions between City and County Parks and
Recreation Department staff, area skateboarders, and interested citizens on
the development of a Skateboard Park. It was noted that since this is a
City/County concern and many of the skateboarders are teenagers, the Teen
Center Director, Ms. Amy Smith, has been asked to coordinate discussions on
this issue for the C~ty and County.
Mrs. Humphris said she had envisioned a simple facility where skate-
boarding could be done; she did not realize that the facility would have an
operating budget of approximately $23,000 per year, or require the County to
provide insurance and supervise the facility. As the County and Board review
this issue, they should keep in mind the issues of fairness, priorities~
availability of fund~'~nd On-going costs. The Board needs to carefully look
at this, given all of the demands it has in its capital budget and operating
budget and the number of people this facility would serve. Mr. Perkins
concurred.
Mr. Tucker said staff suggested that there be operational costs and
someone to oversee the operations because there had to be supervision to keep
mopeds and motorized vehicles from using the facility for other purposes. Mr.
Tucker asked Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, to comment on
the operational costs and when this is envisioned to come before the Board and
City Council.
Mr. Mullaney said he discussed with the skateboarders what they are
requesting and tried to ascertain the amount of interest in the proposed
facility. The proposed facility would have to be supervised to get an
insurance policy and if there were injuries, the County could be liable. The
bulk of the operational costs are salaries and insurance. If the City and
County were to agree to charge a fee, staff feels one-half of the cost could
be returned and the remainder would be split between the City and the County
(approximately $6000).
Mr. Martin said he did not envision this type of facility, but anytime a
group of kids can raise $300,000 to build such a facility, he feels the County
can pay $6000 in operational costs.
Mrs. Humphris asked how many people are anticipated to use the facility.
Mr. Mullaney said approximately 40 people on the weekends and 15 people per
day on weekdays. He questioned whether this would be an area where skate-
boarding would be popular because it is usually associated with beach communi-
ties. The skateboarders have been involved in designing this facility which
gives it a better chance.
Mrs. Humphris asked how many people use other facilities like this. Mr.
said a lot of the skateboard parks are "on a down-hill slide" because
are bored with a "half-pint" facility. The most popular park is in
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
000252
Chesapeake where participation is approximately the same as the participation
expected at the facility p~6posed.
Mrs. Thomas asked how many "kids" have been attending these meetings.
Mr. Mullaney said eight "hard-core" skateboarders attended the last meeting.
Mrs. Humphris said she did not think it was fair to let the proponents
go forward thinking that there is no concern about any of this. Mr. Mullaney
said the proponents are going to City Council on December 19, 1994, and will
request a site at McIntire Park. If approved, the funds and materials are to
be collected.
Item 5.13. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for November 8 and
November 15, 1994, received for information.
Item 5.14. October, 1994 Financial Report, received for information.
Item 5.15. Acme Design Technology, Co. report of operating results for
October, 1994 (on file in the Clerk's office), received for information.
Item 5.16. A List of Job Training Programs available for Albemarle
County residents in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, was
received for information.
Item 5.17. Memorandum from Mr. Robert B. Brandenburger, Deputy Director
of Human Resources, to Dr. Carole A. Hastings, Acting Superintendent, and Mr.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: Governor Wilder's Early Retire-
ment Program. This was in response to questions which arose at the November 2
Board meeting concerning a letter received from the Wythe County Board of
Supervisors in which they expressed concern over the total cost and interest
rates charged to participate in the 1991 Virginia Retirement System (VRS)
early retirement program.
As to the question of the interest rate being charged, Mr. Brandenburger
said that in talking to Mr. Gary Smith, Assistant Director at VRS, VRS was
advised by their actuaries to fund the lump sum necessary for this program at
eight percent because that was the rate used by the actuaries as the return on
VRS investments. If they charged less than eight percent, they would be
taking a loss on their investment potential, and would have to reflect this in
a VRS rate increase to school divisions. The alternative for the County would
have been to seek other funding for the cost of the program through other
financial institutions at a lower interest rate. This was not considered at
the time.
Item 5.18. Memorandum dated November 21, 1994, from Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: Erosion Control Program. Mr. Tucker had
noted that erosion control is a very important program provided by Albemarle
County. Due to its high visibility, it is a program that is frequently
scrutinized for effectiveness, yet somewhat difficult to evaluate objectively.
One such review is conducted by the State Division of Soil and Water Conserva-
tion every two to three years. Their most recent finding gave Albemarle's
program a rating of 18 out of a possible 20 points.
Mr. Perkins congratulated the people involved with the Erosion Control
Program.
Mrs. Humphris asked if this could be given some publicity because people
need to know that the ordinances put into place have been extremely success-
ful. Mr. Tucker said he will take care of this.
Item 5.19. Notice dated October 21, 1994, of an application filed by
Yellow Brick Road, Ltd., with the State Corporation Commission for a license
to broker the transportation of passengers by motor vehicles, was received for
information.
Item 5.20. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Bond Program
Report and Monthly Report for the month of October, 1994, was received for
information.
Item 5.21. Abstract of Votes from the November 8, 1994, General and
Special Elections, was received as information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: March 17 and October 13~
1993; July 6, August 3, August 17, November 2 and November 16N, 1994.
Mr. Martin said he read the minutes of March 17, 1993, and August 17,
1994, and passed typographical errors to the Clerk.
Mr. Bowerman said he read the minutes of October 13, 1993, and August 3,
1994, pages 1 through 19, and passed typographical errors to the Clerk.
Mr. Marshall said he read the minutes of August 3, 1994, page 19 to the
end, and found them to be in order.
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mrs. Thomas said she read the minutes 'of November 2, 1994, page 20 to
the end, and passed typog~'~i
errors ~o the Clerk.
Mr. Perkins said he read the minUtes of November 2, 1994, pages 1
through 19, and November 16(N), 1994, and found them to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the
minutes of March 17 and October 13, 1993; August 3, August 17, November 2 and
November 16N, 1994. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Other Transportation Matters.
The Board congratulated Mrs. Angela TuCker on her promotion as the
Resident Engineer for the Charlottesville Residency of the Culpeper District
of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Mrs. TuCker asked if there were any questions concerning her letter,
dated November 30, 1994, (item 5.8 on the consent agenda) regarding last
month's Board meeting. Mr. Perkins said he appreciated a response in writing
addressing Board concerns.
Mrs. Thomas said she talked with Mrs. Tucker about having a meeting in
Ivy to discuss the intersection of Owensville Road (Route 678/Route 250). A
neighborhood and user meeting will be held in January to discuss what immedi-
ate steps can be taken.
Mrs. Humphris said she received a call from someone on the Planning
staff informing her that she may be contacted by a citizen interested in
purchasing the vacant piece of property at the corner of Hydraulic Road and
Georgetown Road. She became concerned about access to that property because
the off-ramp from Hydraulic Road goes around the edge of this property and a
new, private entrance has been constructed. She asked when staff should talk
with VDoT about access to this property. Mrs. Tucker said VDoT can work
directly with her (Mrs. Humphris) or the citizen. Since this is a commercial
entrance she does not think an additional access should be constructed near
the intersection.
Mrs. Humphris said Mr. Roosevelt discussed with this Board the ultimate
improvements to Georgetown Road which included four-laning to the intersec-
tion. That project would have a definite impact on the property because of
the apartment complex on the southeast corner. Mrs. Tucker said it would be
best to look at this issue along with the ultimate improvements on Georgetown
Road.
Mr. Martin said there is a problem with the timing of the light at the
intersection of Route 29 North and Rio Road. If a vehicle is going south on
Route 29 and turning left onto Rio Road, before the driver gets through the
light, traffic on Route 29 heading north is proceeding. Mrs. Tucker said she
will look at the timing of the lights.
Mrs. Thomas asked Mrs. Tucker to do a follow-up with the residents of
Route 791.
Mrs. Thomas said the school system holds bus drivers responsible for
scratches to their buses. The bus drivers are concerned about tree trimming.
Mr. Willie Smith, Director of Transportation, has tried to contact VDoT's
maintenance manager to discuss tree trimming on some County roads. Mrs.
Tucker said she will get in touch with Mr. Smith and work with him on this
matter.
Mr. Perkins asked that a median strip and stop bar be painted on Tabor
Street in Crozet. Mrs. Tucker said she will take care of this.
Mr. Marshall asked when Route 20 South will be leveled where the new
construction recently occurred. Mr. Rick James, Construction Engineer, said
the contractor milled the road yesterday and it is supposed to be paved today.
Mrs. Thomas said she appreciates Mrs. Tucker taking care of the problem
caused by the dip in the road on Route 250 West near the Christian Meeting
House.
Mr. Bowerman said during the past couple of months, he has received a
number of complaints about traffic using the Carrsbrook Subdivision road to
bypass the construction on Route 29 North. The five neighborhood associations
in that area are concerned about plans to extend Carrsbrook Drive to Berkmar
Drive. The associations feel that the only purpose of this extension would be
to direct traffic from the shopping area through their neighborhoods. He
asked the Board to direct staff to prepare a report on this issue and do a
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 000254
(page 10)
traffic study to show the effect of this.extension on the communities of
Northfield, Westmoreland,~carrsbr~6~"~R~h~ee~and Fieldbrook. pending the
outcome of the report, he would also like to request that the Board entertain
a motion to amend the Comprehensive Plan to remove the extension of Carrsbrook
Drive from the Plan. This could also be done when the Comprehensive Plan is
reviewed. Removal of this project would remove $366,500 from the Capital
Improvements Program.
Mrs. Tucker said at the last meeting, the Board requested that it be
updated on the status of the Bellair Task Force. A meeting was held on Monday
evening to discuss whether the rumble strips and closing of the off-ramp from
St. Anne's-Belfield entrance at Route 855 to the Route 601 intersection to the
back of Farmington should be closed again. This ramp has been open for
approximately one month but prior to this time it had been closed since
January, 1994. She does not know all of the reasons it was opened, but soon
after opening it, an accident report was sent to VDoT from the St. Anne's-
Belfield School which involved only property damage. Upon further discussion
at the Task Force meeting, it was decided that this section of the off-ramp
would be closed again to reduce the amount of turning movements when ap-
proaching each of these intersections. It was felt that the closing of this
section would increase safety and provide for the larger gaps in traffic that
are not always provided by the stop light installed on Route 250-Business at
the loop ramp.
Mrs. Humphris said it was her understanding that the ramp was opened
because customers and clients of the office buildings in the triangle on both
sides could not get in and out of their entrances due to traffic back-up.
That was her reason for cautioning the closure of this ramp in January, 1994.
She thought the opening of this section made sense, but the barricade was
dangerous.
Mrs. Thomas said the businesses are now saying they would rather have
the road barricaded like it was although it does makes it harder for them.
Mrs. Tucker said in addressing the concerns of the businesses, for
commercial entrances, VDoT can install "Do Not Block Entrance" or "Do Not
Block Drive" signs. As far as the concern about getting through traffic, they
can look at installing stop bars or "Do Not Block Intersection" signs. She
has also shared this information with the District Administrator and by all
indications, the closing will remain in effect. Mrs. Humphris said this
section of road is located in her district and she did not know anything about
these plans.
Mrs. Thomas said there may be some major commercial changes in this area
which was one reason VDoT was waiting before deciding whether a light should
be installed at that intersection, or some other change be made. These plans
were also news to her. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Tucker if he knows of any
proposals for those properties. Mr. Tucker said "no." Mrs. Thomas said there
is one site plan staff has seen for use of the ComputerLand building.
Mrs. Tucker said VDoT intends to put out a media release prior to making
these changes.
Mrs. Thomas said she thinks the danger is partly because of the tall red
barricade. She asked if this change is based on accident statistics. Mrs.
Tucker said "no," the accident occurred at the St. Anne's-Belfield entrance.
VDoT decided that this was a safe configuration and provided a larger gap in
traffic. It was found that when the ramp was opened, the cars began to fill
in the gaps that the signal provides. To be honest, this has political
overtones that she may not be fully aware of. Mrs. Thomas asked at what level
this decision was made. Mrs. Tucker said at the District level.
Mrs. Humphris asked if there is any correspondence available about this
subject. She does not understand what data is being used to make these
decisions, who is making them and why this Board was left out of the decision-
making process. Mrs. Tucker said she has a three-inch file on this area and
as far as meeting minutes, she is not sure that they were distributed. She is
unaware of all of the factors involved. She, personally, has concerns about
the closure of this off-ramp.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks it is this Board's responsibility to get
to the bottom of this issue. Mr. Marshall concurred and said he thinks the
Board should send a letter to Mr. Jack Hodge or Mr. Don Askew stating that
this Board resents being overruled. He feels the Board should "wage a
protest" because it was not consulted.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Tucker what he would suggest the Board do. Mr.
Tucker said he thinks the Board should write a letter to Mr. Askew and explain
the frustration and concern that the Board has of not being involved in these
discussions and ask for an explanation as well as request that the Board be
involved in such decisions in the future. He understands Mrs. Tucker's
difficulty because it is not her meeting and VDoT representatives are being
invited by the Homeowner's Association. If this were a VDoT meeting, then it
would have control over who is invited.
Mrs. Thomas said this Task Force, or individuals leading the Task Force,
are causing decisions to be made at a high level in the Highway Department
which is a strange way of operating. Mrs. Tucker said she is unsure as to
what the Task Force feels its mission is or how it is being accomplished. She
was concerned about whether the Task Force was acting in a truly advisory
capacity and whether there was proper public representation.
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 0002~
(Page 11)
Mr. Tucker said the Board can take control of the situation because it
is broader than just Bella~;~:~r6~b'~m~'~'~'~'als° affects residen~s°f crozet
who drive Route 250. The Board can have some review of this issue and sign
off on it or give recommendations to VDoT.
Mr. Perkins said he thought the Board was looking for the best solution
to a bad situation and that was why temporary barricades and signs were in-
stalled. He does not know what the best solution is, but it should not be a
political decision but should be a decision based upon safety, traffic
engineering and the welfare of the whole community.
Mr. Tucker said the Board can request that whatever is being planned be
brought to it with design drawings. Mrs. Humphris said the Board also needs
information brought to it on the history of the decisions that have been made
involving the traffic in this area, what was done, when and why. Mrs. Tucker
said she will get the information to the Board at it's meeting on January 4,
1995. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Askew can also be invited to attend this meeting.
Agenda Item No. 8.
for Route 250 East.
Update:
Design features and planting plans/grants
Ms. Marcia Joseph, Design Planner, gave a slide presentation of the
types of trees and shrubbery that are to be planted and what they will look
like at maturity.
Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Road Name Change Policy.
Mr. Tucker said the Board adopted a policy regarding road name changes
in September, 1991 in conjunction with the approval of the new road names to
support the Enhanced 911 System (the policy was reviewed in July, 1994). A
total of 34 road name change requests are currently being processed by staff.
The requests are in various stages of completion. Once a road name change has
been approved, staff will ascertain the total costs associated with sign
replacement and notify residents that upon receipt of payment, new signs will
be installed and new addresses provided.
Mr. Tucker said in fairness to residents that have already begun the
road name change process utilizing the existing policy, staff recommends that
the petitions currently being processed be exempt from any policy change.
Should the Board wish to entertain a road name change policy amendment to
place more emphasis on historic road names by preventing a road name change to
take place or, at least, requiring Board approval, staff requests direction
from the Board on how to determine which road names are to be considered
historic. Consideration should be given to whether this process should be
discretionary or continue with definitive guidelines.
Mrs. Humphris said the Hessian Hills Apartments Complex has addresses
related to Barracks Road and Georgetown Road on which their are entrances.
Because of the relationship to Hessian prisoners of war and their barracks,
the committee recommended street names in the complex such as Hanau, Anhalt
and Bayreauth. Some of the residents so not think these names are appropriate
or appealing. She talked with Ms. Garton, resident manager of Hessian Hills~
who has already requested that the name of Hanau be changed to Barracks Place
or Barracks Court. She feels the Board needs to recognize that this is
another unanticipated problem and a situation like this makes road naming more
difficult for property such as an apartment complex. She found that a lot of
roads were give the historic name by which they had been known, but there were
also some road names which came from text or history books. She feels the
road naming used two different procedures.
Ms. Judy Garton, Manager of Hessian Hills Apartments, said the main
concern with the naming of the streets in Hessian Hills is the pronunciation
of the names. The purpose of naming streets is mainly for emergency situa-
tions and when someone places an emergency phone call, they need to be able to
pronounce the name of the road or street for a quick response. She would like
to see that the apartment complex remain Georgetown Road and Barracks Road and
that each court have a displayed house number. She would like the courts to
be numbered and the current street names to remain. Having been a past member
of the rescue squad and she feels the change in names will cause confusion to
emergency response personnel. The three main issues she has heard are: (1)
how to pronounce the new road/street name; (2) having to change addresses;
and, (3) spelling of these names by emergency personnel.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Tex Weaver, Information Resource Planner, if Ms.
Garton's suggestions met the guidelines of the E-911 system. Mr. Weaver said
this apartment complex fell under the criteria that required individual road
namings because there were greater than three dwelling units per individual
street or court. This is consistent with the road naming manual and the
adopted ordinance.
Mr. Tucker said the road naming manual addresses apartments the same way
it addresses subdivisions. The confusing part is for the emergency respond-
ers, but they have indicated that they felt it would be easier if they had a
street name rather than a number which turns off into a maze of parking lots.
That is one reason why the emergency responders prefer street names. Staff
can deal with changing the name of the streets and review whether a change in
the policy would be needed to incorporate Ms. Garton's suggestions.
Ms. Garton said she has circulated a petition to change one of the
streets to Barracks Place and another to Barracks Court. If the name "George-
town" could also be used in the road/street names she feels this would be
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 0(}02~6
(Page 12)
easier for residents i~-'th~'a~artment'c0m~ex. Mr. Weaver said there are
options available that are consistent.with the policy and the name Georgetown
could be utilized as Georgetown Place, Georgetown Court, Georgetown Lane,
Georgetown Way, etc. Ms. Garton said it would help if something were added to
the signs to include the house numbers as well as the street names. Mr.
Weaver said the next phase, after the road signs are installed, is to place
address ranges on the lower right hand corner of all of the street signs.
Mr. Martin said the Board established a policy which sets a procedure to
- follow for changing the name of a road. His understanding of what was to be
discussed today was that the Board would address whether it wanted to change
or amend that policy. What has been discussed thus far is that the policy
should not be changed because it is working. He does not feel this Board
should get into details of how the policy will work on particular issues. Mr.
Perkins said he thinks some people are present to make points as to the
question of historical names.
Ms. Helen Roach-Benson said she understands a petition has been received
to change the name of Roach Ridge to Buffalo River Ridge. She is present to
represent the historical name and give historical data to back-up her request.
She would like to see the name Roach Ridge remain. She has talked with
several people with the Fire/Rescue and Police Departments. She feels if the
road is renamed it would be confusing because there is also a Buffalo River
Road and Buffalo River Lane. She spoke with a number of mail carriers and
they are trying to get their records.straight and are also having problems.
She feels the road currently has a unique, historical name and she would like
to see that name remain. She hopes she can talk with the signers of the
petition. She only found out yesterday that the petition had been submitted.
She asked that she be allowed some time to talk with her neighbors because she
understands that some signers of the petition regret that they signed it.
Mrs. Thomas asked if there is anything in the policy that does not allow Ms.
Benson-Roach time to talk with her neighbors to try and change their minds.
Mr. Weaver said "no."
MrS. Thomas said she has a road in her district that currently has two
petitions circulating for two different names. This is not a pleasant
situation, but she does not feel this Board should get caught in the middle.
Mrs. Humphris said under the original procedure, it was thought that any
road which had a documented historical name would be given that name. There
are people who do not like the documented historical name and want to change
it. She feels this is why Mr. Weaver is requesting the Board's help. She
thinks the Board needs to deal with that issue and clarify that a documented
historical name given by staff should remain and not change.
Mr. Martin said he was not a member of the Board at the time this policy
was adopted. He thought the directive was to search out the historical name
and a time period was allowed to disagree with those names. Then the Board
adopted a policy regarding changing road names which allowed doing so by
obtaining enough signatures of people living or owning property on that road.
He thought this Board's directive was for an original set of names to be
developed to begin the process.
Mrs. Humphris said that was not her understanding. She understood that
this Board was interested and concerned about preserving Albemarle County's
heritage and identifying its history. She thought it was clear that if there
was an existing historical name for the road, it would remain that name. Mr.
Tucker said that was how it began. However, the policy was returned to the
Board because there were a lot of people who did not agree with the names the
committee came up with. That is when the name was left to the majority of the
petitioners.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the recommendation is to let staff wrestle with
the policy as it currently stands. Mr. Tucker said "yes." If the Board does
not, staff will still be in the middle if the petitioners have another
historical name, unless the Board wants to let the committee decide the name
of each road or street.
Mr. Weaver said staff has received two petitions for the same road. One
petition is to change the name of the road and the other is to retain the name
currently assigned. In reviewing the petitions, staff found that there are
duplicate signatures, therefore, each petition has a majority of the signa-
tures of the landowners. In this case, staff generally takes its own survey
to determine which name each resident prefers.
Mr. Steven Meeks said he would like for staff to try and adhere to the
historical names. As Mr. Tucker said, there are several historical names for
some roads. He hopes staff will do its best to try and adhere to the
critique, regardless of whether there are petitions or not. There are two
different categories of historical names. He can see where there would be
variances on how names are changed when there are two different types of
roads. For example, Roach Ridge is a public road. He would be against
changing the name of this road. The Hessian Hills Apartment complex is a
private complex. He feels the private landowner should be able to decide the
name of those roads.
Mr. Meeks said the committee worked hard to come up with these names and
wrestled with these issues. Over the last two years since the road names were
established, he has received a lot of calls from people inquiring about the
road names and their origins. In most cases, once he has explained why the
road names were chosen and the origin of those names, they were satisfied.
These names are part of Albemarle County's heritage and he would like to see
this preserved.
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
There was no further discussion on~.this issue.
000257
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Name change for the Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker said in July, 1993, the Board tabled action to rename the
Charlottesville Magisterial District until after the November, 1994 elections.
He is again providing the same information to the Board that was provided in
his June 15, 1993, memorandum.
(Mr. Marshall left the meeting at 10:44 a.m.)
Mr. Bowerman said he feels the change is a matter of common sense. The
proposal is to change the name of the Charlottesville Magisterial District to
the Rio Hill Magisterial District which is a specific place and is also
historically specific, because it is basically located in the center of the
Charlottesville Magisterial District. This action would require changing the
name of the Rio Hill Precinct to the Agnor-Hurt Precinct which is the place
where that precinct votes (Agnor-Hurt Elementary School). It is also suggest-
ed that the Berkeley Precinct be changed to the Commonwealth Precinct which
refers to its basic location within that precinct.
Mr. Bowerman then made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to set a public
hearing for January 11, 1995, to change the name of Charlottesville Magisteri-
al District to Rio Hill Magisterial District, change the name of the Rio Hill
Precinct to the Agnor-Hurt Precinct and change the name of the Berkeley
Precinct to the Commonwealth Precinct. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and
reordain Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article 2, Dogs, Division 2, Running at
Large, by adding Section 4-19(33) to include Thurston Subdivision as one of
those areas where dogs are prohibited from running at large. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on November 21 and November 28, 1994.)
(Mrs. Humphris left the meeting at 10:47 a.m.)
Mr. Tucker said a petition has been submitted for a dog leash ordinance
in Thurston Subdivision near Crozet. Residents of approximately 82 percent of
the homes built within Thurston Subdivision are in favor of the dog leash law.
He believes all of the vacant lots within the subdivision are owned by one
owner.
The public hearing was opened. There being no comments from the public,
the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowerman made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt an ordinance
to amend and reordain Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article 2, Dogs, Division
2, Running at Large, of the Code of Albemarle, by adding Section 4-19(33) to
include Thurston Subdivision as one of those areas where dogs are prohibited
from running at large. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL,
ARTICLE 2, DOGS, DIVISION 2, RUNNING AT LARGE, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAI~q~D by the Board of County Supervisors of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl,
Article 2, Dogs, Division 2, Running at Large, is hereby amended
and reordained by amending section 4-19, In certain areas, as
follows:
Sec. 4-19.
ARTICLE II. Dogs.
Division 2. Running at Large.
In certain areas.
(33)
Thurston Subdivision as platted and recorded in the
Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the Coun-
ty, in Deed Book 637, page 456.
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and
~eordain Chapter 3, Amusements, of the Code of Albemarle, by the addition
~hereto of Article III entitled "Bingo and Raffles" The ordinance incorpo-
Pates State Code requirements for bingo games and raffles by reference into
~he County Code and establishes County requirements regarding, but not limited
ko, permits, fees, management and operation of bingo games and raffles,
~ermits for booster clubs, interim tax exempt status for organizations,
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14) OOO2~S
minimum percentage of gross rece~ mandated to be spent for mandated
purposes, audits and limitations on hours of operation of bingo games.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 21 and November 28, 1994.)
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 Virqinia SS 18.2-340.1
et. seq. which placed additional restrictions and requirements on permits.
- The Board also 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 guidelines established by
the Board.
Mr. Tucker said the 1994 General Assembly changed the Code of Virqinia S
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.
Mr. Tucker said since the change in this statute requires an ordinance
to be adopted, staff took this opportunity to review the COde of Virqinia for
other local options which would be beneficial to include in the ordinance.
Staff recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance as advertised.
The public hearing was opened. There being no comments from the public,
the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt an ordinance
to amend and reordain Chapter 3, Amusements, of the Code of Albemarle, bY the
addition thereto of Article III entitled "Bingo and Raffles".
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AMUSEMENTS, 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 3, Amusements, is
hereby amended and reOrdained by adding Article III, Bingo and
Raffles as follows:
Add:
Section 3-20
Section 3-21
Section 3-22
Section 3-23
Section 3-24
Section 3-25
Section 3-26
Section 3-27
Section 3-28
ARTICLE III.
Local Ordinance Adopted
Permit Required
Application Fee
Management and Operation
Special Provision for Booster Clubs
Interim Tax-Exempt Status
Required Percentage of Gross Re-
ceipts for Qualified Purposes
Audit of Reports, Fees
Limitations on Bingo Operations
BINGO AND RAFFLES
Sec. 3-20. Local Ordinance Adopted.
Pursuant to S 18.2-340.8 of the Code of Virginia, the county
shall regulate bingo games and raffles. Article 1.1 of Chapter 8
of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia, and all future amendments
thereof, (S 18.2-340.1 et seq.) are hereby incorporated by refer-
ence.
Sec. 3-21. Permit Required.
Prior to the commencement of any bingo game or raffle by a
qualified organization, the organization shall obtain an annual
permit from the county. The finance director is designated to
administer this article. The finance director, at his discretion,
may issue a permit upon compliance by an applicant for a permit
with the provisions of this article. All permits shall be subject
to reasonable regulations by the finance director to ensure the
public safety and welfare in the operation of bingo games and
raffles.
No permit to conduct bingo games or raffles shall be denied,
suspended, or revoked except upon notice stating the proposed
basis for such action and the time and place for a hearing there-
on. After a hearing on the issue, the finance director may refuse
to issue or may suspend or revoke any such permit if he determines
that the organization has not complied with the provisions of this
article. Any organization aggrieved by the decision of the
finance director may appeal such decision to the circuit court.
State law reference: SS 18.2-340.3, 18.2-340.10 and 18.2-340.12
of the Code of Virginia.
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15) 000259
Sec. 3-22. Application Feel" ·
The application fee for the annual permit for a bingo game
or raffle is waived by the county.
State law reference: § 18.2-340.2 of the Code of Virginia.
Sec. 3-23. Management and Operation.
No person may manage, operate or conduct bingo games or
raffles for more than two organizations.
State law reference: § 18.2-340.2:1 of the Code of Virginia.
Sec. 3-24. Special Provision for Booster Clubs.
Booster clubs which have been operating less than five (5)
years, and which have been established solely to raise funds for
school-sponsored activities in public schools which are less than
five (5) years old, may be issued a bingo or raffle permit.
State law reference: § 18.2-340.3 of the Code of Virginia.
Sec. 3-25. Interim Tax-Exempt Status.
While an organization seeks tax-exempt status pursuant to
§ 501(c) of the United States Internal Revenue Code~ it may file
the same documentation submitted to the Internal Revenue Service
with the finance director and request an interim certificate of
the tax-exempt status. If such documentation is filed, the
finance director may, after reviewing such documentation as he
deems necessary, issue a determination of tax-exempt status. Such
determination shall be made within sixty (60) days of receipt of
such documentation. The finance director may charge a reasonable
fee, not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00). This interim
certification of tax-exempt status shall be valid until the
Internal Revenue Service issues its determination of tax-exempt
status, or for eighteen (18) months, whichever is earlier.
State law reference: § 18.2-340.3 of the Code of Virginia.
Sec. 3-26. Required Percentage of Gross Receipts for Qualified
Participants.
A condition of every bingo game or raffle permit issued
shall be that a minimum of five percent (5%) of the gross receipts
from all bingo games or raffles shall be used for (i) those lawful
religious, charitable, community or educational purposes for which
the organization is specifically chartered or organized or (ii)
those expenses relating to the acquisition, construction, mainte-
nance, or repair of any interest in the real property involving
the operation of the organization and used for lawful religious,
charitable, community or educational purposes.
State law reference: § 18.2-340.3 of the Code of Virginia.
Sec. 3-27. Audit of Reports, Fees.
Ail financial reports filed pursuant to § 18.2-340.6 of the
Code of Virginia shall be audited by the finance director; provid-
ed, however any financial report filed by an organization with
gross receipts of less than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for
the designated reporting period shall be exempt from this audit
requirement.
The finance director may require the audit to be conducted
by an independent auditor or accountant. If so required, there
shall be an audit fee equal to the actual cost of the audit. Such
fee shall be payable to the finance director and shall accompany
the annual report. No audit fee shall be charged for those audits
conducted by the finance director.
State law reference: § 18.2-340.7 of the Code of Virginia.
Sec. 3-28. Limitations on Bingo Operations.
Bingo games shall be conducted only on the days of the week
designated in the permit. The hours of operation shall be limited
to the hours between 6:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. No building or
other premises shall be used by more than one organization on any
one calendar day to conduct bingo games.
State law reference: § 18.2-340.9(D) of the Code of Virginia.
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and
reordain Chapter 10.1, Law Enforcement, of the Code of Albemarle, by amending
Section 10.1-2, Disposition of unclaimed personal property in possession of
Law enforcement agencies. This amendment will authorize the Police Department
~r the Sheriff's Department to convert unclaimed property for department use.
£t also adds a section permitting any bicycle or moped which has been in the
DeCember 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16) 000260
possession of the Police DeP~men~i~~i~f's Department, and been un-
claimed for thirty days to be sold at public auction or donated to a charita-
ble organization at the discretion of the Police Department or Sheriff's
Department. This amendment is necessary to bring the County Code in line with
State Code Section 15.1-133.01. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November
21 and November 28, 1994.)
Mr. Tucker said the amendment to Chapter 10.1, Law Enforcement, is
necessary to bring the County's Code in line with State Code §15.1-133.01
- (1950) as amended. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the ordinance as
advertised.
The public hearing was opened. There being no comments from the public,
the public hearing was closed°
Mrs. Thomas made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt an Ordinance
to amend and reordain Chapter 10.1, Law Enforcement, of the Code of Albemarle~
by amending Section 10.1-2, Disposition of unclaimed personal property in
possession of law enforcement agencies.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins.
None.
Mrs. Humphris.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 10.1, LAW ENFORCEMENT,
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 10.1, Law Enforcement,
is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 10.1-2,
Disposition of unclaimed personal property in possession of law
enforcement agencies, as follows:
Sec. 10.1-2. Disposition of unclaimed personal property in
possession of law enforcement agencies.
(a) Pursuant to § 15.1-133.01 of the Code of Virginia
(1950) as amended, any unclaimed personal property which has been
in the possession of the sheriff, the chief of police or any of
their duly authorized and acting deputies or officers and which
has remained unclaimed for a period of more than sixty (60) days
may be (i) sold at public sale as more particularly set forth
hereinafter or may (ii) be retained for use by the law enforcement
agency in possession of such property. As used herein, "unclaimed
personal property" shall be any personal property belonging to
another which has been acquired by a law enforcement officer
pursuant to his or her duties, which is not needed in any criminal
prosecution, which has not been claimed by its rightful owner and
which the State Treasurer has indicated will be declined if
remitted under the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act
(section 55-210.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia).
(b) Prior to the sale of any unclaimed item, the chief of
police, sheriff or their duly authorized agents shall make reason-
able attempts to notify the rightful owner of the property, obtain
from the commonwealth's attorney in writing a statement advising
that the item is not needed in any criminal prosecution and cause
to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the
locality, once a week for two successive weeks, notice that there
will be a public sale of unclaimed personal property. Such
property shall be described generally in the notice, together with
the date, time and place of the sale. The law enforcement agency
conducting the sale and/or at whose direction the sale occurs
shall pay from the proceeds of sale the cost of advertisement,
removal, storage, investigation as to ownership and liens and
notice of sale. The balance of the funds shall be held by such
agency for the owner and paid to the owner upon satisfactory proof
of ownership. No member of the sheriff's department or the police
department, or any member of such employee's immediate family~
will be permitted to participate as a purchaser in any sale of
personal property hereunder.
(c) If no claim has been made by the owner for the proceeds
of such sale within sixty (60) days of the sale, the remaining
funds shall be deposited in the general fund of the county. Any
such owner shall be entitled to apply to the county within three
(3) years from the date of the sale and, if timely application is
made therefor, the county shall pay the remaining proceeds of the
sale to the owner without interest or other charges. No claim
shall be made, nor any suit, action or proceeding be instituted,
for the recovery of such funds after three (3) years from the date
of the sale.
(d) The chief of police is hereby constituted the agent of
the county for purposes of the administration of this section.
(e) As authorized by and pursuant to § 15.1-133 of the Code
of Virginia (1950), as amended, any bicycle or moped which has
been in the possession of the police department or sheriff's
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
department, unclaimed, for more thin'thirty (30) days, may be sold
at public auction o~ d6~d~"~6~,~itable organization, in the
discretion of the police department or sheriff's department.
At 10~50 a.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:59 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 14. Presentation from GE Fanuc regarding its proposed
expansion.
Mr. Bowerman said he and his partner have a proposal before GE Fanuc for
the creation of a fitness facility. He disqualified himself from hearing this
application because he has a conflict of interest and left the meeting at
11:00 a.m.
(Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 11:02 a.m.)
Mr. Don Borwhat gave a slide presentation and said GE Fanuc has been in
its present location for 15 years and works hard to maintain the campus
environment. There are no gates or external security fences. The total
facility includes both offices and the manufacturing plant which does not look
like a traditional manufacturing facility. GE manufactures circuit boards,
electronic testing equipment, and has been recognized by the Department of
Labor and in several publications for its high employment involvement and
activities. GE has a self-directing work force and, as a result, the employ-
ees share in the management of the business.
Mr. Borwhat said GE Fanuc was formed in 1987 in a joint venture between
General Electric and Fanuc Limited of Japan, and are equal partners in a 50/50
relationship. Its world headquarters are in Albemarle County with major
operations in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. The facility is a clean,
high-tech industry which employs 1500 people world-wide. Of these, 1000 are
employed locally. Two years ago, Industry Week selected GE Fanuc as one of
the top 10 manufacturers in the United States because of its employee involve-
ment, development and training programs. GE has twice won the State produc-
tivity award and was selected last month by the Department of Labor and
President Clinton as one of the top non-manufacturing facilities in the United
States. It has been featured in Department of Labor publications for the
employee training done and for employee involvement.
Mr. Borwhat said GE's payroll and taxes for 1994 were $52,987,797; local
purchases were over $12,000,000; community contributions were $325,000; the
Omni Training Center was $3,500,000; international project support was
$1,250,000; all of this totalled $70,062,000 spent in Virginia by GE Fanuc.
The University of Virginia did a study approximately ten years ago of GE and,
at that time, for every one dollar that GE put into the community, it generat-
ed $1.90. This study was updated and it shows that GE's presence pumps
approximately one-quarter billion dollars back into the community.
Mr. Borwhat said GE is looking to expand its facilities by approximately
40,000 square feet and would like to do it at the Albemarle County facility.
GE feels the expansion would create 150 jobs, with an average pay rate of $14
per hour including benefits, brings this amount to approximately $20 per hour.
Eighty-five percent of the people hired for the 150 new jobs would be locally
hired; 125 of those jobs would be in manufacturing and require a high school
diploma. GE estimates that this will increase its payroll by $3.5 million and
increase taxes paid to the County by over $1.0 million. GE plans to expand
beyond 1995 and has three other product lines: power motion products, laser
scanner, field control and plastic injection machine controls, which would
also generate approximately 100 jobs.
Mr. Borwhat said GE expects to create, over the next three to four
years, approximately 250 high paying, high-tech jobs, employing mostly local
people who will be trained by GE. GE expects to invest nearly $54.0 million
between now and 1997 in expansions. In the past GE was able to hire people
who had been laid off by other manufacturing businesses in the area. That
avenue is no longer available and GE will need to make a major investment in
training.
GE plans on spending approximately $400,000 in facilities. GE currently
has an employee business development and training center on-site and plans to
remodel that facility at a cost of approximately $150,000. In addition, GE
expects to spend approximately $250,000 for additional space in the training
facility as it expands. Instructors and materials for training employees are
estimated to cost approximately $100,000 and programs will cost approximately
$450,000. Total costs for facilities and training is approximately $1.0
million. This figure does not include any training of existing workers; this
is only to train new employees coming into the work force.
Mr. Borwhat said that today GE is looking for a way that the County, the
Commonwealth and GE Fanuc can all work together.
Mrs. Thomas asked Mr. Borwhat to address the issue of matching funds.
Mr. Borwhat said GE Fanuc wants to use the Governor's Opportunity Funds where
the State will match funds that are put up by the County. The only way GE can
access this account is if the County supports this request. If the community
recognizes that the business is worth investing in, the Governor's plan will
match those funds. The Board of Supervisors is extremely important to GE~s
strategy to obtain these matching funds.
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18) ·
Mrs. Thomas said she understands the matching funds cannot be in-kind
contributions, but have t0be cash, °r~6~'d~be'a loan with interest. Mr.
Borwhat said GE representatives were informed that the State will only match
cash contributions or loans. Mrs..Thomas asked.if there isa"cap" on the
match. Mr. Borwhat said he is not aware of a cap or limit.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Borwhat what GE is actually requesting of this
Board. Mr. Borwhat said GE would like the Board to commit to a loan, but he
is not sure he has all the information the Board needs today to discuss the
issue further. Mr. Tucker said based on what has been presented today, staff
can submit a report at the December 14, 1994, meeting with a proposal for the
Board to consider.
Mrs. Thomas asked GE's timetable. Mr. Borwhat said GE needs to make a
decision on its expansion by December 23, 1994, so a commitment needs to be
made by December 16, 1994.
Mr. Marshall said it is his understanding that GE currently has an empty
building in Raleigh, North Carolina, where the parent company would like this
operation to be located, but GE wants the facility to be located here in
Charlottesville. Mr. Borwhat said Albemarle County is the location of GE's
world headquarters. This is its home and GE would like to keep all of its
manufacturing, engineering and services together. There are some facilities
available as a result of other consolidations.
Mr. Marshall reminded the Board of a presentation made some time ago by
the Virginia Employment Commission and the fact that some of the work force in
Charlottesville and Albemarle are under-employed. If this proposal from GE is
approved, it would be an opportunity for individuals presently underemployed
to be re-trained. By employing people who are underemployed, it would open
their current jobs to other people. This would not cost Albemarle County. He
feels this is an opportunity for Albemarle County to help GE create jobs for
people currently residing in Albemarle County and employ people without
bringing large numbers of people from outside the community and upsetting the
County's infrastructure. He feels this is a financial plus for Albemarle
County and hopes the Board will support the request.
Mr. Tucker said another avenue of funding is for Industrial Access funds
administered by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) for industry
expansion. The County does not have to participate up to the $300,000 limit.
Staff could support this as part of a funding package. However, these funds
are approved on a fiscal year basis and Albemarle County currently has a
request in this fiscal year for Micro-Aire. Staff would like to work with GE
in terms of how its funding request is submitted.
Mrs. Humphris said when staff submits a report, she would like informa-
tion concerning the County's Economic Development Policy, and to address the
growth and fiscal impact aspect of this request. Even though these 150 jobs
are aimed at local people who may be unemployed or underemployed~ there will
still be an impact from growth on Albemarle County because the jobs these
people leave will have to be filled by someone else. She feels, considering
Albemarle County's unemployment rate, that this will mean a movement of people
into the County resulting in a fiscal impact to the taxpayers.
Mrs. Mumphris asked that staff address the precedent approval of this
request might set because there are many small businesses in the County where
employee training is needed. The smaller businesses have even less ability to
do this than GE. She thinks this Board should be realistic about who these
jobs will be for, where the people will come from and address the precedent
this will set. She understands the idea is to have these new jobs filled by
Charlottesville and Albemarle residents, but she believes the facts will show
that this is not reality. She believes that by approving this request the
County will "open the flood gates" to becoming a banker for companies in need
of no- or low-interest loans. This Board needs to be cognizant of what the
potential for precedent is, if this request is approved.
Mr. Borwhat said approximately 60 percent of the people employed by GE
Fanuc are residents of Albemarle County or the City of Charlottesville. He
has talked with Mr. Don Martin of the Virginia Employment Commission and the
current unemployment rate for Albemarle County is 3.1 percent. The total
unemployment rate in the area is 3400 people. GE feels that over 18 months,
it would be able to draw 100 out of those unemployed people or from other
jobs.
Mrs. Thomas said she thinks it is possible to differentiate this request
from other requests by stipulating that the training not duplicate training
offered at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Training Education Center (CA-Tech)
and Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC). Training should be coordi-
nated with those organizations. The Board should also stipulate that the
training facilities at GE Fanuc be open to other employers in the community
for their needs. If, after one year's time, there are facilities that are not
fully utilized, this could make a difference.
Mr. Borwhat said this sort of thing is currently being done at GE. GE
had an after-hours program in which Sperry, Comdial, Teledyne and a number of
other companies participated. GE also worked with PVCC in its after-hours and
evening programs to allow teaching of some of those classes at GE. That is
something GE has been doing for the past five years.
Mrs. Thomas said she thinks it should be made clear to the public that
there is something unique about this request and that this facility will be
open and will not just benefit one company.
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19) 00026~
Mr. Harold Morris, Chairman of the..Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of
Commerce, read a resolution adopted by the 'Board of the Chamber, relating to
support of the proposal for the GE Fanuc project. The Chamber of Commerce
requests that the Board give consideration to the financial request of GE
Fanuc.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin, Chairman of the Subcommittee of the Central Piedmont
Area Governor's Regional Economic Development Council, said the Council is
working with GE Fanuc on its proposed expansion. This council is one of 18
councils throughout the state that were created by Governor Allen to help
implement the State's strategic plan for jobs designated by Opportunity
Virginia. It is anticipated that Opportunity Virginia will serve as the
framework for the Governor's commitment to create 125,000 new jobs in Virginia
during his term. Each of the individual councils is entrusted with the
responsibility of encouraging regional economic development cooperation,
marketing and vision. Specifically, each council has been participating in
the design of a strategic plan process for Virginia, by giving grass roots
emphasis to the Commonwealth's economic development.
Mr. Rotgin said that in addition to using these regional councils as
channel boards, Governor Allen has agreed to reciprocate by providing a rapid
response to major business projects, such as the opportunity that has just
been presented to this Board by GE Fanuc. There has been a considerable
amount of work done in the last several weeks by individuals and groups who
are interested in assisting GE Fanuc and its expansion effort. There has also
been contact with, and favorable response, from the Governor's Office and the
State Department of Economic Development. In connection with development of
the regional economic advisory councils, there is a minimum amount of funding
that is available through the Governor's Opportunity Fund and this is what Mr.
Tucker referred to earlier. He feels certain that Governor Allen will support
use of this fund to encourage GE Fanuc's proposed expansion with only minimal
involvement from local government.
Mr. Rotgin said that to reinforce the resolution adopted by the Chamber
of Commerce which was just presented, on behalf of the Central Virginia
Regional Economic Development Council, he would like to provide its whole-
hearted encouragement and support of what GE has proposed. GE Fanuc is truly
one of the most important businesses in this region. Not only is GE Fanuc a
clean industry, as envisioned by most supporters of the County's Comprehensive
Plan, but it is truly a preferred employer which provides over 1000 higher
paying jobs, with attractive fringe benefits for the community. In addition,
the company has long been involved with educational and training programs for
its existing, as well as, perspective employees. The local regional council
is particularly impressed with GE Fanuc's plans as part of its expansion to
develop an enhanced program which will provide additional educational and
training opportunities for local residents and qualify them to work for a
company which pays wages that are at the very top of the local manufacturing
scale. Certainly, as the Board has discussed, a high cost of living environ-
ment such as Charlottesville, where many of the available jobs are in the
service sector at relatively modest wages and where so many of the local work
force is underemployed, it is important that the Board of Supervisors and
entire community support all efforts by existing employers to expand their
businesses thereby creating attractive and high wage opportunities. He thinks
GE Fanuc's proposal will have positive impacts on the County's economic
fortunes for the next few years.
Mr. Rotgin said he could not have designed a better proposal than the
one proposed by GE Fanuc. He feels it would be entirely appropriate for the
Board to adopt a resolution of encouragement and support for this expansion
today and then when a report is presented to the Board next week, that it be
adopted.
Mr. Martin said he agrees with a lot of Mr. Marshall's comments and also
has a lot of other comments and reasons that he would like to see this go
forward. He plans to save those comments until the issue comes back before
the Board.
There was no further discussion of this issue at this time.
Agenda Item No. 15. Presentation from the Children and Youth Commission
(CAYC) on its activities.
Mr. John F. Dawson, Jr., Chairman of the Children and Youth Commission,
said next year CAYC will report on the agency evaluations. CAYC worked
closely with the County's Budget Program Review Committee this year and sat in
on the review process so this will improve the product. Dr. Charles H,
Gleason, Mrs. Audrey Welborn and Mr. Steve Stern of CAYC are present and will
be making reports today.
Dr. Gleason made a report concerning a study of teen sexually-transmit-
ted diseases which CAYC is currently working on. The initiatives are in the
final phase of development and hopefully, will be presented in a full report
to the Board in the coming year.
Dr. Gleason then explained CAYC's proposal to deal with teen pregnancy.
There are three components of the proposal: 1) community-wide approach to
valuable education; 2) a specific, small, innovative project that will provide
intensive educational services to a small group of at-risk youth; and 3)
parent education. The success of any efforts to prevent teen pregnancy and
sexually-transmitted diseases requires strategies that develop community
support, coordination of other preventive efforts and media involvement. Two
committees focussed on these topics, but will wait to develop the final
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 0002G4
(Page 20)
proposal when the goals of ~hlS Committee have been approved by the entire
forum. The final report will include, in'its appendix, examples of national
programs reviewed in the study which was done and will be used to develop
models that are more appropriate for this community. The first component
intended for all children in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County
is designed to develop a leadership council to provide encouragement and act
as an advocate for an increased emphasis on character development in the
public, elementary schools. The strategies of this component are: (a) attack
one of the most basic causes of the problem, a de-emphasis of basic values
among youth; (b) support from the City and County school systems; and (c)
achieving without expending a large amount of resources.
Dr. Gleason said the second component is to set up an intensive program
to teach teens information and scales that will help delay inappropriate
teenage sexual activity. This should be an effective strategy because: (a)
it has a reasonable chance of changing the behavior of those youth most likely
to become sexually active early; (b) it fits well with other programs such as
Camp Horizon, The Boys and Girls Club and the Family Life programs in the
school systems; and, (c) it has a reasonable chance of attracting outside
grant funds. The third component, parent education, is designed around the
beliefs that parents are the primary human sexuality educators of their
children, from age birth to 11 years through information, values, discussions
and behavioral monitoring. Research studies over the past ten years have
repeatedly identified the positive influence of parental communication and
providing children with positive goals and self-esteem, thereby enabling
children to make successful long-term decisions about their own sexuality.
Dr. Gleason said CAYC plans to ask the community to make a ten year
commitment to this. This is not a "quick-fix" to any of the communities~
problems. This is a long-term problem and will require careful planning,
experimentation and competence building to find a successful solution. CAYC
will complete the final draft of this proposal in the early part of the coming
year and present it to the Board after completion.
Dr. Gleason said the second initiative of CAYC is the affordability and
availability of high-quality child care. Studies have shown that in Virginia,
only a small minority of children presently in child care get the nurturing
care they need; those findings apply also to Charlottesville and Albemarle.
CAYC's Child Care Program, Area Teen, is currently finaliZing its report and
recommendations for a community-wide effort to effectively change this
problem. CAYC, on behalf of the families of Charlottesville and Albemarle,
will request in this report an inner-jurisdictional response to the child care
needs presented. The objective of the Child Care Action Project is to
recognize that the child care dilemma adversely affects the quality of life in
the City and the County. CAYC has initiated this project with the following
objectives: (1) to evaluate the current status of child care in the City and
County in terms of the quality, availability and affordability through a study
which will include all ages of children; (2) to develop cost estimates for
making high-quality child care available and affordable to all families~ (3)
to draft a plan for bringing together citizens, businesses and governing
bodies in a concerted effort to make Charlottesville and Albemarle known as
the community where families can choose affordable high-quality child care
programs; and (4) to make specific recommendations to the Board of Supervisors
and City Council.
Dr. Gleason said Mr. Steve Stern, Ms. Kathy Bodkin and Mrs. Audrey
Welborn, all members of the CAYC Board, are present to answer any questions
the Board may have.
Mr. Marshall asked if CAYC is proposing that the private sector or
government (local, state and federal) initiate child care. Dr. Gleason said
the whole child care community includes a combination of private and public
resources. Mr. Marshall said he serves on the State Board of Health and last
week there was a discussion held regarding guidelines that will be established
for child care centers. These guidelines are not planned to be mandated
because there is no funding available to see that they are implemented. The
state government is trying to privatize child care and get out of the child
care business. Dr. Gleason said CAYC does not have any visions of privatizing
child care. The largest group of people CAYC is representing are people who
would not be applying for private care. CAYC knows the problems of funding,
but also realizes that there is a drastic need in present society and hopes to
find ways to fund this initiative.
Dr. Gleason then introduced Ms. Amy Smith, Director of the Teen Center.
Ms. Smith said she is present to give the Board an update on the Teen Center,
otherwise known as "The Shack" by the teens of the area. The number of
participants has increased since the opening of the Teen Center last April.
During April and May combined there were five to 15 teens visiting the Teen
Center each day. During the Summer, June through August, there were 20 to 40
teens in attendance each day. This Fall, since school began, there have been
an average of 20 teens on weekdays and 40 teens on weekends. When there are
special functions, i.e., dances, the attendance is better. Two days a week
the Teen Center offers homework help for two hours. There is also a culture
night once a month on a Monday night. On Fridays and Saturdays there are
usually disc jockey parties, movies, video games and sport game tournaments
(pool and ping pong). In the Spring, the Teen Center plans to develop an
activity called Sports Sunday in all of the County and City parks to try and
recruit teens from different neighborhoods to attend. She asked the Board if
it had any questions regarding the Teen Center.
Mrs. Thomas said when the Teen Center began, it was expected to be a
place the teens would design and decorate. She asked if this has happened.
Ms. Smith said "yes." Over the past month the teens have done drawings on the
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
000265
walls where the drawings are'Pr°Jected on the Wall by the use of an oVerhead
project, and then the drawing traced and painted by the teens.
Mrs. Humphris asked how word that there is a Teen Center is spread; does
the Teen Center advertise? Ms. Smith said this is the hardest obstacle she
has faced. Basically, advertisement is through the newspaper, local teleVi-
sion and radio stations. Word of mouth has been the clincher for additional
participation in the Teen Center. She feels the longer the Teen Center
exists, the more teens will attend. Mrs. Humphris said she hopes the Teen
Center takes advantage of the public service announcements that all media
sources have to provide. Ms. Smith said she utilizes those.
Mr. Tucker asked Ms. Smith if the Teen Center worked out a system with
the transit service to make the Center more accessible to teens. Ms. Smith
said this past summer it did not work well, but she plans to have drop-offs at
the Teen Center on special event days. The Teen Center sponsored a swim night
at Clark Pool in November and another one will be held in January. The buses
were run for this special event and worked well. Another avenue is to go to
the neighborhoods in the City which hold neighborhood association meetings and
coordinate with the Charlottesville City Police, to get the word out into the
communities and hopefully bus service can be scheduled that way.
Agenda Item No. 16. Presentation: Preliminary 1995 Real Estate
Reassessment Values.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, said the 1995 biennial real
estate reassessment cycle is nearing completion. The Notice of Reassessment
is scheduled to be mailed to real estate owners on December 30, 1994. The
1995 Preliminary Reassessment Summary (on file) estimates the fair market
value of taxable real estate to be $5.417 billion, a $442.4 million (8.89
percent) increase over the 1993 assessment. This preliminary figure is
attributed to $195.9 million (3.94 percent) in new construction, additions and
property divisions, and, $246.5 million (4.95 percent) in market value
appreciation. The preliminary appreciation increase for both buildings and
land resulting from the reassessment is estimated to be 4.95 percent for the
biennium, 2.48 percent on an annualized basis. Buildings were estimated to
have appreciated 2.43 percent, developed land 5.02 percent, and raw unde-
veloped land 7.00 percent.
Mr. Breeden said the Charlottesville Magisterial District shows a
negative number for new construction and land divisions due to several
significant parcels being reclassified from taxable real property to tax
exempt properties. In the Town of S¢ottsville, new construction and land
division values are high due to the recent boundary adjustment. The overall
10.46 percent increase from 1993 to 1995 results from the boundary adjustment;
the 3.30 percent 1995 increase over 1994 adjusted for that boundary line
adjustment, is in line with other districts.
Mr. Breeden said the Board should note that these numbers are averages
as well as estimates. The values will change when both the reassessment and
appeal processes are completed. Additionally, these values are for taxable
real estate only and do not include government or other tax exempt properties.
Realizable revenue will be less than the fair market value after adjustments
for land use, tax relief and uncollectible taxes are taken into account.
These reductions are estimated during the annual budget process.
Mr. Breeden said the 1995 reassessment cycle began in August 1993. It
is based on sales transactions prior to that time. Transactions after August,
1993 are used as a guide and are generally not utilized unless significantly
different from the August, 1993 data. The principle of uniformity requires
that a county-wide cutoff date be established and the same data be used for
all reassessments. Mr. Breeden recommended that the Board accept the 1995
Preliminary Reassessment Report.
Mrs. Thomas asked if this means that a person using the land use
taxation program will see their tax increase 30 percent. Mr. Breeden said
"yes." Mr. Perkins asked if the increase is just on agricultural land or
on forestal land too. Mr. Breeden said the agricultural land is the only
increase. The horticultural areas had an approximate increase of one-half to
one and one-half percent, forestry values remained the same. Mr. Tucker asked
if this is reflective of production. Mr. Breeden said "yes." Mr. Perkins
said this should reflect the profitability of farming. Mr. Tucker said "yes."
Mrs. Thomas said this should be a good sign for the economy.
Mr. Marshall said people who raise cattle and have open land will be hit
the hardest. Mr. Breeden agreed and said this has been discussed with a
representative on the State Land Evaluation Advisory Council (SLEAC) who
indicated that it is primarily a result of crops and their prices. A running
average of five years worth of data was used to determine the values, dropping
- off every two years and picking up the last two years, which indicates some of
the crops showed a 20 to 30 percent increase in sales. Mr. Marshall said
there was approximately a 30 percent decrease in cattle profits this past
year. Mr. Breeden said that will be picked up in two years, but cattle
farming is not a major factor in the determinations made. Mr. Marshall asked
if it is because there is open land and more people are demanding land for
subdivisions. Mr. Breeden said he thinks the use values attempt to take out
that factor as far as development, but, for example, the prices of corn
according to their numbers increased from $60 to approximately $80. Corn is
probably the major crop coming from Albemarle County. Mr. Marshall said he
disagrees because very few acres of land are used to grow corn or soy beans or
anything else when compared to the amount of acres being grazed.
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22) .... O0026G
Mr. Perkins said he think~ ~el main.cr0p in Albemarle County is hay and
he also thinks cattle prices have gone up, Those prices took a drop this
year, but these prices are reflective. There are only 4000 acres of corn
grown in the whole County. The information has to be referring to hay crops
and pasture land. Mr. Breeden said SLEAC came up with what a composite farm
is and there was a lot of information on that process. He would be happy to
provide it to the Board. Mr. Marshall said he would like to know if there is
any farm in Albemarle County outside of Mr. Kluge's feedlot that is actually
"in the black". Mr. Perkins said he thinks there are. Mr. Breeden said it is
his understanding that the local Farm Bureau has reviewed this information
with SLEAC and is in agreement with the numbers being used.
Mrs. Thomas asked if these values took a "dive" the last time there was
a reassessment. Mr. Breeden said "yes," they are getting back to the level
they were in 1983. He will send information to the Board in advance of the
reassessment notices to landowners to explain the increase.
Mr. Breeden said the state recently released the preliminary results of
its 1993 assessments. Albemarle County's ranking on that is one of the
highest in the state. According to the report, Albemarle County's values were
approximately 95 percent of fair market value. Mr. Marshall said he is
pleased with the reassessments. He has seen counties in Northern Virginia
where they have had a tremendous devaluation in property and he thinks
Albemarle County has been conservative in increasing at a modest rate. Mr.
Breeden said the last reassessments were done at a time when things were
stable, before there was a change in the market.
Mr. Tucker said staff feels this is fairly modest and is delighted about
the percentage (96). Also, staff made sure the SLEAC representatives met with
members of the Farm Bureau so they would be heard from. Staff feels the Farm
Bureau is satisfied with the information and the increase.
Agenda Item No. 17. Appropriation: Soil and Water Grant - $38,209.83,
(Form #940032).
Mr. Tucker said on October 7, 1993, the Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors signed a Memorandum of Agreement between the County of Albemarle
and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil
and Water Conservation. The Memorandum of Agreement pertains to a grant
received by the Department of Engineering to supplement a stormwater and non-
point source pollution study being sponsored by the County of Albemarle, the
City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia. The grant outlined
sixteen milestones, ranging from data collection on best management practices
to education and outreach activities for pollution reduction. The grant is a
two-year grant, terminating on September 30, 1995.
Mr. Martin made mo%ion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the follow-
ing resolution of appropriation in the amount of $38,209.83 approving the
request to expend the Soil and Water Grant. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95
NUMBER: 940032
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF SOIL AND
WATER GRANT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1154041055520100 POSTAL SERVICES
1154041055950012 SOIL & WATER-DWP PROJECT
TOTAL
AMOUNT
2OO.OO
38,009.83
$38,209.83
REVENUE
2154033000330310
DESCRIPTION
EPA-DIV SOIL & WATER DWP
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$38,209.83
$38,209.83
Agenda Item No. 19a. Executive Session: Legal Matters. At 12:28 p.m.,
Mr. Bowerman made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to go into executive
session pursuant to Section 2.1-344.A.7 of the Code of Virginia to discuss two
matters of pending litigation; one regarding a zoning appeal, and the second
regarding the acquisition of property; and, three legal matters regarding a
landfill, a tax issue and an insurance issue. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
The reconvened into open session at about 1:42 p.m. without the Clerk
being present.
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23) O00267
Agenda Item No. 19b~'. Certify Executive Session. Motion was offered by
Mr. Bowerman to certify that to the best of each Board members's knowledge
only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting require-
ments of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion
authorizing the executive session Wereheard, diScussed or considered in the
executive session. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
NAYS:None.
Agenda Item No. 18a. Work Session: CPA-94-1. University Real Estate
Foundation. Request to amend the Land Use Map to include within the Hollymead
Community 297.0 ac located W of Rt 29 N, N of existing Hollymead Community
boundary, S of the North Fork Rivanna River, and W of Rt 606 for industrial
use. TM32,Ps4B,6(part),6A&19(part). ~
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, gave the staff's
report. Staff determined that the zoned land could accommodate up to 2.5
million square feet under normal, typical construction methods. Therefore,
the expansion proposed results in an additional 500,000 square feet. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the request to the Hollymead
growth area profile. Primary issues of concern to them were adequacy of
public utilities (water and sewer), and other community facilities including
transportation systems to support the additional growth, protection of the
North Fork Rivanna River raw water intake supply, integration of the proposed
development into the overall development of the Hollymead Community in terms
of road construction and other initiatives such as pedestrian access and open
space. They also were concerned about affordable housing.
Mrs. Humphris said she has a number of concerns. She needs to under-
stand the overall concept of going ahead with approval of this amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan without answers to significant questions that must be
answered: water supply, sewer capacity, roads, fiscal impact, protection of
the North Fork raw water intake. Although Chris Greene Lake is noted as a
water supply, there is no data on the safe yield of Chris Greene Lake. Given
its history (built for a water supply, then the County found that it was not a
good water supply so turned it into a swimming lake using Federal dollars;
that agreement says the County cannot remove it from being a swimming lake
unless it is replaced), she does not understand why the Board would move
forward at this point with this request without those answers.
Mr. Cilimberg said a year or so ago, staff posed several questions when
other amendments to the zoning map in this area were being considered,
however, the Board chose to move forward. Staff originally recommended that
no action be taken on the amendments until other items, such as the Meadow
Creek Parkway, were finally decided. The Board chose to move forward and that
is why the amendment is before the Board today. On the specific question of
utilities, the question of Chris Greene Lake has to be dealt with as part of
the forthcoming Comprehensive Plan update. For Hollymead to build out as
presently constituted, it will take additional water supply.
Mrs. Humphris said the criteria under which the Board is supposed to be
considering this amendment says "No Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be
considered in areas where roads are non-tolerable or utilities are inadequate"
and the improvement of those facilities is included in the Comprehensive Plan
amendment proposal. Those things are clearly not a part of this proposed
amendment. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has pointed out that fact several times
over the past few years. Mr. Tucker said he thinks these issues will be dealt
with when the Comprehensive Plan is amended later this year. The question is
whether to consider these specific proposals prior to the other issues being
dealt with. Water and roads are two issues which have to be considered for
the existing Hollymead Community. It is just a matter of time before the
entire Comprehensive Plan update is brought to the Board for review.
Mr. Cilimberg said there has already been much discussion about the road
issues and those are a part of the recommendation, from the Planning Commis-
sion, however, they will not be tied to an actual improvement until a rezoning
request is submitted. The applicant is aware that with any rezoning request,
there is an expectation that a major traffic study must be submitted and
reviewed by the Highway Department and the County. There will be some large-
scale improvement projects associated with any requests. That is why inter-
changes are referenced in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Marshall said he thought this Board was to hear this request now
because time is the important factor. He understands UREF has several tenants
who are interested in the location, and they cannot give them an answer unless
this amendment is heard. A gentleman in the audience said that is right.
Mrs. Thomas said this does focus the Board's attention on the growth
occurring in this part of the County and the impact of that growth. These
things might "slip by" if considered along with amendments to the entire
Comprehensive Plan. When talking about building a swimming facility to
replace one that now gets 26,000 visitors a year focuses attention on what the
Board will be doing if Chris Greene Lake is taken for a water supply. It
would take general county taxpayer's money to develop another facility of
equal attractiveness, or the Federal government will not give the County
permission to use Chris Greene Lake for a reservoir. Also, additional sewage
treatment capacity is needed, or a pumping station.
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24) O00~8
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff,s report contains a copy of the agreement
as to how sewage disposal will be dealt with in that area. That was set out
by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority with the previous landowners who
purchased capacity which is now close to being exhausted.
Mrs. Thomas said she did not mention these issues as reasons why this
request should not be approved, but it does focus one's attention on things
which will have to be done in that area. Mr. Marshall said that is exactly
why the revenue is needed.
Mrs. Humphris said this is why the County needs the fiscal impact model
capability. The fiscal impact on all the taxpayers and what all of this will
provide needs to be measured. There is now a final study on the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir showing its diminished capacity by 21.4 percent and the fact
that the Buck Mountain Reservoir will have to be constructed much sooner than
planned. This whole proposal for this Comprehensive Plan amendment is
bringing everything that must be considered (water supply, sewer capacity,
road facilities, police, fire and rescue) into focus now. All of these things
have dollar price tags that have to be compared to the County taxpayer's
ability to pay. None of this will come cheaply, or not be a financial burden.
It will be, but who will pay for it?
Mr. Bowerman said the issue is one of 3.0 million square feet under this
proposal, or 2.5 million square feet under the previous approval. The same
issues being mentioned now are also present with the 2.5 million proposal.
Mr. Marshall said he handed out a booklet last month giving some
examples of the fiscal impact a business has on a locality. He hopes that
everybody read it. The County cannot have "no growth" and it can't have too
much growth. There needs to be orderly, controlled growth. Mr. Marshall said
there must be some economic growth to survive, but the trick is to get the
growth that is going to be good for the locality.
Mr. Martin said he thinks this Board can define a "good" industry, and
he thinks this proposal is trying to attract those types of industries. He
agrees that the County will continue to grow. In the last 12 or more years
the County has grown tremendously, but the economic base has not grown with
any kind of diversity, it is all shopping centers, service-industry oriented.
This proposal will put the County in a situation of being attractive to those
types of industries; the Planning Commission discussed most of'those issues.
He does not want to go back and discuss whether this proposal should be before
the Board now.
Mrs. Humphris suggested discussing the additional one-half million
square feet which is the real issue. Based on the staff's report (page 10), a
hypothetical use of 100,000 square feet could create 280+ jobs. That means
that for 500,000 additional square feet 1400 jobs could be created, and what
about the acceleration in growth that would cause. Would there be a benefit
to the County to leave the same amount of square feet spread over a bigger
land area thereby giving everyone a better situation as to how the business/
industry is sited.
Mr. Bowerman said the land use plan which has been in effect for a
number of years designates plenty of land for growth. However, with the
economics of development being what they are, the development community has
taken advantage of the commercial/retail property, while the CoUnty's lack of
attention to any industrial designations has spoken against such development
because the economics have been against it. He said it is very difficult to
develop industrial land, and the return is not that much, so there have to be
incentives given to the developer to get the infrastructure necessary and to
be able to market it to potential tenants. With this application he under-
stands there are 2.5 million square feet on the 250 acres, but for topographic
reasons and due to the amenities that potential buyers want, it is not
feasible to develop the land to that intensity; to develop to a lower intensi-
ty and provide the necessary infrastructure is not economically viable.
Therefore, the request before the Board is to double the amount of land and
increase the square footage by 20 percent. It is expected that that change
will make the land more marketable. Mr. Bowerman said the Board has waited
for the private sector to do that since it has not been willing to commit
public funds to this type of venture. He is wondering if this proposal can be
turned into what the Board wants versus something that may sit there for
another fifteen years without being developed.
Mrs. Thomas said a lot of the existing industrially-zoned land has been
in place for a long time, but in small parcels, and development has now grown
up around it. She would rather have the industrial land developed in the
proposed location where it will be done in an attractive way, and where the
Board can see the entire package and can place some restrictions on the way it
is developed. She has a little trouble with the amount of square footage
requested based on the number of jobs that can be created. One thing about
the proposal is that a lot of the land seems to be in office use. She asked
why that is so, and if it is just a question of semantics.
Mr. Benish suggested that the applicant address that question. Mr.
Deane 'Sincolin said he works for Stonebridge Associates who have been working
with Mr. Tim Rose for about nine months on this proposal. They told the
Planning staff that 2.3 million square feet would be categorized as office,
400,000 square feet would be categorized as light industrial, and 300,000
square feet would be in support/retail with one-half of that possibly being a
hotel. The vast majority of the 2.3 million square feet is being called
office, but up to 1.5 million of that is being defined as a flex product. The
first user of the park, Micro-Aire, is a good example of what a flex facility
December 7, 19'94 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25) . OO~2~9
is like. It has an office component, an administrative component, a warehouse
component, and an industrial component. In their mind, the 2.3 million square
feet does not represent all office space.
Mrs. Thomas asked'Wha{ tyPe of Uses will go into the general office
space. Mr. Sincolin said what they would like to have is an office park which
would offer an opportunity to have corporate headquarters on one spot on the
property, and research facilities on another part of the property.
Ms. Ellen Miller said research institute would also fall into the office
category. UREF knows what it wants, which is a mix of opportunities. It is
not looking for a large office park. One thing that is important to note when
talking about pure industrial uses and the character of this land is that some
of the sites are topographically not suited for pure, large industrial uses.
One of the reasons UREF realized a mix of uses is needed is because there are
limited sites'within this property which the market would see as pure indus-
trial.
Mrs. Humphris said in order to be a "good neighbor" in the park, a use
would need to not be a heavy water user. She would like for that to be
something that is important in the County's requirements.
Mrs. Thomas asked when the Board will see a utilities master plan. Mr.
Cilimberg said he did not know. Staff has done all the analysis of systems
currently in use, and the staff's report on UREF pulls information from that
report on capacities, and it identifies alternative systems which have been
identified by the service authorities. A plan cannot be finalized until the
land use plan that will guide it is in place. Staff talked to the Planning
Commission last night about extending the utilities plan for fifty years into
the future, but be believes it will have to be completed with the Comprehen-
sive Plan. It is scheduled for work sessions in April, 1995.
Mrs. Thomas said the Planning Commission talked extensively about the 78
acres that are above the intake of the North Fork. She appreciates all of
their dialogue about whether to use the word "development", and if some earth
moving should be allowed in order to get the watershed management system
working right. She would be unhappy about having direct use and drainage off
of land into that intake given what the Board has been told about how con-
strained water resources will be in the future.
Mr. Bowerman said he was thinking about where those parcels drain, and
would like to hear a discussion of the policy regarding that issue. Mr.
Cilimberg said in this case there is no water impoundment. This area of
drainage to the North Fork intake is not under the runoff control ordinance.
The Engineering Department has indicated that the dynamics of an intake versus
a reservoir are very different, so they do not see what is done with drainage
as being critical to this location. It is how the mitigating effects of the
runoff are dealt with.
Mrs. Humphris asked how the Planning Commission dealt with this ques-
~tion. Mr Benish said that under the Hollymead profile, the following
ilanguage was added: "Protect the North Fork Rivanna River water supply intake
~rea by prohibiting any development or creation of impervious surfaces within
this area which endangers water quantity and quality."
Mr. Bowerman asked if this implies that there could be some development
if the runoff were actually directed further downstream. Mrs. Humphris asked
~bout Best Management Practices and use of facilities, and whether maintenance
~ill be left to the individual user of the property, purchaser/lessor. Mr.
3enish said these are to be private facilities managed by UREF. They are not
intended to be public, but will be facilities maintained by the developer.
Ms. Miller said they discussed designing a regional, overall stormwater
Nanagement plan so some of the stormwater management would not be on a site-
)y-site basis, but in all cases the stormwater facilities are to be private
~nd privately maintained.
Mr. Perkins asked what the Board will do with this petition now. Mr.
rucker said it is scheduled for a public hearing at next week's meeting.
Agenda Item No. 18b. Work Session: FY 1995-96 through FY 1999-2000
~apital Improvements Program (CIP).
Ms. Roxanne White said in October, 1994 the Board of Supervisors
~pproved Financial Management Policies which set guidelines for Capital
~mprovement Program funding for maintenance and replacement projects, as well
~s target limits for indebtedness and debt service levels. Using those
~olicies, the recommended CIP has been coordinated with the operating budget
~o a greater degree than in prior years. Summaries of all General Government
Lnd School Division projects show associated operating costs that will be
reflected in future operating budgets. Proposed Debt Service levels stay
rithin the County's debt service guidelines.
Ms. White said there is an attempt to fund a significant portion of
~apital improvements on a cash basis in this CIP, and incrementally increase
~he percentage of its capital improvements financed by current revenues.
'here is also an increased transfer of revenues from the General Fund to the
liP; an additional $940,000 in FY 1995-96, $200,000 in FY 1997-98 and FY 1998-
9, and $500,000 in FY 1999-2000, for a total of $12.6 million over the five-
ear period. For FY 1994-95, the percentage of General Fund revenues trans-
erred to the CIP was 1.83 percent; for FY 1995-96, the percentage will be 2.9
ercent.
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26) 000270
In accordance with approved policies, aVailable revenues are targeted
for both General Government and School DiVision maintenance and repair pro-
jects, a total of $3.30 million, of which almost $2.5 million, or 77 percent,
is targeted for School Division projects.
The CIP for the five-year period totals $61,446,913. Twelve million six
hundred dollars will come through a General Fund transfer, $15.0 million from
the split billing of the real property tax, with over $30.0 million being
borrowed through the Virginia Public School Authority.
Ms. White said the CIP Technical Committee tried for the first time this
year to develop parameters concerning expected revenues. This was not done to
limit requests, but to make a realistic assessment of what might be done over
the next five-year period. For this CIP, departments and agencies were
instructed to plan their projects for the five-year period, knowing that any
new request submitted next year will automatically go into the fifth year of
the CIP. From this year forward, only emergency projects or unanticipated
technology needs may be submitted during the first four years. This will
provide a more accurate projection of what the County plans to actually
finance over the next five-year period.
As stated in the financial policies, the goal of the County is to fund
maintenance and repair projects with current revenues rather than from
borrowed funds, a total of approximately $3.3 million of which $2.5 million is
in school-related projects. It is also a goal to insure that maintenance and
repair projects are funded before new projects are undertaken.
Ms. White said the CIP Technical Committee did not look at individual
school projects, and made no changes to the School Board's requests. For an
additional $225,000 a year in Debt Service, all of the SchoOl projects,
including the maintenance projects, could be funded. That was left to this
Board to decide if that is an acceptable level of Debt Service. The County
would still be within the Debt Service level which was set in the financial
policies in October.
Mrs. Thomas asked if those School figures include the new high school.
Ms. White replied "yes". She said it is assumed there will be an additional
$15.0 million in revenues from the split billing of real property taxes. One
thing for the Board to consider today is that the plan presented does not
include the total Jail project.
Ms. White said the Planning Commission, at its meeting last night,
approved funding for the landscaping of Route 29 North. That is to be done
with a savings they found in the Library budget.
Mrs. Thomas asked about a project entitled "Forloines study." Mr.
Cilimberg said a few years ago, Dr. Forloines, who owns property on Route 600,
came to the Board and said he was willing to give the County land for a golf
course, and possibly some money from his eventual estate for construction of a
golf course. Me did some preliminary conceptual planning with County staff to
show that it could be done, but the County did not go further. Eventually it
appeared as a project in the CIP so the Board could decide whether the project
would be feasible.
Mrs. Humphris asked about a project listed as "Northern Area Park
improvements." Ms. White said that is on property located near Earlysville
which will probably be on the market soon. The Technical Committee looked at
this as a way to expand future park facilities into the northern area of the
County. Mr. Cilimberg said it is a way to get additional area around Chris
Green Lake as a buffer. It could also serve some passive recreation purposes.
Mrs. Humphris asked about another project listed as "Zan Road" and asked
if this is the Hillsdale connector road. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes", and he
believes the County's share of this project will be no more than five percent
of the total project.
Mrs. Thomas asked what the County will do about (replacing) Chris Greene
Lake, and why should it not be a part of this CIP. Mr. Bowerman said he had a
radical statement about this situation. He believes that because of the
developable land in Albemarle County, and the location of Chris Greene that in
the long-run the County may look at this area not as a watershed impoundment,
but as recreation or residential. In his mind, it is not necessarily a
watershed impoundment because of its size; also the North Fork is not totally
under the control of Albemarle County.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks the Northern Park improvement could be part of
any replacement of Chris Greene as a recreational facility, if that is the
ultimate decision. Although the Albemarle County Service Authority and the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority are not willing to let Chris Greene be given
up as a water supply since that was its original intent, he does not know if
that is the best place for such a use in the future.
Mrs. Humphris said the County needs to know the answer to available
water supply and the condition of the lake. Mr. Tucker said the County
currently owns the lake, and if anything is to be done, the County will
probably have to decide if the facility that is there is feasible for that
purpose. Mrs. Humphris said this has an affect on the timing of the Buck
Mountain Reservoir. Mr. Tucker agreed, and said a study similar to the one
now being done by Black and Beach on the Rivanna Reservoir needs to be done°
Mrs. Thomas said that apparently no one ever did a yield study. Mrs. Humphris
asked how it would be done. Mr. Tucker said staff will have to look at
probable cost of a study. He will get a report to the Board in the near
future.
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
00,0 ,1
Mrs. Humphris said the Black & Beach study on the South Fork has told a
lot about when the County has to start getting ready. Time is getting short
for making a decision as to where water will come from since water is the
limiting factor to groWthl Mr. CilimbergSaid during discussion of growth
area expansion in the Hollymead area, the Possibility of connecting Chris
Greene back into the South Fork system was mentioned; if that happens, it has
other implications on capacity.
Mrs. Humphris said she thought it was clear that all of the South Fork
capacity would be needed for an urban water supply. Mr. Cilimberg said the
Black & Beach study focuses on the current supply area of the South Fork.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the North Fork diversion is included when the
statement "When by the year 2040 there will be a 10.0 million gallon per day
system without adding anything else, but there will be a need for 19.0 million
gallons per day." She said that the Buck Mountain reservoir will add 13.0
million, so the area will be "just okay" assuming that' all of that water is
intermingled because there is less than 1.0 million gallons per day that can
come from the South Fork. The University Research Park is supposed to use 7.0
million gallons per day, so it is using almost all that is gotten from the
North Fork. To not have that recognized in the Capital Plan, even though the
water users will be taking the brunt of the expenditures, is uncomfortable.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the item listed as "Forest Lakes/Hollymead Dam
Road", and the statement that "the project will be constructed by the Forest
Lakes developers in exchange for the County taking the stormwater facility as
a public basin" showing $6500 per year for maintenance. She asked Ms. Jo
Higgins, County Engineer, about providing maintenance for such facilities.
Ms. Higgins said the road that connects the Timberwood Parkway to
Powells Creek Drive has been an issue for some time. Basically, the developer
proposes to construct the pavement connection across the dam. VDoT has said
for some time that they will not take that section of road into the State
System unless the County had responsibility for the dam structure. Currently,
as the dam is constructed, two lanes of pavement and a pathway could be placed
across it without any significant structural changes to the dam. If it is
going to be a State-maintained road, the County will have to take responsibil-
ity for the dam. There is a strip of land that totally encompasses the dam
which has not been deeded from the developer to the homeowners association; it
is reserved for future road right-of-way. The property line between the
Hollymead Homeowners' Association and the Forest Lakes Homeowners' Association
physically splits the water surface perpendicular through the dam and the
pond. At this time, the pond itself is not within a drainage easement, the
structure needs some changes (standpipe has rusted). The developer proposed
that he build the pavement, and then the County take over the stormwater
facility which would have to be done before VDoT would take the road into the
State System. There are no other side issues, but there is a popularity issue
with putting that connector in place. This came up during discussion of the
Meadow Creek Parkway because it is part of the T-1 connector. It is an
internal connector, and people who don't want it live at the end of the dead-
end road and don't want cars across the dam.
Ms. Higgins said the pond has been in place for a long time. It
preceded current requirements which now require that an agreement be signed
and recorded so that it passes with the land. This pond is under no such
agreement, and there are a lot of issues with older structures and who will
maintain them into the future.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the Avon Street/Route 20 interchange study.
She said this project is in the County's CIP, but Mr. Dick Keller with CATCO
said they had studied this, and at a $5.0 million cost there was too little
benefit and they did not recommend it. Mr. Cilimberg said that study has not
been adopted by all parties at this time, so the old project has been left in
the CIP.
Mr. Perkins asked about items listed for maintenance in the Schools
budget. Ms. White said the Technical Committee started with the idea that
maintenance projects under $10,000 would be put into the operating budget, and
projects over that amount would go into the CIP. In the Schools, a lot of the
projects are very costly (such as roof replacements), but have been considered
as maintenance projects. Basically anything that was a repair and replacement
item was put into the Schools Repair & Replacement Fund and that is the reason
all of those projects could not be funded.
(Mr. Marshall and Mr. Bowerman left the room at 3:15 p.m. Mr. Bowerman
returned at 3:16 p.m. and Mr. Marshall at 3:18 p.m. Mr. Martin left the room
at 3:16 p.m.)
Mrs. Humphris mentioned the cost of replacing the mulch under playground
equipment. She asked if there were not a less expensive alternative. Mrs.
Thomas asked about the rubber tire mulch. Mr. Tucker said it is not accept-
able under ADA standards. There is a certain type of mulch which is much
finer that has to be used.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the County had an approved ADA transition plan.
Mr. Tucker said "yes". Ms. White said one of the issues with ADA is that last
year a decision had to be made to spread the ADA projects over a three-year
period. It does not mean that the County is in compliance if the projects are
staggered over a period of time. If someone needed access somewhere and the
project were in the third year of the plan, that project would be pulled and
completed immediately, and another project moved to the third year. Mr. Davis
December 7, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
000; 72
said there are dates set fg~ gQmpliance. The County's plan is a good faith
effort to get in compliance as soon as possible, but the County is not meeting
all compliance dates.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the County is agreeable with the Jefferson Country
Fire and Rescue Association goals. Mr. Tucker said they have not yet complet-
ed their plan. Ms. White said what is set out in the CIP has been reduced by
the cost of the fire pump replacement, but the rest of the reqUest has been
funded.
Mrs. Thomas asked about the radio receiver reqUest. She wondered about
the visual impact, and asked if these can be put on other towers. Mr. Tucker
said they can be depending on the location.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the request for the Warren Ferry, and the
reqUest for $4000 a year for an off-duty police officer to monitor the access
gate. (Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 3:20 p.m.) Mr. Tucker said this
duty will be assigned to officers in that sector. There have been problems at
Totier and others when there is a gate (much vandalism), but by having these
off-duty officers there, it is hoped to get around a lot of those problems.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to mention the Carrsbrook Road extension
project again. It is funded in this CIP because of the points it got. He
thinks that after looking at it, the Board will find that it is a project that
is not significant enough in the public's interest to warrant the amount of
funding set aside. The one person who would be directly effected by this
project would be Better Living, Inc., which currently has only one access to
its facilities. Since it is in the Comprehensive Plan, he does not know how
to deal with it in the CIP.
Mrs. Thomas referred back to the Zan Road extension. She said it is
mentioned that based on a traffic study, it will not significantly relieve
traffic on Route 29. Mr. Bowerman said it will significantly reduce the
number of left-turn traffic into Seminole SqUare. Mrs. Thomas asked if that
statement is incorrect. Mr. Cilimberg said the modeling of it carried about
3500 vehicle trips per day.
Mr. Perkins said that concludes the work session for the Capital
Improvement Program. Mr. Tucker asked if the Board wanted to hold another
public hearing or adopt what has been presented as the five-year plan. Mr.
Martin said he had told some people who wanted to speak that this would be on
the Board's agenda again.
Mr. Perkins suggested the CIP be readvertised for another public
hearing. He said that he is not prepared to vote today. He will not vote for
approval of the one-half million dollars in highway matching funds. He does
not think it is in the public interest to use taxpayer's dollars to build
highways.
Ms. White said $20,000 will be taken out of the Library's Maintenance
budget and $18,500 put in for the Route 29 North landscaping.
Mo%ion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to hold
another public hearing on the Capital Improvement Program on January 11, 1995.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 20.
BOARD.
Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Mr. Tucker noted that there has been a notification problem resulting
from not posting the notice for ZMA-94-14, Highlands West Land Trust (appli-
cant), Lady B. Walton (owner), which has been advertised for a public hearing
before the Board on December 21, 1994. Due to this problem, the Planning
Commission had to defer its public hearing until December 20. That would put
the Board's hearing on the next night without minutes from the Planning
Commission's hearing. In reply to a qUestion from Mrs. Humphris, he said the
Board could hold the public hearing on December 21, and could continue the
public hearing to another night and take action at that time.
Mr. Tucker referred to the probable elimination of the Business and
Professional Occupations License Tax. He asked if the Board wished to write a
letter to the Governor. Mrs. Humphris said the Board needs to call attention
to its plight early and often. The Board needs to communicate with the
legislators and ask for some reasonable alternative to the elimination of this
revenue source. It was agreed that a letter would be drafted for the Chair-
man's signature.
Mrs. Humphris asked about a letter in the packet referring to the
cancellation of Youth and Government Day. Mr. Tucker is to find out the
reasons for this cancellation.
A~oved by Board
December 7, 1994 (Regular DaY Meeting) 0002~3
(Page 29)
Mrs. Humphris said she knows the University of Virginia hands down its
obsolete computers to sch00i~'sys'temSif'~yhave IBM comPatible equipment.
She asked if Albemarle County participates. Mr. Tucker said there have offers
made by businesses, but these offers have to be checked carefully since the
equipment may be of no particular value.
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn. At 3:55 P.M., with no further business to
come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
Chairman