Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-06-03June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 131 (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 3, 1992, beginning at 9:00 A.M., Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and Walter F. Perkins. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and Director of Planning and Community Develop- ment, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M., by the Chairman, Mr. Bowerman. 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 from the public. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. On motion by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, the items on the consent agenda were received for information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Item 5.1. Letter dated May 11, 1992, from Mr. E. C. Cochran, Jr., State Location and Design Engineer, giving notice of a Location and Design Public Hearing for Route 691 (Tabor Street), Project 0691-002-234, C-501, Albemarle County, Intersection Improvements at the Intersections of Route 240 and High Street (Route 1204), Crozet, was received for information. The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, June 16, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. at the Crozet Elementary School. Item 5.2. Letter dated May 13, 1992, from Mr. Ray Pethtel, Commis- sioner, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, forwarding a copy of the estimated Secondary Construction Allocation for Fiscal Year i992-93 for each jurisdiction in the Secondary System, was received for information. Item 5.3. Copy of the Building Locator and 911 Enhanced Implementation Schedule~ was received for information. (Mr. Bain asked how long this sche- dule has been delayed. Mr. Cilimberg said the E-911 program was originally planned to begin the first part of 1993, but the schedule ms now four or five months delayed.) Item 5.4. Copy of the minutes of the Planning Commission for May 19, 1992, was received as information. Item 5.5. Letter dated May 28, 1992, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, entitled "Current Projects Construction Schedule," was received as information. Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: June 12, September 18, 1991; May 20 (Afternoon), 1992. Mr. Bain had read pages 68 end of June 12, 1991, and pages 1 to item %8 on page 21 of September 18, 1991, and found them to be in order except for some typographical errors which he had given to the Clerk to be corrected. He then moved approval of these minutes. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 7a. Highway Matters: Discussion: 1992-93 Highway Budget. Mr. Roosevelt announced that he had sent the Supervisors, by way of a letter dated May 21, 1992, the Secondary Improvement Budget for the 1992/93 June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 132 (Page 2) fiscal year. He added that there is a Virginia Code requirement that directs the County and VDoT to jointly hold a public hearing on the Secondary Improve- ment Budget in each county each year. He said that advertising needs to be done for such a hearing, and a tentative budget needs to be available for the public to see. He stated that he included a tentative budget with his May 21, 1992 letter. He noted that this budget is taken directly from the Six Year Plan, and it was approved a couple of months ago. He went on to say that there are some minor changes between the approvals in the Six Year Plan and what was approved in the budget. He added that because of the difference in the actual allocation from what was anticipated, there was a change of approximately $300 between the Six Year Plan figure and the budget figure, with the budget figure being smaller. He indicated that, because of this difference, he had reduced the Route 708 project by approximately $300. He then informed the Board that he had to make one other change, which was due to an internal problem. He said that the plan showed allocations to both Routes 682 and 610 during the coming year, but since he did not have an approved project number for Route 610, he was unable to enter it into the budget. He added that there is money in this budget for county-wide engi- neering, and it is his plan during this fiscal year, to use the county-wide engineering money to hold the preliminary field inspection on Route 610 and get started on that project. He said that, basically, the $25,000 which was planned to be used for Route 610, was given to the Route 682 project, plus an extra $7,000 was allocated for Route 682 in order to meet the minimum allocation requirement for gravel roads. He mentioned that if the budget has been examined in detail, one other item that could have been discovered, is that he (Mr. Roosevelt) has entered the plant mix for Route 664, which is a $17,000 allocation, twice in the budget. He said that he will make this correction before the public hearing. Other than those changes Mr Roosevelt explained that the projects and allocations are exactly the same as they were shown in the Six Year Plan, which was approved by this Board a couple of months ago. Mr. Roosevelt asked that a public hearing date be set to meet the Code advertising requirements, which is ten days notice. Mr. Tucker suggested that the public hearing be held on July 1 since he does not believe there is any controversy involved with it. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, that a public hearing on the 1992-93 Albemarle County Secondary Roads Improvement Budget be set for July ii 1992. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7b. Highway Matters: Report Route 708/631 Intersec- tion. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Route 708/631 Intersection has been in the County's Six Year Plan for several years and was taken to public hearing a couple of months ago. He noted that the purpose of the project was derived by the anticipation of increased traffic associated with the opening of Walnut Creek Park. He said that this intersection was always intended to be a spot improvement to improve the immediate sight distance at the intersection. Mr. Cilimberg went on to say that, originally, approximately $150,000 was allo- cated for the project. As the plans for the spot improvement have developed, the price has increased to approximately $320,000. He said that this amount of money is for the intersection improvement at the existing intersection which involves a left turn lane on Route 708 westbound and improvement of sight distance at the immediate intersection. He pointed out a couple of alignment alternatives, which were shown in the Supervisors' handout, that would have relocated Route 708 completely. He said that these alternatives were considered by the County staff and the staff of VDoT, based on what these alternatives could do for the overall intersection situation. He showed the Supervisors, with the use of maps, the different alternatives. He reiterated that this project was first considered as a spot improvement that would be the first of what would.ultimately be a much bigger project for the overall realignment of Route 708, which would include vertical curvature improvements. He commented that the staff felt that this particular project was beyond the scope of a spot improvement, as it was approved in the Six Year Plan. He stated that the overall realignment would cost over $800,000 plus rights-of- way and design versus $320,000 for the intersection improvement. Mr. Cilimberg went on to say that the County staff decided, with VDoT staff's input, that it was best to pursue the detail engineering for the intersection. He said that this did require some waivers of design speed through this area, and it does provide for the sight distance improvements at the intersection. Me pointed out on the map that another project would only have been a horizontal curvature improvement and would not have been to improve vertical curvature as a vehicle approaches from the west or the east. For these reasons, the County staff agreed with the %rDoT staff, that if this project is to be pursued, which the staff feels is a valid project because of the increased traffic at Walnut Creek Park, that the intersection improvement is the project to be pursued. He said the staff felt that the significantly higher costs of Alternatives A and B and the marginal advantages of those alternatives over the lesser spot improvements warranted proceeding with the June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 133 (Page 3) intersection improvement. He remarked that Mr. Roosevelt could probably inform the Supervisors of more of the details of the plans, as well as the discussion at the public hearing. He stated that he believes there are public attending this meeting who live in that immediate area. Mr. Roosevelt stated that, in hindsight, it probably can be said that the VDoT staff did a poor job in the preliminary stages of advertising and explaining what was trying to be accomplished, leading up to and through the previous public hearing. He concurred with Mr. Cilimberg that a number of alignments were considered. Mr. Roosevelt stated that he brought one align- ment to this meeting, and he thinks that it is the same alignment as Alignment A, which is shown on the sketch, and has already been given to Board members. He noted that there was some discussion of an Alignment B, which would have been shown further south on the plan sheet, but it would have required additional grading over Alignment A. He believes that this alignment would have cost even more than the $820,000 estimated for Alignment A. He pointed out that Alignment A still does not give sight distance, which meets stan- dards, at the intersection. He said that to get sight distance, the grade of Route 708 would have to be lowered. He indicated that this would mean Route 631 would have to be lowered, also, and it would have affected the southern end of the cemetery. He added that this was the additional reason, if not the overriding reason, that Alignment A was dropped. He went on to say that the improvement to the intersection that is being recommended is nothing more than an interim improvement. He stated that there is no doubt that it will not be able to be included in any future improvement of Route 708. He also agrees that there are many other improvement needs along Route 708, specifically, the curve that is shown at the north end or the right hand end of the plan sheet. He said that there are a couple of other curves that are not quite as bad, but they still need to be improved, such as the curves going east toward Route 20. Mr. Roosevelt said there is no question that Route 708 needs to be improved, but he thinks the top priority arises when priorities are set. He asked if this is where $800,000 or more should be spent, at this time, or would it be wiser to spend the minimum that is required or necessary to make this intersection safe for the traffic that is trying to get to the park. He believes that the decision relates to this question. He said that $230,000 is still a lot of money, but it accomplishes what is needed to improve the left turn sight distance at the intersection for traffic going to the park, and it gives the County the same thing as the $830,000 project would accomplish, if the project is taken behind the church. He knows that there are people from the public who wish to speak, and he can outline the comments made at the previous public hearing. He knows that two members of this Board were present at the hearing. He offered to go over the comments that were made at the hearing, as well as give a synopsis of what the VDoT staff received after the hearing, if Board members would like for him to do so. He pointed out that it was clear at the hearing that there was very little support for anything that VDoT was doing in that area. He added, though, that after the hearing, a number of letters were received from church members saying that they appreciated the fact that the road would not be put behind the church where damage would be done to the church property and cemetery. He said that while church members' comments stopped short of whole- hearted support for the intersection, he believes the letters indicated that if there needed to be improvements made, this was the best alternative. Mr. Bowerman then asked if anyone from the public wished to speak to this issue. Mr. Gerald P. Wilkes, a resident of Route 708, stated that he would be directly affected by any improvement that occurs after the intersection. He · s against the proposal set forth by VDoT and endorsed by the County Planning Commission. He said that the basis for his opinion is three-fold. He noted that the first reason relates to the need. He agrees wholeheartedly that there is a need for improvement because the park has opened, and already there has been an increase of traffic. He said that there has only been a slight increase of traffic, but he feels sure that as soon as the weather warms up, there will be more. Mr. Wilkes indicated that the second thing he would discuss involves cost effectiveness and the third thing relates to safety. Mr. Wilkes said the Supervisors have already heard the reasons pertain- ing to the need for improvements to Route 708, so he will not deal with that tonight. He added that the cost effectiveness issue is up to this Board. He stated that safety is the crux of the matter. He asked why is any improvement being done, not only on Route 708, but anywhere. He answered his own question by saying that improvements are done because of the safety factor, or, other- wise, if there is no problem, improvements would not be done. He suggested that available information be considered, such as the County police records. He pointed out that from 1988 until 1992, 14 accidents have been reported. He said that one of these accidents happened at the intersection, and the rest of the accidents happened to the west. He stated that this is a rate of three and one-half accidents per year. He stated that he lives in the curve shown on the far right side of the map, and he brought car parts from wrecked cars to show to the Supervisors. He went on to say that he started picking up car parts at the top of the hill towards the west, and the majority of these car parts were found within a 20 to 50 foot section, which is where the accidents occur. He said that he has also been keeping a personal record of all of the accidents. He noted that most of these accidents occur from~vehicles running off the road, because they are coming down or going up the hill too fast and June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 134 (Page 4) leave the road and, maybe, crash into a tree. He said that he uses his own vehicle and hooks a chain to the wrecked vehicle and removes it from that point. He added that these accidents are never reported. He has counted 17 accidents from the period between 1989 to 1991, which is a frequency of eight per year, and is almost three times the amount which has been recognized by the County police. He said that two of these accidents have required the rescue squad, and one was a County vehicle, but the majority of the accidents happened to people who were not local people. He added that these people are from Charlottesville or the University and people going to the KOA camp- grounds, who are not familiar with the road. He asked who is going to be using the park. He pointed out that there have been two accidents since the public meeting at the church, already. He stated that 18 bicycles an hour use that road on some weekends, and there have been as many as over 300, when there are bicycle rallies, etc. He said that it is a favorite route from Charlottesville. He noted that the curve, to which he has referred, is an accident that has found a place to happen with an automobile and a bicycle. He stated that it is a 190 degree curve. He agreed with Mr. Roosevelt that the project improvement is close to specifications. He noted that a petition was gathered at the public meeting and given to Mr. Bain, filled with names of people, all of whom may not live in that area, but they travel that road, and they are against this intersec- tion improvement. He stated that something else needs to be done. He remarked that the letter from VDoT to the County indicated that seven people spoke, and he counted nine at the public meeting. He pointed out that the handout that was given the citizens at that meeting contained minor errors pertaining to vehicle counts and road names. He informed the Board that he is a certified professional geologist, and because of his training, he has some perception of engineering. He stated that he has some problems with the design specifications. He has no doubt that what the V]DoT staff has deter- mined about this project, as far as vertical and horizontal alignments are concerned, is correct. He added that things can be engineered to make work. He said that the plat from VDoT showed one building site, which is the one belonging to the church. He went on to say that it did not show the building site belonging to the neighbor at the top of the hill. He stated that he has contacted the Methodist ministry hierarchy, and the church has asked several times to build a parsonage there, and has been flatly refused every time. He remarked that it does not appear that this building site will have a parsonage on it any time soon. Mr. Wilkes commented that some may say that his motivation is purely self-interest, and he will not deny that. He said that there are some negative aspects to this. First, he noted that if the road is moved to the south, it puts his children in a different school district, so instead of going to Red Hill Elementary School, they would be going to Cale Elementary. He pointed out that, secondly, he would probably have to buy additional property for ingress and egress to his property. He stated, thirdly, that his postal address would change from North Garden to Charlottesville. He said that this is a minor thing, but it would cause him to have to change informa- tion on his credit cards, insurance, etc. In summary, he said that the proposed plan ignores the greatest threat, which is safety. As far as interim improvements are concerned, Mr. Wilkes stated that improvements are constantly in demand, and it is doubtful that this future work will ever really happen. He said that if it does happen, why waste money on a quick fix, which is no fix, now. He asked the Board to spend the money and do the project right. He added that the citizens who use this road and intersection are opposed to this plan. He remarked that the improvement to move the road south is the most cost effective, because it will not have to be fixed again at a later date. Finally, Mr. Wilkes stated that the County has built a wonderful, first class park. He thinks that it is owed to the citizens to make the best ingress to that park as possible. His advice is to do the best job possible or do nothing at all. Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Wilkes if he is suggesting that Alternative A be used. Mr. Wilkes responded that Alternative A should be considered, or nothing at all. He believes that anything else would be a waste of money. Mr. Marshall commented that Alternative A is out of the question, unless the cemetery is disturbed. He does not think that this can be done, so Alternative B would be the only other possible plan that can be considered. He noted that Alternative B is considerably more money. He asked Mr. Roose- velt if his thinking is correct. Mr. Roosevelt answered that Alternative A would take the road through the south end of the cemetery. Mr. Marshall reiterated that Alternative B would be the only other plan, but this alternatzve is not shown on a map at this meeting. Mr. Wilkes stated that the church congregation has indicated that if the road is located further south, the cemetery carinot be expanded. He said that this is not exactly true, either, because there is still the easterly direc- tion. Mr. Marshall remarked that it is his understanding that if Alternative A is approved, some bodies will actually have to be moved from the cemetery. He asked if this ~s correct. Mr. Roosevelt answered, "yes." He said that to meet standards on grades, the grade would have to be dropped on Route 708, which would mean cutting on Route 631, and this would get into the grave sites on the south end of the cemetery. He added that the line on Route 708 could June 3~ 1992 (Regular Meeting) (Page 5) M.B. 41, Pg.-135 be moved further south and not go as far as Alternative B. He stated that if a point could be reached between Alternatives A and B, the improvements on Route 631 might not infringe on the cemetery. He told the Supervisors that the price would start at $830,000, and as the road is moved further south, the cost would increase. He said that he could not give the Supervisors the exact cost of the project now, but it would not be less than $830,000. Mr. Marshall asked'if the road could, legally, go over the cemetery. Mr. Cilimberg replied that no one would want to do this. Mr. St. John responded to Mr. Marshall's question by saying that it could be done, but it is out of the realm of practicality. Mr. Martin stated that he has listened to Mr. Wilkes' arguments, and Mr. Martin thinks that Mr. Wilkes is indicating that improvements need to be made to Route 708, because it is a substandard and dangerous road. He said that he did not hear Mr. Wilkes argue against what is being proposed. Mr. Wilkes replied that his argument against what is being proposed relates to the project being an interim "fix." He thinks that it is a waste of money to throw away $300,000 plus on a project, when, a few years later, the cost will be much greater than $800,000 to do the whole project. He went on to say that for little more than twice the amount of money, the road can be vastly improved. He commented that the intersection is not the problem. He said that the problem is the curve to the west. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Wilkes is only arguing against the site for spot improvement, because it is less cost effective. Mr. Wilkes agreed that this is one of his arguments, but he reiterated that the spot improvement does not solve the problem of safety. He said that the proposed pro3ect does not address safety at all. Mr. Martin mnquired if Mr. Wilkes thinks that the spot improvement will improve the road at all. Mr. Wilkes replied, "no." Mr. Carroll Douglas Arrington stated that Mr. Wilkes had covered most of the points. Mr. Arrington then entered into the record a copy of the letter he sent to Board and Planning Commission members, dated May 13, 1992, relating to the VDoT Location and Design Proposal of Routes 708 and 631. He noted that he owns the property located on the northeast corner of the present intersec- tion of Routes 708 and 631, approximately 0.75 miles north of Walnut Creek Park. He said that included with the letter is a plat showing the building lot on the northeast corner, a report from Mr. E. 0. Gooch concerning the perkability of that corner lot and an accident report extract from the Albemarle County Police Department. He said that when he was given this report, he was told that only one of the accidents did occur in the intersec- tion, itself. He said that he has also included with his letter, a letter from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation, requesting permission to conduct a survey. In this letter, it was stated that it is necessary for a survey to be made to determine the safest and most economical and serviceable route. He stated that his problem with this, "improvement," is that money is difficult to obtain, and he is worried about what is consid- ered the "bottom line" today, and he is concerned about what the proposed improvement actually addresses. He added that this item was supposed to come before this Board on May 6, and he had requested information from the Planning Department concerning the Planning Department staff's position on this change. He stated that he did not receive this information until last Friday after- noon, so he has had limited time to examine the new information. He said that this improvement is a temporary improvement, and the $320,000 will be spent today and thrown away tomorrow. He went on to say that he cannot obtain copies of the alternate plans to review them, and he commented that the information on the cemetery is new to him. As far as an alternate grade standard, he would like to point out that the approach from the curve to the intersection, at the present time, is approximately eight to ten degrees, which is far from the ultimate grade standard. He noted that last Friday he spoke unofficially and informally with a member of the Planning office, who advised him that in the future many sections along Route 708 are going to have to be improved. He said that Alignment A creates a permanent condition on Route 708 and offers a section of road which can be worked to from either end for future improvements. He next stated that he cannot find anyone in any of the offices who really wants to address the safety issue. He said that it seems to be fine with everyone, if a proposal states that, "this is for the safety of .... " He remarked that the Planning office, during the informal discussion, indicated that the project is going to be on its original scope, and, therefore, it is this Board's responsibility to broaden that scope to answer the safety issue. He mentioned that he also spoke to Mr. Tom Farley, in Culpeper, yesterday. Mr. Arrington stated that Mr. Farley advised him that his direction is given by the Six Year Plan and the Planning Commission, which Mr. Arrington said is once again sidetracking the safety issue. It seems to Mr. Arrington that it is incumbent upon this Board to address the true safety issue of this road improvement. Ms. Effie Nash stated that she lives on Route 708, and her only concern is personal. She pointed out that Mr. Roosevelt had informed her that the road will come within three feet of her well, and she said that it only takes a little oil or gas from vehicles to contaminate water. She ms concerned for her family's safety, as far as drinking water is concerned. She went on to say that if the road is upgraded, it will lead cars coming from the intersec- tion toward her property, and if there is a wild driver and the vehicle goes out of control, nine times out of ten, the vehicle would come into her front yard. She reiterated that her complaint is for the safety of her family. She June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B 41, Pg. 136 (Page 6) thinks that Alignment B would eliminate the safety problem for her family, and there are no other houses involved where water would be a problem. No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Bowerman thanked the speakers for their comments. He then placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Marshall commented that he and Mr. Bain went to the public hearing. Mr. Marshall noted that the left side of the Old Lynchburg road is in his (Mr. Marshall's) district, and the right side of it is in the Samuel Miller District. He believes that he and Mr. Bain are in agreement that they probably should not approve the intersection project, and that they are in agreement with what the people are saying at this meeting today. He went on to say that Route 708 is the real problem and not just the intersection. He would personally like for nothing to be done for at least a year to see what sort of traffic patterns develop at that intersection. He said that this money could be kept intact, and maybe some more money could be appropriated, so that the alignment could go south of Alignment A. He added that it may be possible to afford this alignment at that time. Mr. Bain concurred with Mr. Marshall's comments. He pointed out that County officials started the discussions about the project, not VDoT offi- cials. He stated that County officials knew that Walnut Creek Park was going to be opening, and the Supervisors were trying to address some concerns with the intersection. He said the key to the intersection concern was to get a left turn off of Route 708, going south. He noted that once this intersection project is examined and the other problems with that road are brought out, he does not think the intersection project will be considered as addressing the safety issue. He agreed with Mr. Marshall that he does not want the money taken from the project, but he would like to defer the project for at least a year. He said that Walnut Creek Park will be open for the entire summer on an active basis, so the experience with this road can be considered, after the park opens. He stated that accident data and traffic backup can be examined, as well as other problems that might occur on that road. He added that if there is such a large increase in terms of traffic that there are really problems, then maybe some other money will have to be moved and something different will have to be done to correct the problem. He said this Board felt, in the beginning, that most of the traffic coming from the urban area would follow Route 20 South, and then Route 708, rather than traveling on Route 29. He said this Board does not know that for a fact, but it will be known by the end of this year, because the summer months will be when most of the traffic will be using Route 708. He emphasized that he thinks the funds should be held for a year. He asked Mr. Roosevelt if that will be a problem, in terms of funding, for the FY 1992-93 budget. Mr. Roosevelt replied that holding the funds for a year will not be a problem as far as losing the money is concerned. He noted that the monies which are set aside for secondary road funds for Albemarle County can only be used for Albemarle County, and there is no requirement that money allocated in a specific year has to be spent in that year. He pointed out that there is money being held for the Meadow Creek Parkway that was allocated in the early 1980's. His suggestion is, if the Board's desire is to wait and see what problems develop since the Park has opened, that no action be taken today. He said the matter could be put on this Board's agenda six or nine months from now. He stated that he will advise the VDoT staff that the Board has deferred action on the Department's recommendation concerning the Route 708 project until a later date. Mr. Bain inquired as to the schedule of this intersection improvement, if the Board had approved the project at this meeting. Mr. Roosevelt answered that the project currently is shown on the advertisement schedule with a May, 1993 advertisement date, which would probably mean that it would be late July of next year when construction on the project would start. He said that if action is delayed for nine months, the earliest time work could start on the project would be early in 1994. Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Roosevelt what the time frame would be, if an alignment is used that is south of Alignment A. Mr. Roosevelt replied that he is assuming that another public hearing would have to be held. He pointed out that his opinion is not the deciding factor, but it is his opinion that to change to another plan would be such a great change that another public hearing would have to be held. He said this would add approximately another eight months to the process. He went on to say that the project would have to be advertised and brought back to this Board for a recommendation, and then it would have to be sent to the Transportation Board. He mentioned that some plan development would also have to be done. He thinks that if the plan is approved exactly as it is shown on paper, which cannot be done, it would be approximately eight months additional time. He stated that if more surveying has to be done and the alignment re-routed, then this will probably take another six months, in addition to the original eight months. He said this would take the project into 1995. He pointed out that the money can only be spent once, and it is a big change from a $320,000 project, which is already in the Six Year Plan, to an $830,000 project. He noted that rights-of-way costs will still have to be~added, and those costs will probably be $50,000 to $100,000. He said the project would have to be re-financed. He added that when the costs of a project are changed $500,000 to $600,000, something else will have to be adjusted in the Six Year Plan in order to absorb that amount of money. June 3, 1992 {Regular Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.137 (Page 7) Mr. Roosevelt stated that he feels it is necessary to remind the Supervisors that VDoT officials went to this location for this project specifically because of the intersection. He would not take exception with what the people have said tonight, because the curve is a problem, and it needs to be improved, but this project was not considered because the curve was the problem. He said that the project was considered because the intersection had sight distance problems. He noted that there are still sight distance problems at the intersection. He added that he is certainly willing to respond to the safety considerations here. He reiterated that the curve needs to be improved, but that was not the purpose for this project. He emphasized that the sight distance is a problem at the intersection, and two motorists, both obeying the law, do not have adequate sight distance at that intersection. He pointed out that motorists obeying the law and, with the help of the signs, can get through that curve without an accident. Based on what he has heard at this meeting, he has made a note to look at the curve and see if there is something that can be done to better describe the conditions to motorists, so that some of the accidents can be stopped, which are not being reported. He reiterated that the curve can be negotiated by someone obeying the law, and the driver will have no problem. He said as traffic increases through that intersection, it cannot be negotiated by obeying the law, without people having problems. He believes that this is what will be found, as the traffic increases on that road. He went on to say that he is willing to wait and see how great an increase of traffic there will be coming to that intersection ~rom Routes 708 and 601. He suggested that the matter be deferred until the first of the following year. Mr. Tucker suggested that the matter be brought back to the Board in February, 1993. He also asked Mr. Roosevelt to add any traffic devices, such as slgnage, etc., to the road to help people, who are unfamiliar to advise them to slow down and be cognizant of the dangerous intersection. Mr. Roose- velt responded that signs can be installed, but they will not overcome the sight distance. He said that he will have the Traffic Office consider the situation to see if larger signs can be installed, warning of the intersec- tion. Mr. Marshall stated that stop signs could be installed which would stop all of the traffic going through the intersection. Mr. Roosevelt answered that this would be a misuse of a stop sign, and V DoT studies show that this type of procedure does not work. He added that a stop s~gn would be violated more than it would be followed, and it would set up a false sense of security for the people coming out of the side road. He said that the way the intersection is set up now, is that the people coming from the side road, know that the other people have the right-of-way, so they had better stop. He went on to say that the problem lies in the fact that when these people stop to look for traffic, they cannot see if anything is coming, because of the limited sight distance at the intersection. He said that installation of a stop light would be $100,000 minimum, and the location does not meet the warrants from either a traffic, or, at this moment, an accident standpoint. He stated that, if traffic increases, it may meet the warrants a year from now, but it does not meet them at this time. He pointed out that this fact was outlined by Mr. Arrington's presentation. Mr. Roosevelt said there has only been one reported accident at that intersection. Mr. Perkins asked if signage would be appropriate on the curve. Mr. Roosevelt answered that upgrading does need to be done on that curve. He will look into this matter. Mr. Perkins wondered if there was a possibility for a guardrail at the curve. Mr. Roosevelt responded that he does not think a guardrail can be installed, because he does not think there is enough shoulder to hold it. He said that delineators could be installed which would outline the curve, as well as larger signs indicating maximum safe speed, to call people's attention to the curve. Mr. Bain remarked that, depending on the use of the Park, this road could become a bigger problem than is expected. He said some priorities may have to be moved. He pointed out that there is a huge grade going up Route 708 to the intersection. He added that this is the problem, in addition to the sight distance. He noted there are two ma]or problems with which to deal in terms of construction costs, and this is the greater problem, as he sees it. He concurred with Mr. Roosevelt that if the project is only constructed to a certain point, the problems at the intersection will not be addressed. Mr. Roosevelt said the reason this road curves around as it does is that it is terribly expensive to come any other way. He commented that people now look at roads and wonder why they were ever constructed in such a fashion. He said that when the details are considered, it is found that, in order to correct a quarter mile section of a road, it will cost $1.0 million. He gave a scenario of having a wet spot on a wall and the owner deciding that he needed to fix it. He added that when the spot is removed, it is found that everything underneath it is rotten. He said this is what has been found with this project. He went on to say there is a problem with the project, and the reason that it has taken so long to get the project to this Board, is that when the project was considered, originally, it was seen that there were a lot of other problems. He said everybody said it would be great to take care of all of these problems with one project. He pointed out that when everything was considered, it was found that the cost was approximately $800,000, and originally it was going to cost $75,000. June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 138 (Page 8) Mr. Bowerman stated that it seems to be the consensus of the Board to defer any further action on this matter until February. He said the situation could be examined at that time. Mr. Bain stated that he would rather reconsider the matter in December, so that the staff can examine the situation, and come back to this Board, so that action can be taken, if it is needed. He noted that the season for the Park will be over at that time. Mr. Roosevelt indicated that this schedule would be fine with him. Mr. Bowerman commented that the day meeting in December would be a good time for this Board to discuss the matter again, because this will allow time for the history of the Park's opening. Mr. Marshall pointed out that the Nash's concerns have not been ad- dressed, and he would like to hear comments regarding these concerns. Mr. Roosevelt responded that the VDoT staff is well aware of the Nash's well, and the project includes ditches at the toe of the slope in order to run water that grades off of the roadway by the Nash's well and back into the ditch line of Route 708. He said that this water will continue in the ditch line, east, by the Nash's house. Mr. Roosevelt reiterated that VDoT staff is aware of the Nash's problem with the well, and is concerned. He said VDoT officials have done what it takes to keep the roadway water, as well as tar, from running across the Nash's well. He went on to say that the roadway will have wider shoulders, which will increase the area where a car can lose control and regain control to get back into the roadway. In addition, Mr. Roosevelt indicated that a guardrail will be put along the new section, that will redirect traffic, if traffic should leave the roadway, back onto the roadway, or along the shoulder of the road. He noted that there is always a situation where someone.will have done something so beyond control, that a guardrail will not hold them. He noted that there will be an improved roadway width and a guardrail along that section of road, both of which do not exist at the present time. Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Roosevelt if he can guarantee the Nash's that their water will be safe. Mr. Bain told Mr. Marshall that this is a private condemnation action. He said that if there is a problem with the Nash's water, VDoT will have to pay for a new well. Mr. Marshall stated that this is what he wanted the Nash's to under- stand. Mr. Roosevelt stated that other than the placement of the ditch that runs the water along the toe of the slope by the Nash's well, everything else in that area is fill material. He said this means that the ground will not be dug and the water will not be changed in the way it flows to the Nash's well. He has confidence in the engineering that hah been done with this project, that the Nash's well will be protected. Mr. Marshall remarked that he, personally, would like for the road to go south of Alignment A, so this problem would not exist. He said that in case the alignment could not be changed, he wanted the Nash's to know what was in store for them. Mr. Cilimberg commented that, from the staff's standpoint, it would be good if Mr. Roosevelt could assist in providing some traffic count information during the summer that would help monitor what is happening at that inter- section. He said the County staff cannot easily do that, so if the VDoT staff could handle that, it would help the County staff with its report. Mr. Bowerman agreed that Mr. Cilimberg's suggestion was a good one. He asked Mr. Roosevelt if this was possible. Mr. Roosevelt answered, "yes." He stated that he could have some counts done at that intersection once or twice during the summer months on days when the Park appears to be the busiest. Mr. Bowerman asked if traffic could also be counted on Route 708. Mr. Roosevelt responded, "yes." Agenda Item No. 7c. Highway Matters: Draft Letter - Route 682. Mr. Bowerman reported that Mrs. Humphris has made a number of sugges- tions on the draft letter for Route 682. He said that he has given the draft back to Mr. Tucker, and the staff will make those changes. He added that the staff will get the letter back to this Board this afternoon. Mr. Tucker announced that there is another matter regarding Route 682 involving a letter from Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Roosevelt stated he understood that the matter regarding Route 682, to which Mr. Tucker referred, was being deferred and discussed by staff. Mr. Bowerman responded that this would be the Supervisors' suggestion because a number of issues have been raised. He thinks that the staff can examine these issues and work with the VDoT staff to see if specificity can be provided to the questions that have been raised. Agenda Item No. 7d. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Bain called attention to Route 20 South, between the City limits and the traffic light, and particularly under the Interstate 64 bridge. He added that there has been a lot of change of traffic patterns, etc., particularly coming north on Route 20. He said it now looks as though the traffic patterns have been changed to the way they were in the beginning. He asked what is happening in that area on Route 20 South. June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.139 (Page 9) Mr. Roosevelt responded that two things are being done on Route 20 South, and they are completely separate. He said the VDoT staff had noted problems with traffic on the 1-64 ramp westbound to Route 20 backing up in the morning to the point where it was backing up into the main line of traffic. He stated it had been hoped that the traffic patterns could be changed so that traffic could more easily turn right onto Route 20 going into the City to relieve that backup of traffic. To accomplish this, Mr. Roosevelt said the traffic coming north on Route 20 in two lanes was put into one lane to come around the ramp area. He said it was felt that after the traffic patterns had been in place a while, the people would learn to adjust to the new patterns. He stated that, clearly, the people have not learned the new patterns, and after considerable discussion with the staff in the Traffic Engineer's Office, it was decided to mark the ramp from 1-64 for two lanes, a left turn and a right turn lane, with the hope that this will relieve the backup of traffic. He said all of the pavement markings and barrels have been taken off of Route 20. The second thing that is being done on Route 20 South, according to Mr. Roosevelt, is there has long been a high accident rate at the 1-64 ramp east- bound to Route 20 South and the crossover into the Blue Ridge Hospital entrance. He said in the past it had been hoped that a large amount of money would become available so that the Blue Ridge Hospital entrance could be changed to bring it in at the location of the traffic light. Mr. Roosevelt stated that he noted, in the tentative allocations, that there is an alloca- tion to do that this year. As an interim, Mr. Roosevelt said he was able to get approximately $40,000 to be used to build a left turn lane at the signal and a taper at the Blue Ridge Hospital entrance going north on Route 20. He said this crossover will then be closed to left turns into the Blue Ridge Hospital, although vehicles will still be able to make left turns out of the Blue Ridge Hospital entrance to go south on Route 20. If vehicles wanted to get into the Blue Ridge Hospital entrance, the vehicles will have to get into the left turn lane and proceed to the traffic signal. He indicated that the signal will be modified to give a protected green arrow movement, and the traffic will have to make a U-turn and come back up the road to the Blue Ridge Hospital entrance. Mr. Bain stated that he goes this way regularly in the mornings. He agreed that the second problem Mr. Roosevelt addressed, is, in Mr. Bain's opinion, the major one. He said that when he comes down the 1-64 ramp to go south on Route 20, people are moving from one lane to the other, and traffic is backing up in the eastbound lane coming off of 1-64. He said there is a lot of congestion there, and if the crossover is closed, he thinks it would be very helpful. Mr. Roosevelt remarked that he has not been on that road for a few days, but he thinks that the work under 1-64 has been finished. He stated that now VDoT officials are waiting for the traffic signal modifications, and once they are complete, the crossover will be closed to left turns only. Mr. Bain referred to the first issue that Mr. Roosevelt addressed about it making more sense to keep the traffic patterns the way they have been in the past on Route 20 South. He said that over time the new traffic patterns might have worked, but he is unsure if people could ever figure out which lanes they were supposed to use. He added that there is a conflict there with the traffic coming north to go west on 1-64, and the people coming off of 1-64 East, and that conflict will be there, no matter what is done. He believes that the original traffic pattern is the best one. Mr. Marshall stated that he drives Route 20 South every morning. He said that when the new traffic pattern was put into use on that road, people trying to turn right, were knocking the barrels down to get into the correct lane. He then asked about the situation coming west off of 1-64 to go south on Route 20. He noted that vehicles come directly into traffic, and there is no acceleration lane. He notices when he drives home, no matter what time of day it is, the cars come directly in front of oncoming traffic. Mr. Roosevelt explained the problem is the creek, which runs under the PVCC entrance and under Route 20, is right where the acceleration lane would be. He said this is the reason that the acceleration lane was not built with the original interstate construction. He added that the acceleration lane would require extension of the boxed culvert under the road and relocation of the creek over into the parking lot of the Visitor's Center. He stated this would cost a lot of money. (Mr. St. John left at 10:05 a.m.) Mr. Marshall asked if there was any chance of moving the road over into the center. Mr. Roosevelt responded to Mr. Marshall's question by saying that this is a possibility, but it would mean that the improvement would involve going under the interstate and down as far as the end of the four lane road. He noted that this would also be expensive. Mr. Bain stated that this will have to happen at some point, as traffic increases from people coming that way to go south on Route 20. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Roosevelt's opinion of the likelihood to get alloca- tions for Route 631 for improvements that would be close to a full cloverleaf intersection on Route 631 and 1-64, as well as for improvements at the Routes June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) (Page 10) M.B. 41, Pg. 140 20 and 1-64 intersection. Mr. Roosevelt replied that he has heard no discus- sion as far as improving these intersections. Me said it is not something that is being actively discussed within the Department of Transportation to his knowledge. Mr. Bamn next referred to the major problem involving the Route 631 and 1-64 intersection. He noted that the traffic coming east on 1-64 backs up at this intersection often and not only at 8:00 a.m. He said that people have to get across four lanes to come into town. He stated that he would really like for the staff to examine some of these intersections, especially the Route 631/I-64 intersection. He mentioned that Board members might want to look at some of these intersections if they are not already familiar with them. He commented that the more traffic that occurs in the future, the more these problems will grow. He expects the Federal government officials would probably say that when the road was constructed, accesses were installed, because 1-64 is an interstate. Mr. Perkins commented that the Avon Street interchange needs to be considered. (Mr. St. John returned at 10:09 a.m.) Mr. Bain concurred. He said that if all of the improvements could not be done, maybe funding could be done for some of the other projects. Mrs. Humphris called Mr. Roosevelt's attention to the fact that at 5:30 p.m. last Monday afternoon traveling west on the bypass to get off on the ramp on Barracks Road, the last view that she could see in her rear view mirror, as she sat there for more than ten minutes in one place, was cars stacked up beyond the bridge. She said that there were two lanes of cars coming from the shopping center area, and everything was grid-locked. She added that she was one of the lucky ones, because when she finally got to Barracks Road, some gracious people allowed her to get all of the way across the lanes and up the ramp and out to the next exit, so that she could go the back way home around 21 Curves Road. She noted that this is just the preliminary work that is being done there now, so the situation will probably get worse as work progresses. Mrs. Humphris asked if it would be a good idea to have cars that are going to go beyond Georgetown Road to be directed to take the next exit and use that alternative route. She stated that this situation is goxng to be a nightmare at peak traffic times. Mr. Roosevelt asked to which ramp Mrs. Humphris is referring. Mrs. Humphris replied that she is talking about the southwest Route 250 bypass ramp to Barracks Road. She reiterated that this is an impossible situation, and said the two lanes are fully stacked with cars coming from the Shopping Center, heading west. She noted that there is also the complication of a lot of streets, such as Bennington Road, at that location. She said the ramp was backed up with cars all of the way to the bridge, which was as far as she could see, so she has no idea how far the traffic was actually backed up, beyond that point. Mr. Roosevelt responded that signal studies have been done in that area in the past, but he will ask the Traffic Engineer to look into this problem. Next, Mrs. Humphris inquired as to what the big concrete structures are on Barracks Road. She said the public has made inquiries to her concerning these structures. Mr. Roosevelt answered that he does not believe that VDoT is responsible for these concrete structures. He went on to say that the Barracks Road project has not been advertised, so it is not VDoT's construc- tion project at Barracks Road. He said these may be utility relocations in anticipation of VDoT's project, because there are a lot of utilities under- ground. Mrs. Humphris concurred that this is probably the case, because trees are being removed in the new right-of-way. She noted that people are curious, and they want to know for what purpose the huge concrete structures will be used, when they see them stacked along the road. At this time, Mr. Roosevelt called attention to notification in the Board's Consent Agenda of the June, 1992 public hearing. He emphasized that the public hearing on the Tabor Street improvements will be held on Tuesday, June 16, 1992 at the Crozet Elementary School. He stated that VDoT represen- tatives will also be there from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., for public informa- tion, for anybody who would like to see the plans. He added that plans are also available in his office. As with all secondary projects, Mr. Roosevelt stated that he will come to this Board, once the hearing has been held, and ask for a recommendation from the Board as to what should be done. He said that he will make a recommendation as to what VDoT officials think should be done, and ask for this Board's support. Mr. Roosevelt called the Supervisors' attention to the public hearing scheduled for Thursday, June 18, 1992, at 7:30 p.m., at Cale Elementary School on an improvement on Route 20 at Dead Man's Curve close to Marshall Manor. He added that VDoT representatives will be at Cale Elementary on that date from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., for public information, prior to the hearing. He announced that these plans are available in his office for anybody who wishes to view them. Since this is a primary project, Mr. Roosevelt informed the Supervisors that he will not be coming to the Board to ask for a formal recommendation, as he does for secondary projects. He said the Supervisors are welcome to make a recommendation, if they so choose. He suggested that, if the Supervisors, as a Board have recommendations, they make them at the June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) (Page 11) M.B. 41, Pg. 141 public hearing or send VDoT officials a letterl He went on to say that if the Board would like for him to make a special presentation on the Route 20 project, he would be willing to do so. Agenda Item No. 8. Panorama Farm Subdivision: Approval of family division within an Agricultural/Forestal District. Mr. Cilimberg said the request is to subdivide an existing dwelling on 4.43 acres within the Panorama Farm Agricultural/Forestal District. The property is located on an existing private road at the end of State Route 844, west of State Route 743, and north of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (Tax Map 45, Parcel 1 (part). Within an agricultural/forestal district, develop- ment right lots may be utilized only for family divisions; other division must be a minimum 21 acres. Because this subdivision request involves a transfer from a corporation consisting of the applicant, his siblings and father, it does not qualify as a family division. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board is being asked to determine whether this subdivision meets the intent of the exception allowed for family divisions. He added that the staff has recommended approval of the subdivision because this is a unique situation which staff believes meets the intent of the Agricultural/Forestal District Act. The applicant is a part owner of the farm, and is actively involved in the farming operation. The dwelling is existing and the land use will not change. It is intended that the subdivided lot will remain in the agricultural/forestal district. Mrs. Humphris asked if the only problem is that the request is from a corporation rather than an individual. Mr. Cilimberg replied that is correct. He believes the Board will find that this request is equivalent to a family division. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Murray, the applicant, if he wished to add any- thing. Mr. James Murray stated that after 38 years, eight sons and a couple of additions to the old home, his mom and dad decided that it was time that they had a new house. He added that he is moving from the north side of the farm into the core of the farm, which makes it easier for him to operate the farm because this is where the machinery is located, etc. He said that the use of the property is not changing, and he has not even asked that the four acres be removed from the Agricultural/Forestal District, because the intent is to keep the farm in the existing state into the next generation. At this time, Mrs. Humphris moved approval of the request to subdivide the existing dwelling on 4.43 acres within the Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Mr. Bain commented that this division is equivalent to a family division only because the whole farm is owned corporately. He said that this is the reason the request is before this Board. He noted that otherwise the request would be minuscule. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearin§: To include Stone Robinson Elementa- ry School in the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for "water only" service. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 19 and May 26, 1992.) Mr. Cilimberg noted that last month the Supervisors received a request to include Stone-Robinson Elementary School in the Albemarle County Service Authority service area boundaries for "water only" service. He said the staff pointed out in its report that this is an addition to the service of the Albemarle County Service Authority, and it was anticipated when the Rivanna village was adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. He said there was notation of the fact that the water line which would come out to the Village of Rivanna would also serve the school. He added that this request is in accordance with that condition in the Comprehensive Plan. Board members had no questions for Mr. Cilimberg, so Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. There was no public comment, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing. Mr. Bain offered motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adjust the Albemarle County Service Authority service area boundaries for "water only" to include Tax Map 79, Parcels 22 and 23A, Stone-Robinson Elementary School. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) (Page 12) M.B. 41, Pg. 142 Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: ZTA-92-04. To amend the fees for Day Care, Home Occupation, and others. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 19 and May 26, 1992.) Mr. Cilimberg stated that on March 27, this Board discussed possible changes in the fee schedule for Day Care and Home Occupation, Class B, and passed a Resolution of Intent that will allow the change for Day Care Centers serving six to nine children from $780.00 to $390.00. He said that the Planning Commission has endorsed this Resolution of Intent. He reiterated that this change has already been discussed at some length in March. The Board members had no questions for Mr. Cilimberg, so Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. Mr. Bowerman then closed the public hearing, since there was no public input. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve ZTA-92-04, by adopting the following ordinance amending and reenacting Section 35.0, Fees, in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ORDINANCE To amend and reenact Section 35.0, Fees of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended and reenacted in Section 35.0 entitled "Fees" as follows: 35.0 FEES Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made to the zoning administrator, the commission, or the board of supervisors shall be accompanied by a fee as set forth hereinafter, to defray the cost of processing such applica- tion. a. For a special use permit: 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Mobile home - $35.00. Rural area divisions - $990.00. Commercial use $780.00. Industrial use $810.00. Private club/recreational facility - $810.00. Mobile home park or subdivision $780.00. Public utilities $810.00. Grade/fill in the flood plain - $690.00. Minor amendment to valid special use permit - $85.00. Extending special use permits - $55.00. Home Occupation-Class A - $10.00; Home Occupation-Class B $350.00. For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) chil- dren - $390.00. For day care centers - ten (10) or more children - $780.00. All other uses $780.00. FURTHER RESOLVED that all other fees remain the same. Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: Plan - County Government Administration. May 19 and May 26, 1992. CPA-92-03. Community Facilities (Advertised in the Daily Progress on Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 5, 1992, recommended adoption of the County Government Administration section of the Community Facilities Plan. The version recommended to the Board by the Commission {Attachment A) is significantly different than the version recom- mended by the staff (Attachment B). The difference revolves around the square footage standard for administrative buildings. The Commission recommends standards be deleted completely from the Plan and the staff recommends the Board consider whether this standard is necessary to be included in the amendment in order to be consistent with the other sections. Mr. Tucker said the sections of the Plan for Schools, Parks and Recre- ation, Police Department, Library Services, and Fire and Rescue Services have already been adopted by the Board. These sections contain standards and guidelines similar to the guidelines presented. Mr. Tucker said he thinks the Commission was concerned about the 250 square feet of net floor space per employee. He informed the Board that this does not mean that every employee is allowed 250 square feet. This figure includes hallways, storage areas, June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) (Page 13) M.B. 41, Pg. 143 restrooms and conference rooms in that department's office and not the actual work space. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission understood that distinction. Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks that was the understanding of the Commission. He added that the Commission held three work sessions on this proposed amendment. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission was unanimous in its position on standards. Mr. Cilimberg recalled that a couple of the Commissioners were particularly vocal about their concern that the 250 square feet would "lock in" a figure as a guideline that would always be followed and which may not always be the most efficient use of space. The other Commissioners agreed with that concern. Mrs. Humphris asked if this is a "locked in" figure. Mr. Tucker replied "no"; these are all guidelines. Mrs. Humphris thought this was just the use of accepted design standards. Mr. Bain said he feels that if an architect were given some figure for gross work space, then all that space would be used. That is the feeling he got from reading the Planning Commission minutes and talking to some Commis- sioners. He can understand the staff's position, but he does not know that there is any magic to including an amount for square footage. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks staff argument is valid in that there must be some number to begin working with. Mr. Tucker said staff also took into consideration that the other sections of the Plan, 1.e., Schools, Police, all included a standard. Mr. Cilimber~ said the Commission was initially concerned about refer- ences to the analysis prepared by Mr. Kirk Train because it did not feel the County should be "locked in" from a planning standpoint on the basis of one analysis. Although references to the analysis were deleted, the guideline of 250 square feet was still proposed by staff and it resulted in a preliminary needs assessment (Section III) which showed a great amount of required space in the year 2000. That raised a concern because this implied an increase of an additional 50,000 square feet of space to meet that need. The Commission was concerned because it felt this could possibly be a costly undertaking. He thinks they were tryin~ to look out for the concerns of general taxpayers. Mr. Marshall said Mr. Nitchmann did some comparison studies with several businesses in the private sector and found that the estimates being used by the County are far off from those used in the private sector. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff used some sources other than Mr. Train. Mr. Tucker said the standards are used throughout the country and have been was used for consis- tency. Mr. Bowerman asked if changing the language "provide 250 square feet" to "consider 250 square feet'' would satisfy some of the concerns of the Planning Commission. His impression of what is being said is if flexibility is given to a designer that is what the result will be. Mr. Tucker said the other concern is that if no standards are provided, then the designer may provide an even larger area. Mr. Bain said he would prefer changing the word "provide" to "consider". He feels the concerns expressed by the Commission are legitimate. He thinks the real issue is how to best provide for the efficiency of the whole opera- tion for the dollar. Mr. Martin also agreed with the word change. He thinks there needs to be a number for a starting place. Mr. Tucker said a number provides conszs- tency with the rest of the Plan. Mr. Bain said he is not impressed with references to national statistics because they do not necessarily apply to the County. The Chairman opened the public hearing. There being no persons present to speak on the proposed amendment, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowerman reiterated that he thinks the word "provide" should be changed to "consider" and the rest of the language is less specific in start- ing with a given number. This language is set out on page 2 of Attachment B. Mr. Bowerman said the Commission, by its action, actually incorporated every- thing else that was in that paragraph. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris to adopt CPA-92-03, the County Government Administration section of the Community Facilities Plan (Attachment B) to be included as an element of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, with the following amendment: Page 2, $1, in the sentence reading: "Provide 250 square feet net .... "change to read: "Consider 250 square feet net .... " The motion was seconded by Mr. Marshall. Referring to page 3 of Attachment B, $5, Mr. Bain asked if the "4.0 spaces for each 1000 square feet" is connected to the City's parking require- ments in its Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Ken Baker of the Planning Department said this standard exceeds the zonin9 requirements of the City; 4.0 spaces would provide 80 more spaces around the buildin9 than currently exist. Mr. Bain said given the traffic reduction strategies, he does not like including this standard. He thinks the County should be setting an example. He asked if this could be changed. Mr. Tucker Said it could be changed to reflect the City's Zoning Ordinance standards or the staff could do some research and bring it back to the Board. Mr. Bain said he does not know if there is any June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) (Page 14) M.B. 41, Pg. 144 magic number but he does not want to put something in the Plan that the County is working towards and then it may be one-half the standard. Mrs. Humphris said with regards to this section, the County wants to encourage alternative means of transportation rather than everyone driving. She added that less parking is more valuable parking. Mr. Tucker reiterated that there will be no offices of 250 square feet. That cannot be done and still provide hall space, restrooms, storage space, etc. The 250 square feet includes everything. Mr. Marshall commented that the standard is still probably higher than private industry. Mrs. Humphris commented that County needs are different from private industry in the type of space needed. Mr. Bowerman suggested staff reconsider the parking criteria and bring back a report in 60 days. Mr. Cilimberg commented that the City requirements would be 3.8 spaces. The staff rounded the number up to 4.0 because the Commission felt not enough parking was possibly being provided. Mr. Bain then also suggested changing the word "provide" in this section to "consider". Since the City is working on traffic reduction strategies the staff could then address the issue with them. Mr. Bowerman suggested amending the language "Provide a minimum of 4.0 spaces .... "to "Consider 4.0 spaces .... "; do not set a maximum or minimum. Mrs. Humphris then amended her motion to include the following change: Page 3, %5, under Parking, in the sentence reading: "Provide a minimum of 4.0 spaces .... "change the wording to "Consider 4.0 spaces .... " As seconder, Mr. Marshall agreed with the change. Mrs. Humphris said in reference to an earlier question of Mr. Martin's concerning shower facilities, the traffic reduction strategies recommended by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in working with all the businesses, strongly emphasizes shower facilities and changing rooms for employees so they can comfortably ride bicycles or walk to work. Mr. Cilimberg said on page 3, %2, in the second paragraph, the staff added a statement concerning other space which would be representative of County personnel programs approved by the Board, i.e., day care, wellness programs and traffic reduction programs. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Mr. Bain requested that when the staff bring back information on the parking criteria, it determine if the City has made any changes to its Zoning Ordinance regarding its parking requirements. Mr. Tucker said several months ago a presentation was made to the Board on a Master Plan for the County Office Building. A couple of months later a status report was given to the Board on what the staff was attempting to do to meet the office space needs of this building. In light of what he is hearing from the Board, he will not pursue any new building space on this particular site for County office needs, but he will look to meet the County's needs, in the next five to ten years, through leasable space unless he is told something different. Some of the state and federal agencies, as well as the Albemarle County Service Authority, are currently looking at obtaining space outside this building. Unless he hears something differently, he will not pursue any new building plans for this site. Mr. Bain asked if the Social Services Department is one of the areas being considered for off-site. Mr. Tucker said not in the first phase, but possibly since they pay rent. The staff is waiting to see the outcome of the regionalizing of the various Social Service Departments planned by the State. That Plan is on hold right now. (The adopted Plan (Attachment B) is set out in full below:) INTRODUCTION The Albemarle County Office Building is the focal point for general governmental business in Albemarle County. As such, attention must be given to providing adequate space and establish- ing an environment which creates efficiency in operation and a sense of pride and ownership in local government for the people of Albemarle County. The County Building is currently overcrowded and has resulted in conditions that hinder employees in providing public services. SERVICE OBJECTIVES Centralize government administrative services near popula- tion/employment centers in the City and/or in Growth Areas June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) (Page 15) M.B. 41, Pg. 145 of the County to effectively provide efficient operations and convenient locations for the general public. Provide a standard of office space per employee. Additional space needs may be met by one or more of four options: Construct additional space at the existing central site. Provide satellite facilities in one or more highly populated Growth Areas of the County. Lease nearby office space. Purchase another building(s). Provide ancillary space needs in con]unction with the provi- sion of new space. Provide additional space in accordance with need. Do not defer provision of new space to a point where unsatisfactory conditions exist. Maximize flexibility in space design to maximize opportunities to use/modify/expand/reduce internal space. Evaluate existing space in the current building and elimi- nate inefficient design which may allow for additional office space. Provide adequate space to allow departments that relate closely mn responsibility and activities to locate in the same structure. Within the structure, location of such departments should be primarily based on their operational inter-relationships to assure they can function efficiently and serve the public effectively. Architecturally design any new facilities constructed on the existing site to be functionally and aesthetically compli- mentary to the existing structure. RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES I. SERVICE/FACILITY STAlqDARDS The standards below help ensure that the office space is available to meet the needs of County employees/public and is provided in a cost effective and efficient manner. Office Space Needs: Prcvidc Consider 250 square feet net (315 square feet gross) of office space for each employee working in an office setting. This square foot figure should be a reference point for new and existing office space. This figure only represents a gauge to initially evaluate potential office space deficiency. However, it is realized because of economic and design constraints that this figure may not be possible to achieve in all cases. Before actual construction, purchasing or leasing decisions are made, a more detailed study by each department on space needs as outlined in the Procedural Standards below shall be undertaken to determine specific requirements. The detailed study will provide a better analysis of actual space needs. The net square foot figure indicated above accounts for the primary operating space and other secondary support office space required for use by any particular employee; this includes kitchen areas, storage areas, departmental confer- ence rooms, and hallways within the department. Gross square footage is the total area of the building; this includes main hallways, walls, mechanical areas, bathrooms, elevator shafts etc. in addition to the net area. 2 o Due to the nature of public buildings and the various spe- cialized functions that these structures support the provi- sion for ancillary features such as large meeting rooms, recreational facilities, etc. are not included in this standard. Each new building should be reviewed on an indi- vidual basis and provisions made to provide the needed ancillary features. This ms discussed in further detail in standard $2. Other Space Needs: Evaluate and determine ancillary space needs for all new buildings prior to the development of construction plans. The needs of the public and employees shall both be considered. Also, because County operations are unique, adequate storage areas are required. Office space should not be used for bulk storage. Below is a list of possible ancillary features to meet public needs in conjunction with a new office building: June3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 146 (Page 16) large meeting/auditorium interior office meeting rooms public area to review office material (files,plats, plans, etc.) II. III. In addition, consideration should be given to ancillary space to meet employee needs. These should be representa- tive of County personnel programs approved by the Board of Supervisors (i.e., day care, wellness programs, traffic reduction programs). Off-site Facilities: When leasing, purchasing and/or con- structing off-site office facilities, locate such facility on a major thoroughfare within a Growth Area. The building shall be clearly, visible and easily accessible by automo- bile, bicycle, pedestrians, or mass transportation. Walk- ways directly connecting the parking areas to the building, bike paths, and bus stops shall be incorporated into the design of the building. Off-site signage shall be provided to assist the public in locating and gaining access to the facility. Appropriate screening and buffering shall be implemented. Factors such as building placement, traffic volumes and circulation, and surrounding structures shall be considered when locating a new structure. New Buildings (Existing Site): Any new buildings construct- ed on site shall have similar architectural characteristics as the existing building. These structures shall be inde- pendent of, but subordinate to the existing building. Design standards listed in item #3 of this section shall also apply to new buildings on the existing site. Multi- story building(s) should be considered in lieu of single story building(s) for efficiency purposes. Parking: Prcvidc Consider a minimum of 4.0 spaces for each 1000 square feet of gross space, plus an adequate parking area for all pool vehicles expected on the site. In the interest of serving the public, ample visitor parking shall be provided. In addition, overflow visitor parking areas should be provided as available on site. As an example, such overflow areas could be provided in a well drained flat field adjacent to the existing visitor parking area. Park- lng shall meet the regulations established in the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Charlottesville or the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (whichever applies to the site). Also, Bicycle parking should be provided in a manner consis- tent with the recommendations of the "Bicycle Plan for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County." PROCEDURAL STANDARDS Maximize Use of Existing Space: Maximize existing office space to the greatest extent possible. Before additional office space is deemed appropriate, inde- pendent Space Planners should justify the need for new space. This should be accomplished by studying em- ployee space and storage needs. Also, all alternatives to improve space efficiency such as a central filing system, microfilming of records, reducing furniture size, etc. shall be considered before additional space is deemed necessary. If demand is justified and it is determined that a new facility is needed and cannot be provided for in existing space, the space that is vacated should be assigned a new user and renovation should take place if needed. When evaluating the cost of new construction, the cost of renovating vacated space should be considered. New Office Space Development: Before a new facility is constructed, analyze the costs vs. benefits of leasing or purchasing nearby office space in lieu of new construction. Those departments that function independently and are not closely related to other departments or are non-County departments shall be considered first for leased space. Also, the con- struction of government satellite facilities in high population centers within the County shall be consid- ered for certain government functions. PRELIMINARY NEEDS ASSESSMENT (Chart on file) In 1990, there were 422 occupants requiring office space in the building. According to the staffing needs assessment conducted by the County Executive's Office, the building population could reach as many as 502 occupants by the end of the decade. The existing net area of the building is 71,747 square feet and using the recommended standard of June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) (Page 17) M.B. 41, Pg. 147 providing 250 square feet net per employee, an additional 33,753 square feet net was needed in 1990 to accommodate the current building population. By the end of the decade, 125,500 square feet net, or an additional 53,753 square feet net, will be needed to accommodate the building population. The preliminary needs assessment indicates that, in 1990, the Police Department was deficient 18,711 square feet net and it is projected by 2000 that this department will be deficient 26,461 square feet net. Office space for the Police Department is the bulk of the new space needed. By the end of the decade all other departments, excluding Police, will require an additional net area of 27,292 square feet. Therefore, the Police Department space needs repre- sent approximately 49 percent of the needed square footage by 200O. Further analysis indicates that the Social Services, Finance and Inspections Departments are experiencing a substantial deficiency in office space. The Social Services Department has a current office space deficiency of 5268 square feet net and the Finance and Inspection Departments have a cur- rent office space deficiency of 2594 square feet net and 1904 square feet net, respectively. The Virginia Coopera- tive Extension Office has a current office space deficiency of 2214 square feet net; however, it is expected that their part-time work force will decrease during the next few years, thereby decreasing office space demand. Also, by 2000 if new office space is not provided, it is projected that 20 of the 23 departments will be deficient in office space and eight of the 23 departments will be defi- cient by at least 2000 square feet net. RECOMMENDATIONS If deemed appropriate, provide additional office space either through leasing, purchasing, or construction of a new building. If future additional space is provided, the existing office building should be reconfigured as necessary to accommodate anticipated office space demand of remaining departments. If additional office space is provided at the existing site, a master plan adopted by the Board of Super- visors shall be utilized as a guideline for siting, design- lng, and landscaping new buildings. Subject to review, retain the Police Headquarters at the County Office Building site with the provision of additional space needs to address the current deficiency as a high priority. All possible options to satisfy the department's space needs should be reviewed. The Police Department section of this Plan recommends at least one police substation be built as part of a government satellite facility (page 13). A substation is included in the 1992-97 adopted CIP for planned funding in 1993-94 (design) and 1995-96 (construction). Construction of a substation will provide some relief for the headquarters space. Additional possibilities include the following: 1) utilize space in the existing building that would be available after certain departments are moved to a new building location; and 2) construct a new building to house police operations on the existing office building complex site. Make the provision of additional office space for the Social Service, Finance, and Inspections Departments the highest priority. Agenda Item No. 12. Agricultural/Forestal District Change: a) Amend Section 2.1-2 of the County Code to establish a fee for withdrawal of property from a district; b) Appointment of an Additional Member to the Advisory Committee. Mr. Tucker stated the staff has learned that there was not a fee established for individuals who wish to withdraw land from an Agricultural/ Forestal District. Currently there is a policy for those individuals who wish to withdraw property from an Agricultural/Forestal District within the time period that the Agricultural/Forestal District is being created, which is an eight to ten year period. He went on to say that if an individual wants to withdraw, but does not do it within that period, the staff has to go through the same review process, as it does when an Agricultural/Forestal District is created. He stated that the staff is recommending the fee be the same as if a district is being created, because the staff has to go through the same development and application process. He added that if the Board concurs with the staff's recommendation, he suggests that a public hearing be set for July June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) (Page 18) M.B. 41, Pg. 148 1, 1992, to amend the County Code, Section 2.1-2, which would reflect the same fee to create a district as to withdraw from it. Secondly, Mr. Tucker explained that a change has been made in the State Code this past year, when it was recommended that a tenth member be appointed to the Advisory Committee for the Agricultural/Forestal District. He stated that the staff is recommending that the County Assessor be appointed to this Advisory Committee. At this time, Mr. Bain offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to set July 1, 1992 for a public hearing relating to amending the County Code Section 2.1-2 in order to charge a fee, as outlined by staff, for withdrawals from Agricultural/Forestal Districts. Mr. Perkins asked if the withdrawal fee would be the same as the fee to create a district. He asked if, since the creation of the Agricultural/ Forestal serves a public purpose, the fee is less than the actual cost. Mr. Cilimberg concurred that this is probably true. Mr. Perkins wondered if the staff should consider, since the withdrawal from an Agricultural/Forestal District does not serve a public purpose, that the withdrawal fee should reflect the true cost. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that the staff could consider a higher fee, but he does not know how this would affect advertising. Mr. Bowerman commented that readvertisement would have to be done, if a higher fee is considered. Mr. Bain inquired if Mr. St. John could give the Board some guidance on this situation. He wondered if the amount of the fee could be omitted from the Code change. Mr. St. John stated that he would have to research the situation, but he believes that changes in fees do not have to be re-adverti- sed, as is the case with taxes. He explained that if a tax amount is changed, then it would have to be readvertised. He went on to say that, in this situation, the Board needs only to advertise that a fee will be set. Mr. Cilimberg remarked that the staff can bring this Board the full cost of the withdrawal fee. Mr. Bain agreed. He said then a determination can be made by this Board. Mr. St. John noted that if a fee amount is included in the advertisement, then the Board is tied to that amount. Mr. Tucker stated that the staff will have to research the matter, because he does not remember the amount of the actual cost. Mr. Martin asked if County Code Section 2.1-2 will be amended to reflect the true cost of the withdrawal from an Agricultural/Forestal District. Mr. Bain responded that this has not been determined. He added that the Board will advertise that a fee will be charged. He said that when the public hearing is held, the Board will have received the staff's information, and it can be decided what the amount of the fee will be. He then amended his motion to indicate that a fee will be charged, but his motion did not include a dollar amount. Mrs. Humphris pointed out that the staff's recommendation indicates that the withdrawal application fee for an Agricultural/Forestal District should be at least the same as the fee to create a district. Mr. St. John stated that if the words, "at least" are used in an advertisement, he thinks that the fee could be increased without re-advertisement. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mrs. Humphris is implying that a fee amount should be included with the adver- tisement. Mrs. Humphris answered that she believes the fee amount should not be mentioned in the advertisement, because it would only cause problems in the future. She thinks someone must have realized that maybe the withdrawal fee should be more than the application fee to create a district. Mr. Bowerman asked what has to be done with the text before the Board. Mr. Bain responded that he deleted the dollar amount from his motion. As seconder, Mrs. Humphris agreed to the change in the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Item No. 12b. Appointment of an Additional Member to the Advisory Committee. Mr. Perkins moved the appointment of the County Assessor to the Agricultural/Forestal District Advisory Committee. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Bain wondered if this was the proper procedure for the Board to follow in appointing an additional member to the Advisory Committee. Mr. St. John explained that the Board could handle the matter in this way. He said that this is an ex-officio appointment. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. June 3, 1992(Re§ular Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 149 (Page 19) Agenda Item No. 13. Whitewood Road Park Committee Report. Mr. Tucker explained that on February 13, 1991, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors appointed the Whitewood Road Park Committee to develop a master plan for the usage of the Whitewood Road property. He said the Commi- ttee's recommendation relates to a passive recreation approach for the property which will preserve its value as green space. He added that the Plan has been found to be in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan and awaits this Board's approval. He went on to say the staff is recommending that the Park Committee's recommendation be accepted and the Master Plan approved for implementation, as funding is available. He then asked Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, to make further comments and to answer the Supervisors' questions, if there were any. Mr. Perkins inquired if funding is available for the plan, at this time. Mr. Tucker answered that the funding is available and has been included in the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). Mr. Mullaney recognized the Committee members who were present. He said that the citizen members of the Committee were: Robert Cooper, Sally Whaley, Tom Jacubowski, Ron Ervin, Virginia Gardner, Ernest Flynn, Joan Branscome, Betty Via, Dennis Rosenkrans, and Marcia Joseph, who served as the Committee's landscape architect. He said that Ms. Joseph is now a member of the County's Zoning staff. He went on to say that staff members of the Committee included: David Benish, Jo Higgins, Sharn Perry, and Betina Ring from the State Forestry Department. He added that Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bowerman represented this Board on that Committee. Mr. Mullaney then described the process the Committee followed to develop the plan. He said at the first meeting, the history of this property was discussed, such as the Board's decision to preserve this space as green- space as opposed to using it for an elementary school. He stated the majority of the people on the Committee supported that decision and were in favor of preserving the green space. He went on to say that when activities were considered for the site, ball and soccer fields were not considered. He said the Committee felt as though these types of activities would have defeated the purpose of this Board's action, so the Committee reached this consensus quickly. He indicated that the first meeting was followed with a site visit, and during the next several meetings, the draft plan was developed. After that, the Committee went to four public meetings on this plan, so there have been lots of public input. He noted that all of the individuals in all of the neighborhoods around the property were invited to the public meetings. He said that approximately 50 people came to the meetings, and they unanimously endorsed the plan that the Committee has developed. Mr. Mullaney said when the plan is considered, advantages and disadvant- ages are noticed. He said the big advantage is that this is a 22 acre parcel of property, in a high density developed area. He mentioned that there were two encumbrances to work with, which are the extension of Greenbrier Drive and the location of a regional detention basin. He said these encumbrances are not part of the Park plan, but, instead, they were some parameters within which the Committee had to work. In looking at the existing property, Mr. Mullaney said there is already a jogging trail, and except for that, the remainder of the property has been left in its natural state of undergrowth. He pointed out the property, jogging trail and other areas on the plan. He said the Committee feels that the undergrowth will cause a safety problem, so some clearing of the land will have to be done. He added that any activity areas will occur in the areas that are being cleared for safety. He said the Committee hopes the safety issue can be met by opening up the views to Whitewood Road and Greenbrier Drive with some selective clearing of trees, but not clear cutting the land. He went on to say that the underbrush will also be cleared away so there will be some sighting from one part of the trail to the other. He noted that parking is not shown on the plan, and that was one of the big issues the Committee discussed. He stated that it was felt this Park would mainly serve as a neighborhood function, in that there is not a big attraction that will draw a lot of people from outside of the neighborhood, although there may be some people who will want to come and use the Park. He said that there will have to be some massive clearing of the property, to some extent, because of the detention basin and the road, so it was felt there should not be another large area of cleared space, because the Committee wanted to preserve the green space as much as possible. He stated the Committee realizes that there may be some people who may need the convenience of parking to use the property, so the Committee is investigating using some of the Sachem Village lot for parking. Mr. Bowerman commented that he thought the parking arrangement with Sachem Village had already been agreed upon. Mr. Mullaney responded that the County Zoning Administrator has determined there is no need for parking on the site. Mr. Mullaney went on to say that he has already talked to the Sachem Village representatives, and he believes that a parking arrangement can be worked out. Mr. Bain inquired as to the widths of the paths, how much area will be cleared and what will be the substance of the paths. Mr. Mullaney answered that the current trails in that area are approximately eight feet wide, so he thinks that these paths will be six to eight feet wide. He added that the June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) (Page 20) M.B. 41, Pg. trail surface was another issue that was discussed a great deal. He said originally the Committee was going to recommend paved trails because it would cut down on erosion and maintenance problems. He went on to say that the people at the public meetings who use such trails for running and walking, suggested that rock dust be used as much as possible. He noted that currently there are both surfaces in that area, because the high erosion areas are paved, and rock dust is used elsewhere. He noted the Committee members were concerned about the handicap accessibility of rock dust. He said according to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, rock dust is an accessible surface, as long as erosion is controlled and the ruts are kept out of it. He has learned from some ADA meetings he attended, that it is desir- able, when trails are being developed, to have different levels of accessibil- ity. Because of this, he is considering paving one loop and having a diffe- rent level constructed of rock dust. Mr. Marshall asked if there is any lighting on the trails. Mr. Mullaney replied, "no." Mr. Marshall next wondered if all of the undergrowth will actually be cleared. Mr. Mullaney responded that not all of the undergrowth will be cleared. He said that different spots will be chosen where it will be an advantage to have it cleared. He added that some areas will be left in their natural state where there can be some sighting across the path. He stated that clearing the underbrush will be a good winter project for the Park crews. He said there has been encouragement from the people at the public meetings to proceed slowly with the clearing of this property. He went on to say that a lot of people like the area as it is now, and, once it is cleared, it will be difficult to put something back. He added that if benches are installed, and it is found that the benches create more problems than they are worth, they will be taken out. He does not intend to have all the work done at one time because he does not want to have to make massive changes at a later time. Next, Mr. Mullaney called attention to the fact that the Committee has suggested Whitewood Forest as a name for this park. He said this name was chosen over Whitewood Park, because a park can be anything, such as ball fields, basketball courts, etc. He stated that if the area is labeled a park, some Board, staff or neighborhood in the future might think that it is an underdeveloped park. He said the Committee feels that it is a maximum developed forest. He went on to say that if a decision ever needs to be made in the future as far as using this property for something else, the name, at least, will have to be changed. Mr. Bain noted that he had opposed this project earlier. He stated that he likes parks and forests, but he wonders if there is any way to monitor the usage of this park for the people in that immediate area. Mr. Mullaney responded that it is difficult to monitor a park such as this one. He stated that the information he has received from the maintenance people who go to this area probably once every two weeks, indicates that the use of this park is higher than expected. He said there is usually someone walking on this property most of the time, and there are usually as many as six to ten people an hour walking there. He emphasized that these numbers are consistent. He mentioned, as an example, that there are peak seasons at Chris Greene Lake and Mint Springs Park, but a park such as this one and Ivy Creek, have constant use from people who are serious about their walking and jogging. Mr. Bain remarked that it would be helpful if staff people could spend a few hours of time monitoring the usage of the park, after the paths are installed. Mr. Perkins concurred with Mr. Mullaney's earlier comment that clearing the land slowly is a good idea. He stated that as trees grow, there will be trees that die, because of the lack of sunlight. He said as trees get larger, they will thin themselves. Mr. Bowerman stated that this Board needs to take action on this Master Plan. He noted that staff's recommendation is to accept the Master Plan. At this time, Mr. Martin moved acceptance by the Board of Supervisors of the Committee's recommendations for the Whitewood Road Park project and approval of the Master Plan for implementation, as funding is available. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Agenda Item No. 14. Strategic Plan for Information Services. Mr. Bowerman stated that he has discussed the Strategic Plan for Information Services with Mr. Bain, and both of them have reviewed the recommendations, but would like to meet with this Committee again, prior to coming back to this Board. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he would like to defer this item until that time. Mr. Bain said he has some substantial questions, but instead of taking the other Supervisors' time, he would rather discuss his questions with the Committee. June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B.41, Pg151 (Page 21) ' Mr. Bowerman told Board members to pass on any comments or questions to Mr. Bain or himself. He said that these things will be addressed when he and Mr. Bain meet with the Committee. Mr. Bowerman stated that this item would be rescheduled at a later time for this Board. Mr. Bain suggested that the Plan be brought back to this Board at the July l, 1992 meeting, if possible. Agenda Item No. 15. Solid Waste: Illegal Dump Site Program. Mr. Tucker summarized the following report on the Illegal Dump Site Program, as follows: "Illegal trash dumping has been a longstanding problem throughout the nation. It has been a problem of moderate degree within the County, even before tipping fees were imposed. There has been some increase in the number of complaints reported since the date tipping fees began in February, 1991. Most of this dumping has occurred at sites that predate the tipping fees. The majority of material found in dumpsites involves white goods (appliances, etc.), furniture and tires. Of the 36 known dump sites, 31 predate the implementation of tipping fees and four of these are the largest sites. The County Police Department enforces what is commonly known as littering from a vehicle. The Zoning Department enforces the 'trash ordinance', Section 16-5 of the County Code. This section prohibits any owner or occupant to 'store, accumulate or dump any refuse, trash, rubbish or any other waste material or substance on such premises in such quantities or in such a manner or for such a period of time as to constitute a nuisance or as to be injurious to the health or safety of the public, or potentially injurious to the health or safety of the public.' Illegal trash dumping is an activity which is extremely difficult to support through enforcement measures. It is commonly done surreptitiously, in the dark of night or in areas which are not easily observable. Often the property ownership is either an absentee owner, unresolved, or multiple owners, as with an estate. In almost every case, the property owner is not taking part in the illegal dumping. Usually the property is undeveloped or vacated. Often the owner has attempted to have the property cleaned up and the dumping stopped. Typically any g~ven illegal dump is to the product of trash from multiple sources. Many of these sources would chose to dump their trash illegally instead of disposing of it properly, whether or not there were tipping fees. The manpower necessary to stake out these multiple problem areas to apprehend multiple violators if not available. Staff is currently in the process of conducting an inventory of dump sites with information as to their ownership, the general size, whether it is old or new, active or inactive, and the types of materials dumped. Each site is being analyzed to determine what measures can be taken to prevent future dumping. For exam- ple, in the case of an access road, we are providing the owners some specifications of posts with cable to block access. We are also discussing the issue with other localities to determine what measures they have found to be successful in enforcement, preven- tion and clean-up. In addition, we are working with various groups who would like to provide the community service of dump site clean-ups. These will be opportunities to obtain an agreement from the property owner for future abatement measures, prior to agreeing to clean-up. Some localities have provided a subsidy to clean-up efforts in the form of paying half or all of the tipping fees, or providing the truck and some manpower. An example of such efforts was the clean-up of two sites on May 16 by the Jefferson Waste Hauler's Association which resulted in 22.58 tons of material being removed during a three-hour period at a cost to the County of $740 in subsidized tip fees. While vigorous and well-publicized enforcement efforts are impor- tant, they have limited deterrence. Efforts to increase public awareness of convenient disposal and the hazards of unapproved dumping, as well as a solicitation for assistance zn apprehending offenders, are essential solutions. Staff recommends the follows: 1. Awareness ao Provide public service announcements which explain the hazards of dumping, and request assistance in appre- hending offenders. June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.152 (Page 22) Provide public information regarding agencies who will take used and usable furniture and appliances. Provide handouts with the specifications for blocking off an access road and otherwise assist property owners in controlling access. 2. Assistance Work with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) in identifying those roadways which should be targeted for assignment to a responsible group for the adopt-a-highway program. Work with Virginia Power for installation of security lighting, if available. c. Coordinate clean-ups. Provide subsidy of the tip fee for initial clean-up of illegal dump sites. Recurring clean-up of sites will be at the owner's expense. A condition of subsidizing the tip fee will require property owners to take measures to prevent further access to the dump area. 3. Enforcement ao Use of the crime watchers/neighborhood watch program for information regarding illegal dumping. This will include those County agencies involved in field work, as well as the cable company, Centel, Virginia Power and others. bo Creating a network of contacts with other interested parties for information. Maintain a cooperative effort towards enforcement with police officers in the field, to monitor problem sites. Responsibility for removal of illegally dumped materi- al is the property owner's. Past efforts to enforce clean-up has met with marginal success. A new enforcement program to carry out County Code Section 16-5 and managed by the County Attorney's Office is proposed as follows: Notification of property owners of their respon- sibility to remove material within a reasonable period of time, such as 90 days, during which the County will assist with subsidy of the tip fee if it is an initial clean-up. All other costs associated with clean-up are the property owner ' s. If clean-up is not completed within the speci- fied period, the County Attorney will obtain the necessary authorization for the County to clean up the material. Costs incurred will be col- lected from the property owner by a tax or levy to be added to the property tax for collection during the next billing cycle. The prevention of illegal trash dumpzng partly depends on the convenience of proper trash disposal. Therefore, it ms a part of the larger issue of solid waste disposal, including recycling." Mr. Bowerman stated that this is a comprehensive look at the issue. In the absence of Board direction as to changes which vary from the recommenda- tions, he assumes the staff would implement these recommendations. Mr. Tucker concurred this is correct. He said this report is mainly informational, but the staff wanted to give the Board a full report of the ideas. Staff thinks these are good recommendations, and they will be monitored, as the program moves forward. He said the Board will be kept up-to-date on the program. He went on to say that this is a major step forward in the trash clean-up effort. Mr. St. John called attention to the recommendation relating to enforce- ment, such as liens, etc. He said the County will have to hire people to do this work, and before this can be done, there has to be a revolving fund in place, with which to hire the cleanup contractors, who will be reimbursed through a tax lien. Mr. Tucker informed Mr. St. John that there are some funds within the Solid Waste Program which can be used for this purpose. Mr. Bain asked if Mr. St. John is indicating this fund has to be formally set up by ordinance. Mr. St. John replied, "no." He said the County already has enough ordinance language. He was speaking strictly about the funds involved. Mr. Bowerman stated the funds for this program would June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.153 (Page 23) certainly be part of the Board's consideration. He added that if staff needs to do anything further about the funds, then Mr. Tucker can bring the recommendation back to this Board. With the absence of any other comments, Mr. Bowerman stated that these recommendations would stand as the approved procedure for dealing with the illegal dumping sites. Agenda Item No. 17. Work Session: Sign Ordinance. Ms. Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator, said staff discussed the Sign Ordinance with the Board in a work session on May 13, 1992. The Supervi- sors asked staff to address two specific areas. One area dealt with clarifi- cation of language suggested by Mr. Don Wagner relating to the support structures for signs which will better encourage base-mounted signs. The second issue related to providing more portable signs on a temporary sign basis. She went on to say there was discussion that these temporary signs are appropriate in such cases as new business openings, messages for civic groups and churches, and that perhaps they should be allowed, but with a shorter time period than general temporary signs are allowed. She said the staff has drafted language which will do just that. She added that the language provides for portable signs on a general basis for such uses for four time periods per year, with a limitation of 15 days maximum, other than the 30 days maximum which relates to other types of temporary signs. She commented that in providing for temporary signs, anchoring them also has to be considered. She said there is a concern that if these signs are not anchored properly, they can become a safety hazard. Ms. Patterson went on to say the Zoning staff worked with the County Engineering Department, and some guidelines have been developed that will be applied to the issuance of any permit for portable signage. She explained that it is difficult to make it so standard that the anchoring methods can be included within the ordinance, because they will vary based upon the type of signs that will be used. She said there will be a handout, as part of the approval procedure for a temporary sign permit, to be sure that the proper anchoring methods are used. She reiterated that the ordinance language provides for the Zoning Administrator's approval of the method of anchoring a sign and allows for portable signs for all purposes for four periods per year for a period not to exceed 15 days. She stated that for more than 15 days or four times a year, because, for example, some fire stations have weekly bingo games, the idea would be to encourage a permanent sign that has a changeable copy which could be used to address upcoming events, rather than a continual portable sign, which then becomes a permanent sign. Mrs. Humphris asked if the staff will continue to recommend against allowing portable signs for the three stated reasons. Ms. Patterson answered, "yes." Mrs. Humphris then wondered if the standards included in the ordinance are in the event that portable signs are allowed. Ms. Patterson replied that Mrs. Humphris is correct. Mrs. Humphris asked Ms. Patterson to explain Number One on Page Two dealing with measuring a maximum area of 89 square feet. She wondered how the maximum area of calculation was done. Mr. Bain stated that he missed the work session on the Sign Ordinance, but he has spent a lot of time studying the ordinance changes. He also would like to hear how this calculation, to which Mrs. Humphris referred, was done, because he does not agree with the proposed language in terms of the sizing. Ms. Patterson asked Ms. Marcia Joseph, of the Zoning Department, to respond to Mr. Bain's and Mrs. Humphris' questions. She said thatMs. Joseph had worked with those calculations. Ms. Joseph remarked that she does not believe the number for measuring the maximum area of signs is correct. She noted that the intent is to measure 32 x 2.5 square feet, which would make a maximum area of 80 square feet. Mr. Bain quoted from Mr. Wagner's suggested wording that, "The maximum combined size of any freestanding sign and its support structure shall not exceed 2.5 times the maximum allowable sign size." He said that 2.5 times 32 is a total of 80 feet. Ms. Joseph replied that Mr. Bain is correct. She said this would include the face of the sign. Mr. Bain next stated that the figures to which he and Ms. Joseph are referring equal the 32 square foot sign size times 150 percent of that, which is 48 square feet. He said that these figures were in the original draft. He went on to say that when the 32 square foot figure is added to 48, it equals 80 square feet. Ms. Joseph stated that Mr. Wagner felt this verbiage would clarify that concept. She said the idea behind this wording is that it would allow a person to have an 80 square foot structure, but the lettering need not be 32 square feet. She commented that the letter- ing can be less than that, so it would allow some flexibility in the sign face, itself. She added that the size of the structure would not necessarily be determined by the size of the sign face. She went on to say that if someone wanted to put less message on the sign, such as a large logo with the structure, they would not be penalized by doing so. Mr. Bain remarked that there is, as part of this presentation, a rather detailed analysis with pictures of different signs, using this concept. He asked if the Board, in its work session, discussed the parameters of the sign sizes. He mentioned that if there is a small base with a big sign at the top, and it equals the total square footage, it would still be a huge sign. He is concerned about this. June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.154 (Page 24) Mr. Bowerman responded that the Board discussed the height limitations and the alternatives between increased height and the lower sign, which is larger. He said the Supervisors felt it made more sense to have the sign lower and closer to the road. He stated that the sign could be made of brick or other materials. Mr. Bain stated that he is thinking about the sign at Forest Lakes. He said this sign was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and it is very attractive, and it is low to the ground. He is unsure of the total square footage of that particular sign, and he pointed out that the sign message within the Forest Lakes sign is not huge. He noted that this is more of a residential area than a commercial area. Next, Mrs. Humphris called attention to Number Two on Page Two of the staff report, which deals with supporting a sign face or written message area to measure 32 square feet. She asked if this wording relates to a sign with a single face. Ms. Joseph responded that the sign would be double sided, so the sign would be 32 square feet on each side. Mrs. Humphris suggested that Number Two be clarified to indicate the 32 square feet relates to each side of a sign. She went on to say she thinks the maximum allowable square feet for a single face sign should be specified, or there are going to be arithmetic problems. Ms. Joseph responded that the maximum square footage for single face signs is implied in the charts. She added that there would be no problem to include such language. Mrs. Humphris explained that there is often trouble when regulations are not spelled out very specifically. Mr. Martin commented that if only one side of a sign was being consid- ered, there would be no reason to be so specific. Since both sides of signs are also involved, he thinks it is necessary to specify whether the regulation applies to one side or both sides of a sign. Mr. St. John stated that these specifications are specific in another part of the existing ordinance. Ms. Patterson read from the ordinance that, "Two-sided sign faces shall be counted as a single face provided the angle separating them does not exceed 45 degrees." She added that if the angle that separates them exceeds 45 degrees, each face would be counted. Mr. Martin stated that he is satisfied with the Sign Ordinance. He believes the recommendations this Board made in its work session have been nicely incorporated. At this time, Mr. Martin moved that a public hearing be set for the Sign Ordinance on July 8, 1992. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. He asked that the staff supply the Board with a completed ordinance. He said that he had other questions, but he would discuss them with Ms. Patterson, rather than taking up other Board members' time. He stated that these concerns may have already been addressed, and he might not know it, because he missed the work session. He added that if he had significant concerns, he would take them up with the Board before the public hearing. Mr. Marshall asked if the temporary signs are being used by charitable organizations and fire companies, etc. Ms. Patterson responded, "no." She pointed out Section 4.15.11, "Temporary Signs" on Page 19 of the ordinance. She said that "a" under that section addresses civic and other non-business events. She said the ordinance allows for four permits for a period of 15 days for these types of events. She then called attention to "b" and "c" under that same section which indicates that there would not be a limit of 15 days for certain events, but, instead, there would be a limitation of 30 days, which is the limit for all temporary signs. She said the thought behind this limitation was that a person celebrating the grand opening for a new business would want more time for a sign display than a civic organization identifying a bingo game, etc. Mr. Perkins wondered about signs for rescue squads and fire companies when such things as bloodmobiles, CPR classes, etc., are advertised. He asked if these types of signs come under the temporary sig~ regulation. He asked why these types of signs could not be exempt. Mr. Martin answered that the Board decided at its work session that ongozng signs would be considered permanent signs. Ms. Patterson concurred. She stated that the staff has recommended that the structure used for regular use of changeable message type would not be a portable sign structure. She said this is provided for under the general sign regulations, and not as a temporary sign. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Agenda Item No. 18. Work Session: Open Space & Critical Resource Plan. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Board has had an opportunity to look at the Plan and recommendations for the Open Space and Critical Resource Plan. He said the Board has also gotten some comments from some outside organi- zations, such as the Piedmont Environmental Council, the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, as well as Mr. Blaine from McGuire, Woods, Battle and Boothe, regard- ing the Open Space Plan. He added that the staff would be glad to respond to the comments of these organizations, if the Board wishes. He said the staff had asked Mr. Blaine to clarify some of his comments. He went on to say the staff has no recommended changes over what is before this Board, and he noted that the Planning Commission approved the Plan. June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.155 (Page 25) Mr. Cilimberg called attention to Pages 40 and 41, Section I - A, which is a very descriptive and defined procedure as to how the Open Space Plan would be used in review of development proposals and considerations of new development. He said it is no different in reality than how any element of the Comprehensive plan is used to look at proposals, but it has probably never been defined as particularly before. He stated this section lays out how the Open Space Plan will be used, and it is intended only to do that and to be very specific to that extent. He noted that this section does not intend for the Open Space Plan to carry any greater weight than any other considerations in the Comprehensive Plan. He said that all considerations in the Comprehen- sive Plan need to be examined in development review in the same manner, unless this Board was to elevate one element of the Plan higher than any other. He said the remainder of the recommendations under Roman Numeral I are a combina- tion of activities, initiatives and, in several cases, potential new regula- tory mechanisms that would be used to accomplish the Plan in both the short and long term. He said it is up to this Board to determine if this is consis- tent with what the Board wants to pursue. He said this certainly sets the agenda as to how to go about further implementing the Open Space Plan. Mr. Cilimberg next referred to Roman Numeral II on Page 49, "Recommen- dations Requiring Policy Changes." He said this section is included to lay out a couple of considerations that would need to be addressed during the next review and update of the Comprehensive Plan, based on the findings of the Open Space Plan. He said it is not a decision to make any change either regarding density by right or regarding growth area boundaries. He added that it is simply to say that the Open Space Plan has made some findings, and that these findings need to be considered when the Comprehensive Plan review is held beginning next year. He said the staff will try to answer the Board members' questions, and he noted that there are several individuals present at the meeting who have made comments in writing. He stated that Ms. Buttrick is present, on behalf of the Citizens for Albemarle, with a statement which she will hand out to the Supervisors. Mr. Bowerman commented that he would like for Ms. Buttrick, Mr. Lind- strom and Mr. Blaine to speak to this issue. He said that the Board will probably not finish this issue today, but he would like to have input from these individuals before the Board adjourns. Ms. Sherry Buttrick, spoke on behalf of the Citizens for Albemarle, concerning the Open Space Plan. She read a prepared statement (see handout that was given to Board members at their meeting on June 3, 1992) in which she stated that the Citizens for Albemarle applaud the County's efforts to initiate a comprehensive and integrated approach to open space conservation. She congratulated the staff, particularly Mary Joy Scala, on its achievement, which she said places Albemarle County among the leaders in this type of planning. She encouraged the County officials to coordinate with other entities, such as the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, to achieve efficient implementation of the Plan's goals. She pointed out that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is engaged in a regional environmental assessment which, if properly funded, will provide a natural heritage invento- ry of rare and endangered, as well as locally important, species for Albemarle County and neighboring jurisdictions. (Mr. Bowerman pointed out that Ms. Buttrick is the Chairperson of this Committee=) Ms. Buttrick went on to say, in her prepared statement, that if problems are failed to be addressed, open space in the County will vanish, whether or not there ~s a plan. She noted that Mr. Blaine's comments advocate the use of open space as a tool for good urban planning in the growth areas. She said that it would reduce the rural areas to a vast reservoir of building lots, with but a few critical resources sprinkled among them. She suggested that the Agricultural and Forestal Resource Advisory Committee should be created now and should be charged with the task of recommending strategies for encouraging a continuation of resource based activities and occupations and for minimizing a conversion of rural lands and non-farm uses. She mentioned that she was in Lee County several weeks ago and she spoke to the delegate from that area. She said the delegate stated that Albemarle County has everything and Lee County has nothing. She said that this Plan is the first step in preventing the process of degrada- tion, and she sees no downside at all with its passage. Mr. Bowerman informed Mr. Lindstrom that the Board ~s in receipt of his letter, if he would like to expand on it. Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom answered that he did not need to make further comments. He emphasized that this Board has had a big debate about economic development in this County. He said the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) believes the County can accommodate affordable housing, economic development and the fruition of more jobs in a way that is consistent with preservation of the really distinguishing feature of this County, which is the rural area. He said PEC hates an emphasis on both ends of the equation. He understands the concern about circumstances and the desire to look at emphasizing development and possibly changing the Plan's emphasis in that area. He looks at the Open Space Plan as providing a map for how to ensure that, as the County takes on a greater responsibility for promoting economic development, it is not done in a way that would really erode further the rural areas. He recalled that Mr. Bowerman had caused a disturbance a few years ago when he was Chairman of the Planning Commission, when he stated that the Comprehensive Plan is not working. Mr. Lindstrom's reaction was that it is hard to gauge how a Comprehensive Plan is working unless it can be considered what it would be like in Albemarle County, if there was not such a plan. He said that clearly, in terms of what the Plan had been expected to do with respect to protecting rural areas, involvement June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.156 (Page 26) has continued in the rural areas at a rate that is higher than hoped. He added that if more economic development is encouraged, there will inevitably be more jobs in the area, and there will be a greater population increase than there has normally been. He believes that it makes emphasizing the preserva- tion of open space even more important. He referred to Ms. Buttrick's statement about the delegate from Lee County, and he said that her statement is true. He mentioned that his wife is from Carmel, California, which is probably reputed as one of the most beautiful places in the world. When people heard that she was going to get married and move to Charlottesville, he said that a number of people exclaimed that Charlottesville is really a fabulous place. He was completely surprised at the number of people in California who were aware of the beauty of this community. He thinks that this Open Space Plan does nothing to protect that beauty, except to suggest a way in which this Board can proceed. He said the Plan, by itself, does nothing except provide this Board with two things. He added that the Plan provides a resource that can be used as discretionary zoning changes are considered in the future. He stated that the Plan also provides a program that requires specific other actions by this Board. He remarked that he thinks the Plan is an excellent guideline, and he hopes that it will be adopted. He also hopes the Board can quickly follow through on its recommen- dations. Mr. Steve Blaine commented that he will be brief because the Board is in receipt of written comments from the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association. He would like to follow up on a couple of things that Mr. Lindstrom said. Mr. Blaine stated that it is still unclear, and he thinks further work is warranE- ed, on the first section of the recommendations as to how the Plan will be implemented. He and Mr. Cilimberg have met together, and Mr. Blaine remarked that he has offered the resources of the Committee to help improve on this language. He thinks it is still unclear as to what this Plan provides. He said that if it is indeed a program for further study on planning efforts to improve open space planning, then the Association is certainly in favor of that. If it is not intended to be self-executing and an overlay of additional regulations, then the Association supports the plan. In the current draft, and specifically with respect as to how the Plan would be implemented in the County's assessing discretionary land use proposals, it can be interpreted as "opening the back door" for implementation of additional regulations. He said that by reading this current draft, it cannot be determined what is expected of a land planner or the owner of property, if the property is appropriate for development in the growth area. He stated that in an effort to add certainty to the planning process, the Plan needs to be better drafted. He thinks this is necessary not just for those who are in favor of the environment and all of the good things that the County has to offer, because he presumes everyone is in favor of that, but a better draft is needed for interpretation of the Plan to foster the type of economic growth that is desired in the growth areas. He said that if this is not the appropriate time to have a drafting session, then he would ask that there be another attempt to approve the drafting before it goes to public hearing, because he thinks it can be resolved before that time. Mr. Bowerman asked if Board members had any questions for any of the three speakers. Mr. Marshall responded that he has a comment to make. He hopes he can find the proper words, because he has a concern. He stated that having been born and raised in this area, and coming from a family of very modest means, and having worked himself up to where he was finally able to afford to buy a sizeable piece of land in Albemarle County at the place of his birth, he has a genuine concern about what will happen to him in his old age. He also has a genuine concern as to what is going to happen to a lot of other people such as himself, and others who are less fortunate than he, who have land in Albemarle County. He referred to Mr. Lindstrom's statement about the people in Cali- fornia being aware of the Charlottesville area, and Mr. Marshall said he thinks it is nice for people in other areas of the United States to recognize Albemarle County. He asked if Albemarle County is a country club for the rich. He asked if this is what these people are saying in Chicago, New York and California. He inquired if this is what the Board wants Albemarle to become, or does it want all of the County citizens to live and survive here. He went on to say that he has a farm, but it is really not a farm. He noted that the draft of the Open Space Plan indicates a desire to minimize the conversion of rural land to non-farm uses. He said that there may come a time when his wife will have to do that. He asked if this is fair. He stated that the Federal government, under the present tax laws, is not going to let him continue to take the deductions that he has to have to keep his property as a farm. He wondered what he will do. He asked if he will sell his farm to one of these rich people from another area, and go to live in a condominium somewhere, and give up a way of life which he has fought for all of his life. He inquired if this is fair. He asked if it is fair to some of the poor people. He noted that he lives in the portion of the County where there are a lot of rich people, in fact, one of the richest men in the world lives there. He stated that this portion of the County also has some of its poorest people located there. He asked if the County officials are going to allow these rich people to continue to buy up this land. He said this is happening, and it is forcing the low income people out of the County. He wondered if County offi- cials are making Albemarle County a place from where low income people will have to move. He asked if a society is being created in Albemarle County that does not look after the needs of all its people. He said that he has a genuine concern about this situation. June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.157 (Page 27) Mr. Marshall commented that he does not oppose the Open Space Plan, because he thinks it has a lot of good points included in it. He wondered if the Plan will cause problems for a lot of poor people. He inquired how many people, such as himself, are going to be able to afford to continue the way of life that they currently have, under these circumstances. He remarked that he might be forced to sell his property because he cannot keep it under the tax uses that he has. He is thankful for the tax laws that Albemarle County has enabled~ or he would not be able to keep his land, now. He reiterated that the Federal government is not going to allow him to continue to operate the way he has been doing much longer. He is going to have to look for someone to buy his property for the best price that he can get out of it. He commented that he does not want this Plan to cause him to sell his property for less money than he already has in it, because then he has ruined everything for which he has worked all of his life. He stated that there are a lot of people like him who have that concern. Mr. Bain told Mr. Marshall that, philosophically, every time something is considered that affects land use, he thinks that every member on this Board tries to take into consideration the balancing elements from both sides of the issues. He pointed out that there are some zoning regulations that are mandated by the State. He noted that Albemarle County citizens voted zoning down, but two years later, it was mandated by the General Assembly. He reiterated that whatever is done with land use, it is always a balancing act of what the County has and does not have and between those who are rich and those who are poor. He asked if the County citizens want the County to be like Chicago. He does not think that Mr. Marshall wants this to happen in his lifetime, or 20 years after he is gone, no matter what it does to his land. Mr. Marshall stated that Mr. Bain is missing his point. He added that he is asking if County officials are making laws that are too strict. He noted that this Board, as well as past Boards, have considered this Compre- hensive Plan, and he has seen the tendency over and over again to look at the Comprehensive Plan as though it was the Bible, instead of being flexible and taking individual cases on their own merits. He told the Supervisors that if they approve this Plan, he wants them to use it as a guideline and not act as though it is written in stone. He asked Mr. Bain if he understands what he is saying. Mr. Bain answered, "yes." He went on to say that when the Supervi- sors consider anything affecting land use, whether it is the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, or an ordinance within the Zoning Ordinance, they try to weigh both sides, either restricting someone's use or letting them have more use of their land by rezonlng their property. He said each time land use is considered, the Board members try to weigh what is being done at the time, and they try not to affect just one piece of property. He added that a piece of property is considered by the Board members as it relates to the whole Plan. He stated that some things considered each time by this Board is whether or not the property is in a growth area or a rural area. He mentioned that growth areas were changed when the last Comprehensive Plan was reviewed. He said the Board members look at the Plan as a guide, and they look at every action they take, in terms of land use and trying to weigh the balancing forces. He does just that, and he takes the matter very seriously. He noted that there will be a public hearing tonight in regard to the Albemarle County Housing Advisory Committee. He said the Board needs to take action regarding housing, as it relates to keeping people in the County and helping them to improve their life. He added that when this Board formed the Housing Advisory Committee, the Board did not commit itself to making changes, but he thinks it was recognized that there are some changes that need to be made, as far as housing is concerned, as well as the money that is allocated to housing, which is the County's own tax money. He indicated that this process has not been completed, yet, but the Committee has spent a year on this issue, and the Committee is bringing it to fruition. He believes this Board will do some positive things as a result of this housing issue, and he emphasized that he is trying to address Mr. Marshall's comments. He said this Board is considering all of these things, but they cannot be done overnight. He added that all of these issues affect everybody in Albemarle County, and the Supervisors take them seriously. Mrs. Humphris stated that, simply put, the beauty of the County is what is being seen. She said this Board is a body of law and of policy, and before decisions are reached on law and policy, the process is opened to the public. She commented that in all of the Board's processes over the years, the public has been a major part of this Board's decision making process. She remarked that the public comes and participates, and, in many instances, the movement for change comes from the public and not from the members of this Board. She went on to say that there is a process which allows six members of this decision making body to have all of the input that is available from the people in the County who are affected by the policies and laws this Board makes. She stated that this is the procedure, and everyone is affected, because each person on this Board is a citizen of this County. She added that this Board is responsible for the effect of the policies and laws on all the citizens of this County. She said the Supervisors take their jobs seriously, weighing and measuring all of the information that can be gathered and all of the input from the public, as to how each person is going to be affected. She thinks this has worked, and it is how this Board has arrived at the Comprehen- sive Plan, and that is how this Board is arriving at this Open Space Plan. She reiterated that this procedure works, and she counts on its working. Mr. Bowerman commented that the issues before this Board today, such as housing, critical resource and open space preservation and economic June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B.Pg.158 (page 28) development are all interrelated issues, and this Board cannot look at any of them without considering the others. He added that the Board has before it today, the ability to deal with all of the issues at the same time. He suggested that this Board look toward balancing critical resource and open space protection with the need to provide viable jobs in this community, and with the need to provide adequate housing for all members of this community. He added that this Board has to move forward on all fronts to coordinate this so that the plan will be developed that this community will want 50, 60 or 100 years from now. He added that this Board has, now, the ability to do that. He suggested that when this Board discusses the Critical Resource and Open Space Plan, and this afternoon as this Board considers economic development, and tonight as the Supervisors look at housing, all of the issues be kept interrelated, and that this Board proceed with all of them with the knowledge that the other two are there. He added that there is probably a fourth issue which he has not mentioned. He reiterated that all of these things are not separate issues. Mr. Martin stated that he concurs with Mr. Bowerman 100 percent, and he cannot say it any better. He said that what is alarming is that for so long only certain parts of the issue were being considered, and the other parts were not. He thinks that now this Board is willing to talk about economic development and housing. He added that even though the process started several years ago, it makes it more critical that this Board pay close atten- tion to preserving that which needs to be preserved. He noted that all of these issues work together. He thinks the Open Space and Critical Resource Plan needs to be considered as a guideline, and the other issues need to be addressed. He said that in this way, this Board is moving toward a balance with all areas, even opposing areas, such as economic development, open space and critical resources. He stated that these issues, at first, appear to be opposite, but they do not have to be. He added that the alarming part is when part of the issue moves along for years, without any mention of the other part to make a balance. Mrs. Humphris commented that she is being reminded, from everything that is being said, of what happened last night at the 50 Year Visions Forum. She said that Bob Tucker was a major presenter there, as well as Cole Hendrix, Nancy O'Brien and Leonard Sandridge. She said that more than 200 people gathered for that forum, and the presenters presented their visions as to how they would like the Albemarle/Charlottesville community to be 50 years hence, and it was marvelous. She thinks that every area was touched upon that needed attention and would result in a community in which everybody would be comfort- able living and working. She stated that a lot of it was beautiful visions which are not reality, but it was what the presenters wanted to see. She wishes that everybody at this meeting could have been at the forum, because it was an excellent program of thinking ahead, and there were a lot of challenges for planning ahead. She said the program pulled together everything that has been discussed today, which is the need to plan in a concerted fashion for the benefit of all of the citizens in the fairest way it can be done. Mr. Perkins remarked that he was surprised at the position of the Farm Bureau. He went on to say that the President of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau spoke against changing the Comprehensive Plan to allow rezoning of the property for the Fortune 500 company. He said the people who are Farm Bureau members stand to possibly lose the most with some of the provisions that are in the Plan now. He thinks this has to be kept in mind. He added that if the Board wants people to farm and to practice forestry, then it has to made as easy as it can possibly be for them to do that. He went on to say that putting on more restrictions does not make it easier. He stated that there are a couple of things in the Plan he has talked about before, and he has looked at these a little closer. He would like to suggest a couple of changes that might be made. Mr. Bain stated that he would like to go through the Plan page by page before the public hearing. He asked if this can be done now and after lunch or at another time. Mr. Bowerman replied that the Board has interviews scheduled beginning at 1:30 p.m. He said the Board has to meet with the Police Department and get its presentation, and have lunch. He thinks the Board should adjourn into executive session now for a personnel discussion, meet with the School Board this afternoon, and then come back into session to deal with the appropriations and also discuss this issue, again, prior to adjournment to dinner and the meeting later tonight. He thinks the discussion this far has been very useful. He said the Board has received input from some people who have attended more than one meeting. He added that Mr. Bain's point is well taken, because the Board will not be going to public hearing right away. He would like to see the Board do something as soon as possible about this critical issue, including the creation of a Committee. He thinks that a lot of the information will come from the Committee, to balance the agricultural interest against the preservation interests. (Mr. Marshall left the meeting at 12:19 p.m.) Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Perkins if it suited him to make the remainder of his comments later in the meeting. Mr. Perkins indicated it was okay with him if the meeting was adjourned, at this time. Mr. Bowerman responded that the Board does have a time schedule in terms of when appointments are set up, and there is a lot for the Board to consider in executive session. June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.159 (page 29) Agenda Item No. 21. Executive Session: Personnel. Mr. Bain moved that the Board adjourn into executive session for the County Executive's evaluation and for appointments to the Fiscal Resource Advisory. Committee, the Children and Youth Commission, the Architectural Review Board and the School Board. Mr. Tucker informed the Board members that they did not need to adjourn at this point, because the Board has to go to lunch, and the executive session needs to be held after lunch. Mr. Bowerman asked if the motion can be made for the executive session to become effective at 1:30 p.m. Mr. Tucker indicated that this could be done. Mr. Bain next amended his motion for adjournment to become effective at 1:30 p.m. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Bowerman if he had indicated that the Board would come back to the Open Space Plan after the School Board meeting. Mr. Bowerman responded that after the School Board meeting, the Supervisors will have to discuss the appropriations. He said after that the Board will come back to the open space issue. The Board members then left for lunch. Agenda Item No. 19. Lunch: Police Department. Chief John Miller welcomed the Board members and others to this luncheon. He introduced members of the Advisory Group which was appointed in December, 1991 to help set up a Police Foundation. He introduced Capt. Scott Hambrick, Albemarle County Police; Michael Coles, an attorney at McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe; A.T. Anderson, Centel; Bill Sparks, Vepco; Dell Hanley, Adelphia Cable; and, Dave Zimmerman, a county citizen. Chief Miller said he was sorry to announce the death of the K-9 dog. They did ask for donations and within a week had a gift of $4,000. (Mr. Marshall returned during lunch.) Agenda Item No. 20. Police Foundation Concept, Discussion of. The following staff report had been distributed to the Board members before this meeting: "Several months ago, representatives of the Police Department and various business leaders in the community began discussing a way to forge stronger partnerships between the business community and the law enforcement community. As an outgrowth of these discus- sions, a proposal has been developed to establish a non-profit foundation which could accept donations for equipment and projects which are beyond the ability to fund through the regular budgetary process. The foundation concept has been used in other localities to improve the relationship between law enforcement personnel and the community. It fits well with our community-oriented policing concept which is targeted towards making the Police Department an integral part of the community which it serves. Chief Miller sees the Foundation as an important component for tapping the breadth of knowledge of the private sector as well as providing the mechanism by which donations could be made that would keep the department distanced from the donor so as not to provide any potential for conflict of interest or perceived favoritism. Examples of projects which the Foundation could participate in include an annual banquet to recognize outstanding contributions of citizens and others in the area of crime prevention, the purchase of specialized equipment for DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol/drugs) enforcement and the Emergency Response Team, seed money for innovative programs recommended by citizen input, and management exchanges between our police department and local businesses to share supervision skills and successful programs. Executive staff and the County Attorney's staff reviewed the proposal and made several suggestions which have been incorporat- ed. Staff recommends that the Board authorize Chief Miller to move forward with the formation of the Foundation in line with the attached (on file) Charter and By-Laws." Chief Miller briefly described some experiences he knew of with other police foundations. He said this Foundation is not meant to take the place of June3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 160 (Page 30) County funding of the Police Department, and it will not be involved in political activity. Not Docketed: When the Board reconvened into open session at 4:12 P.M., Mr. Bain made a motion to adopt the following certificate of executive session. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirma- tive recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 and 2.1-344.A.7 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformi- ty with Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. VOTE: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: Mr. Martin. ABSENT DURING MEETING: None. Agenda Item No. 22. Work Session: Open Space. Mr. Bowerman announced to the public that the Board is still trying to get through its agenda with the exception of the work session on Open Space. He added that a certain time in the future needs to be discussed when at least two hours can be set aside to discuss this issue, with nothing else interfer- ing with that discussion. He went on to say this time should probably be set now, in the interest of the people attending this meeting for this agenda item. He then inquired as to whether or not this item could be put on the July 1 Board of Supervisors agenda. Miss Neher, Deputy Clerk, replied that the agenda for July 1 hardly has anything on it now, but today's agenda did not have muCh on it, either, a month ago. Mr. Bain stated he was not sure the Board should wait that long to discuss the open space issue. Mr. Bowerman commented that the Supervisors have two big evening meetings coming up in the nexu couple of weeks. He suggested that the Supervisors might want to meet from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. before the meetings on either June 10 or 17. At this time, Mr. Martin returned to the meeting, and Mr. Bowerman asked him if he would like to vote affirmatively for certification of the executive session. Mr. Martin answered, "yes." Mr. Bowerman then asked Mr. Martin which time best suited him, since he might have some conflicts in being able to attend the extra meeting on Open Space. Mr. Bowerman suggested either 4:00 p.m. next Wednesday or 4:00 p.m. the following Wednesday for a work session on the Open Space Plan. Mr. Martin indicated that he would not be able to meet at 4:00 p.m. on June 17. Mr. Bowerman next informed the Board members, that because of Mr. Martin's conflict, the two hour work session on the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan would be held at 4:00 p.m. on June 10. Agenda Item No. 28. Joint Meeting with School Board, Rooms 5/6. School Board Members present were: Messrs. William Finley, Cliff Haury, Mike Marshall, Mrs. Patricia Moore and Mrs Karen Powell. Mr. Haury called the School Board meeting to order. He stated that Ms. Sharon Wood would not be present at this meeting because she is ill. Item 28a. School Nurse Program. Mr. Haury indicated that the School Board sent to Mr. Bowerman a letter of transmittal, dated May 18, 1992, and two attachments concerning public Health Department services for Albemarle County Schools. He said that the School Board has had extensive conversation concerning two separate levels of health services. He touched on the topics that were mentioned in the letter, and he added that health screenings are provided at the elementary and middle schools, mostly by the Public Health June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.161 (Page 31) Department. He stated the records in the school system do not indicate when this practice began. He asked the Supervisors to reaffirm that arrangement with the Health Department. The next item Mr. Haury discussed, which was also mentioned in the May 18, 1992 letter, related to the loss of the school nurse positions at the County's high schools, due to budget reductions. He said the School Board had asked the Superintendent to seek the Health Department's cooperation to cover some of the lost hours when the school nurses were eliminated. He added that working arrangements have been made by the high schools, which involve the hiring of a health clinic assistant, plus visits to the high schools by public health nurses. He noted that the original schedules for the public health nurses proposed for fall were two hours at Western Albemarle and two hours at Albemarle High Schools, but because of the size of Albemarle High School, the Health Department has scheduled two nurses for two hours per week. He referred to a memo from Dr. McLeod in which Dr. McLeod indicated the nurses have provided approximately 7.5 hours per week of nursing services to students in the County high schools. Mr. Haury went on to say that a question has been raised, based on State Code, Section 22.1-274, School Health Services. Mr. Haury mentioned that in that particular section, it states that the local health department may provide personnel for health services for the school division, subject to the approval of the appropriate local governing body. He pointed out that the School Board members voted, with a vote of six to one, that they would sanction the services as they were arranged this year, and ask the Supervisors for their consideration of this particular working arrange- ment. He noted that the School Division will monitor, guide and evaluate this cooperative arrangement. He stated that two attachments were included with the memo to Mr. Bowerman. He said one document was an informational letter from Dr. Susan McLeod, and the second attachment involved questions concerning duties of Health Department personnel in Albemarle County Schools. Mr. F. Marshall stated that, during budget meetings, he brought up ques- tions of the legality of these nurses being in the schools. He had been asked questions pertaining to this matter, and he wants to make sure that the right thing is being done. He read from State Code 22.1-274, in which it indicates that no such personnel shall be employed unless they meet such standards as may be determined by the Board of Education, subject to the approval of the local governing body. He would like to know, before he gives his approval, what is expected of these nurses, and what they will actually be doing. Mr. Haury answered that each of the high schools, along with Dr. Paskel, submitted a working arrangement and a list of duties. He does not have copies for the Supervisors, but those arrangements were worked out in the fall, when the hours were scheduled. He stated that the School Board has had an exten- sive discussion of the duties of the public health nurses, who are at the schools for only two hours. He noted that there is also a Health Clinic Assistant who is hired by the school system, who is at the schools for a longer period of time. He said the Superintendent requested letters from each of the high schools concerning the duties last fall of this particular arrangement. Mr. Martin remarked that the information which was sent to the Supervi- sors answers the majority of the questions which he has, personally, heard from the public. Mr. F. Marshall commented that he wonders if the schools should not hire the nurses so they would be within the direct jurisdiction of the School Board, as far as what they will be doing within the schools. He asked if the nurses are teaching sex education and handing out condoms. He wondered what they are actually doing. He is not saying he is opposed to the nurses being in the schools, but he wants to know what the nurses are doing, as far as getting the schools involved in public health. He noted that these nurses are covering the clinics in the schools, and he thinks the public health nurses' work needs to be done at the Health Department on Rose Hill Drive, and not in the schools. Mr. Haury responded that there is a list entitled, "Consolidation of Services Provided by Public Health Nurses to Albemarle County Schools." He said the School Board examined this list, and it involves basic services for all schools, and special services to specific schools. He stated that the School Board found this list and the description of the arrangement, provided by Dr. McLeod, acceptable. He added that the School Board members did not provide the Supervisors with this detailed description of the services, because the School Board members thought it was their job to make sure the list of duties was acceptable. Ms. Moore stated that specific questions were asked by the School Board, such as if conuraceptives were going to be distributed. She said the School Board has a long list of questions that were asked. She went on to say that, once a patient is in the room and the door is shut, whether or not a nurse is employed by the Health Department or this school system, she believes that the nurse would be professional enough to adhere to the guidelines that have been set forth. She added that there is a fine line, once the door is shut and patients are referred. She understands that referrals, etc., have been a big question. She reiterated that the School Board has asked all of these questions in detail, such as what type of referrals will be done, what type of information will be passed out, as well as specifics as to what the nurses will actually be doing. She said she felt confident that the nurses will be June 3~ 1992 (Regular Meeting) M,B. 41~Pg.!62 (page 32 ) at the schools to assist, and they are not in the schools very long. She pointed out that the nurses are helping out the school system. Ms. Powell commented that one of the concerns from parents was whether or not they would have the option of keeping their children from seeing a public health nurse. She stated that the School Board has been given every indication that the parents' wishes would be honored. She said that if parents choose not to have their child seek professional counseling from the public health nurse, then they can make this request known, and the nurse will honor the parents' request. Mr. F. Marshall asked if the School Board sees this arrangement as the thing to do, as opposed to the school system hiring its own nurses, under the School Board's direct supervision. Mr. Haury responded that this matter relates to where this situation has come from, rather than where it is going. He pointed out that the school system had a budget reduction which caused the School Board to examine faculty positions. He said the principals logically indicated that rather than to eliminate a classroom teacher, they would rather eliminate the school nurse position. He added that last April, when the reductions were made, driver education teachers and school nurses were lost, rather than instructors mn the basic subjects. He stated that the principals made that choice, but in the meantime, the nursing services had to be covered in the school system. He said the School Board asked the Superintendent to discuss the situation with the principals and the Public Health Department to see if the gap could be covered that was caused by the elimination of the positions. He referred to his comment relating to where the situation is coming from, and he said he was referring to the fact that the school nurses' positions had been dropped from the faculty slots. He guesses what Mr. Marshall is asking is whether or not it is proper to have public health nurses working as school nurses. He said Dr. McLeod has clearly stated on several occasions that this working arrangement for her is temporary until there are resources available so the County can afford school nurses, again. He does not think too many School Board members would argue with that. He reiterated that the school system was only trying to temporarily cover the situation, and since this arrangement was available, the School Board was considering it under those terms. Mr. Finley stated that he would like to give a minority viewpoint on this situation. He said the first that the School Board heard about the arrangement was in a memo from the Superintendent on September 6, 1991. In that memo, the Superintendent explained that a meeting had been held with nurses and principals, and an agreement reached that the nurses would be in the schools on a part-time basis. In the last paragraph of his memo, Mr. Finley stated that the Superintendent said these services do not encompass reproduction and pregnancy related advice or care. He added that in Dr. McLeod's memo of April 21, 1992, she states that a large percentage of counseling is related to sexuality and birth control, but that is by no means the only health concern with which the nurses deal. He went on to say that Dr. McLeod's memo indicated that pregnant students may receive special health guidance throughout their pregnancy. He stated that Dr. McLeod's memo directly contradicted what the Superintendent's memo had stated, as far as the nurses' duties were concerned. He said the Acting Superintendent was asked in the May 11, 1992, meeting why the nurses had contradicted the Superintendent's memo. He noted that the reply was that the Superintendent was in error, and that the principals and Dr. McLeod were not aware of the statement that no counseling or advice on reproductive issues would be provided. He stated that a concern of parents and others is reflected here. He said there has not been adequate communication on this subject. He does not know that there was any community participation ~n making this decision, and he is unsure who was involved with it. He does not think that too many parents were involved. It seems to him that everyone should know exactly what is going on with an issue as sensitive as this one and of this much importance. In this case, even the Superintendent of Schools did not know what was happening. He added that this was one of the reasons there was a reaction from people against this issue. He said the people felt that as parents they were not fully advised of just what was going on. Mr. Bain asked if the School Board knew what was happening when the nurses were faculty members in the schools. Mr. Finley replied that the School Board did not know until April. He said that a request was made for information as budget sessions began in November, but it was not until April that the facts began to be known. Mr. Bain clarified his question by asking if the School Board and the staff were aware of what the nurses were doing when they had full-time positions in the schools. Mr. Finley responded that he assumes the staff was aware. He said the nurses were directly under the supervision of the school division's staff. He went on to say that Dr. McLeod also stated in her memo that public health nurses are professional and are accountable for their own actions. He added that ultimately the local Health Director and the Commonwealth of Virginia are the nurses' employers. He said they are not accountable to Albemarle County, and, as such, the nurses do not come under any of the family life guidelines or the CIT constraints, or any- thing else. Mr. Martin commented that he was part of the process recently as a School Board member, and now he is looking at the situation from a supervi- sor's perspective. He said the school system had school nurses for years, and those school nurses carried out their duties such as the public health nurses are carrying them out now. He pointed out that if the questions and answers, June 3, 1992(Regular Meeting) 4.B. Pg. !63 (Page 33) which were given to this Board by the School Board, were sent to the nurses who were employed by the school system, the answers would have been basically the same. He said the problem was that the school system could no longer afford the nurses, and due to budgetary restraints, the school system officials decided to eliminate those nursing positions. Fortunately, the Superintendent was able to work out an arrangement with the public Health Department so that there could be some hours for nursing services, even though they were not full-time, given to the high schools. In his opinion, those nurses who are going to the schools through the public Health Department are giving the school system some hours of health services, although not as many as the school system's own nurses. He believes that some hours are better than none. He said there is some disagreement as to whether or not the statute, when it says "governing body", means the Board of Supervisors or the School Board. He added that there is also some question as to whether or not in approving the budget, the Board of Supervisors also approves of the policy that the School Board has to go through in order to present the Supervisors the budget. In his opinion, the Supervisors need to have a clear vote on the situation, and decide whether to have public health nurses providing services to a lesser degree than the nurses who were already employed two years ago. Dr. Hastings remarked that when she met with Dr. McLeod and the high school principals, it was for the purpose of clarifying what had gone on in the past. It was her understanding, and it was reiterated at that meeting, that the public health nurses were providing exactly the same type of service that the school health nurses had provided. She said the school system officials did not mean to mislead anyone that this type of advice has been going on, even under the direction of the school nurses. She thinks that one of the issues in terms of dealing with nurses, is that nursing services were only being provided at the high school, and no nursing services were being provided at the elementary or middle schools. She said these services for the elementary and middle schools have always been provided through the public Health Department, on a limited basis. By choosing to extend that public health service to the high schools, services were basically being extended from what has been going on in middle schools for years, and reaffirming on a limited basis some of the services which had been provided with the school system's own personnel for years. Mr. Perkins referred to the State Code relating to Health Departments providing personnel health services to the schools, subject to the approval of the appropriate local governing body. He said that if this is true, the Health Department has been operating illegally in Albemarle County Schools this year. Mr. Haury responded that the School Board has had two interpreta- tions of that section of the State Code. He said the School Board's attorney, Mr. James Bowling, had indicated that if the school system has not expended funds nor had those nurses as employees, then this particular statute can be construed not to apply. He added that the School Board has heard other opinions indicating that the statute does, in fact, apply. He went on to say that it was Mr. Bowling's advice is to bring the matter to the Supervisors for clarification. He stated that the School Board felt the safest route to follow was to put the matter before the Supervisors, and seek approval for the arrangement. He emphasized that the arrangement for the elementary and middle schools with the nurses has been going on for a long time, but the situation with the high schools is new. Mr. Perkins stated that there are certain things that a public health nurse would have to do in the schools, anyway, such as hearing and sight tests, as well as seeing that the children have certain immunizations. He understands that the immunization program has been expanded so that the children have to get the second series of shots in the sixth grade. He went on to say that he has a sister-in-law who is a public health nurse, and she spends a lot of time in the schools, and her duties involve such things as looking at head lice to giving all of the tests that are required. He said this situation is a puzzle to him because last year, school nurses were a big political issue. He stated the County's budget was challenged by the public because the nurses were needed so desperately. This year, Mr. Perkins said the money was available, but nowhere in the School Board's priorities was there indication that school nurses were to be considered again. He noted that only 7.5 hours per week is all the time the health nurses are spending at the schools, and there were two school nurses, before the program was elimi- nated, who should have been spending 80 hours per week in the schools. He pointed out that the school system is not getting one-tenth of the nursing services that the schools were getting before the program was eliminated. He said there is no control over the services that the schools are getting now. He sees no agenda that ensures what the public health nurses are going to do in the schools, because they are not answering to anybody but their Supervisors and the State of Virginia. Mr. Bain wondered if Mr. Perkins would feel better about the situation if the School Board found a way to put back in its budget an appropriation for one full-time school nurse, who would be hired by the County. Mr. Perkins replied, "yes." Mr. F. Marshall concurred. Mr. Bain stated that one nurse's position would mean that there would be 40 hours of service per week which could be split between two schools. Mr. Perkins commented that the school nurse, if hired for 40 hours per week, could go to five or six schools and provide more service than the Health Department is providing. Ms. Powell pointed out that there is a clinical assistant who is taking on a lot of the duties. June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 164 (Page 34) Mr. Martin remarked that part of the decision to use Health Department assistance for the nurses' positions was because school nurses were being paid at a teacher's salary, and the Health Department's services were a lot ~cheaper. Mr. Bowerman inquired if a school nurse, who is employed by the School Board and has to adhere to the School Board's guidelines, has an obligation to answer a student, once the door is closed, and a question is asked concerning pregnancy or contraception. Ms. Powell replied that the nurse has an obliga- tion to provide counseling, but she cannot ensure what goes on behind closed doors. She stated that if a student goes to a teacher who is trusted, and tells the teacher that he or she wants to shut the door and talk to that teacher, she does not believe that a teacher in this school system would turn a child away without listening and counseling. Mr. Marshall stated that he does not disagree with Ms. Powell's state- ments. He wondered if the nurse or teacher would inform the parents about the conversation. Mr. Haury responded that there ls no parental notification. Mr. Bowerman wondered if what goes on behind a closed door is between the nurse and that student, whether or not there is a public health nurse in a school, or the school system has its own nurse. Ms. Moore stated that if a nurse is employed by Albemarle County, then she is accountable as an employee of Albemarle County. In her opinion, if a public health nurse did not follow the criteria as it is presented to her, the school system could indicate to that nurse that her services were no longer desired in the school system. She said that if such a situation was brought to the School Board's attention, and the nurse was employed by the County, this situation would have to follow the grievance procedure. Mr. Bowerman asked if a nurse was handing out contraceptives to stu- dents, and a pattern developed, would the School Board have the authority in either case, to correct the situation. Ms. Moore replied, "sure." She went on to say that the School Board would have more authority if the nurse was an employee of Albemarle County. Dr. Hastings remarked that the Health Depart- ment director could be informed that the nurse's services were not wanted anymore, and the nurse could be removed immediately. Ms. Moore pointed out that the procedure would take longer, if the nurse was an employee of Albe- marle County, because the grievance procedure would have to be followed. Mr. Bowerman nexu stated that if the nurses were the School Board's own employees, and the nurses did not ad_here to the school system's guidelines, then the School Board could remove the nurses. Mr. Martin commented that it would be harder for the School Board to remove its own nurses, because they would be subject to the grievance procedure. He explained that if public health nurses were being used by the school system, it would be easier, because one phone call to the Health Department would take care of the matter. He pointed out that one phone call will not get rid of a County employee. Mr. Bain stated that an employee can be terminated, as far as what they are doing, is concerned. Mr. Bowerman agreed that the position could be terminated. Ms. Moore wondered what would happen if a teacher handed out contraceptives to the stu- dents. Mr. F. Marshall responded that he would want to remove her from her position. He said that a lot of people have contacted him, and they are concerned that the schools are taking over the roles of the parents. He agrees that there are certain things that need to be left up to parents. He stated that if these nurses are parenting the County's children in school, then he is opposed to it, up to a point. He said there are certain things the nurses need to do, because there are some children who live in single parent homes, etc., who might need this type of help. He added that not all of the children in the County need this help. He thinks that if this type of thing is going to be done, there must be some sort of a working arrangement to get permission from the parent. Dr. Hastings stated the difficulty is that, even with guidance counselors in the school system, there is a certain privilege relating to a confidential conversation. She said if a student were to come to principals or counselors, this confidence would not be violated, if it was only in a counseling situation. She pointed out that the Health Department officials have informed the school system that if parents state they do not want their child seen by the Health Department nurse, the Health Department and the school system will do everything in their power not to allow this to happen. She noted that because children want information, they may indicate that their names are different. If the school system can identify the child, and the fact that his or her parent does nou want that child to see the public health nurse, then it would not happen. She thinks this is the safeguard, because the children of parents who feel that strongly about the situation will not be seen by the public health nurse in the County's schools. She noted that a child can go over to E1 Cabrito's parking lot and still see the public health nurse, as a community service. She said children are guaranteed these services by State Law. She told Mr. Marshall the school system officials feel that if a child is going to go to Rose Hill Drive or a parking lot out in the community, then the service might as well be provided in a structural environ- ment within the school system, through an agreement with the Health Depart- ment. She said she trusts Dr. McLeod to carry this program forward, as far as the School Board's expectations are concerned, and what the School Board does June3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 165 (Page 35) not want to happen. She believes that in the questions and answers which were given to the Supervisors, the School Board is trying to show the Board of Supervisors the things that will not be done. She reiterated that the public health nurses do not provide counseling or service relating to abortion, and they do not do testing or deliver contraceptives in the schools. She said the Health Department officials have agreed not to do all of the things that concerned school officials. Mr. Finley disagreed. He said the Health Department nurses do provide counseling to students. Dr. Hastings replied that the nurses from the Health Department only describe what services are available. She said they do not advocate that the child should take advantage of the services. Mr. Finley stated the nurses are also passing out literature that is not approved by the School Board. He is sure that if the nurses were employed by the County, they would not do this. In fact, the Deputy Commissioner of Health, in a 1988 memo, according to Mr. Finley, directed they not do this, but they are doing it anyway. He noted that in answering such questions, the nurses have stated they do distribute literature that has not been seen by this school division. Dr. Hastings responded that the high school principals have pointed out they cannot honestly say they have reviewed every piece of material that teachers use, either. She noted that there are biology classes being taught, and a lot of public classes being taught. She said that there are health classes whereas materials are used that the principals have not reviewed. She stated that the nurses' situation is no different than what is going on in other classes. She added that the school system officials are trusting the nurses' professional judgment. Mr. Bowerman commented the School Board has made a determination that it wants to see the public health nurses ~n the schools for 7.5 hours per week. He said the School Board is unclear as to whether or not this meets the State Code requirement, but the School Board is informing the Board of Supervisors and asking the Supervisors to ratify the decision it has made. He added that if the Supervisors ratify the decision, then that is one action the Supervi- sors can take. If the Supervisors do not ratify the decision upon motion, and it is turned down, then Mr. Bowerman said the School Board has the option of ignoring the Supervisors or putting health nurses back into the schools with its own budget. Mr. Haury pointed out that school will be out for the year in a week, so the School Board would like to reach a decision on this issue, in order to know how to handle the situation next year. He went on to say that there are two things which are zmportant that relate to the public health issue. He noted that people who have spoken to this issue have pointed out that the students who need the health services are not the ones who have parents who will guide them. Secondly, there are opt out procedures for family life and library materials. He said the principals have already been asked if an opt out procedure would be a problem for the health nurses, and they have indi- cated that a card file would not be a difficulty. Mr. Perkins inquired as to how parents are informed about the opt out procedure. Mr. Haury replied that if this procedure is ratified, the matter would be handled as it has been in the past with family life classes. He said newsletters from the high schools would make that notification. Mr. Bain asked if the newsletters are mailed to parents. Mr. Haury replied, "yes." He added that to eliminate the problem of some parents not seeing the materials that children bring home, newsletters are mailed. He said the principals feel comfortable with the situation, as long as they are not held to 100 percent accuracy. He reiterated that card files have been created for instructional materials and family life, and the same thing could be done for the public health nurse situation. He stated this is reasonable considering that some people definitely may wish to choose the option of not having their children see the public health nurse. He commented that this option was not in the School Board's recommendation, but principals were asked if it was possible to have this option, and they all answered that it would be. Mrs. Humphris remarked that approximately two weeks ago the VIP (Very Involved Parents) of Albemarle High School presented a program which was highly advertised to the public. She noted that one of the participants was a public health nurse. She said that the notices of this program were sent out through the more than 1600 students at Albemarle High School to all of the homes. She stated that the program was advertised on the radio and in the newspaper, and it was highly advertised that one of these public health nurses would be at the meeting to make a presentation and answer questions. She said a total of 13 parents attended that meeting, and that was all of the interest shown, as far as what was going on with the public health nurses at Albemarle High School. She would guess that there were two or three parents at this presentation who addressed a problem relating to the presence of the public health nurses in the school. She stated that the large majority of the parents at this meeting felt it was not only comforting but necessary for their children to have such help. Mrs. Humphris went on to say that she was impressed with the professionalism and the sensitivity of that particular health nurse. She said the public health nurse was, obviously, experienced and aware of the pitfalls and the potential for problems, and she sensed that the nurse was dedicated to helping young people. Mrs. Humphris felt she needed to make this comment, particularly, about the fact that only 13 parents came to the meeting, as well as their attitudes about the situation. She reiterated that the nurse's presentation was very impressive. She, June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.Bi 41, Pg. 166 (Page 36) personally, would be sorry to see a large segment of the youth not being able to have such a contact when they feel it is necessary. Mr. Perkins stated that he does not think anybody is saying they do not want nurses in the schools. He thinks the concern relates to the authority under which the nurses are working. He said if the nurse that was at the meeting to which Mrs. Humphris referred is as good as Mrs. Humphris says she is, maybe she should be hired by the County so that she could report to Albemarle County. At this time, Mr. Martin made a motion for the Board of Supervisors to ratify the School Board's decisions concerning the use of public health nurses in the high schools, as well as the guidelines that the School Board has formulated, in order for this procedure to go forward. Mr. Perkins remarked that there is time to think about this matter. He said the Board of Supervisors is in receipt of a letter from the school system involving carryover funds, and he wonders why these funds cannot be used to hire a school nurse. Mr. Bain then seconded Mr. Martin's motion. Mr. Marshall commented that he will oppose the motion, if it is done in this manner. He agrees with Mr. Perkins. He also agrees with Dr. Hastings, because she has satisfied all of his reservations about having the nurses in the schools. He does feel the nurses should be under the control of the School Board and not under the State of Virginia, solely. Mr. Bain stated that he does not know whose carryover balance this is because $205,000 was already figured into the budget.. He asked if the $189,567, referred to in the June 3, 1992, memorandum, is in addition to that amount. He would like for the nurses to be in the schools more, but he understands why the school system cut the time back last year. He said it was because of budget restraints that the nurses' positions were deleted. Mr. Perkins commented that there was funding available this year for school nurses, but nurses were not on the priority list. Mr. Bain responded that school system officials probably felt the substitute nurses were taking care of the situation, and it was less expense to the County. Dr. Hastings remarked that the high school principals have been pleased with the clinical assistants. She said the School Board has, in the past, expressed reservations about the price that was being paid to the nurses, in general. She added that if the school nurse program had continued, she would have asked what salaries the nurses should have been paid, as opposed to the teachers' salary scale. She reiterated that both high school principals have felt that the clinical assistants program, on a day-to-day basis, is meeting the needs and is supplementing the counseling, etc., that is done by the public health nurse. She stated that because of the way the situation was being handled, the school nurse program was not a priority for either of the high school principals. Mr. Finley read from the concluding paragraph of Dr. McLeod's letter of April 21, in which she stated that each county school, and especially the high schools, need its own full-time nurse, and the School Board and school staff should not be satisfied with any temporary solution that provides less service. He said that this was the recommendation of the Health Department. Mrs. Humphris commented this is easy to say because Dr. McLeod does not have to supply the money for the school nurse program. Mr. Martin wondered whether or not the public health nurses can provide the same level of services as the school nurse program. He said that if the answer to that q~estion is "yes," then he is not sure the Board of Supervisors has not gotten itself into an argument that really does not need to be taking place. He said there could be arguments based on a lot of other things relating to the program, but these are not the matters the Supervisors are here for today. He pointed out that the Supervisors need to either confirm or not confirm the School Board's decision. He added that the Supervisors are not here to say that something is wrong, and the law should not state that public health nurses have to give information when asked, etc. He is not sure that sometimes the Supervisors do not get themselves involved in a lot of other discussions that are unnecessary, when the school health nurse program is discussed. He said the nurses are going to provide the same types of services, no matter who their employer is. He added that if the School Board prefers the nurses be employed by the Health Department, then he thinks the Supervisors should uphold the School Board in its decision. Mr. F. Marshall stated that Albemarle County is more conservative than the Commonwealth of Virginia. He thinks the School Board will be more conser- vative than a State employer. He knows what is available, because this is a matter he knows something about. He has worked closely with the Health Department over the years. He knows the programs the Health Department has available to it, and some of the things the school system would not use in its schools. Mr. Bain commented that the ideal world would be that none of this goes on in the high schools, and that the parents take care of it all. He said this is not what is happening, and it has not happened for years. He agrees June3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) 4.B. 41, Pg. !67 (Page 37) with Mr. Marshall's comments about some of the programs that are available for children. He and Mr. Marshall would talk to their children, directly, but he guesses that 40 percent of the parents would non. He went on to say that if a subject is going to be discussed behind closed doors, whether it is a County nurse or a State nurse, he does not think it is going to make a great deal of difference. Mr. F. Marshall answered that it might make a big difference if parents from Southern Albemarle telephone Albemarle High School and indicate they do not want their child involved in these types of discussions, if the nurse is employed by the State rather than the County. He said the nurse from the State could take the child behind closed doors, and the principal is not going to have a lot of control over reprimanding the nurse in anyway after the discussion has taken place. He added that if the nurse was County employed, the principal would have a lot of control. Mrs. Humphris thinks one thing needs to be clarified. She said the public health nurse does not take a child behind closed doors. She added that the young person requests to be seen by the health nurse. She stated this is important to understand. She went on to say that the public health nurse does not go out and grab people. Mr. F. Marshall asked if the public health nurse would talk to the child against the parents' wishes. Mrs. Humphris reiterated the public health nurse is there because the young person requested to speak to her. Mr. F. Marshall is saying that the parents have rights concerning their children. Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Haury both explained that an option system can be created with a card file. Mr. Haury referred to Mr. Marshall's comments, and said the option system could be used for the situation involving the southern Albemarle parents, who do not want their child to see the public health nurse. Mr. F. Marshall responded that Dr. Hastings had clarified that option earlier, and he agrees with it. He wondered how much control the school system would have over the individual who works on Rose Hill Drive, as opposed to an individual who works only at Albemarle High School. He wants the safeguard of having the nurse work under the direction of the County. Dr. Hastings stated the safeguard is there by the County's relationship with Dr. McLeod. She said that Dr. McLeod knows clearly what County officials expect, and she has parti- cipated in discussions relating to this matter. Dr. Hastings said the County school system has had experience with Dr. McLeod for years, and Dr. McLeod has agreed to the County's expectations. Mr. Perkins remarked that this is another confusing point. He said the Health Department comes to the Supervisors asking for extra money because it cannot take care of the things the State indicates have to be done. He added the Supervisors respond that they do not have the money to give to the Health Department. He went on to say the Health Department has nurses to put into the schools, but he does not think the 7.5 hours a week is enough. He said if the nurses are doing the job in 7.5 hours a week, then the County certainly had two nurses that were not needed last year. Mr. Bowerman asked if the clinical assistants are full-time in both high schools. Dr. Hastings responded, "yes." Mr. Bowerman asked if a student bumps a knee, can he or she go in to see the clinical assistant for a Band- Aid. Dr. Hastings responded, "yes." Mr. Bowerman then inquired as to what happens if the student has gone to see the clinical assistant because of a bumped knee, but while the student is mn there, he or she asks a sexual or reproductive question. He asked whether she would answer this question to the best of her ability, or would she not answer it. Dr. Hastings answered that the clinical assistant refers the student, at that point, to the public health nurse. Mr. Bowerman then wondered what would happen if that particular child was on the opt out list, and he or she went in to get a Band-Aid and then asked this question. Dr. Hastings responded that there could be provisions such that the clinical assistant would also have the listing of the parents who do not want these things discussed with their children. Mr. Martin commented that the child could go down the hall and get into the same conver- sation with a teacher. Dr. Hastings concurred. Mr. Bain made a motion to call for the question. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Mr. Bowerman then explained that the motion before the Supervisors was to ratify the recommendation by the School Board regarding public health nurses in the high schools, under the guidelines that the School Board has provided to the Supervisors. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Martin. NAYS: Mr. Perkins and Mr. Marshall. 3, 1992 ( gul r M.B. 41, Pg. 168 (Page 38) Mr. Bowerman announced that ratification of the School Board's policy regarding public health nurses has been approved by the Supervisors. He asked if this means the School Board will operate with this as the guiding policy for the 1992-93 school year. He noted that the budget for 1992-93 has already been completed. Mr. Haury said that the School Board would, obviously, like to have a working arrangement with the public Health Department next year to cover the gap left by the school nurses' positions. He said under the staffing guide- lines that have been given to the individual schools, there is the latitude to hire people. He cannot say with 100 percent accuracy that a school nurse might not be recommended for next year, but he pointed out that both principals at the high schools have lost regular instructional positions from last year. He assumes that anybody they hire would relate to the teaching faculty, to make up for the positions that were eliminated earlier. Mr. Bowerman stated it did not appear, according to Mr. Haury's com- ments, school nurses positions would be a top priority with the high school principals. Mr. Haury agreed this is correct. Mr. Martin commented that the statute implies the Supervisors' vote for approval of this arrangement would last until there is a different Board who might disapprove. He said there seem to be no time limitations related to this matter. Mr. Bowerman responded that, certainly, if the principals of the two high schools determine it is not in the best interest of the students to hire a public health nurse, and they came to the School Board with this indication, the School Board could make a different decision. Mr. Haury concurred. He said the School Board would bring this matter back to the Supervisors, if this should happen. Mr. Bowerman stated the School Board could make the decision with its own power. Mr. Haury agreed, but he said this information could also be given to the Supervisors. He did not hear anybody on the School Board argue Dr. McLeod was not right that the long term solution should be, as the County grows, to hire its own school nurses. At this particular moment he thinks the high school principals are making other choices. He added that if the student population at the high school ~ontinues to grow, he would not be surprised to see school nurses, employed by the County, in the near future. Item No. 28b. Discussion: Carryover Balance. Ms. Tracy Holt, Director of Fiscal Services for the school system, referred to her June 3, 1992, memo to Dr. Hastings, as follows: "As you recall, the Board of Supervisors approved the School Board's request for the reappropriation of the FY 1990-91 School Fund balance in November 1991. The $189,567 was reallocated to the schools that ended the fiscal year with a positive balance, while the schools that ended the year with a negative balance did not receive additional funds. Since this reappropriation request was approved, discussions regarding future reappropriations have emerged. The task force on school-based allocations recommended that surplus funds be reap- propriated for the next fiscal year. In addition, the financial management policy revision committee discussed various policies associated with carryover funds. The School Board has also indicated interest in pursuing the idea. Therefore, on behalf of the School Division, I would like to request permission for the School Division to have its ending fiscal year fund balance reappropriated on a pro-rated basis to those individual cost centers that end the fiscal year with a positive balance." Mr. Tucker emphasized Ms. Holt's remarks that this request is the same one the School Board made last year. He said there is no figure for that at this time, but the actual reappropriation will not occur until the next fiscal year, probably in August. He thinks the School Board hopes the Supervisors would be willing to make this reappropriation, so that the principals could count on spending that money, and start ordering supplies they might like to have for the next fiscal year. Mr. Bain asked if this request relates only to the individual cost centers at the schools or all of the cost centers. Dr. Hastings responded that Ms. Holt will determine what the carryover funds will be, after taking care of salary costs and utilities at the division level. She said then there will be an amount left, and it may be more or less than what the schools actually had left over, because of the division-wide costs. She said the recommendation from the Committee was that after determination has been made, all of the cost centers, which have a positive balance, could share propor- tionately in the carryover funds. Mr. Tucker explained that these carryover funds are over and above the $205,000 that were previously reappropriated. Dr. Hastings agreed. She said the school system has already taken care of that. June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.169 (Page 39) Mr. Bain stated he would like to wait until August before making any decisions. Mr. Bowerman said if the Supervisors wait until August to make this reappropriation, the school system can give the Supervisors the exact number of dollars with which to deal. Mr. Bain concurred. He said the money can be appropriated, but at this point, the School Board nor the Supervisors know what the amount of money will be. He emphasized that he will be in favor of reappropriating the money, but he would rather have the amount in front of the Supervisors before a decision is made. Mrs. Humphris agreed that she would, also, feel more comfortable with a figure. Ms. Moore stated that she was a member of the Finance Committee which discussed the carryover funds. She said this Committee wanted to put some- thing in the new finance policy relating to carryover funds. She added that the staff, which was involved with this committee, was excited about the generosity of the Supervisors, as far as the money coming back to the school system. She said it was an added incentive to them. She noted that a small school sometimes needs a big item, but there is not enough money for it. She stated that it would be good to have some type of planning process whereby the small school can save a certain amount of money one year, but feel sure that next year the remainder of the money will become available. She said the way the situation is now, the small schools have to spend what they have. She thinks this is why a lot of these ideas came forward through the policy. Mr. Martin commented that it is also an incentive across the board for the cost center managers to be thinking in terms of saving as much as possible for next year, as opposed to the thinking that if the money is not used, it is gone. Mr. Perkins stated that all the Supervisors can do now is indicate they would be willing to reappropriate the funds, if they become available. He added that the Supervisors cannot appropriate the exact amount of money, at this time. Mr. Martin stated that the School Board wants the Supervisors to endorse the concept. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he thinks the School Board has the consensus of this Board. Item No. 28c. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Bowerman asked Dr. Hastings to comment on the status of Dr. Paskel's health. Dr. Hastings replied that Dr. Paskel is home after his last surgery. She said he is weak and has lost quite a bit of weight because of the second surgical procedure. She said Dr. Paskel is hopeful that in another three to four weeks, he will be able to resume his duties, at the school division level. Ms. Moore commented that this year four of the School Board members went to Richmond for a conference and tried to establish a legislative package on behalf of the School Board. She said Dr. Paskel had also established some general type of criteria, and the School Board approved it. She added that meeting with the legislators did not help much. She pointed out that the Board of Supervisors has its legislative package, and the Supervisors meet with the legislators and present it. She asked that there be a meeting held whereby the School Board can communicate some of its issues that are of concern legislatively, such as the repeal of the Labor Day Law for schools, etc. She said if these types of issues could be included in the Supervisors' legislative package, it would be better received by the legislators. Mr. Perkins noted that the Supervisors talk about a lot of these kinds of issues, anyway. Ms. Moore indicated she realizes this, but she said the School Board is not involved in this process. She stated that whatever Mr. Tucker and Dr. Paskel or Dr. Hastings can work out would be helpful. She said the School Board is trying to make known that it is interested in being involved with the legislative package, because there are a lot of issues coming from Richmond that are affecting the School Board. Mr. Bain remarked that he and Mr. Bowerman are involved at the Planning District level, and they try to get that legislative package ready by October. Mr. Haury stated that the Supervisors are ahead of the School Board in this process. Mr. Bain went on to explain that the Supervisors meet with their legislators in December and give them, at the day meeting, the whole legisla- tive package. Mr. Bowerman said the School Board could coordinate its legislative concerns with the County Executive's staff. Mr. Haury agreed that this is what the School Board is asking. Mr. Bain indicated that the School Board should be getting its legislative concerns ready by August. Mr. Tucker suggested that a legislative package could be put together and then discussed at the next joint School Board and Board of Supervisors meeting. Mr. Martin suggested that it might be possible to have a joint meeting with all of the legislators. Mr. Bain pointed out that the meeting with the legislators probably will not be held before December. June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 170 (Page 40) (Note: At 5:20 p.m., the School Board adjourned, and the Supervisors recessed and moved back to Room Seven to continue their meeting.) (Mr. Perkins did not returned to the meeting.) Agenda Item No. 16a. Appropriation: Carl Perkins Vocational Education- Grant. Mr. Tucker said at the School Board's April 27, 1991, meeting, it accepted the Carl Perkins Grant from the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1990 which provides federal assistance for secondary, post secondary and adult vocational programs with emphasis on "special populations" (i.e., students with handicaps, educationally and economically disadvantaged, and individuals with limited English proficiency). The grant for the Fy 1991-92 school year totalled $92,486. The money will be used in the following ways: (1) expanding existing programs to provide enhancement of skills identified by employers as necessary for success, (2) improving and generating access to vocational programs by disabled and disadvantaged students, and, (3) improving and updating equipment, materials and curriculum. Mr. Martin moved approval of the following resolution of appropriation for the Carl Perkins Vocational Education Grant in the amount of $92,486 and shown as Appropriation Request ~910053. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92 NUMBER: 910052 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: CARL PERKINS VOCATIONAL EDUCATION GRANT EXPENDITURES COST CENTER/~h_TEGORY 1211661173115000 1211661173210000 1211661173221000 1211661173231000 1211661173232000 1211661173580500 1211661173601300 1211661173601600 1211661173800100 1211661183112100 1211661183138100 1211661183210000 1211661183221000 1211661183231000 1211661183232000 1211661183520301 1211661183601200 1211661183601300 1211661183601600 1211661183800100 1211661183800200 1211661163800100 1211661313550100 1211661313800100 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT SALARIES/CLERICAL FICA VSRS HEALTH INSUR/kNCE DENTAL INSURANCE STAFF DEVELOPMENT INSTRUCTIONAL/RECREATIONAL SUPPLIES DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT SALARIES-TEACHER PART-TIME WAGES-WORK STUDY FICA VSRS HEALTH INSURANCE DENTAL INSURANCE TELEPHONE-LOCAL BOOKS & SUBSCRIPTIONS INSTRUCTIONAL/RECREATIONAL SUPPLIES DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT FUP~NITURE/FIXTURES MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT TRAVEL-MILEAGE MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT TOTAL $8,567.00 655.00 1,086.00 513.00 30.00 1,540.00 300 00 7,740 00 11,445 00 15,138 00 10,000 00 1,950 00 1,920 00 513 00 30.00 300.00 135.00 13,143.00 1,650.00 11,500.00 150.00 3,084.00 969.00 969.00 $92,486.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2200033000330107 CARL PERKINS GRANT TOTAL $92,486.00 $92,486.00 Agenda Item No. 16b. Appropriation: Dare Program Grant. Mr. Tucker said Albemarle County Schools has been awarded a $10,000 grant to enhance the existing Albemarle County DARE Program by providing parents information and resources on substance abuse issues. The staff is participating at school functions that parents attend, speaking to parent groups, and targeting parents with updated information on substance abuse topics. Mr. Martin moved approval of the following resolution of appropriation, Form %910054, relating to the Dare Program Grant, in the amount of $10,000. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.171 (Page 41) AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92 NLIMBER: 910054 FUND: DARE PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DARE PROGRAM GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION /~MOUNT 1310761101160300 1310761101210000 1310761101601300 1310761101550400 1310761101580000 STIPENDS STAFF/CURR DEV FICA INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES TRAVEL-EDUCATION MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL $2,500.00 195.00 3,300.00 1,870.00 2,135.00 $10,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2310724000240500 GRANT REVENI/E-STATE TOTAL $10,000.00 $10,000.00 (Note: Mr. Perkins returned to the meeting at this time.) Agenda Item No. 16c. Appropriation: Reimbursement - Manville Property Damage Settlement Trust. Mr. Tucker said Albemarle County Schools has received a reimbursement check for $12,169 from Manville Property Damage Settlement Trust. The payment reimburses Albemarle County for a portion of the labor and supplies the Department of Building Services utilized during the 1991-92 fiscal year to remove asbestos material from Albemarle High School, Brownsville Elementary, Virginia L. Murray Elementary, and Woodbrook Elementary. Mr. Bain moved approval of the following resolution of appropriation, Form #910053, in the amount of $12,169 relating to the reimbursement of the Manville Property Damage Settlement Trust. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92 NUMBER: 910053 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY REIMBURSEMENT FOR MANVILLE PROPERTY DAMAGE SETTLEMENT TRUST DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1243362420600000 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES $12,169.00 TOTAL $12,169.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2200018000189903 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES TOTAL $12,169.00 $12,169.00 Agenda Item No. 16d. Appropriation: Annual Appropriation Ordinance. Mr. Tucker noted that the Annual Appropriation Ordinance deals with the appropriation for the 1992/93 fiscal year operating budget in the amount of $90,469,446. He stated that this is $1,190 greater than the budget that the Supervisors approved on April 15. He explained that the reasons for this increase related to a reduction in Federal revenues of $8,810 for a pre-school program in the school division and the addition of $10,000 in the FY 1991-92 carryover funds for the Summer School Fund. He added that the staff is recommending the Board's approval of the Appropriation Ordinance for Fiscal Year 1992-93 in the amount of $90,469,446. At this time, Mr. Bain moved adoption of the Annual Appropriation Ordinance in the amount of $90,469,446 for the year ending June 30, 1993. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. AYES: NAYS: Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. /LNNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FOR THE YEAR ENDING JTJNE 30, 1993 J1/rl.e 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.172 (Page 42) AN ORDINANCE making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1993; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all ordinances wholly in conflict with this ordinance and all ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent of such inconsistency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: SECTION I GENERAL GOVERNMENT That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1993: For the current expenses of the function of TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS, AND OTHER REFUNDS the sum of fifty-six thousand dollars and no cents ($56,000) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Refunds and Abatements $ 56,000 Paragraph Two For the current expenses of the function of GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT the sum of three million eight hundred forty-five thousand six hundred forty-three dollars and no cents ($3,845,643) zs appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 2 3 4 5 6 7 Board of Supervisors County Executive Elections Finance Information Services Legal Services Personnel 362,126 374,192 133,866 1,795,012 832,867 193,880 153,700 Paragraph Three For the current expenses of the function of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT the sum of one million seven hundred twenty-seven thousand three hundred seventy- four dollars and no cents ($1,727,374) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) $ 284,180 2. Extension Service 67,509 3. Community Action Agency (MACAA) 40,283 4. Housing 159,618 5. Planning 690,614 6. Planning District Commission (TJPDC) 47,140 7. Route 29 Bus Service 29,500 8. Soil and Water Conservation 24,504 9. Water Resources 42,875 10. Zoning 320,451 11. Gypsy Moth Program 20,700 Paragraph Four For the current expenses of the function of HUMAN SERVICES the sum of four million twenty-three thousand nine hundred twenty-three dollars and.no cents ($4,023,923) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 2. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Central Virginia Child Development Association Region Ten Community Services District Home Health Department Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA) Jefferson Area United Transportation (JAUNT) Legal Aid Society (CALAS) Madison House Outreach Counseling Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) Family Services Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE) Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA) Virginia Public Assistance Employment Service Program Energy Assistance Program Medicaid/UVA Program Teensight United Way Scholarship Program AIDS Support Group Children & Youth Commission 7,560 201,180 32,000 510,880 94,310 150,775 12,640 3,900 22,075 7,310 5,100 44 530 20 350 2,606 956 60 311 16 014 163 839 19 228 23 450 5 000 16 515 Paragraph Five For the current expenses of the function of JUDICIAL the sum of one million two hundred seventy-two thousand six hundred eighty-one dollars and no June3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) 4.B. Pg. !73 (Page 43 ) cents ($1,272,681) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Circuit Court $ 53,939 2. Clerk of Circuit Court 401,583 3. Commonwealth's Attorney 292,396 4. General District Court 9,970 5. Juvenile Court 42,402 6. Magistrate 3,660 7. Sheriff 468,731 Paragraph Six For the current expenses of the function of PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE, the sum of two million five hundred forty-one thousand nine hundred eight dollars and no cents ($2,541,908) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: Library Literacy Volunteers Parks & Recreation Piedmont Council of the A~ts Rivanna Park Virginia Discovery Museum Visitor's Bureau 1,480,774 9,570 847,356 6,000 102,930 20,000 75,278 Paragraph Seven For the current expenses of the function of PUBLIC SAFETY the sum of six million four hundred forty-eight thousand two hundred sixteen dollars ($6,448,216) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Ambulance, Rescue Squads Community Attention Home Correction and Detention (Jail) Fire Department Fire/Rescue Volunteer Coordinator Forest Fire Extinction Service Inspections Emergency Operations Center (911) Juvenile Detention Home Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR) Police Department SPCA Contract Thomas Jefferson Emergency Services (EMS) Volunteer Fire Departments 132,570 51 705 136 601 554 260 40 753 13 595 630 580 410 941 60 134 34 070 3,918,331 11,655 12,395 440,626 Paragraph Eight For the current expenses of the function of PUBLIC WORKS the sum of one million six hundred ninety-two thousand five hundred ninety-two dollars and no cents ($1,692,592 is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Engineering $ 610,062 2. Solid Waste Disposal/Recycling 245,978 3. Staff Services 830,552 4. CAC3 Grant 6,000 Paragraph Nine For the current expenses of the function of CONTINGENCY RESERVE the sum of ninety-seven thousand four hundred fourteen dollars and no cents ($97,414) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Contingency Reserve $ 97,414 Paragraph Ten For the current expenses of the function of CAPITAL OUTLAYS the sum of one million dollars and no cents ($1,000,000) is appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to: 1. Capital Improvements Fund $ 1,000,000 Paragraph Eleven For the current expenses of the Annual Payment to the City of Charlot- tesville, pursuant to the REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT between the City and the County dated February 17, 1982, payable in January, 1993, in the amount of three million four hundred twenty-six thousand dollars and no cents ($3,426,000) is appropriated from the General Fund as follows: 1. Revenue Sharing Agreement $ 3,426,000 June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) (Page 44) M.B. 41, Pg. 174 Paragraph Twelve For the current expenses of OTHER USES OF FUNDS the sum of thirty-eight million twenty-four thousand forty-nine dollars and no cents ($38,024,049) is appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to: 1. School Fund $ 32,828,664 2. Debt Service Fund 5,195,385 SUMMARY Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1993 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund) Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from the Federal Government Total GENERAL FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1993 $ 64,155,800 60,116,617 3,869,483 169,700 $ 64,155,800 SECTION II - REGULAR SCHOOL FI/ND That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for SCHOOL purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1993: Paragraph One For the current expenses of the REGULAR SCHOOL FUND the sum of fifty- four million three hundred thirty-nine thousand ninety-five dollars and no cents ($54,339,095) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned as follows: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Instruction $ 41,511,997 Administration, Attendance & Health 1,682,174 Pupil Transportation Services 4,873,145 Facilities Operation/Maintenance 5,491,831 Facilities Construction/Modification 82,400 Other Use of Funds (Transfer to Debt Service Fund) 597,548 Other Use of Funds (Transfer to Summer School Fund) 100,000 SUMMARY Total Regular School Funds for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1993 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Local Revenues) Revenue from Local Sources (School Fund Balance) Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from the Federal Government Miscellaneous Revenue Total SCHOOL FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1993 $ 54,339,095 32,828,664 205,000 20,303,674 592,179 409,578 $ 54,339,095 SECTION III - Other School Funds That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1993: Paragraph One For the current expenses of the function of SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM the sum of one million seven hundred twenty-two thousand nine hundred eleven dollars and no cents ($1,722,911) is appropriated from the Cafeteria Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Maintenance and Operation of School Cafeterias $ 1,722,911 SUMMARY Total CAFETERIA OPERATIONS appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1993 $ 1,722,911 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from Refunds and Rebates Revenue from the Federal Government Total CAFETERIA FI/ND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1993 1,242,699 39,550 5,550 435,112 $ 1,722,911 June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) (Page 45) M.B. 41, Pg. 175 Paragraph Two For the current expenses of the function of TEXTBOOK RENTALS, the sum of two hundred twenty-nine thousand nine hundred dollars and no cents ($229,900) is appropriated from the Textbook Rental Fund to be apportioned as follows: Textbooks $ 229,900 SUMMARY Total TEXTBOOK RENTALS appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1993 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Rental Fees) Revenue from Other Sources (Interest) Revenue from the Commonwealth Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1993 Paragraph Three $ 229,900 184,000 8,400 37,500 $ 229,900 For the current expenses of the function of the McINTIRE TRUST FI/ND the sum of ten thousand dollars and no cents ($10,000) is appropriated from the McIntire Trust Fund as follows: 1. Payment to County Schools $ 10,000 SUMMARY Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1993 To be provided as follows: Revenue from investments per trust Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1993 $ 10,000 10,000 10,000 Paragraph Four For the current expenses of the function of DEBT SERVICE the sum of five million seven hundred ninety-two thousand nine hundred thirty-three dollars and no cents ($5,792,933) is appropriated from the Debt Service Fund as follows: 1. Debt Service Payments $ 5,195,385 2. Lease/Purchase Payments-Capital Equipment 597,548 SUMMARY Total DEBT SERVICE appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1993 $ 5,792,933 To be provided as follows: Revenue From Local Sources (Transfer from General Fd) Revenue From Local Sources (Transfer from School Fd) Total DEBT SERVICE resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1993 5,195,385 597,548 $ 5,792,933 Paragraph Five For the current expenses of the function of the PREP PROGRAM the sum of nine hundred forty-two thousand three hundred thirteen dollars and no cents ($942,313) is appropriated from the PREP Program Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. E.D. Program $ 511,320 2. C.B.I.P. Severe 430,993 SUMMARY Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1993 $ 942,313 To be provided as follows: Revenue Reimbursement from PREP Program Total PREP PROGRAM FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1993 942,313 942,313 Paragraph Six For the current expenses of the function of FEDERAL PROGRAMS the sum of eight hundred sixty-one thousand six hundred eighty-seven dollars and no cents ($861,687) is appropriated from the Federal Programs Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Chapter I $ 637,705 2. Chapter II 51,096 3. Migrant Education 72,266 June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B.Pg.176 (Page 46) Drug Education Grant Miscellaneous Federal Revenue 78,000 22,620 SUMMARY Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1993 To be provided as follows: Revenue from the Federal Government Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1993 $ 861,687 861,687 861,687 Paragraph Seven For the current expenses of the function of COMMUNITY EDUCATION the sum of eight hundred fifty-eight thousand eighty-three dollars and no cents ($858,083) is appropriated from the Community Education Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Community Education $ 858,083 SUMMARY Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FI/ND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1993 $ 858,083 To be provided as follows: Revenues from Tuition and Fees Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FI/ND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1993 $ 858,083 858,083 Paragraph Eight For the current expenses of the function of SUMMER SCHOOL the sum of two hundred seventy-eight thousand three hundred twenty-one dollars and no cents ($278,321) is appropriated from the Summer School Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Summer School $ 278,321 SUMMARY Total SUMMER SCHOOL appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1993 $ 278,321 To be provided as follows: Revenues from Tuition Revenue from the Commonwealth Carry-over Balance Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund) Total SUMMER SCHOOL FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1993 $ 144,321 24,000 10,000 100,000 278,321 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN SECTIONS I THROUGH III IN THIS ORDINANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1993: RECAPITULATION Section I Section II Section III General Fund School Fund Other School Funds $ 64,155,800 54,339,095 10,696,148 TOTAL $129,191,043 Less Interfund Transfers: General Fund to School Fund General Fund to Debt Service Fund School Fund to Debt Service Fund School Fund to Summer School Fund 32,828,664 5,195,385 597,548 100,000 38,721,597) GRAND TOTAL BUDGET $ 90,469,446 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer to other funds from the General Fund, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made to these funds from the General Fund for the period covered by this appropria- tion ordinance. SECTION IV Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sec I through III are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and provi- sions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and those set forth in this section. June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B. Pg. !77 (Page 47) Paragraph One Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appro- priations made out of the General Fund, the School Fund, the Cafeteria Fund, McIntire Trust Fund, the Textbook Rental Fund, the Debt Service Fund, Prep Program Fund, Federal Programs Fund, Community Education Fund, Summer School Fund, are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations- the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the amount herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations zn full. Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors. Paragraph Two Ail revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare not included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained. Nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures will exceed a specific item of an appropriation or make transfers between specific items of appropriation without the consent of the Director of Finance being first obtained. Paragraph Three Ail balances of appropriations payable out of the General fund of the County treasury at the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) day of June, 1993, except as otherwise provided for, are hereby declared to be lapsed into the County treasury and shall be used for the payment of the appropriations which may be made in the appropriation ordinance for the next fiscal year, beginning July 1, 1993. However, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to be applicable to the School Fund, Capital Improvements Fund, Cafeteria Fund, Textbook Rental Fund, McIntire Trust Fund, Debt Service Fund, Prep Program Fund Federal Programs Fund, Community Education Fund or Summer School Fund, but any balance available in these funds shall be used in financing the proposed expenditures of these funds for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1993. Paragraph Four No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for contractual services--such as communications, travel, freight, express--and membership fees and subscriptions shall be required; and provided further that no requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual and Purchasing Agent, who shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids the basis of specification furnished by the contracting department, bureau, agency or individual. In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors. Any obliqations incurred contrary to the purchasinq procedures prescribed in the Albemarle County Purchasinq Manual shall not be considered obliqations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue any warrants in payment of such obliqations. Paragraph Five Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this ordinance by any or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates. Paragraph Six All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance. Paragraph Seven All ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed. June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.178 (Page 48) Paragraph Eight This ordinance shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred and ninety-two. Agenda Item No. 16e. Appropriation: Northside Library. Mr. Tucker said the County of Albemarle appropriated $900,000 in the last two years in the Capital Improvement Program Fund for the Northside Library. The total cost is projected at $1,043,588. The remaining $143,588 is to be funded from several sources. The main source of additional revenue was the $102,350 contribution from the property owner to be used toward the renovations As the Board is aware, this amount is currently being deducted by the Library from the lease payments due to difficulties in collecting from the property owner. Currently, $962,933.51 has been expended on the Northside Library leaving a balance of $80,654.49. Ms. Donna Selle, Executive Director, is sure this will be sufficient to complete the project. Mrs. Humphris made a motion to adopt the following resolution of appropriation, Form #910055, in the amount of $143,588 for additional funding for the Northside Library. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92 NUMBER: 910055 FUND: CAPITAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR NORTHSIDE LIBRARY EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1900073020950076 NORTHSIDE LIBRARY $143,588.00 TOTAL $143,588.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2900018100181110 2900018100181120 DUMBARTON PROPERTIES-LEASE/IMP LIBRARY DONATIONS TOTAL $102,350.00 41,238.00 $143,588.00 Agenda Item No. 23. Scottsville Boundary Line Adjustment, Discussion. Mr. Tucker stated that, at the meeting held in Scottsville several weeks ago, Mrs. Humphris requested, and the other Board members concurred, a list of advantages and disadvantages of the Scottsville boundary line adjustment be developed for this Board's consideration. He said the one scenario depicted the advantages and disadvantages of the line change for the current Scotts- ville residents, and another related to County residents living outside of the town, but within Option Five. He said the third scenario dealt with the County residents living outside of Option Five. He added that advantages and disadvantages of these scenarios have been attached to the Board's informa- tion, as well as some issues the staff perceived for the Board's information. He noted that there is going to be another meeting tonight concerning this matter that the Scottsville Town Council will be holding. He said the staff is recommending, at this time, that this Board set a work session at the July 7 meeting to discuss this matter further. He added that the staff will be happy to answer questions the Board might have on the advantages and disadvantages scenarios. He thinks that, at the July meeting, the Board can also hear the comments from the Town Council or from Mr. Marshall, since he plans to attend tonight's meeting. Mr. Bain asked if a motion is needed. Mr. Tucker replied that if his suggestion is agreeable to the Board, no motion is necessary. Mr. Bain mentioned that if Mr. Marshall finds out something critical at tonight's meeting, he can bring the matter to staff, and the staff can provide Board members with the information. Mr. Marshall commented that the meeting in Scottsville will be taped. Agenda Item No. 24. Economic Development, Discussion of letter to Mr. Framme. Mr. Bowerman commented that he had suggested the Board authorize him to send a letter to Mr. Framme, Secretary of Economic Development. He knows that there are some concerns about this letter from a couple of members of the Board, but he feels if this letter is not done now, there is no point in doing it. Mr. Tucker informed the Board that he had learned today that Mr. Framme zs no longer in Richmond, and neither is Mr. Keogh. Mr. Bowerman stated that he knew that both of these gentlemen were going to leave, but he did not know June3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 179 (Page 49) that it was effective today. Mr. Tucker next commented that he is not aware of anyone being appointed in the interim for either position, although there is a Deputy Executive Director for Mr. Keogh's position. Mr. Bowerman stated that his only point in raising the issue was that subsequent to the zoning Text Amendment the Board approved in March, there has been no information, whatsoever, regarding this company. There has been no - feedback from the State. This Board met with Mr. Framme and Mr. Keogh as to the next step, but it is Mr. Bowerman's understanding that this company is still considering a couple of sites in Virginia, and Albemarle County is not the primary site. He went on to say that there was concern on the part of the State that the feeling in the County was less than unanimous towards undertak- ing a rezoning like this. He thought it was important to communicate some- thing to the State saying that, while there were unresolved problems, the Supervisors were still interested in proceeding with a rezoning application in the event that this company chose Albemarle County. He said the feedback he got back from the State is that the State was receiving letters from others in Albemarle County who were opposed to this application, and in the absence of any positive action on the part of this Board, the feeling was left that it was negative, in spite of the approved Zoning Text Amendment. He does not want to make this a controversial issue. On the other hand, he felt he should do something, but it would have to be something zn concurrence with the other Supervisors. Mr. Bain responded that the Board can vote to send a letter, but he pointed out it has already taken the necessary action. He does not know what else the Board can do. He said the State knows the action that has been taken, and it does not matter if 600 people send opposing letters, the Board has taken its action. He does not think a letter will change anything. Mr. Bowerman thinks that a letter would indicate that this community is still interested in reviewing an opportunity, if it presents itself. He felt that it was important to send a letter. Mr. Martin agreed with Mr. Bowerman. Mr. Marshall stated that he was not aware of any of this until this moment. He asked Mr. Bowerman if he is saying that there are people in Albemarle County who have written to the State in opposition of this business coming to the area. Mr. Bowerman answered this is correct. He said these people are indicating their personal opposition to the location of an industry such as this one in Albemarle County, because it is not consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Humphris indicated that she did not know Mr. Bowerman was going to produce this letter. Mr. Bowerman responded that the letter was put into the Supervisors' packets on Friday. Mrs. Humphris said she understands the purpose of the letter is to remind State officials of the Board's position and that the Board is still interested. She then noted that the first paragraph of the letter is totally against the County's Comprehensive Plan, which is the adopted policy until it is altered. She said after the vote on the Comprehen- sive Plan amendment, the Board members went over her list of questions and suggestions for the method to be used by the Fiscal Impact Committee to find the facts needed before a decision could be made to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states that the County's goal is to allow expan- sion of industry at the rate generated by the private sector to accommodate that rate and type of economic growth which is consistent with other Compre- hensive Plan goals. She reiterated that the first paragraph of the letter indicates something entirely different. She thinks that a letter can be written while maintaining the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan. Next, Mrs. Humphris called attention to the second paragraph of the letter. She said it is zmportant, when employment and traffic impacts are mentioned, that environmental impacts also be included. She stated that for a lot of members of this community environmental impacts are at the top of the list of things that concern them. Mrs. Humphris then mentioned the next paragraph of the letter. She emphasized that if she had been writing this letter, she would not have made a negative statement about the County's process seeming to be a liability. She stated that she would have written that the Board believes the County's process is flexible and ultimately provides ... etc. She said there are a number of other things in the letter that concern her. She noted that she does not like the last sentence of this same paragraph which indicates that, "this community would welcome the opportunity to consider a partnership with this company." She thinks there would be a lot of questions about what this means in terms of partnership. She said that maybe it is simply a word choice and something else was intended. She added that there are several other things in the letter which she thinks are not suitable. She stated that it is fine if the Board wants to send a letter to the State, but the letter has to conform to the County's existing policy. She believes that more work needs to be done to the letter. Mr. Bowerman said he does not want to lose the opportunity to evaluate something this Board does not know enough about simply by a lack of interest. He would like to convey that information to the State and, thereby, to this company, that this Board would like to continue a dialogue and try to reach the next step. He said this Board and this community can then make a deci- sion. Mrs. Humphris responded that the letter could indicate something to the effect, in the first paragraph, that this Board wants to express its continued June 3, 1992 (Reg~llar Meeting) M.B. 4~ Pg. ~80 (Page 50) interest in the Fortune 500 company. She stated that the whole part of the first paragraph about attracting new businesses without anything limiting that is simply not the County's policy. She added that if the letter said that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors wants to convey its continuing interest in maintaining an active dialogue with the Fortune 500 company, which has expressed interest in Albemarle County, she could support it. She said this is what she thinks this Board wants to do, and she does not see where anything else, other than that idea, can be said. She pointed out that there is no policy which indicates this Board is interested in attracting new businesses to Albemarle County. Mr. Bain commented that he has no problem with a short statement from this Board indicating that the Supervisors have approved the Zoning Text Amendment, and the next step is the process. He said the letter could indi- cate that the Supervisors think it is a flexible process, and the County wants to hear from the Fortune 500 company. Mr. Martin stated that the letter should indicate the steps the Supervi- sors have taken, and that the Supervisors are interested. Mr. Bain indicated~that he thinks if the City and University officials want to make comments, that is fine, but he does not think that these two entities should be mentioned in the County's letter. He is not concerned that a letter from this Board be sent to the State. He thinks the letter should convey a short message. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he appreciated the other Board members' input. He then asked Mr. Tucker to redraft the letter taking into considera- tion Board member's comments. Mr. Marshall stated that Mr. Bowerman has only gotten two other people's points of view, and he has not gotten his (Mr. Marshall's), yet. Mr. Marshall said that, first of all, he thinks it is a good letter, and he appreciates Mr. Bowerman writing it. He commented that the letter might not indicate the County's policy, but maybe it should be the policy. He hopes the people who are interested in getting new businesses to the County will also write the Secretary of Economic Development and encourage him to help bring in more businesses to this community. He believes that there are a lot of people in this community who want more businesses here and realize that there is a need. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the letter be re-addressed to the Governor, since he is unsure who the Secretary of Economic Development will be. He said if the Supervisors agree on the text of the letter, then he thinks it is important to get the letter to someone who can make sure that it gets to the appropriate person. Mr. Martin agreed that it would be a good idea to send the letter to the Governor, with a copy of it being sent to the Deputy Secretary. He noted that he is not disagreeing with Mr. Marshall, but he is interested in moving the process forward. Mr. Bain indicated that he thinks the Board members' views should be stated in the letter, without adding a lot of unnecessary information, which does not accomplish anything. Mr. Bowerman noted that he is aware that this Board cannot make any commitmenu, at this time. Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Bowerman what he means in reference to this Board non being able to make any commitment. Mr. Bowerman replied that this Board cannot say that if the Fortune 500 company makes application to this County, it will be approved. Mr. Marshall responded that the Board can say, however, that the majority of the Supervisors is enlightened to the fact that there is a need for new business in this community. Mr. Bain stated that this has already been said. Mr. Tucker then suggested that the staff develop another draft of the letter. He pointed out that there will be the opportunity for the Supervisors to make additions, if they so desire. Mr. Bain said he does not want to delay the letter. He said if this letter is something that needs to be done, then he will support it. Mr. Bowerman commented that he thinks this is an appropriate course of action, and he appreciates the other Supervisors' willingness to consider the letter. Me believes that something can be drafted by next week. Mr. Marshall remarked that he wants the letter to include a positive statement from this Board. Mr. Tucker mentioned that this letter could be considered by this Board at its afternoon meeting next week. Agenda Item No. 25. Discussion of Meeting with Secretary of Economic Development. Mr. Bowerman called attention to the memo dated May 19, 1992, to the Board of Supervisors from him relating to the meeting with the Secretary of Economic Development in March. Mr. Bowerman said he had talked prior to that meeting about inviting State representatives to meet with the Supervisors to let them know what is in the County's inventory of land zoned for industrial use or what is designated in the Plan. He said Mr. Framme and Mr. Keogh indicated that they thought it would be better to meet with County officials, rather than visit sites, so that they could study the Land Use Plan and the Zoning Map. He said the County officials could point out to the Economic Development representatives exactly what parcels, quantities and infrastruc- ture development are in this community. He added that this information could June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.181 (Page 51) be put in the State's data base, so that if there was a company interested in locating in Virginia, at least that company would have the option to look in the County. Mrs. Humphris asked if this has been done, why is the County's informa- tion not already in the State's data base. Mr. Bowerman answered that there was the perception that Albemarle County officials were not interested in businesses locating in the area. Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris stated that this was a poor excuse for the State not to include the County's information. Mr. Bain went on to say that this is past history, and he understands it. Mrs. Humphris said she was curious to find out why Albemarle County's information was not included with the State's data base. She hopes the State government does not operate on perception. She said that if it is the State's business to gather data for its data base, then it should be done thoroughly. Mr. Bowerman responded that State officials are willing to do this now for Albemarle County. He would like to direct the staff to schedule such a meeting. He went on to say that the representatives are in Richmond on Mondays, and he would like to meet with them so that they can give Albemarle County officials a recommendation as to what needs to be done, to get this information about the County into the State's data base. Mr. Tucker commented that the information, to which Mr. Bowerman is referring, is already avail- able. He said that anyone can go to the County's Planning Department and find out that same information. He added that this information needs to be conveyed to State officials. Mr. Bowerman concurred with Mr. Tucker's comments, but he recommended that this meeting be coordinated with State representatives. Agenda Item No. 26. Appointments. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Tucker for the term of the representative that needs to be appointed to the Children and Youth Commission. Mr. Tucker sazd the term of the past representative ended in November, 1991. The term of appointment of a new member would expire on November 14, 1994. At this time, Mr. Martin offered motion to appoint Mrs. Ruthann F. Brown to the Children and Youth Commission, with said term beginning on June 3, 1993, and ending on November 14, 1994. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Next, Mr. Tucker reviewed the appointment for the Architectural Review Board. He said that this appointment will fill an unexpired term which will be completed on November 14, 1992. He noted that, after November 14, 1992, this individual is eligible for reappointment for a four year term. Mrs. Humphris then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to appoint Mr. Rudolph A. Beverly to the Architectural Review Board with said term to commence on June 3, 1992, and ending on November 14, 1992. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Not Docketed: Mr. Bowerman commented that the consensus of the Board was for the Supervisors to spend 15 minutes in executive session discussing the Fiscal Impact Committee. He suggested that this be done, now. He noted that Mr. Marshall will have to leave after the executive session. Mr. Bowerman informed Board members that they would break for dinner after the executive session and come back into open session at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Tucker said a public hearing needs to be see to amend the County Code to set the Board's salary for FY 1992-93. He recommended that the Board set the hearing for July 1, 1992. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Tucker the amount of the salary increase for Board members. Mr. Tucker replied that the amount is approximately a 3.1 percent. At this time, Mr. Bain offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to set a public hearing for July 1, 1992, to amend and reenact Section 2-2.1, Compen- sation of board of supervisors, to set the Board's salary for FY 1992-93. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) ~4,B.Pg.181 (page 52 ) Not Docketed: At 6:00 p.m., Mr. Bain moved that the Board adjourn to Meeting Room ~11 into executive session under Virginia Code Section 2.1- 344.A.1 to discuss appointments to the Fiscal Impact Committee. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. AYES: NAYS: Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. At 7:01 p.m., Mr. Bowerman called the meeting back to order in Room 7. Mr. Marshall was not present at this time. Mr. Bain made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following certificate of executive session: CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirma- tive recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 and 2.1-344.A.7 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformi- ty with Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. VOTE: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: Mr. Marshall ABSENT DURING MEETING: None. Return to Agenda Item No. 26. Appointments. Mr. Bowerman announced that after considerable discussion this afternoon at executive session, the Board members agreed on 11 people for the Fiscal Impact Committee, rather than nine. This Committee will be made up of two members of the Board of Supervisors, two members of the Planning Commission, and seven members from the public, at-large. The Board members have put together an excellent Committee which should be well-accepted in its delibera- tions and in the final result. At this time, Mr. Bain moved approval of the following appointees to the Fiscal Impact Committee. From the public at-large: Messrs. A. Bruce Dotson, Peter G. Hallock, Blake Hurt, C. Timothy Lindstrom, Jay McNeeley, Dennis S. Rooker and Michael Semanik; from the Planning Commission: Mr. William J. Nitchmann and Ms. Ellen I. Andersen; and from the Board of Supervisors: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. and Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin. None. Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 29. 7:00 P.M. - Joint Public Hearing with the Planning Commission: Report of the Albemarle County Housing Advisory Committee. Planning Commission members present were: Mrs. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Thomas Blue; Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mrs. Jacquelyn Huckle; Mr. Thomas Jenkins and Mr. William Nitchmann. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that he was a member of the Planning Commission for ten years and has been a member of this Board for over two years, and this is the first time he remembers the Planning Commission and Board meeting together in a joint session, other than work sessions. The purpose of June3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 183 (Page 53) tonight's meeting is to officially receive the report of the Housing Advisory Committee, and to allow the public an opportunity to make comments. Mr. Bowerman said it is the intent of this Board to forward this report to the Planning Commission, and the Commission send its recommendations back to the Supervisors for implementation. He stated that the Planning Commission will be having work sessions with the public, but this meeting will give the Planning Commission the opportunity to hear comments from the public at the beginning of the process before the Commission begins its deliberations. He commented that the Supervisors appreciate the work of the Housing Committee. He then asked for all of the members of the Housing Committee, who were present, to stand. At this time, Mr. Bowerman called on Ms. Karen Lilleleht, Chairperson of the Housing Committee, to make comments regarding this report to the public. Ms. Lilleleht stated that she was going to quickly review the recommendations for those people who may not have been to a meeting where the recommendations were discussed. She said that Recommendation A is to make the Housing Strategy Report part of the County's Comprehensive Plan to provide staff and citizenry review so that it would have some force behind it. She added that Recommendation B is to improve the condition and supply of affordable housing. Recommendation C, according to Ms. Lilleleht, is to establish housing counsel- ing and educational programs for high school students and others in the community on financial, credit, upkeep, etc. She said the financial and credit aspects of this recommendation are critical. She went on to say that Recommendation D is to implement the Growth Management Policy by providing the infrastructure that is needed in the growth areas and encouraging maximum residential densities. She added that Recommendation E is to increase the supply of assisted rental housing using all of the strategies, private, non-profit and public housing. Recommendation F relates to assisting in financing affordable housing through various strategies. She stated that Recommendation G would be to streamline the development approval process, making it simpler and. less costly. She said the Committee realizes that this process is already taking place, but the Committee members want to make sure that the Supervisors know they think this is important. Recommendation H, Ms. Lilleleht indicated, would be to obtain inter-governmental coordination between Albemarle County, Charlottesville and the other jurisdictions within the Planning District. She said this would ensure that everybody can work together for a regional fair share agreement and make sure that the recommen- dations and regulations are standard throughout the district. Mr. Bowerman explained that there will be no official action taken by the Board or Commission tonight. He noted that the Supervisors and Commis- sioners are at this meeting to hear the public's comments regarding this plan. He then opened the meeting to public comments. Mr. Douglas Frame, President of the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP), read a statement in which AHIP supported the recommendations of the Housing Committee. (See letter of June 1, 1992 to the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, from Mr. Frame--copy on file in the Clerk's office). Mr. Bowerman stated that there had been an oversight. He asked Mr. Grimm to call the Planning Commission to order and recognmze that a quorum was present. Mr. Grimm did so. Ms. Virginia Decker, President of the League of Women Voters, read a prepared statement in which the League supports the development of policies and programs to make adequate housing available and affordable for the area's residents, commended the Housing Committee's efforts and urged the Board of Supervisors to review the Committee's findings, adopt its recommended goal and implement the policies to achieve the objectives (See memo to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, from the League of Women Voters, dated June 3, 1992--copy on file in the Clerk's office). Ms. Decker called attention to the fourth paragraph of the statement relating to the housing strategy report being adopted as part of the County's Comprehensive Plan, as well as adopting a specific long-term timeframe. Ms. Rellen Perry, a volunteer in housing for the past nine years and member of the Albemarle Housing Coalition, stated that she would talk person- ally. She read a letter, of June 3, 1992, in which she heartily approved all of the recommendations made by the Housing Advisory Committee (See June 3, 1992 letter from Rellen Perry to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors-- copy on file the Clerk's office.) Ms. Rosa Hudson stated that she has been before many boards of supervi- sors before this one with the concern of low-and-moderate income housing in Albemarle County. She said that since 1970 she has worked with the County and has served on many boards in reference to low-and-moderate income housing for the poor people in the County. She noted that she first served on the Albemarle County Housing Board in 1970, and this Board brought in some recommendations dealing with housing authority. She has also worked with Rellen Perry on the Albemarle County Housing Coalition. She asked this Board to seriously look at the Advisory Committee's recommendations. She remarked that she works directly with the people who are in need. She said that if some of the Supervisors do not believe that there is a housing need in Albemarle County, she would challenge any of them to go with her to some of the areas where these people live. She would gladly introduce the Supervisors to these people, so that they can see the need firsthand. She urged the June3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 184 (Page 54) Supervisors to consider these recommendations and to do something about affordable housing in Albemarle County. She said there is great need. She believes that if something is done relating to affordable housing in the area, the crime statistics would be lower. She added that it would also help the school system, because the children would go to school feelinH much better about themselves, if they come out of decent and affordable homes. Mr. Francis Fife mentioned that the Board of Supervisors had received a letter from Mr. Reuben Clark, Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC). Mr. Fife commended the previous Board for appointing this Committee to make this study, and for the present Board continuing on with the same idea. He thinks this committee has done an outstanding job. He does not envy them the problems involved with studying this problem, because it is an enormous problem. He then read a statement which calls attention to the main points in the letter from Mr. Reuben Clark. He said that Mr. Clark had an accident and was unable to be at this meeting. PEC support for the housing strategy report and has provided some suggestions regarding implementation of the strategies. PEC believes that the provision of substantial and necessary affordable housing is fully compatible with land conservation and good planning. He went on to say that the success of the strategy depends upon gathering information about who needs affordable housing, what kind of housing is needed and why this housing has not been provided in the past. He commented that it also depends on investing someone with ongoing responsibility and authority to pursue the strategy in the future. He said that both of these important tasks can be accomplished best with a full-time housing coordinator as recommended in the report. He added that sharing such a coordinator with TJPDC should be considered as an efficient and effective way of providing this service. He remarked that the State Code now contains provisions which appear to allow local governments to more aggressively promote affordable housing in cooperation with the private sector. He pointed out that the letter from Mr. Clark details the relevant Code provisions and suggests a possible method by which the County may implement this authority. He stated that PEC supports the concept of accessory apartments so long as implementation of the concept does not multiply the number of existing development rights in the rural areas of the County. Mr. Jack Marshall, President of Citizens for Albemarle, read a prepared statement in which the Citizens for Albemarle commended the Housing Advisory Committee for producing such a thoughtful and balanced housing report, and made several recommendations (see statement by the Citizens for Albemarle, dated June 3, 1992--copy on file in the Clerk's office). Mr. Kenneth Ackerman, Executive Director of the Monticello Area Communi- ty Action Agency, stated that he had prepared a letter which he was going to submit to the Supervisors and Commissioners because he had another meeting tonight. When he thought about the matter he realized that this was the most important meeting, and thau he should come to this meeting, instead of going to the other one. He noted that he has served as MACAA's Executive Director for sixteen years, and has served as the past President of the Virgznia Housing Coalition, as well as a present Board member of that organization, which has worked on the State level to promote decent and affordable housing for low-and-moderate income citizens. He thinks this is the most significant opportunity locally to solve this problem. He stated that in working with his colleagues in Northern Virginia in the urban areas and in some of the remote rural areas of the State, the problems in many cases seem intractable. He said that in Albemarle County, since the County has resources and expertise, and there will soon be the commitment, this problem can be corrected. He added that it should have been corrected decades ago. Mr. Ackerman said he is happy to see that the experts have put together recommendations that he can strongly support. He does not plan to speak to those recommendations, but more to reinforce the fact that there is this problem in Albemarle County. He thinks the community is too complacent too often as a community, ~n terms of the great needs that exist among the growing segment of the population. He pointed ouu that, as cited in the report, there are over 2000 families who paid more than 35 percent of their income for rental housing. He said this represents more than one out of every four families in this County. He asked who would ever believe that in Albemarle County. He went on to say that there are still over 500 units which lack complete plumbing. He informed the Supervisors and Commissioners that MACAA · s getting requests now from families who ask his organization to build outdoor toilets for waste disposal. He thinks that this is a disgrace. He added that this is a growing problem. He told the Board and Commissioners that he knows they are aware of this information, but he feels it is important to reiterate it. He next pointed out that from 1988 to 1991 the requests for housing assistance in Albemarle County more than doubled, and from 1989 to 1991, the requests for food stamps in Albemarle County went up 57 percent, from 655 requests to 1031. He said, in addition, unemployment is on the rise in Albe- marle County. He noted that from July, 1990, to March, 1992, close to 1000 newly unemployed residents were established in Albemarle County. He said that in July, 1990, there were 682 residents, who were unemployed, and in March, 1992, there were 1,612 residents, who were unemployed. He mentioned that the MACAA program serves over 250 Counuy families who often must choose to use their limited incomes either for housing or to meet other essential needs. He stated that almost nine out of ten families that MACAA serves through its June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) (Page 55) M.B. 41, Pg. 185 outreach program are having severe problems, or are in crisis, due to their inability to meet the cost of housing in the County. He added that these situations do non belong in the County. He believes that the strategies outlined by the Housing Advisory Committee offer workable remedies. In his opinion housing is 3ust one component of dealing with the larger social and economic issues which must be confronted. He urged the County officials to establish a similar process to address the need for viable jobs for all of the County residents. He thanked the Supervisors and Commissioners for their leadership, and he-look forward to working with them. Mr. Robert S. Parrott, Jr., President of the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation, referred to a letter he prepared for the Supervisors and Commissioners. He first complimented the Supervisors and Commissioners and thanked them for appointing this Committee. He believes this is a good way to get a lot of work done. He has been on boards, and he knows that the Supervisors and Commissioners are interested in hearing the public's input, but he knows they need time to develop the programs. There are a couple of things that he is interested in the County officials keeping at the forefront of their considerations. H~s feels that the officials need to be aware that everything that is done in Albemarle County affects the outlying counties. The people in other counties are envious of Albemarle County's residents, and they have every right to be, but they also look to Albemarle County for guidance. He said the people's lifestyles in the outlying counties have to revolve around what Albemarle County is doing in the nucleus. He is impressed that the committee included what is done ~n Albemarle County and how it might affect the total Planning District. Another thing which he thinks is of particular importance is that all segments of Albemarle County's society be considered. He said there has to be a balanced society. This is needed for everyone's survival, regardless of what each person's plan of life and life- style might be. Mr. Parrott said he knows the Supervisors and Commissioners are busy, but all they have to do is go with him out into the County and talk to the people. He said they would be surprised, and they might be invited in to lunch, and learn a lot. He commended the County officials for the time they take to do this job. Mr. Jason Titus, representing Students Against Hunger and Homelessness at the University of Virginia, said his group has noticed in the City of Charlottesville, the growing number of people needing shelter and the growing number of people out in the streets. His organization feels strongly that this is due to the lack of affordable housing. After reviewing the Commit- tee's report and the strategies, he wants to make known his organization's support of that report and strategies. He encouraged the Supervisors and Commissioners to follow through on this report. Ms. Donna Scott, representing the Charlottesville Regional Chapter of the National Organization for Women, read a statement in which she pointed out the housing needs for the poor, elderly and female headed households in Albemarle County, and submitted recommendations with the hope of achieving ultimate goals of equitable policy making for the benefit of all of the County (see statement from Charlottesville National Organization for Women, signed by Donna Scott, which was presented at the public meeting on June 3, 1992--copy on file in the Clerk's office). Mr. Sidney D. Crane, Chairman of the Albemarle Housing Coalition, stated that he does not envy the Supervisors and the Commissioners their job, but he appreciates it, and his organization appreciates it. At a time when many ~n the country are acting as though they have given up on getting anything responsive out of political leaders, he thinks it is time that when good leadership is being rendered, that it is affirmed and gratitude expressed. His organization thinks that having this Committee spend more than the last year making this intensive study and reporting so extensively and incisively about housing is a great thing. He mentioned the April 25, 1992, letter he wrote on behalf of his Coalition, and he said that his organization enthu- siastically endorses the Committee's recommendations. He would not comment on any particular recommendation, and he will await the development of the program that will implement the recommendations. He highlighted the contrast between getting into a mess, and the leadership that it takes to get out of it. He said it does not take any leadership to get into a problem. He added that everybody has lots of ways of getting themselves into a bad situation. He is counting on the leadership and intelligence that has already been expressed in this report and is represented in the Commissioners and Supervisors tonight making a difference. Mr. Bob Hoffman stated that he lives in Batesville. He noted that the people who are affected by the County's housing are not necessarily someone else, such as the poor people, etc. He said that the people who are affected are also the young people who want to start their lives in their home areas. He added that these young people could be sons and daughters of Albemarle County residents who cannon afford housing. He reiterated than it is not the other people who are suffering with the problem, it is the County's own children. He stated that in most places which have this problem of growth, as if growth is the same as visibility, which it is not, it is the children of those who do well, who suffer, if they want to start out themselves. Mr. Hoffman then concurred with the previous speaker that the Board of Supervisors and other boards create these problems by the decisions they make over the years. He is not sure that he is seeing in this report the control of specu- lation on land, which may be the first step to preventing continuation of the problem. He stated that if the course that the County is on is continued, the 41, Pg. 186 June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) (Page 56) problems keep increasing. He thinks that until the growth concept and speculation of land is addressed, the problem will continue. Mr. Hoffman then mentioned the Institute for Community Economics, which enables communities to establish land trusts which removes the land from decisions of this Board or other boards. He noted that another Board could undo the good work that this Board is doing, unless land is truly set aside and taken ouu of the speculation market. He noticed that in Recommendation B, land trust was stated, but he does not know how seriously it is being considered. He would like to give to the Supervisors and Commissioners, a letter from the Institute for Community Economics, which addresses this issue all over the United States. He said there are many places such as, Wisconsin, Vermont, Minnesota and others, trying to solve the same problem. He noted that the letter to which he referred is really a letter that is sent to friends of the Institute soliciting money, but he thought it might interest the Supervisors and Commissioners to know that this group does exist to help communities solve the problem. He reiterated that communities should not feel alone or without information, because there are plenty of other places addressing this issue. Attached to the letter, Mr. Hoffman stated, are some newspaper articles about the effects of land trusts and how land is removed from speculation and people are allowed to build a community without the threat of rising costs beyond their control. He thanked the Supervisors and Commissioners for the opportunity to submit this information to them. Ms. Susan Chase, a counselor in one of the Albemarle County elementary schools, commented that earlier in the evening someone recommended that the Supervisors and Commissioners visit the communities. She would like to extend a formal invitation and also make a strong recommendation that someone on the Committee, or one or all of the Supervisors and Commissioners, make a point to come out to the schools in the rural areas of the County. She sees children every day who are affected by substandard housing, and she added that they come to school inadequately clothed. She stated that school personnel can teach the children how to dress properly, how to wash their clothes and how to bathe themselves, but if they go home and they have no water, they cannot do it. She emphasized that she would like for the County officials to see what is out in the County, and she thinks it will drive home the need to find a way to produce low cosE housing. She said she is not just talking about afford- able owned housing. She is also talking about rental units and housing that people can afford which does not price them out of being able to manage other areas of their life, such as clothing and food for their children. Mr. Howard Allen informed the Supervisors and Commissioners that he is retired, and that he had not planned to say anything tonight, but he suddenly had a thought that he would like to share. He thinks it is a good idea to work on affordable housing for people in the County. He thinks the appoint- ment of a committee was a great idea, and he thinks the Committee has done a good job. Since affordable housing affects a lot of black people in the County, he is concerned that none were appointed to the Committee. He stated that Ms. Rosa Hudson has tremendous experience, and the Board members know her well. She could have provided service to the Committee. The poor people in the County would like to think that there is somebody on the Committee or Board who is looking out for their interests, with whom they can talk and share their problems. He would like to see the County cooperate and let the black people share in some of these situations. He has lived in the County for approximately 20 years, and he is a taxpayer, but sometimes he feels that he is being taxed without representation. He noted that there are black people in the County who are as qualified as the Supervisors and Commis- sioners, who could serve on the Board or any appointed committee. He never sees any black people serving on any of these committees. He wishes that the County officials would think about this. He is not angry, but he just wants to share his feelings with the Board and Commissioners. Mr. Bowerman asked if anyone else wished to speak. No one else came forward, so Mr. Bowerman thanked all of the speakers for attending tonight's meeting and for sharing their views. He thought everyone who spoke had a thoughtful and provocative opinion about the situation in which Albemarle County finds itself, and the process in which the County is involved. He stated that the Housing Advisory Committee has finished its report with recommendations, and now that report has to be turned into programs. He said that, for this, the Supervisors turn to the Planning Commission to take into account this report and tonight's comments by the public. He added that this needs to be done as soon as possible, and, hopefully, the Commission can get back to this Board at its earliest convenience, with recommendations that the Board can then consider. He stated that public hearings can then be held and the plan implemented. He thanked the public and the Planning Commission for attending tonight's meeting, and he added that it was a worthwhile meeting. He stated that any Supervisor or Commissioner is free to make a comment. Mr. Bain remarked that he does not wan~ to put a time limit on the Commission's response to the Board, either, but he would like some parameters for the future. It is clear from the recommendations that funding will be required. He said that some of the funding will come from the County, and some of it will come from grants, while some of it will be a combination of public and private funding. He added that since budget proceedings start in October, and the work on the budget is seriously done in November and December, he thinks that something should come back to this Board within that time frame. He noted that certain recommendations are meant to be implemented fairly soon, but there may be others that can be delayed, because they are not June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) (Page 57) M.B. 41, Pg. 187 meant to be implemented quickly. He suggested that the Commission could consider these issues in this manner, even though they are all a part of the whole problem. He noted that there are some that have more priority, as outlined in this report, and it would be helpful for this Board and the staff to get some information back fairly quickly. He stated that there may be a consensus with the Supervisors to do some funding for the next fiscal year, but this would have to be known, and the Supervisors would have to consider it, sometime during mid-fall. Mr. Bowerman stated that if the Commission feels there are certain elements of the Zoning Ordinance that could be dealt witk sooner rather than later, then recommendations can be made to this Board. He said these recom- mendations can be made with Resolutions of Intent, and the Commission can hold its own meetings with the consultation of this Board, as to whaE the Commis- sion is doing. He added, for example, that if the Commission feels that accessory housing or the mobile home question needs to be addressed soon, and the Commission has a strategy in which this can be incorporated within the whole context of the report, then this Board would urge the Commission to make those recommendations to this Board sooner rather than later and not wait for the whole program to be completed. Mr. Martin commented that he was hoping that the issue of mobile homes could be brought to this Board now. Mr. Bain responded that the Supervisors will be addressing the mobile home issue. He pointed out that mobile home parks, infrastructure, etc., are also a part of the mobile home issue. He said that if the Commission wants to recommend something more quickly be done about mobile homes, without getting into the other facets of the issue this can be done, also. ' At this time, the Planning Commission left the meeting. Agenda Item No. 27. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Bowerman noted that the staff had given the Board a draft letter to Secretary Milliken with some changes suggested by Mrs. Humphris. He said the Supervisors had a chance to review the letter over dinner, but it was hOE dis- cussed at that time. Mr. Tucker stated that the staff has made all of the changes suggested by Mrs. Humphris. Mr. Bowerman called attention to the first sentence of the draft letter where it mentions design standards for rural roads. He said this sentence should indicate that the design standards are for all rural roads, because that is the naEure of the problem. He noted that there is no individuality accepted by V DoT. He added that it is not recognized whether roads are used by local people or people just driving through, and he thinks these are impor- tant considerations. Mrs. Humphris concurred. She stated that the letter suits her fine, now. Mr. Bowerman thanked Mrs. Humphris for her input on the draft letter. Mrs. Humphris thanked the Board for its consideration of her suggestions. Mr. Martin questioned Mr. Bowerman's suggestion of adding the word, "all," to the first sentence of the draft letter. He said this could defean the purpose for which that word is being added. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the second paragraph talks about mitigating circumstances. He said specific issues with mitigating circumstances are what is really being addressed. He mentioned Route 682, and he recognized V DoT's need to have standards for rural roads, but he believes that individual cases need to be considered with some flexibility. He then asked the Board members if the letter is acceptable. Board members answered affirmatively. Mr. Tucker stated that he would put the letter in final form for Mr. Bowerman's signature. Mr. Bowerman next recalled that an appointment needed to be made to the Library Board. He said that when this matter was discussed at last week's meeting, Mr. Perkins had a concern that the person going off the Board was a citizen representative from the Crozet area. He believes that Mr. Perkins wanted the Library Board to be made up of all citizens. Mr. Tucker mentioned the following staff report: "At its meeting on May 20, 1992, the Board asked staff to outline issues surrounding a consideration of appointing a county staff member to serve on the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board of Directors. Mrs. Mary Mikalson has indicated she does not wish to be reappointed when her term expires on June 30, 1992. The vacancy on the Library Board effective July 1, 1992, gives the Board of Supervisors an opportunity to consider appointing a staff member to the Library Board which could provide a direct liaison with the Board of Supervisors. In FY 1992-93, Albemarle County expects to contribute $2.47 million toward the operation of the regional library system. This will account for 63 percent of the total funds contributed by the participating jurisdictions in the regional program. Due to the size and significance of Albemarle's June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) (Page 58) M.B. 41, Pg. 188 responsibility in this area, a balance between programmatic concerns and fiscal abilities is important. As a related issue, staff understands that the Library Board will be reactivating a budget committee that will invite representa- tives from the staff of each participating jurisdiction to join in the budget development process for the Library's $2.34 million operating budget. This will provide input, in a non-voting way, to the allocation process before it is formally presented to the County for review by the Board of Supervisors. This may be an acceptable alternative to placing a staff member as a county representative on the Board of Directors if the Board of Supervi- sors is comfortable with the level of involvement and scope that this committee will provide. Since county representation on the Library Board and most other boards/commissions is normally through citizen appointees, staff suggests that the Board may wish to give the reactivated budget committee an opportunity to function before appointing a staff member. The Board could then reconsider this matter at the time of the next vacancy, if warranted." Mr. Bain stated that he and Mr. Joseph Henley served on the Library Board's Budget Committee at one time. He asked how much time a staff member would have to give to these Library Board meetings. He feels it may be impor- tant for a staff member to serve on the Library Board considering the County's monetary contribution. He went on to say that if the Board can be assured that there will be staff representation on this Budget Committee during the budget, and that they will get involved and know what is going on, then he will support it. Mr. Tucker responded that he had Served on the Budget Committee when he was the Deputy County Executive, and he felt that it always worked well. He mentioned that two years ago the Committee stopped meeting because the other participating counties had members who quit attending the meetings, so there were only the City and County people attending the Commit- tee meetings. Mr. Bowerman commented that whatever the situation is with the Budget Committee, the Supervisors need significant input into the process to make a difference. He pointed out that the County represents 63 percent of the Library Board's budget. Mr. Tucker noted that while the Budget Committee reviews the budget and makes recommendations to the Library Board, it has no voting power once it gets beyond that Committee. He said the Library Board may make changes in the recommendation before it gets to the Supervisors or the City Council. Mr. Bowerman asked what Mr. Tucker is suggesting. Mr. Tucker said the situation can be left as it is for the time being until it is determined how well the Budget Committee is doing. Mr. Tucker next stated that he had received today a letter from Mr. William Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, requesting this Board to authorize the County Executive to sign an agreement regarding a water main which goes through Crozet Crossing. The County is technically the owner/developer of Crozet Crossing. County approval has to be given for that line to go through the property, and authorization has to be given for the expansion or the oversizing of that water main. He asked for the Board's authorization to sign the agreement. Mr. Bowerman asked if Crozet Crossing has to pay for the oversizlng of the water main. Mr. Tucker answered, "no." He said that the ACSA will pay for the water main work, but the County has to enter into an agreement with the Authority. At this time, Mr. Bain offered motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to authorize the County Executive to sign the followmng agreement with the Albemarle County Service Authority relating to the expansion of the water main through the Crozet Crossing property. vote: Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. (Note: The Agreement is set out in full below.) THIS AGREEMENT. made this 21st day of May, 1992, by and between the Albemarle County Service Authority, hereafter called the "Authority,,, and the County of Albemarle, hereafter called the "Developer"; W I TNE S S E TH : Factual Backqround: (A) The Authority has adopted a policy regarding oversmze water and sewer mains, a copy of which is attached to this Agreement and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A" June3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 189 (Page 59) (B) The Developer proposes to construct a water line to serve property on U. S. Route 240 known as Crozet Crossing, hereinafter referred to as the "Project," shown on a plan/profile by Roudabush, Gale and Associates, Inc. entitled "Water and Sewer Plan & Profile, Phase I, Crozet Crossing at Crozet" dated Septem- ber 17, 1991, with latest revision December 7, 1991, hereinafter referred to as the "Plans and Specifications." (C) The Authority has required the Developer to install a twelve (12) inch line, from and existing RWSA 12" water line, traveling along Cling Lane approximately 1200' to Station 7+00, larger than the eight inch line necessary to serve the Developer's property. (D) From Station 7+00 to an existing 6" water line in Peach Tree Drive, Orchard Acres, the Authority has determined the need to have installed a twelve (12) inch water line to increase flows and fire protection in that area. ~OW, T~EREFORg, for an in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements hereafter set forth, the Authority and the Developer do agree as follows: (1) The Authority agrees to participate in the Project in the manner and subject to the conditions described in this Agree- ment. (2) The Developer agrees to be solely responsible for all aspects of the construction Project, which shall be performed in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local require- ments, Authority rules and regulations, and the Plans and Specifi- cations. (3) The Developer certifies that all required federal, state and local government approvals of both the Developer's building project and the Project have been obtained by the Devel- oper and delivered in writing to the Authority. (4) The Project shall be publicly bid. Unit prices shall be obtained for both the size line required by the Authority and the size line adequate to serve the needs of the Developer. The Authority shall bear the difference in such cost, from the 12" water line in Cling Lane to Station 7+00, and shall bear all construction costs for that portion of line continuing from Station 7+00 to its point of termination at the 6" water line ex±sting in Peach Tree Drive (approximately 600 feet). The nature of the Crozet Crossing project is such that the water line work may be awarded to someone other than the low bidder as determined by the developer, however, conditions outline in paragraph (6) below will apply. (5) During progress of the work, the members of the Author- ity or their authorized engineers and inspectors shall have access to the location of construction for the purpose of establishing to their satisfaction that the Project is being constructed to the Authority's requirements and in accordance with the Plans and Specifications. (6) Upon completion of the Project in conformance with the Authority's requirements and the Plans and Specifications, the Authority shall reimburse the Developer for the additional cost of the oversized section of line, and shall reimburse the Developer for the total cost of the section of line extended beyond his needs. Reimbursement shall be based on the low bid water line prices (Bid Form Item ~2) determined during the public bid, and shall include only the amounts paid to contractors for labor and materials and shall no~ include administrative, engineering, or legal fees. Reimbursement shall be based upon final field mea- surement of pipe. (7) Ail customers served through the project shall be customers of the Authority and shall pay all then-applicable Authority rates, fees and charges, including water and sewer connection fees. Further, all customers served through the Project shall be subject to all applicable Authority rules and regulations. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to preclude the Authority from operating within constraints which are now imposed, or which may be imposed, by any governmental body, agency, or authority, without any legal liability to the Authori- ty. (8) The Developer agrees to name the Authority as an additional insured for purposes of this agreement on its compre- hensive general liability insurance policy for the term of this work for at least $1,000,000 in coverage. (9) The Developer shall guarantee all materials and work- manship on the project for a period of one (1) year from date of June 3, 1992 (Regular Meeting) (Page 60) M.B. 41, Pg. 190 final acceptance by the Authority into the Authority's utility system. (%0) This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of all parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. (11) This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter contained herein. There are no restrictions, promises, warranties, cove- nants, or undertakings other than those expressly set forth herein. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements and understandings between the Developer and the Authority with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement may not be amended except by a writing executed by all parties hereto. (12) No waiver of any default by the Developer or the Authority with respect to this Agreement shall act as a waiver of any subsequent default. Mr. Perkins asked for an update on Crozet Crossing. Mr. Tucker replied that an update would be provided to the Board in two weeks. The staff is working with the Charlottesville Housing Poundation on a Recapture Plan. It is hoped that the Recapture Plan can recoup some of the funds, as properties are sold in Crozet Crossing, to put into a revolving fund that can be used for future housing programs. He said this Plan will be coming to this Board for its approval during the next couple of weeks, and he can get an update for the Board at that time, also. Mr. Perkins commented that he has not been particu- larly pleased with the information that the Citizen's Advisory Committee has received about Crozet Crossing. Mr. Tucker asked if the Committee is not meeting. Mr. Perkins answered that the Committee has asked for information from Mr. John Shepherd, of the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, but the Committee does not get much response. Mr. Tucker replied that he can rectify that situation. Mr. Bain agreed that even if nothing ~s happening on the ground, it would be good to know.what is happening in the office, and that plans are moving ahead. Mr. Perkins remarked that the County appropriated $300,000 to the Crozet Crossing project. He wondered where the money is, if it is drawing interest, and if so, who is getting the interest. Mr. Tucker stated that he does not think that the money has ever been transferred to Crozet Crossing, although it has been appropriated. Mr. Bain stated that he has received a letter from Mr. Gordon Walker, Executive Director of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging, which he will hand to the County staff. He said the letter relates to a proposed property tax rebate program for volunteering a certain number of hours in Albemarle County public schools. He noted that this program has been successful in the Denver Public school system. He would like for the staff to come back to this Board with some information, but he does not staff to spend a lot of time on the matter. Since this is a tax situation that can affect the County, he would like to have the staff consider the matter, and have information back to this Board at its July day meeting. Agenda Item No. 30. Adjourn. At 8:20 p.m., Mr. Bain offered motion for the Board of Supervisors to adjourn until 4:00 p.m. on June 10, 1992. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris None. Mr. Marshall. and Mr. Martin. C~halrman