Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-05-04May 4, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) 000 0 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 4, 1994, at 9:00 A.M., Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David Pi Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. and Mr. Charles S. Martin. 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. There were no other matters. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humph- ris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve Items 5.2, 5.3 and 5.3a, and to accept the remaining items as information. Mrs. Humphris asked that Item 5.5 be discussed under "Other Transportation Matters." Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. Item 5.1. Authorize Chairman to sign Berkmar Drive North Extension Revenue Sharing Agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation° At the request of staff, this item will be added to the agenda of June 1, 1994, for approval. Item 5.2. Resolution in support of Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation's Grant Application to Farmers Home Administration for Housing Funds. It was noted that TJHIC is requesting funds from the Farmer's Home Administration Self-Help Program to develop housing for low-income families in the region. The families participate in the construction of their homes as well as the homes of other program participants. TJHIC has requested that all localities in the region adopt a resolution supporting their grant applica- tion. TJHIC is currently identifying building sites in Albemarle County where the first homes will be built. No local match is required. By the vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT for THOMAS JEFFERSON HOUSING IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION SELF-HELP HOUSING PROJECTS W~EREAS, there exists an ongoing need to create housing opportunities to benefit very-low and low-income residents in this region; and W~EREAS, the Farmer's Home Administration has funding availability, has approved the pre-application and is ready to receive proposals under the SELF-HELP TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT and other grants to develop, administer and coordinate assistance, both technical and supervisory, for families to carry out self- help housing efforts in rural areas, who otherwise would not qualify as homeowners; and W~E~A$, Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation (TJHIC) has a broad base of representation, has established working relationships with the local housing organizations in the five counties of Nelson, Greene, Albemarle, Fluvanna and Louisa, has an experienced staff and advisors and an almost ten-year history of community-based housing improvement efforts for ad- dressing the needs of low-income persons in the region; NOW, THER]~FOR~, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County hereby supports the efforts of TJHIC to provide opportunities for affordable housing in Albemarle County and the region by submitting a grant application to Farmer's Home Administration and by providing technical assistance to self-help housing groups. Item 5.3. Authorize Chairman to execute Appalachian Power Company Agreement for the purchase of electricity. It was noted that both Virginia 000205 May 4, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) ( Page 2 ) Power and Appalachian Power companies negotiate three-year contracts for the purchase of electricity on a fee schedule that is distinct for municipalities. The negotiation of these contracts is handled by the Virginia Association of Counties and has resulted in a new contract with Appalachian Power Company. The term of this agreement is for a period of thirty-six months beginning July 1, 1993, making the rates retroactive due to the late date negotiations were concluded. Rates reflected in the agreement for those few Albemarle County facilities serviced by Appalachian Power are within the constraints of the budgeted estimate of a five percent increase. By the recorded vote set out above the Chairman was AUTHORIZED to sign a Virginia Public Authorities Agreement for the Purchase of Electricity from Appalachian Power Company, issued January 14, 1994, effective July 1, 1993. Item 5.3a. Designation of County's Agent for Federal Emergency Manage- ment Agency Disaster Reimbursement. It was noted that by virtue of Governor Allen's disaster declaration as a result of the March 2, 1994, snow and ice storm, the County may be eligible for some reimbursement for public expendi- tures resulting from the storm itself. In order to apply for reimbursement, the County must designate an agent to act on its behalf for filing the necessary documentation. Mr. David Shaw, the Director of Administrative Services for the Police Department, has volunteered to coordinate all County submissions for financial assistance which may include Parks and Recreation snow removal expenses, Police Department overtime, and other miscellaneous public expenditures. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of County Supervisors of Albe- marle County, Virginia, that David Shaw, Director of Administra- tive Services for the Albemarle County Police Department, is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of Albemarle County, a public entity established under the laws of the Common- wealth of Virginia, this application and to file it in the appro- priate State office for the purpose of obtaining certain Federal financial assistance under the Disaster Relief Act (Public Law 299, 93rd Congress) or otherwise available from the President's Disaster Relief Fund. FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Albemarle County, a public entity established under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereby authorized its agent to provide to the State and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for all matters pertaining to such Federal disaster assistance the assurances and agreements printed on the reverse side hereof. Item 5.4. Letter dated April 27, 1994, from F. E. James, Jr., Acting Maintenance Operations Manager, Department of Transportation, addressed to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re: notice that VDOT intends to replace the existing structure over Yellow Mountain Creek (Route 691) during the period of May 2, 1994, through May 13, 1994, received as information. Item 5.5. Executive Summary on revised cost estimates for Meadow Creek Parkway project (McIntire Road to Rio Road) and implications to the proposed Six Year Secondary Road Plan. Mr. Tucker noted that since the Board's April 6 work session on the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan, VDOT has developed a new cost estimate for the County portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway project (priority #6) from McIntire Road to Rio Road ($10,280,157). The previous cost estimate was $6,440,000. This new estimate is a result of updating and revising plans and estimates for presentation at VDOT's April 26 Public Hearing for the project. It is not based on any significant modifications to the proposed concept or alignment of the road. It should be noted that this most recent estimate is still subject to further change with final design of an approved alignment. The primary impact to the proposed Six-Year Plan is twofold. It has reduced the number of projects receiving funding over the six-year period of the Plan. Route 726, (James River Road - priority #20), Route 781 (Sunset Avenue - priority #21), Route 769 (Grassmere Road - priority #22), and Route 675 (Hatton Ferry Road - priority #23) will not be included in the VDOT Six- Year Plan as previously proposed. The estimated advertisement dates for project construction have also been delayed by one to two years for projects prioritized from priority #10, Greenbrier Drive Extended, to priority #19, Lamb's Road. The schedule for Hydraulic Road and Rio Road (priorities #8 and #9) has not been affected. The schedule for road paving projects is unaffect- ed by the revised Meadow Creek Parkway cost estimate because they are funded from a separate source of funds. May 4, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) 000206 Item 5.6. Letter dated April 20, 1994, from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re: mowing median strips along entrance corridors. Mr. Roosevelt noted that the Board of Supervisors, at a February meeting, requested the Department to mow the full width of the right of way along seven entrance corridors into Charlottesville during the forthcoming mowing season. The Department has agreed to mow these seven entrance corridors to their full width as part of its regular mowing schedule. Item 5.7. Letter dated April 21, 1994, from E. C. Cochran, Jr., P.E., State Location and Design Engineer, re: notification that the Commonwealth Transportation Board, on December 7, 1993, approved the location and major design features for Route 682 (Proj: 0682-002-P33, C-501, Albemarle County, Fr: Route 250, To: 1.784 Miles South Route 787), with the following modifi- cations: rustic guardrail will be used in place of standard galvanized guardrail, the alignment between Station 268+00 and Station 278+00 will be shifted to the east and the grade on the south side of the CSX Railroad tracks will be lessened. Item 5.8. Letter dated April 22, 1994, from H. Graham Driver, Manager, Multi-Family Program, Department of Housing and Community Development, re: Rio Hill Associates, L. P., Qualification for "Affordable Housing" Status, received as information. Mro Driver notes that Rio Hill Associates has applied for and received an allocation of federal low-income housing tax credits available under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for a project it proposes to build off Rio Road in Albemarle County. Assuming the project complies with those contracts, and is placed in service by Decem- ber 31, 1995, it should qualify as "affordable housing" for the purposes of low-income housing tax credits under applicable federal law. Item 5.9. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apartments) Bond Program Report and Monthly Report for the month of March, 1994, received for information. Item 5.10. March, 1994 Monthly Financial Report of Albemarle County Operations, was received as information. Item 5.11. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for March 17, 1994, received for information. Item 5.12. Copy of letter dated April 7, 1994, from Karen L. Mayne, Acting Supervisor, Virginia Field Office, Fish and Wildlife Service, to Richard N. Burton, Director, Department of Environmental Quality, re: comments on proposal to amend VR 680-21-01.3.C.3, Exceptional Waters. Ms. Mayne notes that the Service believes the nomination of the Moormans River from the headwaters of the North and South Forks to the confluence with the Mechum's River near Free Union, Virginia, meets all the requirements for designation as an Exception Surface Water as defined in the Water Division's Guidance document. Item 5.13. Letter dated April 21, 1994, from The Honorable Thomas L. Bliley, Jr., Member of Congress, House of Representatives, re: HR 1181, a bill to increase the authorization for federal payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) to counties. Mr. Bliley notes that since 1976, PILT payments have fallen far behind inflation--to half of their original value. He hopes that Congress will pass a PILT increase that gives counties like Albemarle the funds it needs and deserves. Item 5.14. Memorandum dated April 25, 1994, from J. Brad Berry, Vice- Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Greene County, re: Impact Fee Resolution. Mr. Berry forwarded to the Board a copy of the resolution which has now been signed by Greene, Albemarle, Madison, Orange and Culpeper counties. Item 5.15. Memorandum dated April 27, 1994, from Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: 1993 recycling rate for Albemarle/Charlottesville. Mr. Tucker had forwarded a table providing the tonnages from each local entity involved in recycling, data which was used to determine the 1993 recycling rate for Albemarle and Charlottesville. He said the recycling rate for 1993 was 30.56 percent. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) mandated recycling rate throughout the country for 1993 was 15 percent and for 1995 it is 25 percent. The County is already 5.56 percent above the 1995 mandated requirement. Mr. Tucker noted that much of the success in exceeding the recycling mandate was due in part to a recent County Code amendment requiring the reporting of recycling tonnages by local business and industry. Item 5.16. Memorandum dated April 21, 1994, from Robert W. Paskel, Division Superintendent, re: approved School Division budget for FY 1994-95. Dr. Paskel said he is indebted to Mr. Tucker and his staff for the substantial May 4, 1994 (Regular 'Day Meeting) (Page 4) 000; 07 assistance provided during the development of the 1994-95 School Division Budget and the cooperation that has been demonstrated by County personnel in assisting him throughout this process. Item 5.17. Memorandum dated April 26, 1994, from Jo Higgins, Director of Engineering, to Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: Traffic signal at Rio Road/Hillsdale Drive. Ms. Higgins said this traffic signal is to be programmed for FY 94-95. She is currently holding funds in the amount of $57,000 (as of 3/94) in an interest bearing account designated for this purpose. This money will provide for a significant portion of the cost with the excess to be funded out of Secondary Road moneys. Item 5.18. Letter dated April 29, 1994, from D. S. Roosevelt, to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, providing the monthly update on Current Projects- Construction Schedule. PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ALBEMARLE COUNTY MAY 1~ 1994 ROUTE LOCATION STATUS ESTIHATED NO. COHP. DATE 631 5TH STREET EXT. CONSTRUCTION 88% COMPLETE JUL 94 * S. ROUTE 1'64 20 FROM 3.4 MI. S. ROUTE 53 CONSTRUCTION 14~ COMPLETE SEP 94 TO 3.8 HI. S. ROUTE 53 29 FROM HYDRAULIC ROAD TO CONSTRUCTION 16~ COMPLETE DEC 95 RIO ROAD *REVISED DATE Agenda Item No. 6. Certificates of Appreciation. Mr. Perkins presented certificates to the following persons: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. for service as a member of the Board of Supervi- sors from October 15, 1987, to December 31, 1993. Mr. Clifford W. Haury for service as a member of the Albemarle County School Board from November 18, 1987, to December 31, 1993. Mr. Phil T. Grimm as a member of the Albemarle County Planning Commis- sion from January 3, 1990, to December 31, 1993. Mr. Walter F. Johnson as a member of the Albemarle County Planning Commission from January 17, 1990, to December 31, 1993. Mrs. Ellen I. Andersen as a member of the Albemarle County Planning Commission from January 3, 1990, to December 31, 1993. Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes: June 17, 1992; May 24(A) and December 1, 1993; March 2 and April 6, 1994. Mr. Perkins had read June 17, 1992 (pages 1 - 19 at item #8) and found them to be in order. Mr. Perkins had also read March 2, 1994 (pages 1 - 16 at item #13a) and found them to be in order. Mrs. Thomas had read April 6, 1994, and found only some minor typograph- ical errors. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seco=ded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the minutes which had been read. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 8a. Transportation Matters: Authorize Chairman to sign agreements for completion of Route 29 N service road. Mr. Tucker noted that portions of the Route 29 North Service Road east of Route 29 and just south of the South Fork Rivanna River have been con- structed concurrent with new development over the past several years. Completion of the service road south to intersect with Hilton Heights Drive at Route 29 had been expected to occur with development of the remainder of the undeveloped property along the service road's route. It would provide a traffic circulation benefit along Route 29, particularly, in providing the businesses along the service road access to a signalized intersection (Hilton Heights Drive). Construction of the rest of the service road as part of the Route 29 project is both cost-effective and time-efficient and precludes the May 4, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) OOO20~ (Page 5) need for the County to have to deal with individual sections of the road as part of future development review. Two properties remain undeveloped - Dan's Automart (south portion) and A. T. Williams Oil Company. Construction is scheduled to begin on the second section of the Route 29 improvement project from Rio Road to the South Fork Rivanna River later this year. Completion of the service road can be incorporated into that project by VDOT if the owners of the undeveloped properties are willing to fund their pro-rata share of the project. This necessitates the County entering into a construction agreement with each property owner and receiving surety from each that they will fund their share of the construction. In turn, the County will enter into a concurrent construction agreement with VDOT. Both property owners have indicated their intent to participate. Staff is awaiting final paperwork and surety from each owner. This arrangement will be at no cost to the County. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the Chairman to sign the above referenced agreements subject to receipt of signed agreements and surety from Dan's Automart and A. T. Williams Oil Company and final review by the County Attorney. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby authorize its chairman to sign the "Construction Agreement between Virginia Department of Transporta- tion and the County of Albemarle", the "Construction Agreement between the County of Albemarle and B. Dan Dickerson" and, the "Construction Agreement between the County of Albemarle and A. T. Williams", for completion of Route 29 North service road to be built as a part of State project numbered 6029-002-F19, C502, upon receipt of signed agreements and surety from Dan's Automart and A. T. Williams Oil Company and final review of the documents by the County Attorney. Roll was called, and the foregoing motion Carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 8b. Other Transportation Matters. Mrs. Humphris said in reference to Consent Agenda Item No. 5.5, she is confused about the new dollar figure for funding of the section of the Meadow Creek Parkway from the City Limits to Rio Road. This new estimate is set out in the staff's report on the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan as $10,280,157 for the County's portion of 1.4 miles. She has information which shows that on November 5, 1993, the City's portion of 0.5 mile was estimated to cost $9.96 million. The figure presented at the Location Public Hearing held on April 26, 1994, showed that the entire 1.9 mile length from the Route 250 Bypass in the City to Rio Road would cost $12.3 million. She asked for an explanation. Mr. Roosevelt said the information distributed at the Location Public Hearing showed the costs as follows: Corridor "A" of 1.9 miles, $12.3 million; Corridor "Rev. A" of 1.9 miles~ $12.4 million; Corridor "B" of 2.0 miles, $18.3 million; and Corridor "D" of 2.2 miles, $20.9 million. These are the estimated costs for the total project, both the parts in the City and in the County. The $10.3 million is the lowest of the four estimates for the County portion. Mr. Roosevelt said that only three of the alternatives affect the County, "A"/ "A Rev" and "B". "D" is a County option with an interchange in the City, but the County does not have to pay any of that cost. Recognizing that the County is only at the 20 percent point in this project, he decided to use the lowest estimate in the County's Six-Year Secondary Road Plan. Mr. Roosevelt said that in 1986 there was a location hearing, and the County's portion of the "A" alignment was $5.4 million. Over the past eight years, he has inflated that figure each time the Six-Year Plan was redone, and had it up to $6.4 million. He was shocked to see that figure inflated to $10.3 million when he got the last information for the Location Hearing. This information was received after the work session on the Six-Year Plan. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Tucker if his report takes into consideration the extra $600,000+ the County will get in Secondary Funds under the new projections. Mr. Tucker said "yes". Mrs. Humphris asked if the new estimate for the Meadow Creek Parkway is only one part of what the estimate might be. She would like to see an estimate for each of the four corridors mentioned. May 4, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 0002__~ (Page 6) Mr. Roosevelt said the $10.3 million will fund the "A" alternative. He does not believe that either the "A Rev" or the "B" alignments increase the County's cost very much. Mr. Roosevelt said when he found that there had been such a large increase in the estimate, he redid the financial plan and supplied that information to County staff. He said that taking an extra $4.0 million from a financial plan that only covers $20.0 million and still keep projects on schedule is not easy to do. On other projects, the advertising date has been held steady, and the Department has allowed resident engineers to finance projects so that the final payment occurs in the year following the year in which the project is completed, but the Department has not allowed funding of a great portion of the project in the following year. He expects the Depart- ment to allow him the use of this practice in this instance, but if they do not, he will, with this Board's consent, have to set some of the advertising dates back. ' ~ Mr. Roosevelt said he will have to forward to the Board the estimated cost for the City and the County for each of the four alternatives. He does not have that information with him today. Mrs. Humphris again mentioned to the Board the situation on Georgetown Road where the slip ramp enters from Hydraulic Road. She said there is a new by-right subdivision occurring at that point, and she is concerned that there will be a tragedy in this location. She asked if it is possible to do away with the slip ramp and change this to a "T" intersection. Mr. Roosevelt said the Department has little control over private entrances onto the public highway. Under provisions in the Code of Virginiae every landowner must be given a private entrance to his property. The Department had no choice but to give private entrances to these properties; the land has been divided so that each two lots has a shared entrance. That is an additional three entrances onto Georgetown Road. Mrs. Humphris asked what can be done to mitigate the danger. Mr. Roosevelt said the problem can be handled in one of two ways; if the Board were to put a specific item into the first year of the proposed Six-Year Road Plan, he could proceed with the change in the next budget year. A recent change in State legislation dropped the necessity for a public hearing on the budget for the first year in the Six-Year Plan. Or, the Board could use funds from the category entitled "Spot Improvements". With the current schedule, he could not do the work until after July 1 anyway. Mrs. Humphris asked staff to look at the situation, and she suggested that the Board members drive over the road to see the severe safety problem. Mr. Tucker asked if $10,000 would cover the cost of a permanent improve- ment in that area. Mr. Roosevelt referred Mr. Tucker to the recent report from the Georgetown Road Task Force. Mr. Cilimberg said staff could also discuss the bus stops with Charlottesville Transit Service, and maybe get those moved further away from the intersection. Mr. Bowerman said the report "Projects under Construction at May 1, 1994" shows that 16 percent of the Route 29 North project is completed. He asked what that encompasses. Mr. Roosevelt replied that most of what has been completed is the work that cannot be seen, underground work. There is a 72 inch pipe which has been pushed under the northbound lane of 29 at The Gardens area. This project was set up to push all of the pipes under the northbound lane, rather than cutting the road. Most of that work is completed, as well as quite a bit of the utility work in the median. Mr. Roosevelt said the Transportation Department and the contractor have a meeting at the Senior Center on Greenbrier Drive every Friday morning at 10:00 A.M. to discuss with the public the next week's work schedule and to hear from them any concerns they may have. This has been going on for two months and thus far there have been no more than four people from the public attend. Mr. Bowerman asked what is planned in the way of a realignment of Carrsbrook Drive at Route 29 North during the Route 29 North project. He has been told by good sources that there is a map showing a realignment of Carrsbrook to create a crossover on Route 29 linking it with Berkmar Extended at the one end, and with the Meadow Creek Parkway at the other end. Although something needs to be done with Carrsbrook Drive, he has concern about the vertical and horizontal curvature should the road ever become a major collec- tor or major through street, which it would under this scenario. Mr. Roosevelt said there are two issues; one is a possible connection to the Meadow Creek Parkway, and the other is the realignment at Route 29. One of the complaints the Department has received from the Carrsbrook residents for years is that they have to go north and make a "U" turn in order to go toward Charlottesville. This new improvement will make a crossover at Carrsbrook Drive so there will be a tendency for people to go through Carrs- brook, or to cut through from Rio Road. The realignment will try to put the extension to Berkmar along one of the two property lines, either the one with 0002:1.0 May 4, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) Jim Price Chevrolet, or the property line with Better Living. At the time that decision was made, the Alternate 10 interchange was to be where Lowe's is located now, and extend out to and beyond Better Living. In order for this interchange not to interfere with the crossover at Carrsbrook, it was moved as far north as possible without getting into the 12-inch waterline that runs out to the Airport. Mr. Roosevelt said as to where the other end could be connected to the Meadow Creek Parkway, he does not know where the connection is shown. If it is not in the CATS Plan, it must be on some study developed by County staff. The Department has done no work on that line north of Rio Road since it appeared in the CATS study. Putting that on a schematic drawing at this time does not indicate it will be built. Mr. Cilimberg said it does not show in the CATS Plan or any of the alternatives presented by Sverdrup, and the staff has not proposed anything. Mr. Bowerman asked if the public comment period is over for Carrsbrook. Mr. Roosevelt said it ended at the Location and Design Hearing in 1986. Mr. Bowerman asked if there were questions about this issue at the hearing a couple of weeks ago. Mr. Roosevelt said "no". There were few people who even attended. He did meet about a year ago with an ad hoc committee of the Carrsbrook homeowners to discuss this connection and he laid out all the details at that time. Mr. Bowerman said he believes some additional attention must be given to this intersection for those people who use this as the only way to get out of Carrsbrook from their homes. Mrs. Thomas asked when a spot improvement planned for Route 760 in North Garden will occur. Mr. Roosevelt said he is not sure his staff has contacted the person who had indicated that he would act as a "go between" in obtaining right-of-way for this project. He hopes to have all of the information necessary, and have the right-of-way staked out by the end of May. He has talked with one landowner who lives on Route 760, but owns property on Route 712, and he is not favorable to the project. Agenda Item No. 9. Adopt Resolution designating Piedmont Council of the Arts as the official arts organization for Albemarle County. Mr. Tucker said Piedmont Council of the Arts has recently completed, with the assistance of a national grant, a "Cultural Plan for the Piedmont Council of the Arts and the Community." This strategic plan outlines the mission, the guiding principles and the strategies for establishing the Arts Council in a leadership role to shape and promote a dynamic arts environment for the community in the 21st Century. Based on their desire to implement their strategic plan in the community, the Arts Council requests the Board of Supervisors to officially designate them as the official arts agency for Albemarle County. Mr. Tucker said "designation" is a term used to describe the procedure whereby a private non-profit agency establishes a more formal working rela- tionship with its local county/and or city government. For the Piedmont Council of the Arts, this type of designation will not only provide more clarity between the parties in regard to responsibility, funding, accountabil- ity and communication, but it will also enable the Arts Council to more successfully leverage state and federal funding, as well as private sector funding at the local, state and national levels. Ms. Cat Maguire, Executive Director, was present. She said that City Council, on Monday night, adopted the resolution. The emphasis for the designation came after completion of their cultural plan. She said that Dr. Deborah Dicroce from Piedmont Virginia Community College, was the chair of the Steering Committee, and she quoted from her written remarks: "Building community in the arts is a statement of our community's collective belief in the value of the arts. It is a call to action by the arts council to create a cultural climate where arts organizations and artists are considered central to daily life. A climate which recognizes, as did John F. Kennedy, that the life of the arts, far from being an interruption, a distraction in the life of a nation, is very close to the center of a nation's purpose and is a test of the quality of a nation's civilization." Mrs. Humphris said she, personally, is a supporter of the arts and knows of their importance in the community. She quoted from the "Cultural Plan" on page 16 where there is a statement that "because of its ability to improve the liveability of the community, the Arts Council warrants a share of public support commensurate with other essential quality of life programs .... " It then goes on to say they can leverage additional funds from the Virginia Commission of the Arts and the National Endowment for the Arts. Mrs. Humphris said in granting this designation for PCA to be the official arts agency, it should be made clear that PCA is not the same as libraries and parks and recreation, which are directly accountable to the Board of Supervisors. With that understanding, motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris and sec6nded by Mr. Bowerman to adopt the following resolution: May 4, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) oOoala. RESOLUTION WHEREAS the purpose of Piedmont Council of the Arts is to be the catalyst for advancing the thriving presence of the arts to enhance the quality of life in our region; and WHEREAS the County of Albemarle desires to ensure planning, promotion, coordination and provision of arts and culturally related services and deems that making cultural activities avail- able to its citizens is a valuable service; and WHEREAS the County of Albemarle acknowledges that subject to availability public funding of the arts is desirable; and WHEREAS Piedmont Council of the Arts has completed a cultur- al agency plan to engender new life and support for the arts in our community througha commitment to advocacy, service, community partnerships and inclusiveness; and WHEREAS the County of Albemarle is desirous of naming Piedmont Council of the Arts as its local arts agency to operate on its behalf in providing planning, services and development for the arts in our community; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County of Supervisors and the County of Albemarle designated Piedmont Council of the Arts as the official local arts agency of the County of Albemarle. Roll was called, and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-93-20. Albert DeRose (deferred from April 20, 1994). Mr. Cilimberg said he gave the staff's report at the April 20 meeting. He did say that the request is to allow a division of a lot in the Buck Mountain Planned Residential Development (PRD) to create two lots within an area which was at one time a much larger Planned Unit Development (PUD). The development was down scaled a few years ago to a PRD for the areas which had already been created into lots. The remaining undeveloped lots were rezoned to Rural Areas. Both the Planning Commission and the staff recommended denial of the ZMA-93-20. They feel that if there is to be a change made in the PRD, the PRD should be looked at comprehensively and not just one lot changed. Mr. John Dezio was present to represent Mr. & Mrs. DeRose. He said that during his presentation on April 20, Mr. Martin had suggested deferring until Mr. Perkins could be present. Today, Mr. Perkins is present, but Mr. Martin and Mr. Marshall are both absent. They might have input that would be valuable to all. He would like to say that Mr. & Mrs. DeRose have a daughter- in-law who is a civil engineer and who will make the bulk of the presentation. He then asked Mrs. DeRose to come forward. Mrs. Susan Reynold (DeRose) said she is a civil engineer and would like to give a history of the Buck Mountain subdivision. It was originally re- corded in 1976. In 1990 a group of property owners initiated a rezoning of a group of parcels within the Buck Mountain Subdivision to Rural Areas. During the public hearing, a number of statements were made by the Countyt and she read: "Back in the early 70's, the County approved the Buck Mountain PUD, but has taken certain actions since then that basically ignore the PUD zoning and it has gotten to the point, in our opinion, that we cannot assert the PUD zoning now having ignored it in the past." "Some properties have already been subject to uses inconsistent with the PUD plan, but consistent with the RA zone." "Property owners within the PUD wish to execute land transactions that do not comply with the approved plan." "PUD zoning is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan while RA zoning is clearly consistent with the Comprehen- sive Plan." Mr. Bowerman asked if these comments were taken from staff reports. Ms. Reynold said "yes". During this rezoning process it was decided to rezone the smaller parcels to PRD. Mr. & Mrs. DeRose were in this group of property owners. They do not feel they were properly notified of this rezoning and it was a surprise to them that this had all occurred. Ms. Reynold said she understands that not all lots were included in this logical transition to RA zoning because seven lots are less than two acres each, so would have become nonconforming lots. Also, there is no provision for an open space designation in the RA zone, and there is open space at the back of these lots. Ms. Reynold said the open space in Buck Mountain is discontinuous and is not maintained as a passageway. The open space around the lake was ill designed and where free access may have been intended, some property owners actually claim ownership of the parts of the lake. There is a general mood that the property owners adjacent to the lake would prefer to further restrict the May 4, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) 0002 2 access, and some property owners have permitted the abandonment of the open space altogether. She does not believe the intent of the original PUD was ever realized. Had Mr. & Mrs. DeRose been aware of and understood the ramifications of the 1990 zoning process that was initiated by other property owners, they could have been involved at that time and this request would be looked at in a different light. When Mr. DeRose inquired about the process to divide his land, an initial analysis by the Planning Staff advised him to apply for a zoning map amendment. If one looks at the original PUD mapping, showing two lots instead of one does nothing to the overall density of the PUD and is not inconsistent with the original Buck Mountain PUD. In the PUD master plan, additional lots are shown behind this parcel. One can look at the overall density of the Buck Mountain PUD as being reduced to below the density originally approved, can look a% a lesser environmental impact when lots are provided closer to Route 601 in flatter areas as opposed to constructing roads and access to lots at the base of Buck Mountain as approved with the original PUD. One could say this request is consistent with the original PUD. Ms. Reynold said if Mr. DeRose were asking for this change at the time of the 1990 rezoning, she feels the staff report would have been different. She feels there are inconsistencies with the staff report. There is some insistence on looking at this parcel as if it were zoned RA with no develop- ment rights, and Mr. DeRose is asking for an additional lot. All of the negative remarks in the staff report are related in this way. If this parcel were zoned RA, she would not be present today because they would be able to divide the lot by-right, as many parcels within a mile of this location zoned RA are doing. There is a four-acre parcel, one-half mile away, that was just subdivided into two parcels by right. There is a six-acre parcel directly across the road that still has its five full development rights and the shape of it would allow it to be three two-acre parcels directly across the road. She does not feel this proposal is inconsistent with what is going on in the rural zone. It is not incompatible with its surroundings. There are no physical limitations to this division, and they are not proposing any addi- tional entrances onto Route 601. Mr. Perkins asked if there were additional comments. Mrs. Thomas asked how one would distinguish this lot and this request from a similar request on any other lot in the PRD. Ms. Reynold said there probably could not be a distinction made on some of the other lots, however, even if all of those parcels were divided, the overall density of the Buck Mountain PUD would still be substantially less than that originally approved. There would be some physical limitations to some of the divisions, particularly since there is a private road on the other side of the subdivision and it is not in good shape, and probably would not comply with current private road standards. That could keep those lots from being subdivided without major road improvements. Mr. Dezio said if everybody who wanted to divide his lot could do so, the density would be less than what was approved for the original planned unit development. A distinguishing factor is that there would not be any addi- tional entrance createdbecause of the proposed division of this property, where that might be the situation with other lots. Mr. Dezio said that when Mr. and Mrs. DeRose purchased this property, they were advised by the develop- er that they could divide the property (he knows that is not binding upon anyone), but they did build, and now because of health reasons, Mr. DeRose is not able to maintain this residence as Mr. DeRose had originally hoped to do. Mr. DeRose would like to divide the property and build a smaller residence at the rear and sell the front parcel so that he could stay in his neighborhood. He is comfortable there, likes the neighborhood, and it is where he wants to stay. That is his purpose in applying for ZMA-93-20. Mr. Dezio said Mr. DeRose is present, but because of health problems, does not feel comfortable in speaking. Mr. Dezio said he is sure the proposal to change the zoning was properly advertised in 1990, but Mr. and Mrs. DeRose had no actual knowledge of the request. Mr. DeRose has contacted a group of owners, and none of those persons was aware that this proposal was being made to change the designation. There was a three-page letter from Mr. Ron Keeler to Mr. George Allen discussing what was going on, and part of the quotes from the earlier speaker were from that letter. He points this out to show that the County was trying to cooperate with the people in the neighborhood to do in law what had already been done in fact. If Mr. DeRose had known at the time, he could have mentioned the effect it would have on his property, and he may have requested Rural Areas zoning at that time. They feel the County would have been cooperative and that would have been compatible with what was going on in the neighborhood. There would not have been a situation where these lots in Buck Mountain don't fit in with anything. They are different sizes. This is a development that did not work out as planned. Mr. Dezio thinks it would have been compatible with the rezoning that was being done at that time. Also, Mr. & Mrs. DeRose would have had an opportunity to provide input to this Board. The density, no matter what number of developments might come forward, would be lower than the original density sanctioned by the County, there would no inconsistency with lot sizes throughout the subdivision itself, no new driveway would be created, and it would be a logical transition to grant Mr. & Mrs. DeRose the request to divide their property into two lots. May 4, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) ooo; a.3 With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Thomas asked for staff comments. Mr. Cilimberg said the 1990 actions were not based on initiatives by the smaller lot owners, but by initiatives from the areas that had never been platted. The comments noted from the staff had to do with that area that had been unplatted, as well as a commercial area that was shown in the original PUD that had never been developed, and was not intended at that point in time to be developed. Those were the inconsistencies with the original PUD that led to staff's comments and recommendation that the areas which were undeveloped and unplatted under the original PUD could reasonably be changed to RA, and the platted areas and open space be changed to a PRD designation. Lots within the PRD, as noted in Mr. DeRose's request, could be further divided if they were to be changed to RA. There is also the existence of the open space. Mr. Bowerman said it does not seem to him that RA would put this request in a significantly different light than the zoning it first had. He asked if there are development rights with the lots. Mr. Cilimberg said if the lots were designated RA, they would have development rights. There would be the potential, as the staff report notes, to create more lots in the areas where lots have already been platted. As Ms. Reynold pointed out, there still would not be as many lots in the PRD as were shown in the original PUD. That is the comparison the applicant is making. Not every lot has four acres which would allow it to be divided, but the DeRoses have over five acres so their lot could be divided. Their request is not to allow RA, although if they had known about the change requested in 1990, they may have asked for a change in designation of the platted lots also. Mrs. Humphris said even if requested, it does not mean the request would have been approved at that time. Mr. Cilimberg said that is true, because some of the things pointed out by staff in the current report would have been pointed out then regarding the smaller lots. Mr. Bowerman said he was not aware that when zoning designations changed in 1980, that previously approved special permits, PUDs, etc., also had the same development rights as a pre-existing parcel in the Rural Areas. He thought that action by this Board approving the PUD that took precedence over the 1980 ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said it does as long as the property stays an a planned development. However, if the zoning were changed to RA, the Zoning Administrator would be reviewing that property as to what was the of record in 1980. Mr. Bowerman asked what the record would have shown in 1980 for this ~arcel. Mr. Cilimberg said the lots within the PRD section of the Buck n DeveloPment have existed for some time, and most, if not all, go back to 1980. Mr. Bowerman said that on April 23, 1975, the Board of Supervisors approved SP-453 creating the Buck Mountain PUD. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct, but not all lots were platted under that PUD. Mr. Perkins asked what advantages the applicant got from having a PUD rather than just breaking up the property into lots. Mr. Cilimberg said that back in the 1970s there was two-acre zoning in the County. The advantage to having a PUD was that it could be developed in an organized fashion. There an expected outcome by all property owners, t here was common open space for the benefit of all property owners. There was a commercial area proposed serve that property. It was felt to be a better approach to the living environment. It would be easier to market the project in that sense, rather in unlimited two-acre lots. Mr. Perkins asked about internal roads, etc. Mr. Tucker said he thinks some of the roads were private and the "carrot" was that they were maintaining density that the Comprehensive Plan stipulated which was a five-acre minimum. Mr. Tucker said he did not remember what the overall density but it was not below that five-acre figure. As Mr. Cilimberg said, it is flexibility in marketing and not just a "cookie-cutter" subdivision of lots, but with open space, and its location on Buck Mountain with that were to be designed to meet the needs of the terrain in the area. as history has pointed out, from a marketing standpoint it did not work that way, and the zoning on the bulk of the property has reverted back to Areas. Mr. Cilimberg said in terms of the County's Comprehensive Plan, and zoning actions that occurred county-wide in 1980, a planned develop- approach in this area was no longer consistent in terms of a big PUD. Mrs. Thomas asked in what sense the larger lots, such as Lot 26F, have up their development rights. Mr. Cilimberg said #26F is one of the lots was not created according to the original PUD. He does not believe it a lot of record in 1980. Lot 26F was probably a lot that encompassed many properties. Mrs. Thomas asked if the number of units proposed for the PUD also all of the internal roads and improvements to the land, etc. shown on map. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes". She said to compare a density that might from a division of all of the lots that are large enough to be subdi- at the current density is to compare a large area plan that was going to many improvements and roads, to a much smaller area. Mr. Cilimberg said May 4, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) 0002 .4 "yes". He also noted that some of the property that was in the original PUD has now gone into an agricultural/forestal district. It was not developed according to the PUD and has now been turned into that designation. Mr. Bowerman asked if the zoning administrator would rule that if the lots had been changed to RA, that this particular lot had one division right because it was a parcel of record in 1980. Mr. Cilimberg said any of the lots that existed in 1980 would have gotten that determination based on staff's understanding of how that determination is made. In other words, if the property goes from PUD to RA, it is RA zoned and RA zoning development rights are based on the parcel that existed in 1980. Mr. Bowerman asked how much of a discussion took place during the 1990 rezoning. He does not remember this case. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not recall that any of the platted parcels were discussed to any great extent because they were not changing. That part of the approved PUD was not before the Board, those parcels were staying as they had been for a number of years. The discussion was about the residue, which was changing to RA. Mr. Bowerman said he believes that if the implication of a rural areas designation being placed on those parcels concerned the Board, the Board certainly would have discussed it. In Mr. Dezio's presentation, he said that if the DeRose's had known, and the other landowners had been aware of the request made for RA zoning in 1990, he thinks the issue being discussed today would have been much the same issue. Mr. Cilimberg said it would have been the same for staff to the extent that RA designation would have created additional division rights. Mr. Bowerman said he does not believe the Board would have approved the PRD in 1990 even if it had been presented differently. Mr. Cilimberg said he cannot answer that question, but from the staff's standpoint, the discussion occurring today about this particular property, was not discussed, but would have occurred if this property had been proposed for some change. He said the request today (ZMA-93-20) is not a proposal to go to RA, it is simply a request to make a change within the PRD. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not remember too many situations where someone has proposed a change to RA, essentially a downzoning, where it would create more development rights. It is an oddity of the way the ordinance works. Mr. Bowerman asked if this development does not impact on the proposed Buck Mountain Reservoir. Mr. Cilimberg said staff could justify lowering the number of lots in that area because it lies in the drainage basin of the Buck Mountain Reservoir and the Board's position has been for the County to try and keep potential development at its lowest scale near the reservoir and the drainage basin. Mr. Perkins asked the zoning of this land before 1990. Mr. Cilimberg said that on Mr. DeRose's lot it was PUD. Mr. Perkins said he can sympathize with Mr. DeRose, but believes that to approve this request would "open a can of worms" for the County. He cannot support the request° Mrs. Humphris said since it is the Chairman's district, and he has stated his position, she will offer motion to deny ZMA-93-20. She is also fearful that there would be a precedent set for requesting additional lots in the Buck Mountain PRD. She said this Board must be mindful of the sensitivity of that area as it relates to being in the watershed of both the Buck Mountain Reservoir and the Rivanna Reservoir. She does not think the Board needs to open up the possibility of more degradation there. She also sympathizes but she cannot support the request, so she moves to deny the request. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Thomas as were the sentiments that had been expressed. She said this is an appealing situation, and the Board has tried to promote cluster development, but in this watershed she thinks the PUD idea was dropped for very good reasons. The Board could be opening up the possibility of duplicating that density, and in this location it is not something which is good for the County as a whole. Roll was called at this time, and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. (Note: At 10:38 A.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:52 A.M.) Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 2, Administration, Article IX, Industrial Development Authority, Sections 2-47 through 2-53, of the Code of Albemarle. The amended language requires Board of Supervisors' approval for any project that federal law requires Board action on; removes the requirement to amend the number of outstanding issuances each time a request is received; eliminates the need for the Board to approve financing where the federal law does not. require Board action such as Revolving Loan Fund financing; authorizes the IDA to approve financing in other jurisdictions only with Board approval; and provides several amendments to update the County Code to comply with federal law. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 18 and April 25, 1994.) May 4, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) 0002~.5 (Page 12) Mr. Tucker summarized the need for this ordinance amendment. The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt the ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 2, Administration, Article IX, Industrial Development Authority, of the Code of Albemarle, Virginia, as advertised. Roll was called, and the foregoing motion carried by the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE IX, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2, Administration, Article IX, Industrial Development Authority, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Sections 2-47 through 2-53, as follows: ARTICLE IX, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Sec. 2-47. Political subdivision--Created. There is hereby created a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, pursuant to chapter 33 of title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, in the manner hereinafter set out. sec. 2-48. Same--Name. The name of the political subdivision created shall be the "Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia," hereinafter, the industrial development authority. Sec. 2-49. Powers and duties generally. The industrial development authority shall have all such public and corporate powers as are or may from time to time be conferred upon the industrial development authorities generally by the provisions of the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, Code of Virginia, Chapter 33 of Title 15.1 (Sections 15.1-1373 - 15.1-1393) and shall in the exercise of such powers adhere in all respects to the provisions of such Act, except as otherwise hereafter expressly provided. Sec. 2-50. Board of supervisors to approve financing. No financing of any facility by the industrial development authority which requires approval of the board of supervisors pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or the Code of Virginia, as amended, as applicable, shall take place without the prior approval of the board of supervisors. Sec. 2-51. Board of supervisors to approve location. No facility located inside or outside the legal boundaries of the county shall be financed by the industrial development authority unless the location of the facility has been approved by the board of supervisors. Sec. 2-52. Board of directors. The industrial development authority shall be governed by a board of directors in which all powers of the authority shall be vested, composed of seven (7) members appointed by the board of supervisors as provided by law. Sec. 2-53. Board of supervisors to approve by-laws, etc. All by-laws, standards and priorities of the industrial development authority of the county shall be approved by the board of supervisors prior to their adoption by the industrial develop- ment authority; and any revisions or changes of such by-laws, standards and priorities shall require the prior approval of the board of supervisors. Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 13, Offenses-Miscellaneous, Section 13-18, entitled "Shooting in, or along or near roads or streets," of the Code of Albemarle to reflect 0002 6 May 4, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) the following language set out in the Code of Virginia, to be effective July 1, 1994: "No person shall discharge any firearm, crossbow or bow and arrow in or across any road or within the right-of-way thereof, or in a street of any town, whether the town is incorporated or not. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor." (Adver- tised in the Daily Progress on April 18 and April 25, 1994.) Mr. Tucker summarized the need for this ordinance amendment. The public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Humphris asked staff to consider what might be done to prohibit shooting in rural subdivisions, land that is zoned RA. She often gets calls from constituents expressing concern about this'practice. She feels the Board should be proactive on the issue. Mr. Tucker said it is possible to ban the use of rifles all together. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt an ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 13, Offenses-Miscellaneous, Section 13-18, Shooting in, or along or near road or in street, of the Code of Albemarle, Virginia, as advertised. Roll was called, and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 13, OFFENSES-MISCET~.qNEOUS SECTION 13-18, SHOOTING IN, OR ALONG OR NEAN ROAD OR IN STREET OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 13, Offenses-Miscella- neous, Section 13-18, Shooting in, or along or near road or in street, is hereby amended and reordained effective July 1, 1994, by amending Section 13-18, as follows: Sec. 13-18. Shooting in, or along or near road or in street. No person shall discharge any firearm, crossbow or bow and arrow in or across any road or within the right-of-way thereof, or in a street of any town, whether the town is incorporated or not. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. This ordinance shall be effective July 1, 1994. Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Emergency Operations Center Renova- tion/Construction. Mr. Tucker said that for some months, the Emergency Operations Center Management Board has been weighing the advantages and disadvantages of renovating the existing Center located in the basement of City'Hall vs. building or leasing new quarters in an alternative location. In the original E911 presentation made to the City and County in 1991, $257,500 was budgeted for anticipated renovations to the existing facility. The existing facility currently occupies 2432 square feet which includes spaces for a kitchen, bathrooms, roll call room, lockers, dispatch center, and administrative spaces for the Director, Secretary, Emergency Services Coordi- nator, and Training Coordinator. Under a preliminary space plan developed for the Center, their ten-year needs will require approximately 6600 square feet which includes space for a new radio equipment room, computer equipment room, and mechanical space not currently provided in the existing space. The new building proposal is based on a construction cost of $120 per square foot plus architectural and site development fees for a total estimated cost of $1.0 million. This is still a rough figure until a commitment can be made to develop specific cost estimates. Land costs have not been included as a site has been identified which can be provided at no cost to the County and City. Discussions with some local developers indicate that the actual cost of the building may be closer to $100/sq. ft. In terms of understanding the importance of working conditions at the 911 Center, it should be noted that unlike many office environments, dis- patchers are "plugged in" to a console for at least eight hour stretches. Due to staffing constraints, they are typically required to eat at the console while they are working and often do not have the luxury of "getting some fresh air." The 911 Center dispatched 83,000 total calls for service in 1993 requiring 3866 hours of overtime. There are a total of 24 full-time and nine part-time employees in the Center for a 24-hour, around-the-clock operation. It is not at all infrequent for employees to work 12 to 16 hour shifts in a relatively confined, high stress environment. May 4, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) 000217 Working conditions at the existing Center have been impacted to date by lack of adequate, secure parking for employees leaving the Center during late night and early morning hours. The Center has been the subject of ventilation problems due to its proximity to an alleyway and underground garages and a windowless environment for professionals who frequently respond to weather- related emergencies without the benefit of being able to see what is happening outside. A table listing the pros and cons of leasing, building, and renovating was forwarded to the Board earlier. Staff has previously indicated that the existing telephone surcharge would need to be extended (at its existing level) for 23 months beyond its initial period if a building is constructed using 911 revenues, and, 12 to 13 months if the existing facility is renovated. From staff's perspective, the two biggest advantages to building a new building are the ability to take advantage of a plan to combine a future fire-rescue facility with the 911 Center on land that may be provided for this use, and the potential for planning a facility to accommodate future growth for the 911 operation in a very efficient, functional and safe fashion. If the existing building is renovated and a decision made at some later date to construct a new 911 Center in conjunction with a fire-rescue building, the existing Center could still be used as a backup site for the communications center or retrofitted for other uses. Much of the renovation work to be required is in wiring and minimal structural changes. Mr. Wayne Campagna, Director of the Emergency Operations Center, was present. After a short discussion of the request, the Board suggested that staff develop some figures on the need for a facility of this size, along with figures to show what would be the least cost for the best services obtainable. There was no vote, and the report will be returned to the agenda at staff's discretion. Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion: Site Selection Committee for potential new high school. Mr. Tucker had forwarded to the Board members a memorandum from Dr. Paskel regarding the School Board's request to establish a Site Selection Committee to review various sites for a potential new high school. He noted that historically these committees have been appointed by the Board of Supervisors to review and analyze various sites and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and School Board. Since these committees were appointed by the Board of Supervisors, all meetings were open to the public, and discussions of sites can be problematic since the cost of land escalates prior to the actual purchase of the property. Mr. Tucker said if the Board is prepared to appoint such a committee, he would recommend that an established committee (such as the Long-Range Planning Committee) be used to make the initial review and analysis and later solicit input from the Board member, the School Board member, and/or Planning Commis- sioner from the area in which the properties being scrutinized are located. This approach would avoid public discussion of various sites which can lead to the escalation of the value of properties. Once supporting data on alterna- tive sites has been prepared, presentation to the Boards can be made in Executive Session. Discussion was held. No decision was made, and there was no vote. The Board members present did not remember giving final approval for the building of a new high school facility. Mr. Bowerman said mobile classrooms are the way to deal with the overcrowded situation until there is a critical mass that must be housed somewhere. Since this Board and the School Board are to meet on next Monday, it was suggested that this item be discussed again at that time. Mr. Huff noted that the School Board has instructed the Long-Range Planning Committee to hold three public sessions to get comments from the public on what they would like to see occur in the way of a high school. These meetings have already been scheduled for May, 1994. Agenda Item No. 15. Authorize Chairman to sign Bosely property purchase contract. Mr. Tucker said the Bosely property is located on Elks Drive between Towe Park and Free Bridge. The City and County have been negotiating with Mr. Bosely, off and on, since 1986. In Executive Session on April 6, 1994, the Board authorized staff to negotiate a contract with Mr. Bosely on the purchase of the property. At the time, the County appraisal on the property was $8700 - and the asking price was $10,000. The County has negotiated a price of $9500 for the purchase of the property with the understanding that the County will absorb all legal costs including the preparation of the deed. At a meeting of the Towe Park Commit- tee held o~ April 22, 1994, there was unanimous agreement for the joint purchase of the property using funds from the current Towe operating budget. The County Attorney's Office has prepared the purchase contract. The purchase contract is with the County, but the deed will reflect joint City/ May 4, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) 000 18 County ownership. Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the Chairman be authorized to sign the purchase contract and requests approval to make the purchase from the Towe Park operating budget. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to authorize the Chairman to sign, on behalf of the County, the contract of purchase with John G. Bosely and Ella F. Bosely for purchase of real property described as 3.496 acres, Albemarle County Tax Map 78, Parcel 58L, as recorded in Deed Book 683, page 596 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, from the Towe Park operating budget. Roll was called, and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 16a. Appropriation: Section 8 Housing Program Fund - $914,900, (Form #930069). Mr. Tucker said the Section 8 Housing Program is an ongoing rental assistance program offered by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The program provides housing assistance with a combination of 367 certificates, subsidies and vouchers. The subsidy program is funded through June, 2002, and is maintained in a separate fund. The final amount of the Federal HUD grant will be determined by the final amount of assistance rendered to residents, which is estimated at approximately $914,900. Funds to administer the program in the amount of $85,000 have already been appropriated as FY 93-94 revenues into the County's General Fund. Mo%ion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1993-94 NUMBER: 930069 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: SECTION 8 HOUSING GRANT FOR FY 1993-94 EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1122781910312800 AUDIT 1122781920579001 HOUSING ASSISTANCE 1122781920579002 VACANCY LOSS 1122781920579003 DAMAGE/UNPAID RENT 1122781920579004 UTILITY REIMBURSEMENT TOTAL AMOUNT $ 4OO.OO 893,100.00 2,900.00 1,000.00 17,500.00 $914,900.00 REVENUE 2122733000330001 DESCRIPTION MODERATE REHAB. GRANT TOTAL AMOUNT $914,900.00 $914,900.00 Agenda Item No. 16b. Appropriation: Democratic Primary Election - $14,570, (Form #930072). Mr. Tucker said the Democratic Primary election for the U. S. Senate seat will be held on June 14, 1994. All costs of the primary election are borne by the locality with no reimbursement from the State. An appropriation of $14,570 is needed to cover the costs of the Registrar's office to hold this primary election. Of the total, $8920 will pay compensation for the election officials as well as part-time and overtime for the registrar's staff. The remainder of the allocation, $5650 will pay for ballots, voting machine programming and delivery, postage, phone, travel, office supplies and janito- rial services. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. 000219 May 4, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1993-94 NUMBER: 930072 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER TO FUND DEMOCRATIC U.S. SENATE PRIMARY EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1100013020111401 COMPENSATION 1100013020120000 OVERTIME WAGES 1100013020130000 1100013020210000 1100013020350000 1100013020390000 1100013020520100 1100013020520300 1100013020540200 1100013020550100 1100013020600100 1100013020601700 PART-TIME FICA PRINTING & BINDING OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES POSTAL SERVICES TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEASE/RENT BUILDINGS TRAVEL-MILEAGE OFFICE SUPPLIES COPY SUPPLIES 1100095000999990 BUDGET CONTINGENCY AMOUNT $ 8,080.00 280.00 500.00 60.00 300.00 3,690.00 200.O0 1,100.00 130.00 150.00 50.00 30.00 (14,570.00) TOTAL $0.00 Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Bowerman mentioned an incident on Route 29 North yesterday and the number of emergency vehicles that responded to that one call. Ne asked who makes the decision as to who answers an alarm. Mr. Tucker said the dispatcher has certain rules of procedure to follow based on the type of call received, and the dispatcher often has to use a lot of discretion depending on the caller. Mr. Bowerman said he has some concern because each time there is a traffic accident, there seems to be a fire truck there also. Mr. Tucker said he has the same concern, but each of the responders will say they err on the side of sending the equipment. It does seem to be "over kill" in many instances. How the County would gain any control over the situation when there are separate independent fire companies who feel a certain protocol should be followed, he does not know. Mr. Bowerman asked if a central dispatch would help this situation. Mr. Tucker said it might help in some instances. It is a long arduous process, but County staff has been talking with JCFRA about the different protocols and how they can be meshed together. Mrs. Thomas asked if it would be appropriate for this Board to make any comments officially since taxpayers funds are involved. Mr. Tucker said the Board will have the opportunity to do so in the next few months when a report on Long-Range Planning of Emergency Responders is presented. At that time, the Board will be asked to address the changing needs for emergency response (fire and rescue) in the County. The County has no direct control over the volunteers who render valuable services to the community at almost no cost. If the County had to provide these services, the costs would be astronomical. Mrs. Humphris asked when the Board will get an update from the Fiscal Impact Committee. Mr. Tucker said staff is about to move forward with a contract with Tischler. He has been discussing the contract with staff, so that part is almost finalized. There will be training with Tischler on equipment for running fiscal impact models. This has been held up because of work on next year's budget. Mrs. Numphris said the Board had asked that early in the Comprehensive Plan review process, that staff provide speakers on the ideas of Duony and Claytor Zieberg. A memo was forwarded from staff indicating that there are two highly qualified people at the University who could do that. This idea has become so popular around the country,that Southern Living magazine now has an urbanism division now. She wonders why the Board never had the speakers. Mr. Tucker said this was to occur at the first meeting on the Visions Forum and did not. At first, this was to involve only the County, not the City/County/University. It seems that this work will be delayed until fall, after vacation time. Mrs. Humphris said she feels that would be a good time to get everybody thinking about new and vital input; things which have not been said at visions forum and things which are occurring all across the country. Two weeks ago she and Mr. Cilimberg took a trip to Richmond to see the things which are happening there. Mrs. Humphris said after watching the recent disastrous fire in Col- thurst, she was very impressed by the professionalism of the volunteer fire companies which responded. She was also impressed by the number of women who are members of the fire companies. Everything these volunteers did was efficient and disciplined and showed true dedication to the work. This was May 4, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) her first look at a major fire and how the volunteers handle it. certainly write to tell them how impressed she was. 000; 0 She will Mrs. Humphris said she recently had to call 911 for an incident at her home. The response was immediate and the problem was investigated immediate- ly. She continues to be impressed by the County Police Department. She feels a lot more comfortable knowing how well they do their jobs. Mrs. Thomas said she has also been impressed with the response from the 911 Center. She ha~ a family situation which is a medical emergency from time to time, and they have been able to identify that the person they are talking to in the home is elderly, and they have helped to track down Mrs. Thomas in other locations to advise her of the situation. Mrs. Thomas mentioned that the Regional Economic Development Partnership is trying to get started. She and Mr. Tucker attended a breakfast where the person who directs such a group in Roanoke spoke. The Planning District Commission will again discuss the idea tomorrow evening to see if the member governments feel any more enthusiasm about participating after having hearing this person speak. Other areas around the state are taking the regional approach, and there is a possibility of getting private for this concept. She did not know if the other Board members had any thoughts to contribute. In the past, this Board has felt that this is something the private sector should be doing with public participation. This Board has done things in terms of zoning and utilities to provide areas which are appropriate for industrial development, but it is not something the Board has thought Albemarle County taxpayers' money should go directly for, whether it is regional or local economic development. That is what they will tell the Planning District Commission unless some Board member adds other thoughts. The Planning Commission's last meeting dealt with the issue of economic development and how they will fit it into the Comprehensive Plan. They do have a subcommittee working on this issue. Mrs. Thomas said she will be in California soon and will meet briefly with the company that is coming to town, MicroAir. They are training people now, flying them to California for training. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks there should be a section on education in the County's Comprehensive Plan. She feels the Board might suggest this to the School Board at the next joint meeting. The School Board definitely has a number of long-range plans in effect. Mr. Bowerman concurred. Mr. Tucker said there are a lot of reports which they have done which could be pulled together in one document and included with the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Thomas said she found the last joint meeting with the School Board to be fairly frustrating because there were no decisions made. She asked if it is appropriate at one of these meetings to reach decisions. Mr. Tucker said that most of the time these meetings are held to share ideas. If there is an item that requires action, there will be a staff report furnished, and the staff will request action of the two boards. Mrs. Thomas said when an individual Board member makes a suggestion, the School Board and the staff have to make a judgement as to whether that is a consensus of the whole, or a maverick comment. Mr. Bowerman said he, personally, would consider that no decision had been made, if a vote were not taken. Mr. Perkins said at the last meeting, there was a time crunch, so the meeting had to be drawn to a close without completing the conversation. Mrs. Humphris said she has always found these meetings to be frustrating and a bit awkward. She would prefer to take in information, then come back to this group and discuss the idea before making a decision. Mr. Tucker said he senses often that the School Board, before it takes action, wants to get a consensus of the Board of Supervisors on an issue. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks one has to listen carefully to determine how the Board of Supervisors is leaning. Mrs. Thomas said this current process of meeting each month is much better than it was when she was a member of the School Board and the two bodies only met once a year. Mr. Perkins said he recently saw a schedule for adoption of the Compre- hensive Plan. It suggested adoption would be in 1996. He would like to see it adopted before the General Election in 1995 since there is always the possibility of having three new board members after that time. May 4, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) 000;221 Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn to May 9, 1994, 5:30 p.m., for Joint Meeting with School Board. At 12:14 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adjourn this meeting until 5:30 P.M. on May 9, 1994. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. Chairman