HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-04-10April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page I)
276
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on April 10, 1991, at 9:00 A.M., Room 7, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia..
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman (arrived at 9:09
A.M.), F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr.
Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:04 A.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris,
seconded by Mr. Way, to approve Items 5.1 and 5.la, to discuss Items 5.4 and
5.10 later in the meeting, and to accept the remaining items as information.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Bowerman.
Item 5.1. Letter dated March 19, 1991, from Mr. George A. Koger, Deputy
Commissioner for Enterprises, Virginia Department for the Visually Handi-
capped, requesting a purchasing resolution demonstrating support for the
Virginia Industries for the Blind and nonprofit sheltered workshops.
Mr. Bowie commented that he wrote to Mr. Koger on April 8 and informed
him that the County's Purchasing Manual permits the Purchasing Agent to do
business with the Virginia Industries for the Blind (VIB) without competitive
bidding. County policy was revised several years ago when the Code of Virgin-
ia was changed to permit non-bid purchases from the VIB. Albemarle County's
Purchasing Agent was Chairman of the State Association of Purchasing Agents
Legislative Committee when this was done. The County has been buying mat-
tresses, pillows, latex gloves, brooms, etc., from VIB for some time. In view
of this, he did not feel it was necessary to take any further action.
Item 5.la. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Common-
wealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Sheriff for the month of March, 1991,
were approved by the above recorded vote.
Item 5.2. Copy of letter dated March 28, 1991, from D. W. Tokasz, Real
Estate Specialist with the United States Postal Service, stating that the
U. S. Postal Service wishes to relocate the present post office facility in
Earlysville to a new facility within the Earlysville zip code area, was
received as follows:
"The United States Postal Service wishes to advise you of the follow-
ing proposed postal facility project:
Name of Facility - Main Post Office - Earlysville, VA 22625-9998.
Location - The preferred area would be in vicinity of present
post office and/or within the Earlysville zip code area.
New facility should be located in vicinity of State Route
743, between Routes 660 and 663.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
277
Purpose - To increase the workroom area, to provide lockboxes and
parking for customers.
Approximate size - Site size: 22,140 square feet (postal mini-
mum); Building size: 3054 net square feet.
Number of employees Four.
While a specific site for the proposed project has not been selected
at this time, we would appreciate any comments or data which would
assist us in the timely planning and development of this project.
Upon selection of a site or building, further notification will be
forwarded to you for such additional comments as may be appropriate."
Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board needed to respond to this item. Mr.
Tucker said the Planning staff would be providing some advice and direction
for the Postal Service. The submission of the letter from the U. S. Postal
Service is a normal requirement when a post office is relocated or expanded,
and the Planning staff has provided guidance in similar situations in the past
such as where growth areas are located and where postal facilities should
be provided.
Mr. Bowie added that it was decided last week to write a letter to the
~ostal Service asking for information concerning the location of where most
people live in that area.
Item 5.3. Letter dated March 28, 1991, from Mr. Walter J. Kucharski,
Auditor of Public Accounts, stating that the Audited Financial Statements for
the County of Albemarle, Virginia, for the year ended June 30, 1990, have been
reviewed and found to have been prepared in accordance with specifications and
are, therefore, accepted; received for information.
Item 5.4. Letter dated March 29, 1991, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resi-
dent Engineer, forwarding a copy of the Construction Schedule for Current
Highway Projects, was received for information.
Mr. Bain suggested this item be discussed with Other Highway Matters.
Item 5.5. Letter dated April 1, 1991, from Mr. H. W. Mills, Maintenance
Manager, Virginia Department of Transportation, stating that the bridge on
Route 712 crossing Beaver Creek will be repaired during the period of April 15
through April 19, 1991, was received for information.
Item 5.6. Letter dated April 2, 1991, from Mr. J. A. Echols, Assistant
Resident Engineer, stating that the bridge on Route 660 over the South Fork
Rivanna at the upper end of the reservoir will be closed during the week of
April 8, 1991, and will remain closed until sometime during the Fall to allow
for construction of the new bridge, was received for information.
Item 5.7. Letter dated April 1, 1991, from Ms. Amelia M. Patterson,
Zoning Administrator, addressed to Mr. Roger W. Ray, Roger Ray & Associates,
Inc., giving an OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF PARCEL(S) under Section
10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance for Tax Map 121, Parcel 46, was received for
information.
Item 5.8. Letter dated April 1, 1991, from Amelia M. Patterson, Zoning
Administrator, addressed to Roger Ray, giving an OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF
NUMBER OF PARCEL(S) under Section 10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance for Tax Map
33, Parcel 6, was received for information.
Item 5.9. Copy of the Planning Commission's Minutes for March 26, 1991,
was received for information.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
278
Item 5.10. Memorandum dated March 29, 1991, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., County Executive, providing information on long range plans for a new
middle school and high school, was received as follows:
"Last fall you will recall that the Planning Commission, based upon
recommendation from the School Board, proposed a new middle school and
high school in the Capital Improvement Program for scheduled openings
in 1995 and 1996, respectively. The middle school was estimated to
cost approximately $10 million and the high school approximately $26
million. Both were deleted from the CIP due to lack of funding and
discussions that projects of this magnitude should perhaps be placed
before the citizens through a general obligation bond referendum.
As the Long Range Planning Committee for schools continues its work,
the Committee was provided recently with a memorandum (on file) from
Ms. Higgins, Capital Projects Coordinator, which outlines the time
schedule necessary for these types of projects.
I bring this to your attention at this time for your information;
however, I think it is important for us to start thinking about this
matter and perhaps begin considering possible funding sources other
than property taxes, e.g., meals tax.
When work is completed by the School Long Range Planning Committee,
hopefully in April or May, we can better determine, at that time, our
course of action."
Mr. Bain suggested, and Mr. Bowie agreed, that this item be discussed at
the joint meeting with the School Board later this afternoon.
1991.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes:
There were no minutes read.
February 6(N) and February 20,
Agenda Item No. 7a. Highway Matters: Reconsideration of Federal Express
Site Plan (applicant requests deferral).
The following letter dated March 27, 1991, was received from the Mr.
Wendell W. Wood:
"Please use this letter as a request to defer the hearing scheduled
April 10, 1991, regarding the entrance at the Express Center. During
a meeting with Amelia Patterson, Wayne Cilimberg, Ron Keeler and Dan
Roosevelt, a redesign of the entrance was discussed. I have engaged
Huffman Engineering to redesign the entrance and they expect to have
the plan completed approximately April 15, 1991."
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the applicant, Mr. Wood, has been working on
an alternative for the Federal Express Site Plan relating to the existing
entrance at the north end of the service road. Mr. Wood and his consulting
engineer will be providing that information to the County and to the
Department of Transportation for consideration as an alternative to closing
the entrance and exit entirely.
(Mr. Bowerman arrived at 9:09 A.M.) Mrs. Humphris asked how reconsidera-
tion of the Site Plan relates to the motion under which the Board agreed to
reconsider the Site Plan in order to receive new information. Mr. Cilimberg
explained that his staff has not discovered any new information. There is,
however, a proposed alternative to the location that was acceptable by staff,
but requires approval by YDOT. There was a 90 day review date for that
alternative, but because nothing was submitted to VDOT within that time frame,
the Zoning Administrator took action to have the entrance closed.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the Board members had asked for new informa-
tion on this matter at last month's meeting. Mrs. Humphris responded that the
Board members did not ask for new information, they were told that they would
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
279
be receiving new information for their consideration at this meeting. Mr.
Cilimberg commented that he had considered the situation to be an open matter
for any information that would include an alternative, since an alternative
was part of the original action. He said that the staff is proceeding with
the information that the applicant provided. He remarked, however, that if
the Board is interested in anything besides a new option, the staff has
nothing new to bring to the Board. He added that the applicant requested a
deferral so that the Board could see his option.
Mr. Bowie asked how long this matter should be deferred. Mr. Tucker
stated that the alternative plan is supposed to be complete by April 15. The
Board could review the plan after that date. Mr. Bain asked if VDOT will have
seen the plan by April 15. Mr. Tucker responded that the VDOT staff will not
have seen the alternative plan by April 15, but he believes that the plan will
be completed by that time.
Mr. Cilimberg informed the Board that he did not have any new information
at this time. He commented that the information the Board was given at the
initial hearing in November, and again last month, is the way that the staff
understood the situation. He said that the applicant obviously had a diffe-
rent opinion concerning the original action. Mr. Bowie stated that the
minutes show that the Board indicated there is a service road, and a change
was directed. Mr. Cilimberg agreed.
Mr. Roosevelt indicated that he would like to see this issue resolved as
quickly as possible. He said that if the alternative plan is available by
April 15, then he hopes to have a recommendation by the May 8 meeting.
Mr. Bowie asked Ms. Patterson, Zoning Administrator, if she had anything
to add. Ms. Patterson responded "no".
Mr. Bowie asked if it was the pleasure of the Board to defer this matter
until May 8. Mrs. Humphris said she remembers that the prior motion was
adopted specifically to defer the matter because the applicant said that he
had new information to present to the Board. She is disturbed that another
design will not be ready until April 15. She said that this Board made its
determination clear concerning the existence of the service road, and it was
only because the applicant said that there was new information that the Board
voted to defer the matter.
Mr. Wendell Wood stated that when he met with the Board before, there was
no new information. He said that what was presented at that time was his
belief and had been confirmed by the Highway Department. In the course of a
subsequent meeting, Mr. Keeler of the Planning staff came up with a proposal
of a new design that might satisfy everybody's needs. He pointed out that
this new idea was brought forth by County staff, but he agreed to take the
idea back to his engineer and let him draw the plan to see if it would meet
VDOT standards.
Mr. Cilimberg said that without new information, the staff did all that
could be done. It was hoped that the alternative plan would make it possible
to resolve the situation. Although there is still a difference of opinion
between the staff and the applicant regarding the service road, Mr. Wood is
willing to work on an alternative plan and to present it to VDOT.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, seconded byMr. Bowermmn, to defer
reconsideration of the Federal Express Site Plam ~ntil May 8.
Mr. Bowie stated that he would not support the motion because he feels
that 90 days is ample time to come up with an alternative, and the applicant
has already requested two delays.
Mr. Bain said he believes that if anything can be resolved, it should be
resolved by the Board rather than by the courts. He explained that he would
like to see the matter deferred until May because the staff has indicated that
this alternative plan might satisfy VDOT as well as the County.
Mrs. Humphris said she would oppose the motion on principle, because she
felt that 90 days was ample time for the applicant to act on this matter.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
280
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bowie and Mrs. Humphris.
Mr. St. John asked what would be done concerning the Zoning Administra-
tor's action and the Highway Department's decision to close the entrance. Mr.
Bowie answered that this issue would be held in abeyance until the May meet-
ing, at which time he assumes it will be resolved.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Request to set a public hearing to vacate right-of-
way known as Doe Road.
This request came before the Board in the following letter dated March
14, 1991, from Mr. George F. Allen:
"I have spoken with the County Planning Staff and County Attorney over
the past few years concerning Tract Four (42.6 acres) Tax Map 17,
parcel 26E and 'Doe Road'.
By a Plat of Lots 22-30, Section C, Buck Mountain Planned Community
dated 08/20/79, prepared by R. O. Snow, and duly recorded in Deed Book
693, page 122 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County
of Albemarle, Virginia, it appears possible that a 50 foot strip
designated as Doe Road was dedicated to the County of Albemarle for
public road purposes. The only actual clear dedication is a 25 foot
strip along Rte. 667 for road purposes.
Tax Maps have shown this Doe Road which, with the creation of said
Tract Four, would only serve as an appurtenance or right-of-way
easement for this Tract Four. It is not clear whether Lot 22 (Tax Map
17, parcel 66) actually uses any of this 'Doe Road' right of way
easement; although it does appear that Lot 22 does continue to have a
right to use it. Lot 22, which is improved by a dwelling, at most
only uses a few feet and probably not any portion of the Doe Road
easement. (Attached {on file} is a Plat of Tracts Three, Four, Five
and Six of Buck Mountain Planned Community, dated 02/09/88 by R. O.
Snow, Inc., recorded in Albemarle Deed Book 986, page 55.)
Doe Road has not been constructed, nor has any improvement been made
to this 50 foot easement.
On behalf of the owners of Tract Four (Susan M. and George F. Allen),
I request the County of Albemarle by requisite ordinance, to vacate
the rights of the County of Albemarle (and public use) to this 50 foot
wide right-of-way easement known as Doe Road as referenced above.
a)
b)
c)
d)
There have been no improvements to Doe Road.
There are no public purposes or uses for this right of way, thus
divestiture would not harm the public.
Such divestiture and vacation would not harm any property owners
or secured interests.
The effect of such vacation is to allow the owners of Tract Four
to construct, maintain, use and protect a private road to their
property within this 'Doe Road' 50 foot right-of-way as an
appurtenance to Tract Four."
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report:
"The road identified as '50' Doe Road' was dedicated to public use and
recorded in Deed Book 693, Page 122, as part of the Buck Mountain
P.U.D. This was to be the access for a section containing 23 lots.
However, this area for lots was never developed. The original deve-
loper divided the land into four large parcels and they have since
been downzoned to Rural Areas. The land containing the dedicated area
remains as part of the platted open space for the recently downzoned
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
281
Buck Mountain P.U.D. and is owned by 'Buck Mountain Homeowners Associ-
ation' (Southern Capital address in Richmond). Due to the past
action, it is obvious there is no longer the need for a public road in
this alignment. In fact, the current owner (George Allen) of the land
beyond this road area, is pursuing a three-lot subdivision and request-
ing private road status in this same alignment. There is only one
other parcel (Tax Map 17, Parcel 66, or Lot 22) that uses any portion
of this road area.
Staff sees no public purpose served by retaining this right-of-way.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors proceed to public
hearing on the requested vacation with necessary notification and
advertisement."
Mr. George Allen was present and confirmed that he and his wife are the
property owners of the 42.6 acres behind the right-of-way, and this 42.6 acre
area is the only lot served by the right-of-way. He mentioned that he is
pursuing a three lot subdivision and is currently discussing with the County
Planning staff whether a public road or private driveway is needed. There is
no public purpose for the Doe Road right-of-way, because it is only to serve
the lot that he has just mentioned. He added that another lot uses, at most,
ten feet of the right-of-way. He then requested that this matter be taken to
public hearing, and he agreed with the statements that have been made by the
County staff.
Mr. St. John asked Mr. Cilimberg if a private road is still needed. Mr.
Cilimberg replied "yes". Mr. St. John stated that he will look into the
matter between now and the public hearing, but his understanding is that if
the public road is vacated, the fee simple reverts to the lots on either side,
because the lot boundaries are in the center of this road. He asked if
arrangements would have to be made with the lot owners to have a right-of-way.
He also stated that the term, "right-of-way" as used in the vacation request
is not really the correct term. He said that it is now a public road, but Mr.
Allen wants it to be a right'of-way after it is vacated.
Mr. Allen agreed, but said that it would also need to be a right-of-way
for Lot 66.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the dedication area is currently owned by the
Homeowners' Association, and asked if the area would revert to the Homeowners'
Association if it were vacated as a public road or right-of-way. Mr. St. John
responded "yes", but arrangements would still have to be made with the person
or persons to whom the vacated land woUld revert. Mr. Allen said all of the
lots belong to the Buck Mountain Homeowners' Association and even though the
Association is on record in the Clerk's office, the Association is not active.
Mr. St. John said that to achieve Mr. Allen's purpose these people would have
to be considered.
Mr. Bowie said there are two issues involved. One is a private matter
over which the Board has no control. The other is a request for a public
hearing. Mr. Allen said that he had written the owners of Parcel 66 because
he could not find a phone number, but had received no response.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to defer
this request to vacate a right-of-way known as Doe Road until May 8. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Hnmphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7c. Discussion: Route 671 (Millington Bridge) Project.
Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Board members that they had received a letter
from Secretary of Transportation, John G. Milliken, regarding requests for
projects that could be eliminated or deferred to save State Highway funds. At
its' last meeting, the Board identified the Millington Bridge as a project
that might be considered. The Board suggested that this project be downgraded
to include only construction of a replacement bridge, and not the other
approaches required to meet State standards. He then reviewed the original
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
282
Millington Bridge plan and said it was not originally included in the Six-Year
Highway Plan. He believes the Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF) is consider-
ing the project to determine whether or not it will be approved because it
intruded into a conservation easement held by VOF. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr.
Roosevelt is aware of the Board's ideas concerning the bridge. He said Mr.
Fred Payne and Ms. Sherry Buttrick are present and they could respond concern-
ing the easement situation.
Mr. Bowie said that since the Secretary of Transportation asked for ways
to cut costs, the Board suggested that only the bridge be built, without
building the approaches. He said that now there are other factors involved
and he feels it would be helpful to have some public co~nent.
Mr. Payne stated that he represents the McNeeleys who live on the south
end of the bridge. He agreed that the issue is before the VOF. He said that
if the VOF does not release the easement, subject to the Governor's overruling
them, the Department of Transportation will be unable to do the proposed
project. In order to change approaches to the bridge, Mr. Payne reiterated
that it would be necessary to have these easements released, and by statute,
that authority is vested in the VOF. He mentioned that one hearing on this
matter has already been held before the VOF, and the matter was continued
until April 11. It is anticipated that action will be taken on this issue at
that time.
Mr. Payne said that in speaking for the McNeeley's, the approaches are
the real problem. He said that the McNeeley's would prefer to see the bridge
stay as it is, but if the bridge does need to be replaced, the McNeeleys are
not necessarily opposed as long as it can be done substantially where it is
now located. He understands that the Board's resolution of October, 1989
contemplated exactly doing whatever is necessary to make that bridge secure
and to protect the public safety, but leave the bridge in place. He said the
McNeeleys respectfully request that the Board reiterate the position expressed
in its resolution of October 11, 1989.
Ms. Buttrick stated that she lives next to the Millington Bridge, and
that people in the immediate area have been seeking, since at least 1988, to
get the bridge made safe, but not to have their valley torn apart. Ms.
Buttrick and her neighbors would like to have the bridge replaced or fixed
where it stands, and they thought perhaps that Secretary Milliken's letter was
a step towards achieving this. She said that the ¥OF would have to release
land in order to do the new alignment. She went on to say that the Foundation
has not had to release land in an adversarial way to the Highway Department
before. She asked for the Board's support for her request to have the bridge
fixed or replaced within the existing right-of-way.
Mr. Roosevelt remarked that there is no question that the bridge needs to
be replaced. He mentioned that the Board members two years ago saw the
videotape of the condition of the bridge, and the type of structure that it
is. He said it is impossible to replace one or two of the trusses and have
the bridge improved. He added that the bridge needs to be replaced in its
entirety, so he believes that the need is not in question, but only the
location. He said the Department's position is in response to Federal require.
ments the approaches have to be improved to proper alignment as well as the
bridge. He went on to say that the bridge can be placed in the location where
the existing bridge is now, however, to improve the approaches to that bridge,
it will mean going through a house that is already at that location. He said
it is the Department's feeling that this work needs to be done simultaneously
with the replacement of the bridge. To place the bridge at the existing
location means starting from the beginning on the design, and it throws away
the money that has already been expended for the design of the road and bridge
at its current location. He realizes that the County has not been enthusi-
astic about this project, but the Department has tried to work with the County
in the design of the bridge approaches. He reminded the Board that the
Department has dropped back to the lower design for speed and modified the
original design so as little property as possible would be taken to meet the
design standard. Mr. Roosevelt recommended against revising the design at
this time or deferring the project any further because of the condition of the
existing bridge. He reiterated that repairs will not work anymore because the
whole bridge needs to be replaced.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
283
Mr. Roosevelt said he does not think the thrust of the Secretary's letter
was to defer the replacement of this bridge, but to get ideas on projects that
would not result in further deterioration if deferred. His recommendation is
that nothing be done to the Millington Bridge project. He thinks the process
that is occurring now will delay the project until the next construction
season because the environmental requirements for the construction of the
project make it impossible to build it this year even if the right-of-way had
already been clear. (Mr. St. John left at 9:39 a.m.)
Mr. Roosevelt said he thinks that with the balance of the funds for the
secondary system in Albemarle, which is close to $5.0 million, that Albemarle
County does not need to defer any of the secondary projects that are now in
the plan. He said there is money in an account to pay for anything in
Albemarle County that will go to construction in the next year, and he thinks
that the balance that has been created over the last ten years should be spent
down. He further believes that other counties that do not have any secondary
funds should bear the burden of this budget shortfall.
Mr. Bowie said the Board never objected to replacing or repairing the
bridge and did agree that it was unsafe. The whole issue concerns the
approaches and the increase in the speed limit. This Board took the project
out of its Six Year Plan, and word came from the State that if the County did
not do this project, the County would not get any highway funds. Secretary
Milliken's letter stated that if the County had any highway projects which it
was willing to defer, then the Highway Department should be notified. Mr.
Bowie said that the Board's position has been to fix the Millington Bridge,
but leave the approaches as they are. If the VOF does not approve the project
at its meeting tomorrow, he is willing to reaffirm the Board's 1989 position,
that the bridge be replaced, but that the approaches should not be changed.
Mr. Tucker suggested that Secretary Milliken did not intend that projects
such as the Millington Bridge be deferred. If the Board wants to consider
this project, he thinks it would be timely to make a statement at today's
meeting that could be certified and provided to the VOF for its' meeting
tomorrow. He said that next month the Board will be reviewing the Secondary
Road Plan so there will be a chance to look at priorities to see if any
changes need to be made. A more comprehensive review at all Secondary Road
projects needs to be done before any deferrals are suggested.
Mr. Bowie added the Millington Bridge project was pulled out separately
for consideration in response to a request from a citizen.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board's position of October, 1989 is still
valid. Mr. Tucker said he thinks the resolution is still technically valid,
but a lot has transpired since 1989, and he believes it would be appropriate
to reaffirm action taken at that time.
Mr. Bowie agreed. Even though the Highway Department imposed its' will
on the Board concerning funding of this project, he thinks a letter should be
included indicating how cooperatively the Highway Department has worked with
the Board on this project.
Mr. Roosevelt said that Secondary Road funds are by law allocated to the
counties for use by those counties. There is no way legally that the Depart-
ment of Transportation can keep Albemarle County from getting its designated
share of secondary funds and using them in this County. It is not correct to
say that the County will not get any funds unless this project is completed.
He agreed that the Highway Department indicated that if the County did not
adopt a plan that included Route 671 as a priority that the Department would
reject the County's priority list, and the Department, as the law allows,
would set the priorities. Mr. Roosevelt said he did not want the record to
show that the Department was not going to give Albemarle County the funds that
legally have to come to it.
(Mr. St. John returned at 9:45 a.m.) Mr. Perkins asked what would happen
if the conservation easement was not given to the Highway Department by the
VOF. Mr. Roosevelt said he thinks an appeal would be made to the Governor.
Mr. Perkins asked if the bridge will be replaced where it is, if the Highway
Department is not able to acquire the easement. Mr. Roosevelt said that would
be a consideration. Mr. Perkins asked why money for designs, etc., would be
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
284
spent when there is not clear right-of-way. Mr. Roosevelt said the Department
has continued the design because it felt that the permissions required would
eventually be granted. He pointed out that agreement has to be granted from
Federal agencies and the Federal Government to work in the Moorman's River
because it is a designated scenic river. He mentioned that a number of
environmental agencies have to be satisfied, and the Department does not have
the authority to override them even though objections of individual property
owners can be overridden. The Department recognizes it can modify or meet the
requirements that will satisfy the environmental agencies, and they will then
give the Department the desired permission, otherwise the Department would not
have pursued this situation.
Mr. Perkins said he is concerned about the design criteria that the
Highway Department uses relative to passing zones. Mr. Roosevelt said the
design of the Route 671 bridge does not have much straight road involved, but
there are a couple of curves. The locations where the Highway Department has
done construction in the last 15 years all meet, at least, 30 mile per hour
design speed or greater. He said that a 30 mile per hour design speed is
being recommended for the Millington Bridge, and there will be a couple of
sharp curves as this bridge is approached from the north side. These curves
will not be as sharp as the existing ones because the speed designs are for
five to ten miles per hour. He does not anticipate a passing zone in the
Millington Bridge area.
Mr. Bowie asked if the Board should reaffirm its' 1989 position. He also
asked if there was a staff recommendation. Mr. Tucker said the staff did not
have a recommendation, but it seems appropriate for the Board to reaffirm its'
1989 position.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Tucker to get a copy of the Board's prior resolution
for review later today. There was no further discussion on this issue at this
time.
Agenda Item No. 7d. Public Hearing: An ordinance to vacate a portion of
a plat of Marshall Manor Subdivision by vacating a restricted street designa-
ted Reva Ridge Road, and the division of Lots 11, 12 and 13, Block A. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on March 26 and April 2, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the request. The Chairman then opened the
public hearing.
Mr. Fred Payne stated that he represents the landowners, but he hesitates
to call them the applicants, because of the circumstances. He said that his
clients are having to accommodate the County Engineer, and they have no
objection to the adoption of the ordinance.
Mrs. Forrest Marshall introduced herself and her husband to the Board.
Mr. Marshall reiterated that he and his wife have no objections to the ordi-
nance.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt an
ordinance to vacate a portion of a plat of Marshall Manor Subdivision by
vacating a restricted street d~signated Reva Ridge Road, and the division of
Lots 11, 12 and 13, Block A. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(The ordinance as adopted is set out below:)
Ordinance to Vacate a Portion of a Plat
of Marshall Manor Subdivision by Vacating a
Restricted Street Designated Reva Ridge Road, and the
Division of Lots 11, 12 and 13, Block A
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
285
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-482(b), that so much
of the plat of Marshall Manor Subdivision, of record in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 573,
Pages 248 and 249, as shows a restricted street designated Reva Ridge
Road and the division of Lots 11, 12 and 13, Block A, into three
separate parcels, be and the same is hereby vacated.
Title to the land designated as "Reva Ridge Road" shall revert to
the present owner of the lands which are shown on said plat as Lots
11, 12 and 13, Block A, inasmuch as the said road lies totally within
the boundaries of those lots.
Henceforth, the lands shown on said plat as "Reva Ridge Road" and
as Lots 11, 12 and 13, Block A, Marshall Manor, are one parcel of
land.
A certified copy of this ordinance shall be delivered to the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County for recordation, and
indexed in the name of JWK Properties, Inc., the current owner of the
lands which are subject of this ordinance.
Pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as
amended, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia,
shall write in plain legible letters across the vacated portion of the
aforesaid plat the word "VACATED", and shall also make reference to
the same on the same to the volume and page in which the instrument of
vacation is recorded.
And this ordinance shall be effective upon such recordation by
the said Clerk.
Agenda Item No. 7e. Discussion: Desert Storm Parade Route.
Mr. Bowie said that the organizer of the Welcome Home Parade for May 25
has a committee of representatives from the County's Police Department and
others. These people have been meeting with the Highway Department to select
the parade route which will include Hydraulic Road and some side roads. The
Highway Department has no objection to the route or closing the roads for the
parade, as they have been closed before for other functions, however Mr.
Roosevelt has informed him that some people may be unhappy if Hydraulic Road
is closed for a couple of hours.
Mr. Roosevelt said the parade sponsors, the Police Department and the
Highway Department have agreed to close two lanes of traffic on Hydraulic Road
and to maintain traffic in the other two lanes. The parade is to start at the
entrance to Sperry-Marine on Hydraulic Road and end at Lambs Road, with half
of the traffic detoured into the southbound lanes. Traffic would be to the
left of the parade.
Mr. Bowie asked about the safety of the participants in the parade with
the traffic running so close to it. Mr. Roosevelt said he wants to get the
Board's feelings about the situation. The entire road could be closed, but it
could mean some major traffic disruption and it would be impossible for
anybody who has an entrance onto the parade route to move during the period of
the parade. If all of Hydraulic Road within the parade route is closed, the
Turtle Creek development will be affected the most. Mr. Bowie stated that the
parade is in recognition of the men and women who are returning from war in
the Persian Gulf, and he pointed out that their lives were interrupted for
seven months instead of just a couple of hours. Mr. Roosevelt said if it is
the Board's desire to close the entire section of the road for the parade, he
would work with the parade sponsors and the Police Department to do so.
Mr. Bowie asked how long the parade is to last. Mr. Roosevelt said the
parade will run from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Mr. Bowie asked if people will
be given advance notice of the parade. Mr. Roosevelt said that notification
has to be given to everyone who would be confined to their neighborhoods
because of the parade.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
28
Mr.' Way said he thinks the entire length of the parade on Hydraulic Road
should be closed for the parade. Mr. Bowie agreed.
Mr. Roosevelt said he would support either to close the route in its
entirety or to leave the southbound lane open.
Mr. Bowie commented that the people will need to know that they are going
to be inconvenienced for a couple of hours in honor of the returning troops.
Mr. Roosevelt said that if Hydraulic Road is closed for the parade, it should
be the responsibility of the parade organizers to notify the residents along
the parade route.
Mr. Bowie said the Board can choose to do nothing, give support for
closing half of Hydraulic Road for the parade, or to close the whole road for
the two hours of the parade. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 10:12 A.M.)
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowermmn, seconded by Mr. Way, to author-
ize the closing of Hydraulic Road from Sperry Marine to Albemarle High School
in totality from traffic.for the two hours scheduled for the Desert Storm
Parade on May 25.
Mrs. Humphris said she would support the motion, and thinks it will be
safer for everybody if the road were closed, even though it may be inconven-
ient for some people.
Mr. Bain said since it is the Board's decision, he does not think that
the Board can leave the responsibility for notification of the public to
someone else. He thinks it is the Board's obligation to make sure that the
residents in that area get proper notification. Mrs. Humphris asked how this
can be accomplished. Mr. Bowie explained that Mr. Tucker would notify home-
owners' associations and businesses, once the precise time for the parade has
been set. Mr. Bowie said he is sure that the Committee will have people to
take care of the notification, but he agrees with Mr. Bain that the County can
write a few letters to businesses and homeowners' associations, but not to
individual residents. He added that the staff should work with the Committee
to make sure that the notification will take place.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bain asked if any part of the parade route is in the City. Mr.
Tucker responded "no". Mr. Roosevelt commented that all of Hydraulic Road is
in the County, but some of the properties on the west side of the road are in
the City.
At 10:17 A.M., the Chairman called a recess. Mr. Bowie suggested that
after the break, the Board continue its discussion on the Millington Bridge
project.
The Board reconvened at 10:36 a.m., with Mr. St. John present.)
At this time, Mr. Bowie suggested that the Board continue its discussion
on the Millington Bridge project. He indicated that copies of the Board's
resolution of October 11, 1989, pertaining to the Millington Bridge had been
provided to the Board during the recess.
Mr. Way called attention to the paragraph of the resolution beginning,
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED." He suggested that the word "repaired" be
changed to "replaced" in this paragraph.
Mr. Bowie said if the Board reaffirms this resolution, a cover letter
should accompany the resolution responding to Mr. Milliken's letter. The
Board should state that based on information from VDOT, the bridge should be
replaced in its present location, but that realignment of the road is not
desired at this time.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
28
Mr. Bain thought it would be best to reaffirm the resolution now, and
respond to the letter later. Mr. Bowie agreed. Motion was then offered by
Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to readopt the resolution originally
adopted on October 11, 1989, changing the word "repaired" in the last two
paragraphs to "replaced".
Mrs. Humphris pointed out that included in the original motion was a
statement requesting that copies of the resolution be sent to the Director of
V0F and to the Highway Commissioner. She thinks that a copy of the resolution
should go instead to the V0F and Secretary Milliken. Mr. Bain agreed to
include that in his motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors supports the repair of the
bridge over the Moorman's River on State Route 671 at Millington, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has not supported changing the
alignments at the approaches.to this bridge as proposed by the Virgi-
nia Department of Transportation because of the following:
its concern over the negative aesthetic impact on the
Moorman's River and its environs, the Moorman's being both a
state and county scenic river with land at Millington
through which the so-called improvements will pass having
recently been covered by open space easements donated to the
Virginia Outdoors Foundation;
its concern over the negative impact upon land in actual
agricultural use in the Moorman's River Agricultural/Fores-
tal District and the negative impact upon adjoining proper-
ties;
its concern that such realignment and widening of the
approaches as proposed by the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation will encourage vehicular traffic to travel faster
than is safe for State Route 671, given the sharp curves and
narrow pavement at either end of the proposed improvement;
and
its concern that the proposed improvements are inconsistent
with the character of State Route 671 and the surrounding
environs; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors did evidence its concerns over
these impacts, and its belief that more critical secondary road safety
improvements existed in the County other than the realignment of the
approaches to said bridge, by unanimously voting to remove said bridge
project from the Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Budget in April 6,
1988, allocating such funds to other secondary road safety improve-
ments, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors was later notified that its
entire Six Year Budget had been rejected by the Virginia Department of
Transportation as a result of the Board's deletion of this project,
and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors appealed this action to the
Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, after the hearing of its
appeal by the Commissioner, reasonably believed its appeal would be
denied and the improvements constructed as originally proposed by the
Virginia Department of Transportation, and
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
28~
WHEREAS, believing that such improvements were inevitable and
would be excessively damaging, the Board of Supervisors agreed to
support an alternative alignment to that originally proposed by the
Virginia Department of Transportation, called the "Green Line" align-
ment, believing such alternative to be less damaging than the project
originally proposed by the Virginia Department of Transportation,
although the Board of Supervisors still prefers that no change in the
alignment of the bridge be constructed and that the bridge be replaced
in place, for all of the reasons hereinabove stated,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that it continues to prefer that no change
in the alignment and design of 'the approaches to said bridge be
undertaken and that said bridge be replaced in place for all of the
reasons stated previously. However, if the Virginia Department of
Transportation continues to reject this alternative, then the Board
of Supervisors believes the "Green Line" alignment with a 30 mile per
hour design, 18 feet of pavement and shoulders and ditching to conform
as nearly as possible to the existing State Route 671, with aggregate
treatment of the bridge and parapet surfaces and an anodized bronze
aluminum rail to be the least damaging alternative.
Agenda Item No. 7f. Statement: Preallocation Hearing for Interstate,
Primary, etc. Highways.
Mr. Tucker provided the Board with an amended previous statement which
Mr. Bowie is to make to the Commonwealth Transportation Board on April 11. He
called attention to the second page which refers to the expanded portion of
the Meadow Creek Parkway and includes an analysis of comments that this Board
has made. He then read for the record the following statement: "We support
construction of Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 29
North. As the Route 29 Corridor Study indicates, this road is essential to
reducing traffic on Route 29 north. The first phase of this project will be
funded in the County's secondary program." He pointed out that the portion of
Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is already in the
Secondary Road Plan and is scheduled for advertisement in mid-1994. He
quoted, again, from the statement as follows: "Ultimately, we believe the
Meadow Creek Parkway will meet the criteria for inclusion in the primary
system and want to work with VDOT staff to evaluate completion of subsequent
phases as a primary road." He stated that this should work well in terms of
making that evaluation before any future road is built. In addition, if this
portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway is completed prior to the portion that is
being built using secondary road funds, that portion could be upgraded to a
primary road as well. This would make a primary road connection between Route
29 and the Route 250 Bypass. Also, the supporting data to the statement has
similar language added that would be submitted to the Commonwealth Transporta-
tion Board.
Mr. Bowie said he had no problem with the changes recommended to the
statement. Mrs. Hnmphris suggested that on pages two and three, the third and
fourth paragraphs be reconstructed to be parallel with the others, since they
have no introductory verbs. Mr. Bowie suggested that instead of repeating the
same words, the recommendations could begin with, "The Board supports."
Mr. Bowie then asked if any of the Board members were going to the
meeting of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Mr. Bain and other Board
members indicated that they would be unable to attend the meeting.
Mr. Tucker indicated that Mr. Bob Brandenburger, Assistant County Execu-
tive, would attend the meeting with Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 7g. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Tucker said he had a request that was overlooked by the staff when
the Board was discussing the design of Barracks ROad and the improvements from
West Park Drive to Huntwood Lane. He said that the design included a sidewalk
on the north side of Barracks Road, with the County participating in the
funding of the sidewalk at a cost of $10,000. He requested that the Board
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
289
adopt a resolution of support for design of a sidewalk north of Barracks Road
from Georgetown Road to West Park Drive and that the Board endorse the design
as recommended by VDOT. He also requested that the County agree to pay its
share of the improvement costs in the amount of $10,000, and that the remain-
der of the costs be borne by the Virginia Department of Transportation. He
said there are funds in the Capital Improvements Program which can be used fo~
this project, if necessary. He is hoping, however, that by the time this
project goes to bid, there will be adequate funds to cover the costs.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the
following resolution for construction of a concrete sidewalk along the north
side of Barracks Road:
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation held a loca-
tion and design public hearing to consider the proposed location and
design of Barracks Road (Route 654), Project Number 0654-002-2424,
C501 from West Park Drive (Route 1406) to Huntwood Lane; and
WHEREAS, this design provides for a concrete sidewalk on the
north side of Barracks Road from Georgetown Road to West Park Drive;
and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors recommends that the Department of Transportation construct
a concrete sidewalk along the north side of Barracks Road;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors agrees to pay its share of the above improvement costs in
the amount of $10,000 with the remainder of improvement costs to be
borne by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Regarding Item 5.4 from the Consent Agenda, Mr. Bain noted that several
of the projects have a revised date, and asked the reasons for the delays.
Mr. Roosevelt said that the date for the Route 20 project has been
modified because of the problem with an underground, tank. The Route 631
project, from Route 29 to Route 743, has a preliminary engineering problem.
Mr. Bain asked how long the advertising date has been deferred for the Route
631 project. Mr. Roosevelt said that the project was originally scheduled fo~
April of 1994, and now it is scheduled for July, 1994.
Mr. Roosevelt said that the Fifth Street project has a revised date
because of a funding problem. The Route 671 project, at the Moormans River,
will probably have its advertising date changed from May, 1991 to November,
1991, due to environmental requirements. This revised date would be subject
to the Board's action based on its resolution.
The date for the Route 678 project was changed because of preliminary
engineering. VDOT has been discussing this project with the County Engineer,
and it has been suggested that VDOT undertake the design for this project
because the County is not making any progress on the design. If VDOT assumes
responsibility, it will probably take until December of 1992 to finish the
plans.
Regarding the Route 691 project, a public hearing on the location for
this project was recently approved, and the project has been dramatically
reduced in scope. VDOT feels that another design public hearing will be
necessary based on the comments received at the location hearing.
engineering is also a problem with this project.
Regarding the Route 708 project, Mr. Roosevelt said that alignments were
reviewed a couple of months ago, and were found to cost approximately $800,000
Neither he nor the County Planning staff think this improvement can be funded.
They decided to find a better alignment for this project that would cost
approximately $300,000. This will require additional surveying and prelim-
inary engineering so the project has been set back until March, 1993.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
290
Route 712 is a gravel road project which has been delayed because of
funding.
Mr. Roosevelt said that preliminary engineering is holding up the Route
729 project at Shadwell. The Department advertised a willingness to hold a
public hearing on the project. It took approximately three or four months
before an agreement was reached with the person who requested a hearing and
the request was then withdrawn. Because of this problem, preliminary engi-
neering was delayed, and the project has been deferred for approximately three
months.
Regarding Route 866, Mr. Roosevelt said that the Board had asked YDOT to
schedule the project after the Hydraulic Road and Rio Road improvements are
completed to this intersection. Although the costs of all three projects have
increased, YDOT has been able to concentrate monies on the Hydraulic Road and
Rio Road improvements to keep them on the current schedule, but there is not
enough funding for Route 866, as it was originally scheduled.
Mr. Roosevelt mentioned that when Route 671 was discussed, there was a
balance of approximately $5,000,000 in the County's Secondary Road Fund
account. He said that it will take some time to spend this money, but eventu-
ally the County will run into the same problem that other counties are facing
today with shortfalls of money. Mr. Roosevelt noted that approximately six of
the projects have preliminary engineering problems and only a couple of the
projects are affected by funding.
Mr. Bain asked if the bridge over the South Fork Rivanna River (the Route
660 project) will be closed entirely until the project is completed. Mr.
Roosevelt replied that the bridge will not open until near the end of the
project. Before the bridge can be reopened, the guard rail will need to be
installed, but also fills and base will have to be in place before the guard
rails can be installed.
Mr. Perkins asked if the Route 691 project involves the improvement of
the intersection of Route 240 and Tabor Street. Mr. Roosevelt replied, "yes."
He said that the Board was notified within the last month that the Transporta-
tion Board had rejected all four locations discussed at the public hearing.
This Board adopted a resolution rejecting all four locations and suggested a
fifth location be considered. In the interim, spot improvements will be done
along the existing Tabor Street. Even though the spot improvements are minor
in comparison to what was being considered at the location hearing, additional
right-of-way will be required, and this means that a design public hearing
will have to be offered. Based on what he heard at the location hearing, he
does not think that there will be support along Tabor Street for any work that
the Highway Department needs to do. He thinks that it is useless to post
notice of willingness to hold a public hearing. He feels that it would be
better to go straight to a public hearing which will improve the design
process by approximately six months.
Mr. Bowerman asked if VDOT will again take a look at traffic counts at
Hillsdale Drive and Rio Road, as soon as the Rio Road section between Fashion
Square Mall and the bridge near CATEC is completed and open in May. He has
noticed that traffic is increasing, especially the left turns off of Rio Road
onto Hillsdale. He said that people are beginning to use this route as an
alternative to Route 29. He believes it is creating more difficulties for
traffic trying to turn left out of Hillsdale and for traffic coming out of
Northfields to get either across Rio Road or turn left onto Rio Road.
Mr. Roosevelt suggested that a traffic count also be done at Greenbrier
Drive at the same time that the traffic count is done at Hillsdale and Rio
Road. He said that both of these traffic counts will be done as soon the
Rio Road project is completed.
Mr. Perkins asked for an explanation of the standards for establishing a
passing zone. He mentioned that on Route 692 near Batesville, before that
road was paved, there was a passing zone. Re said that since the paving work
has been completed, there is no passing zone.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
291
Mr. Roosevelt responded that he will have this route checked, because
sometimes the paint crew erroneously does away with passing zones. He said
_ that it is difficult for him to give details on passing zones because he does
not set the standards. Passing zones are based upon the design speed or the
posted speed for the roadway. There must be a certain length of sight dis-
tance and the end of the passing zones are based upon design or posted speed
and how far a driver can see.
Mr. Perkins said that he is concerned about Route 692 as it goes east, up
the mountain approximately a mile from Batesville. He said that it is a long,
straight piece of roadway that had originally been marked for passing.
Mrl Bowie said a citizen in his district has asked about the status of
the paving project on Route 615 between Routes 231 and 22.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned that there is a tremendous amount of erosion on
the bank where the improvement was done at Barracks Road and Georgetown Road.
She asked who is responsible for taking care of this problem. Mr. Roosevelt
said that it is VDOT's responsibility. He has already spoken with the Depart-
ment concerning this situation.
Mr. Bain said that traffic congestion at Route 678 in Ivy is causing
people to do dangerous things. Traffic has increased because of the new
shopping mall and businesses in the area. He believes that instead of getting
closer to solving this problem, the project is being pushed further into the
future. He thinks that Mr. Roosevelt is right when he said that the Highway
Department can get the project finished quicker than the County. A private
contractor was hired to do the preliminary engineering three years ago, and it
was not done. He thinks that this situation is atrocious, and the road is
only two-tenths of a mile long. He believes that some procedures have to be
developed before the County considers taking on such a project again. Mr.
Tucker and Mr. Bowie agreed.
Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: Architectural Review Board (ARB).
Mr. Jim Carswell, a representative on the ARB, said that he is present
today because Mr. Tim Lindstrom is out of town. Mr. Carswell said the ARB
has spent many hours generating the draft guidelines distributed to this
Board. The ARB talked to engineers, architects and developers, all of whom
provided considerable comments. The ARB is trying to maintain the qualities
of the area. Mr. Harry Porter, who is present, was instrumental in producing
this document. He went on to say that included on the ARB is a very diverse
set of talents which will be of service to the community. He added that when
the final document is completed, it should be similar to that of Leesburg. He
stressed that the ARB has the in-house capability to do this sort of presenta-
tion which can save a great deal of money. He pointed out that the ARB has
the capability to produce this entire document, and the only costs involved
will be for production and printing. He said the document will be invaluable
when it is completed because the interim guidelines only cover general ideas,
but sketches and photographs in the final document will help a great deal. He
then introduced members of the ARB who were present: Mrs. Pat Bower, Mr.
Harry Porter and Mr. Frank Kessler. This interim document has been reviewed
by the County Attorney.
Mrs. Humphris asked if there is a time limit for completion of the final
document. Mr. Carswell replied that the ARB is hopeful that the final docu-
ment will be finished in the Fall, but the ARB is looking for guidance from
the Supervisors. He went on to say that perhaps the Supervisors are planning
to pass the cost of this document on to the user which probably would be the
best way of recovering this expense. He said that there will be production
costs, and it would be good to be able to offset those cost. He mentioned
that the ARB has some great photographers, as well as some art ability, and
these people know how to do this project. He added that the ARB needs a small
budget from the Supervisors and a plan for the printing. He understands that
the Leesburg document cost, with design input, was approximately $25,000. He
does not think the ARB will need this much money, but the Supervisors will
have to give the ARB some indication as to how they would like to proceed.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
292
Mrs. Humphris asked if the people with the expertise are actually on the
ARB. Mr. Carswell replied, "yes." He congratulated the Board of Supervisors
for picking such a diverse committee. He said that some architects have
indicated that the ARB should have been made up of architects, but he believe~
that the Supervisors foresaw the pitfalls of having all architects on the ARB.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that Mr. Lindstrom has stated that the ARB will
begin development of final more specific guidelines as soon as the interim
guidelines have been reviewed by the Supervisors and, hopefully, approved for
use. It is the intent of the ARB to take more extensive input from the
community as well as the Planning Commission, the Planning and Coordination
Council (PACC), and other County agencies in the development of the final
guidelines, including the development of a handbook or an illustrated guide as
to what is included in the guidelines. The final guidelines will be available
for review in early Fall and adopted before the end of the year.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that he informed PACC at its last meeting, that once
these interim guidelines are adopted they will have the opportunity to con-
sider them and work in developing the final guidelines by the end of the year.
He said that this set of interim guidelines is critical to the ARB in having
information available for applicants.
Mr. Bowie said that there is a possibility of some overlap with the City
and the University on the entrance corridor regulations. He does not want to
get into the same position that occurred with other projects where the County
thought that coordination was being done, but when the final implementation
was near, a problem developed. He asked that Mr. Cilimberg make certain that
there are no implementation problems. He then asked if any members of the ~
wanted to speak.
Mr. Kessler reiterated what had already been said. He mentioned that he
is a developer and a realtor in this community, and he thinks that ther~ must
be guidelines to have a good community or subdivision, etc., and to have a
positive end result. He mentioned that any well-developed community cannot
happen if there are a lot of developers doing different things. He believes
that the most positive meeting that he ever attended in the County was when
the ARB asked for input from the engineers and the developers in the communi-
ty. He said that they made positive suggestions, and these suggestions have
been incorporated in the guidelines. He stated that the Supervisors' wisdom
to see the need for and establish the ARB was very positive. He mentioned the
problems with Route 29 North, and said that he would like to see other areas
of the County improved. He indicated that these guidelines will keep everyone
informed of the flexibility that they have when building is done in Albemarle.
He said that some of the professional people asked that they be told exactly
what is expected of them. The intent is not to take away their flexibility
and their creativity, but instead, to tie their projects into Charlottesville
and Albemarle County. He pointed out that the guidelines do not stress
contemporary, traditional, nor Monticello-type plans. The guidelines are very
fair from the development standpoint, and the ARB does not want to take away
the uses of the property or to increase costs. Mr. Kessler stated that he
encourages the ARB, when they are meeting with builders, to not make them
spend a lot of money. He believes that the builder should be able to come to
the ARB with a magic marker, work sheet and description of the road, building
and parking area to receive ARB's input. He then encouraged the Supervisors'
acceptance of the interim guidelines. He said a lot of time and work has gone
into development of the guidelines. He believes that it is a very good
document.
Mr. Bowie asked the County Attorney if the interim guidelines require a
public hearing before adoption. Mr. St. John responded, "no." He said that
the document is not an ordinance, and is brought to the Board for ratifica-
tion. He said these guidelines will not become part of any ordinance. It is
his understanding that these standards are to supplant the original standards
which were developed by staff and ratified by this Board. He said the origi-
nal standards did not become part of the ordinance either. He believes these
standards will replace the original standards if they are ratified by the
Supervisors, and the original standards will no longer be in effect. Mr.
Cilimberg and others agreed with Mr. St. John.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting) 293
(Page 18)
Mr, Bain said he wonders if a hearing should be held to hear comments.
He mentioned that Mr. Bill Atwood had previously made comments to the Supervi-
sors, and he was speaking for a number of people. Mr. Cilimberg stated that
he feels it is the Supervisors' choice as to how they will get public input.
He mentioned that in the period before the end of the year when the guidelines
are finalized.for long term use, public input will be necessary. He thinks
it is up to the ARB as to whether there should be public input in the begin-
ning. He woUld say, however, that adopting the guidelines now will be Criti-
cal to what is necessary for the ARB's review.
Mr. Bowie said he feels that the Board could ratify the ARB's guidelines
and set up a public hearing, also. Mr. Cilimberg added that the ARB did get
some substantive input from the members of the development community a few
weeks ago, and he thinks that these guidelines reflect a lot of what was
discussed in that meeting.
Mr. Bain said he wonders if the guidelines should be implemented before
a public hearing. Mr. St. John said the Supervisors can hold a public hearing
voluntarily. He said the status now is that the ARB is operating under a set
of standards that the Supervisors set when the ARB was established. There are
severe problems with some of those standards, and they should be replaced as
quickly as possible. He added that these guidelines are a much better set of
standards, and if there is no requirement for a public hearing, then he thinks
that these standards should replace the original standards immediately. He
went on to say that if it is the judgment of the Board that a public hearing
be held, then a public hearing can be held. He does not think that ratifica-
tion of these guidelines should be delayed until, the final set is ready for
adoption.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. H~mphris, seconded by Mr. Bower~a,, to
adopt the Proposed Interim Guidelimes for the Albemarle County Architectural
Review Board, dated April 4, 1991.
Mr. St. John asked for a statement in the motion that these guidelines
will supplant the original standards previously adopted by the Board (set out
in the minutes of October 3, 1990). Mrs. Humphris agreed to incorporate this
statement into her motion. Mr. Bowerman, as the seconder, accepted the
amendment to the motion.
Mr. Perkins called attention to the requirmment for different size trees.
He mentioned that three inch minimum caliper trees are measured at six inches
above the ground, and all of the others are measured 18 inches above the
ground. He thinks that there should be some standard for measuring trees
because different species of trees grow into different shapes. He said that
in forestry trees are measured four and a half feet above the ground, but he
does not know if this is appropriate for nursery or ornamental trees. Mr.
Bain said his understanding is that the six inch requirement is for frontage
trees along the entrance corridor and the others are located on interior
roads. Mr. Perkins said that where the trees are located does not make any
difference. He said that a three inch tree could be a smaller tree than a two
inch caliper tree.
Mr. Porter said that the nursery standards are for trees to be measured
six inches above the ground, so this is consistent with the practices in the
area. Mr. Perkins thought that it would be difficult to measure trees six
inches above the ground.
Mr. Bowerman asked why there is an 18 inch measurement for trees included
in the guidelines.
Mr. Porter replied that he believes it is a typographical error, and
that the tree measurement should be listed as six inches above the ground
throughout the document. He said that a representative from a local landscap-
ing firm and the ARB have suggested that a six inch measurement for trees is
the proper measurement.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Supervisors' ratification of the guidelines
would incorporate the six inch measurement for trees throughout the document,
but recognizing that in some cases the measurement for some trees will be 18
inches.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
294
Mr. Bowie asked Mrs. Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator, if she
wanted to add any comments. Mrs. Patterson commented that, as further justi-
fication for the six inch measurement, this is the measurement that is incor-
porated in the Zoning Ordinance, and she would like to have some consistency
for the Zoning Inspectors.
Mr. Bain stated that a lot of work has gone into these guidelines from
the ARB, the staff, the development community, nurseries, and others. He
thinks that this is a tremendous improvement over the previously adopted
standards. He encourages the ARB to go forward and finalize these guidelines
within this calendar year.
Mrs. Humphris agreed to include in her motion the following chauge: For
consistency all trees are to be "measared 6" above the ground instead of
"measured 18" above the ground. As seconder, Mr. Bower~m- agreed. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 11:30 a.m.)
Mr. Bowie asked about the statement made concerning funding of the ARB.
Mr. Tucker responded that the ARB funding for staff is already included in t~
budget. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that funding for publications, etc., are
not included in the budget. Mr. Bain said he thought the funding issue should
be deferred until it is known how much money will actually be needed.
Mr. Bain remarked that he does not feel strongly that now is the time for
the Supervisors to have a public hearing, since the ARB will be going ahead
with the guidelines. He feels guidelines will improve and become more defi-
nite. He thinks that the Supervisors have already responded to some of the
questions from Mr. Atwood and others, and he thinks that it may be best to
have a public hearing at a later time. Mr. Bowie agreed. (Mr. St. Joh~ left
the meeting at 11:32 a.m.)
(The guidelines as adopted are set out below:)
~GUIDEL]/gES
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board
The following guidelines are supplemental to the minimum standards
found in Section 32.7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and
elsewhere in the Albemarle County Code. Furthermore, where these
guidelines specify sizes, dimensions, or quantities, such specifica-
tions are the minimum acceptable for development in the designated
corridors and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) may, where justi-
fied by the nature of the site or proposed development, require
different specifications in order to achieve the objectives set forth
in the General Statement.
I. GENERAL STATEMENT
Purpose of architectural review of development in the
designated corridors:
Albemarle County is endowed with a beautiful landscape and a
uniquely significant history. These valuable legacies,
renowned throughout the world, are accessible by a number of
transportation corridors which are also important as sites
of commercial and residential activity. While such activity
and the expansion of such activity is important to the
community, the law of the Commonwealth recognizes that these
approaches to Albemarle's significant historic sites and to
the City of Charlottesville are worthy of protection as an
important part of the cultural experience of the many
persons who visit the area annually to enjoy its significant
beauty and history.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
295
It is to protect these approaches that the Board of Supervi-
sors enacted the Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay District
(Sections 30.6 et seq. of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance) and charged the Albemarle County Architectural
Review Board (ARB) with the responsibility for reviewing
development within the corridors designated in the ordinance
to insure that such development is compatible with the
important historic sites to which these corridors lead.
The Albemarle County Board~of Supervisors has stated the
intent of the EC Overlay District to be as follows:
The entrance corridor overlay district is intended to
implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting the
county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural
and cultural resources including preservation of
natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this
purpose; to ensure a quality of development compatible
with these resources through architectural control of
development; to stabilize and improve property values;
to protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to
tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the
economic benefits accruing to the county from tourism;
to support and stimulate complimentary development
appropriate to the prominence afforded properties
deemed to be of historic, architectural or cultural
significance, all of the foregoing being deemed to
advance and promote the public health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of the county and visitors
thereto. (Section 30.6.1 of the Albemarle County
Zonin~ Ordinance)
B. Reqtuirement of compatibility with historic str~ctures:
Many of the designated corridors are either undeveloped or
only partially developed. A few are almost completely
developed. While one objective of architectural review
might be to require structure designs which would be compat-
ible with nearby or adjacent existing structures, that is
not the charge to the ARB given by the statute, or the
ordinance. The enabling statute and the ordinance provide
that new development in the designated corridors should be
compatible with the historic structures to which the desig-
nated corridors lead rather than to adjoining structures
which may or may not meet this standard of compatibility.
For this reason, while designs which demonstrate sensitivity
to nearby existing structures are encouraged by these
guidelines, these interim guidelines establish compatibility
with the historic places in this area as the primary stand-
ard for review of designs for new development within the
designated corridors.
This standard of compatibility with local historic places is
not intended to impose a rigid design solution for new
development. Replication of the design of the important
historic places in the Albemarle area is neither intended,
nor desired. The standard of compatibility can be met
through building scale, materials, and forms which may be
embodied in architecture which is contemporary as well as
traditional.
Requirement of common landscaping elements:
In order to respect the unity implied in the term "corridor"
and to provide visual order, these interim guidelines
provide for certain common elements to be repeated in the
landscaping of each individual parcel. Such repeated common
elements allow for more flexibility in the design of struc-
tures because common landscape features tend to harmonize
the appearance of each individual parcel as seen from the EC
street.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
296
Structural design and the relation of structure and setting
are both subject to review:
Visitors to the important historical sites in this area
experience these sites not just as free floating structures,
but as an ensemble of structure, land, and vegetation. The
EC Overlay District recognizes this fact and calls upon the
ARB to review development within such districts as an
ensemble of structure and setting.
E. General design standards:
New structures and substantial additions to structures shall
reflect the traditions of classical architecture in Albe-
marle County since the early 18th century as reflected in
the important historical buildings for which this area is
internationally known. Each new building or structure shall
contribute to establishing an overall coherence and visual
order in the designated corridor. It is an important
objective of these guidelines to establish a pattern of
compatible architectural characteristics throughout a
designated corridor in order to achieve unity and coherence
while allowing individuality in. design to reflect both
varying tastes as well as special functional requirements.
Where a designated corridor is already substantially deve-
loped, the standards contained in the~preceding paragraph
will require striking a careful balance between the impor-
tance of harmonizing new structures with existing nearby
structures, and the goal of reflecting the traditional
architecture of the area in the design of new structures.
Supporting structures (e.g., parking arem~, mechanical
systems, refuse disposal facilities, lighting, retaining
walls and the like) shall contribute to the objectives of
these guidelines.
The landscaping of individual parcels along the edges of EC
streets shall contribute to the establishment of a continu-
ous, unified, and harmonious corridor. The design of the
landscape (meaning the ensemble of buildings, outdoor
spaces, site development, land, and vegetation) for each
parcel shall contribute to the accomplishment of this goal.
Site development shall be sensitive to the existing natural
landscape and shall contribute to the creation of an organ-
ized plan which supports the unity and harmony of the
designated corridor as a whole: trees and rolling terrain
typical of the area shall be preserved to the extent possi-
ble; new trees shall be planted along streets and pedestrian
ways which reflect native forest elements; grading shall
blend new conditions with surrounding topography and create
a continuous landscape; river and stream valleys shall
remain open and unimpeded by development and should be
incorporated into the design of surrounding development;
building mass and height shall be limited to a scale which
does not overpower the natural setting of the site or the
entrance corridor itself.
II. D~SI~ SPECIFICS
The specifics which follow are characterized either as "Require-
ments'' or "Recommendations." This distinction is for the guid-
ance of the applicant and should not be considered binding upon
the ARB. The ARB may, where justified by the nature of the site
or proposed development, waive some "Requirements" or mandate
some "Recommendations."
A. Structure design:
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
297
Requirements
The design of structures shall reflect the Albemarle County
setting and shall use forms, shapes, materials, colors, and
textures derived from the architectural tradition embodied
in the important historic buildings for which the area is
known. Structures shall incorporate elements and details
which lend human scale. Large or long buildings shall be
designed with divisions and details which relieve blankness.
Window treatment shall contribute to the human scale re-
quirement.
The predominant character of roof lines shall be sloped or
pitched using gabled, hipped, and shed roof forms. Where
such sloping roof forms are predominant in a roof line, some
flat roof segments may be acceptable. "Trademark buildings"
and related features shall be modified to meet the require-
ments of these guidelines.
Recommendations
Arcades, colonnades and other architectural connecting
devices should be used between groups of buildings within a
development to unify the overall design. Within the limits
allowed by federal or state requirements for handicapped
access, accommodations for handicapped persons should be
integrated with the architectural form of the structures to
which those accommodations pertain and should avoid being
overly conspicuous.
B. Treatment of accessory structures and equipment:
Requirem~ents
Loading areas, service areas, refuse areas, storage yards,
mechanical equipment, utilities, and the like shall be
located or screened with vegetation (or in the case of
equipment located on roofs, hidden by roof lines) so that
they are not visible from the EC street.
Walls, screens, and fencing shall be compatible with histo-
ric places in the area. Chain link fencing, barbed wire,
razor wire and similar security fencing or devices shall not
be visible from the EC street.
Recommendations
Surface runoff structures and detention ponds should be
designed to fit into the natural topography so as to avoid
the need for the screening of such structures.
C. Lighting:
Requirements
Ail exterior lighting shall be incandescent in quality, be
shielded or otherwise designed or located so as not to
create glare, and shall not spill over onto adjacent proper-
ties or streets.
D. Signs:
Specific regulations regarding signs are contained in
Section 30.6.5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
E. Preservation of existing features:
Requirements
Existing trees, wooded areas and natural features shall be
preserved except as necessary for location of improvements
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 23)
298
as described in Section 32.5.6.n. of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance. Such improvements shall be located so as
to maximize the use of existing features in screening such
improvements from EC streets.
Site layout:
Recommendations
Site development should be well related to nearby properties
and should include provisions for connections to pedestrian
and vehicular circulation systems, extension of open spaces
and should provide for overall continuity with adjacent and
surrounding conditions.
Where topography permits, a grid pattern of roads, service
lanes, and pedestrian walks should guide the layout of the
site. Important natural features, such as creek valleys,
steep slopes, or significant trees or outcroppings should
alter the grid system of organization and in such cases such
natural features should dictate site layout.
Structures should align with the pattern of streets and
walkways thus established, front on roads and streets
abutting the site where possible, and be parallel to or at
right angles with the EC street.
There should be variation in building setbacks from the
roads or streets upon which they front.
Structures should accommodate views and vistas related to
the site, including views across the site from EC streets to
surrounding landscape features or historic sites and be
located to relate visually and functionally with other
structures in the designated corridor to achieve continuity
and a clear hierarchy of circulation, structures and open
spaces.
Insofar as possible, structures should fit the natural
topography and be oriented to special natural features of
the site, or distant views of the surrounding hills or
mountains.
G. Grading:
Requirements
Site grading shall blend with and. fit the topographic
characteristics of the site and adjacent properties. Site
grading shall not change the basic relationship of the site
to surrounding conditions. Steep cut or fill sections are
generally unacceptable. Cut and fill slopes shall be
rounded (minimum ten foot [10'] radius) to meet adjacent
conditions.
No grading or other earth-disturbing activity (including
trenching or tunnelling), except as necessary for the
construction of tree wells or tree walls, shall occur within
the drip line of any trees or wooded areas designated for
preservation or intrude upon any other existing features
designated in the Certificate of Appropriateness for preser-
vation.
Areas designated on approved plans for preservation of
existing features shall be clearly and visibly delineated on
the site prior to commencement of any grading or other
earth-disturbing activity (including trenching or tunnel-
ling) and no such disturbing activity or grading or movement
of heavy equipment shall occur within such area. The
visible delineation of all such existing features shall be
maintained, until the completion of development of the site.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 24)
299
Recommendations
Natural drainage patterns should be incorporated into the
finished site to the extent possible.
Trees:
1. Treatment of frontage along EC streets:
Requirements
The EC street shall be clearly defined by large shade
trees common to the area which shall be plantsd to
align the entire frontage of developing parcels along
EC streets. In most cases, a three- or four-board
fence typical of the Albemarle area shall also be
required to align this frontage. Where warranted by
existing conditions elsewhere within a designated
corridor, low stone walls may be required instead of
fencing. A planting area ten feet (10') wide to
accommodate such trees, fencing, or walls and such
shrubs, grass, or groundcover as may be requireR, shall
be established along such frontage, but out of the area
of road rights of way and utility easements.
Frontage trees shall be at least three inches (3")
minimum caliper (measured six inches [6"] above the
ground) when planted, and shall be spaced no more than
thirty-five feet (35') on center.
Native flowering ornamental trees shall be interspersed
among required shade trees.
2. Treatment of interior roads and pedestrian ways:
Recommendations
Trees should align interior roads spaced no more than
forty feet (40') on center and measuring at least two
inches (2") in caliper (measured six inches [6"] above
the ground). Trees spaced no more than twenty-five
feet (25') on center and measuring at least two inches
(2") in caliper (measured six inches [6"] above the
gro~md) should align pedestrian ways.
3. Treatment of parking areas:
Requirements
Within parking areas, trees shall be planted in plant-
ers or medians protected by curbing and shall be evenly
spaced and planted at the rate of one (1) tree for
every ten (10) parking spaces. Such trees shall
measure at least two inches (2") in caliper (measured
six inches [6"] above the ground).
Recommendations
Trees should align the perimeter of parking areas,
spaced forty feet (40') on center and measuring at
least two inches (2") in caliper (measured six inches
[6"] above the ground), except for any portion of the
perimeter which fronts on an EC street, in which case
the requirements for treatment of frontage along EC
streets shall be complied with instead.
4. Treatment of long exterior walls:
Requirements
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 25)
300
Trees shall be planted to relieve the appearance of
long exterior walls. The spacing, size and type of
such trees shall depend upon the length, height and
blankness of such walls.
5. Tree species:
Requirements
Tree plantings required shall conform to the "Generic
Landscape Plan Recommended Species List" adopted by the
County of Albemarle.
I. Shrubs:
1. Treatment of parking areas:
Requirements
Parking areas fronting on EC streets shall, in addition
to tree plantings as required for such frontage, be
screened by the planting of shrubs sufficient in
quantity and size to minimize the view of the parking
area from the EC street. Parking areas effectively
hidden from view from the EC street by vegetated earth
berms located behind required plantings of frontage
trees shall require no further screening.
2. Treatment of other areas:
Recommendations
Shrubs in other areas should be planted as necessary to
integrate structures properly into the site.
3. Shrub species:
Requirements
Shrub plantings required shall conform to the "Generic
Landscape Plan Recommended Species List" adopted by the
County of Albemarle.
III. ADHINISTRATION
A. Preliminary Conference:
The ARB strongly recommends that persons who will be re-
quired to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the
ARB request a Preliminary Conference with the ARB prior to
undertaking any substantial work in the formulation of
development plans. A list of materials which, should
accompany any request for a Preliminary Conference is
attached to these Guidelines.
The Preliminary Conference is an informal discussion between
a potential applicant and the ARB. No participant in such a
conference is bound by the conference. However, a written
s~y of suggestions resulting from the conference will be
provided to the potential applicant. An application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness which incorporates such
suggestions is more likely to receive prompt approval and
result in the least expense for the applicant.
B. Application for Certificate of Appropriateness:
An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness must be
filed for any project within a designated EC which requires
site plan approval. Such an application (as opposed to a
request for a Preliminary Conference) cannot be filed until
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 26)
301
preliminary site plan approval has been obtained. A list of
materials which should accompany any request for an Applica-
tion for Certificate of Appropriateness is attached to these
Guidelines.
Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness ,is a prerequi-
site to obtaining final site plan approval for projects
within a designated EC.
C. Who to contact:
Requests for Preliminary Conferences and Applications for
Certificates of Appropriateness should be made to the
Albemarle County Department of Planning and Con~nunity
Development or, in the case of sign permits, the Office of
the Albemarle County Zoning Administrator.
D. Appp~nls:
An applicant for a Certificate of Appropriateness aggrieved
by a decision of the ARB may appeal to the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors and the Albemarle County Circuit Court
in accordance with Section 30.6.8 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Bowie noted that several people were in the audience for Agenda Item
No. 10, so the Board will take that item up at this time and then come back to
Agenda Item No. 9.
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Letter dated March 29, 1991, addressed
to F. R. Bowie, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, from H. Larkin Goshorn, Jr.,
Director, Multi-Family Development, Virginia Housing Development Authority,
re: Wilton Glen Apartments being financed by VHDA.
Mr. Tucker said the Board has received a letter, dated March 29, 1991,
from Mr. H. Larkin Goshorn, Jr., Director, Multi-Family Development, Virginia
Housing Development Authority, stating their interest in financing a develop-
ment of approximately 144 units of rental housing on approximately 14.4 acres
located on the east side of Route 20 North, one-quarter mile north of Route
250 near the Rivanna Park to be known as the Wilton Glen Apartments. He said
these apartments were approved several months ago by this Board and the
Planning Commission and by the Architectural Review Board. He said that
Virginia Code Section 36-55.39.B requires that the Board be given 60 days in
which to either approve or disapprove the financing. This item is on the
agenda for the Board to adopt a resolution either approving or disapproving
the financing through the certification process. He noted that Mr. Ronald D.
Wiley, Jr., the attorney who represented the applicants during the zoning
process, is present. (Mr. Bowerman returned at 11:36 a.m.)
Mrs. Humphris asked if there is any reason for disapproval of the re-
quest. Mr. Tucker responded "no", not to the staff's knowledge.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Wiley if he had any comments. Mr. Wiley replied
he was present to answer questions.
Mr. Bowie asked how many apartments would actually be low-income apart-
ments. Mr. Wiley responded that Board approval requires that 50 to 56 of the
apartments be for low-income persons, but the program of 144 units is a
low-to-moderate income housing income program. He thinks that all of the
apartments will serve that need. Mr. Jim Swafford, a representative with
Amurcon Corporation, thought that the original proffer was for 30 units to be
low income. He said that there is an income limit established by the IRS on
all of the 144 units, but there is no subsidy involved with any of them.
Mr. Bain asked what has been established as the income limit. Mr.
Swafford replied that the income limit is based on the average income for
persons located in Albemarle County, but he is not sure what it is. Mr. Bain
asked if it would be the average income for the whole metropolitan area. Mr.
Swafford answered that the income is figured on a percentage basis, and it
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 27)
302
varies according to the number of people in the family, etc. He said that it
is a complicated formula. He went on to say that a person could not make
$28,000 a year and live on this property. Mr. Tucker commented that the
average family income for this area is $42,500.
Mr. Bowie commented that he has studied the Federal tax law, and the law
does not indicate that all the units have to be under Federal guidelines, but
only a percentage. He believes that the percentage is 20 percent. He said
that the remainder of the units can be sold at market value as long as 20
percent is maintained. He asked if this is correct. Mr. Swafford answered
that this is not true for this particular property. He went on to say that
the tax credit is allocated by the Virginia Housing Development Authority,
a submission is made to the Authority, and in that submission, the applicant
informs the Authority of what is intended. For this property, Mr. Swafford
said that the Authority has been informed that the applicant will maintain
this tax credit program for all units under that guideline for 30 years. Mr.
Bowie asked if this was proffered to VHDA, and if it is part of this request.
Mr. Swafford responded, "yes."
Mr. Bowie said that he had initially opposed this plan, but he likes the
idea of the tax credit, and thinks that it is a good arrangement. Mr. Swaf-
ford pointed out that the information that is before the Board relates to an
application for some altered plans through Vt{DA. He said that the tax credit
program is still the plan, but this request for certification of approval or
disapproval relates to the backup plans to make sure that the project pro-
ceeds.
Mr. Bowie asked if all of the units would get a tax credit or only 20
percent of them. Mr. Swafford replied that the developer will get a tax
credit on all of these units. He went on to say that VHDA has the authority
to lend money to developers, and the Authority is going to loan money to his
corporation for this job. He mentioned that other lenders are also being
pursued, but if all of these efforts fail, then the money will be borrowed
from VHDA. He said that the program would not be changed at all, but will
involve a different lender.
Mr. Bowerman stated that when this proposal was first made, the appli-
cant's attorney indicated that although the proffer was for a limited amount
of tax credit units, it was the applicant's intention to have all of the units
qualify. He said that it is on this basis that he originally supported the
motion based on the good will that the applicant presented to him. He is
pleased to say that the applicant has followed through on that commitment and
has made application and was granted the full coverage.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt a
Certification of Approval for the proposed Wilton Glen Apartments, a
multi-family residential housing development located on the east side of
20 North. Roll was called and the motion to adopt the follow certification
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
In accordance with Virginia Code Section 36-55.39(B), the Board
of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, hereby certifies to the
Virginia Housing Development Authority its approval of the proposed
multi-family residential housing development called Wilton Glen
Apartments, as expressed in its resolution duly adopted on April 10,
1991, a certified copy of which is attached (copy on file) hereto.
Agenda Item No. 11. Resolution in Support of the Mobility Assistance Act
of 1991. The Board skipped this item temporarily.
Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Acceptable Attendance Policy Revision.
The Board skipped this item temporarily.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 28)
303
Agenda Item No. 13. Appropriation: Brownsville Elementary Masonry
Repairs.
Mr. Tucker said that architectural and structural engineering reports
have revealed that there has been some extensive masonry deterioration of
Brownsville Elementary School. In order to prevent any further deterioration
the School Board is requesting a transfer of funds in Capital Improvement
Program projects from "Murray Education Center" and "Broadus Wood Elementary"
to "Brownsville Elementary" for the masonry repairs. The amount needed is
approximately $483,000. He requested approval of an appropriation for
$483,000. He noted that additional funding for Broadus Wood Elementary would
have to be provided at some future time, but the Long Range Planning
does not yet have a recommendation as to when.
Mrs. Humphris asked if there are any other schools that might be having
the same problem as Brownsville. Mr. A1 Reaser, Director of Building Servi-
ces, answered that Woodbrook Elementary School and Jack Jouett Middle School
received repairs in 1980 and 1982, and Henley Middle School will probably
repairs in three years. He said that the same architectural firm was
and the same design on single-story buildings was used at Western Albemarle
High School, Walton Middle School, Greer Elementary School and Hollymead
Elementary School. He stated that these four schools were built in 11 months
in 1975. He went on to say that anti-freeze was used in the mortar, and that
could be the cause of the problem.
Mr. Bowerman stated that Mrs. Patsy Moore, a School Board member, was
concerned about this problem, and she informed him that the School Board had
hired an engineering firm to evaluate the situation. Mr. Bowerman said that
the engineering firm indicated the magnitude of the problem and the amount of
money needed to correct it. He then asked who was hired to do the eng'
report. Mr. Reaser replied that the Westmoreland Company from Richmond
prepared the second report and VMDO Architects prepared the first one. He
hopes that the price will not be as high as estimated, but it is already
that all of the single-story walls will have to be repaired. He noted that
Jouett and Woodbrook the cafeteria and gymnasium did not have to be replaced,
so he is hoping that the same thing will be true at Brownsville.
Mr. Bain said he understands that restoration and repair have to be done~
but he thinks that half a million dollars is an astounding figure. Mr.
pointed out that the school system has not yet received bids on these pro-
jects.
Mr. Perkins noted that the sides of the buildings are affected because
they support the roof trusses. Mr. Bowie asked who designed the buildings.
Mr. Reaser responded that Davis and Associates from Harrisonburg were the
architects for the buildings. He indicated that bad construction is not the
cause of the problem, however, these particular buildings are affected because
of the mortar and the particular winter in which they were built.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
the transfer of $483,000 within the Capital Improvements Program for the
Brownsville Elementary School project, a follows. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 90/91
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR MASONRY REPAIRS AT
BROWNSVILLE ELEMENTARY
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1900060202800902
1900060303800660
1900060201800605
BROWNSVILLE-MASONRY
MURRAY EDUCATION CENTER
BROADUS WOOD ELEMENTARY
TOTAL
483,000.00
(135,000.00)
(348,000.00)
o.oo
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 29)
304
Agenda Item No. 14. Authorize Chairman to sign Sales Agreement on Fourtl
Street Property.
Mr. Tucker said that the City and County have been offered $87,900 for
the Fourth Street property that is owned jointly. He said that the Building
Committee has negotiated with the City and the County is to receive $50,000 of
that offer. The County has been informed by the City Attorney, that due to
conditions that the City is requiring for accepting this offer, the City is
willing to sell and meet the Building Committee's request for the $50,000 less
the closing costs, as the County's share. He requested the Board to authorize
the Chairman to sign the sales agreement and. the final deed. He said that the
County Attorney has already reviewed the agreement and the final deed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to authorize
the Chairman to sign the sales agreement and deed for the Fourth Street
property as stipulated. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(Set out below is the deed:)
THIS DEED, made and entered into this 20th day of May, 1991, by
and between THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, a municipal corpo-
ration, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantors, and KATHARINE
F. GRIFFIN, feme sole Grantee, whose address is 418 4th Street, N.E.,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901.
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND
AND NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($87,900.00), cash in hand paid, the receipt
of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantors do hereby GRANT, BARGAIN,
SELL and CONVEY with GENERAL WARRANTY AND ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE
unto Grantee, her successors and assigns, as her sole and separate
equitable estate, free from the control and marital rights of any
present or future husband and free from any curtesy rights or inchoate
curtesy rights of any present or future husband of the said Grantee,
all of which are expressly excluded, and with the full and complete
authority in the said Grantee to alien, convey, encumber and otherwise
deal with and dispose of the same without necessity of joinder by or
with any present or future husband of the Grantse, any and all right,
title and interest it may possess in and to the following described
real estate, to-wit:
Ail that certain lot or parcel of land with the improvements
thereon and appurtenancas thereto, situated in the City of
Charlottesville, Virginia, known as 418 4th Street, N.E.,
fronting seventy (70) feet and three (3) inches on the east
side of Fourth Street, N.E., its northern boundary extending
in an easterly direction from Fourth Street, N.E. a distance
of one hundred and sixty-eight (168) feet to an alley, its
rear boundary extending in a southerly direction along said
alley for a distance of sixty-seven (67) feet, and its
southern boundary extending in a westerly direction from
said alley a distance of one hundred and sixty-nine (169)
feet and six (6) inches to the southwest corner of said
property on Fourth Street, N.E. together with all right,
title and interest of the Grantors in and to said alley
adjacent to the rear of the property as set forth and
described in a certain contract between J. E. Irvine, et al.
dated June 15, 1905, and recorded in the Charlottesville
Clerk's Office in Deed Book 16, page 371; being in all
respects the same property conveyed to the City of
Charlottesville, Virginia and the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, by deed of C. C. Sours dated
February, 5, 1971 and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's
Office at Deed Book 324, page 133.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 30)
305
The property conveyed hereby is subject to the easements, condi-
tions, restrictions and reservations contained in duly recorded deeds,
plats and other instruments constituting constructive notice in the
chain of title to the property hereby conveyed which have not expired
by a limitation of time contained therein or have not otherwise become
ineffective.
This deed is exempt from grantor's tax pursuant to Virginia Code
§58.1-811(C)(3).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Charlottesville, Virginia has
caused this deed to be executed by its duly authorized official, and
the County of Albemarle, Virginia has caused this deed to be executed
by its duly authorized official; and
WITNESS the following signatures and seals.
Agenda Item No. 15. Authorize Chairman to sign Lease Agreement for Old
Crozet Elementary School.
Mr. Tucker presented the following memorandum dated April 4, 1991:
"The Building Committee and staff recommend the lease of the
Old Crozet Elementary School to Crossroads Waldorf School. A
lease document which was prepared by the County Attorney for the
Building Committee is on file in the County Executive's office.
This agreement was reviewed with the Crossroads Waldorf School
officials and their attorney. Some of the pertinent conditions
in the sixteen page lease are:
The lease term is for three with two one-year renewal options
beginning July 15;
The annual rent is $25,250 annually and based on $1 per square
foot;
The annual rent shall be increased each year based on Consumer
Price Index of prior year, but not to exceed six percent;
A security deposit of $2500 to be held by County for duration of
lease;
Tenant (Crossroads Waldorf School) shall pay all utilities;
Tenant is to apply for Special Use Permit;
Tenant shall pay for all maintenance and repairs costing less
than $1000, but not exceed $2500 in any one year;
County will fund major repairs;
Tenant will carry a $2.0 million liability insurance policy;
County or property owner will provide fire insurance which
currently costs $1200 annually;
County has the right to lease back any unused classrooms; and
Tenant shall allow use of grounds to neighborhood organizations
and the Little League.
You are requested to take official action authorizing the chairman to
sign the lease upon receipt of the deposit."
Mr. Bain inquired about the leasing of classrooms from Crossroads WaldorJ
School. Mr. Tucker explained that the County is leasing the entire property
to Crossroads Waldorf School. He added that if the Crossroads Waldorf School
has any unused portion of that building, it can be leased back to the County,
if there is a need.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 31)
306
Mr. Bain said the agreement does not forbid the Crossroads Waldorf School
from leasing its classrooms to anyone other than the County. Mr. Tucker
responded that is current; it is possible for the School to sublet space to
others, but the County can lease the space, if necessary. (Mr. St. John
returned at 11:52 a.m.) Mr. Bowie pointed out that if the School wants to
lease the space, it would have to comply with County zoning regulations. Mr.
Tucker agreed and said that was clear in the lease agreement.
Mr. Bowie asked at what rate the space could be leased back to the
County. Mr. Tucker responded that the County could lease the space back at
the same rate as the Crossroads Waldorf School is leaving.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
authorize the Chairman to sign the lease agreement for the Old Crozet Elemen-
tary School with Crossroads Waldorf School, as follows. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(The agreement is set out in full below:)
AGREEMENT OF LEASE
THIS LEASE AG~R~MENT, is dated for identification as of February
26, 1991, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMArlE, VIRGINIA, ("Land-
lord") and CROSSROADS WALDORF SCHOOL, a Virginia non-stock corporation
("Tenant");
ARTICLE I.
PREMISES AND IMPROVEMENTS
In consideration of the rents and covenants herein set forth,
Landlord hereby leases to Tenant, and Tenant hereby rents from Land-
lord, the premises known as the Old Crozet Elementary School, Albe-
marle County, Virginia, as described on Exhibit A attached hereto and
made a part hereof together with any and all improvements thereon (the
"Property").
ARTICLE II.
QUIET ENJOYMENT
So long as Tenant is not in default hereunder, Tenant shall have
peaceful and quiet enjoyment, use and possession of the Property
without hindrance on the part of the Landlord or anyone claiming by,
through or under Landlord except as set out herein.
ARTICLE III.
TERM
Section 3.1. Commencement and Expiration. The term of this
Lease shall commence at 12:01 A.M. on July 15, 1991 (the "date of
commencement") and shall expire at 12:00 Midnight on July 14, 1994,
unless sooner terminated as provided herein. Ail references to the
"term" of this Lease shall, unless the context indicates a different
meaning, be deemed to be a reference to the term described herein.
The term "Lease Year" as used herein shall mean the period from July
15 of any year to July 14 of the following year.
Section 3.2. Renewal Option. Tenant shall have an option to
renew this Lease for two additional one-year periods, by giving
written notice to Landlord at least six (6) months prior to the end of
the three-year term and at least six (6) months prior to the end of
the first one-year renewal term. If renewal notice is not given, this
lease shall terminate. In no event shall the lease continue for a
period of greater than five years.
ARTICLE IV.
RENT
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 32)
307
Section 4.1. Annual Rent. Commencing July 15, 1991, Tenant
agrees to pay to Landlord "Annual Rent" of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND TWO
HUNDRED FIFTY Dollars ($25,250.00), payable in equal monthly install-
ments of TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FOUR and 17/100 Dollars ($2,104.17),
in advance, on the first day of each month during the term hereof.
For each of the lease years two and three for any renewal terms
as set out in Section 3.2 of this lease, the rentals shall be in-
creased annually, each year above the preceding year, by an amount
equal to the annual percentage increase in the cost of living (CPI)
Index, as defined herein, for the preceding lease year, but not
greater than six percent (6%) per year during years two and three and
any renewal years. The CPI Index shall be the U. S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics Consumer Price Index (all items, all urban consumers
1982-84 equal 100). If the CPI Index shall be discontinued, Landlord
shall designate an appropriate substitute index or form having the
same general acceptance as to use and reliability as the CPI Index and
such substitute shall be used as if originally designated herein, but
no retroactive adjustments shall be made.
Rent for the first year is calculated based upon One Dollar
($1.00) per square foot.
Section 4.2. Address for Rent Payments. Ail payments of rent
due Landlord pursuant to Section 4.1 shall be made to Landlord at the
address specified in Section 17.4 or to such other party or at such
other address as hereafter may be designated by Landlord by written
notice delivered to Tenant at least ten (10) days prior to the next
ensuing monthly rental payment date.
ARTICLE V.
DEPOSIT
Tenant agrees to pay the sum of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
($2,500.00) as a security deposit. This sum will be due when the
lease is signed by Tenant. Prior to the termination or expiration of
this lease, if Landlord makes any deduction from this security deposit
for charges arising under this lease or by law, Tenant agrees to pay
Landlord such sums as may be necessary to offset such deductions to
replenish and maintain the security deposit in the amount set forth
above.
The security deposit will be held by Landlord to secure Tenant's
full compliance with the terms of this Lease.
Within thirty (30) days after the termination of this Lease,
Landlord may apply the security deposit and any interest required by
law to the payment of any damages Landlord has suffered due to Tenants
failure to maintain the property, to surrender possession of the
property thoroughly cleaned and in good condition (reasonable wear and
tear excepted) or to fully comply with the terms of this Lease and any
balance, if any, to unpaid rent.
Landlord shall provide Tenant with an itemized accounting, in
writing, showing all such deductions. Within this thirty day period,
Landlord will give or mail to Tenant the security deposit, with any
interest required by law and minus any deductions. To assist Land-
lord, Tenant shall give Landlord written notice of Tenant's new
address before Tenant vacates the property.
During the term of occupancy under this Lease, if Landlord
determines that any deductions are to be made from this security
deposit, Landlord will give written notice to Tenant of such deduction
within thirty days of the time Landlord determines that such deduction
should be made. This provision applies only to deductions made thirty
days or more before the termination of this Lease.
If Landlord sells or otherwise transfers all or any interest in
the property during the term of this Lease, Tenant agrees that Land-
lord may transfer this security deposit, plus any interest required by
law, to the purchaser who in such event shall be obligated to comply
with the provisions of this section.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 33)
308
ARTICLE VI.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES
Tenant shall pay for all gas, heat, light, water, sewer service,
power, telephone, janitorial, garbage disposal service and all other
utilities supplied to the Leased Premises.
ARTICLE VII.
USE OF PROPERTY
Section 7.1. Permitted Use. Tenant shall have the right to use
the Leased Premises as a school and for any other use permitted under
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
Section 7.2. Fire Alarms and Extinguishers. Tenant agrees to
maintain in good condition and repair (including replacements when
necessary) all fire alarms and extinguishers as required by current
local zoning and building authorities, to be inspected at least
annually and recharged as necessary, and to bear a tag or tags indi-
cating the date of each such inspection and servicing.
Section 7.3. Sidewalks and Parking Lot. Tenant shall not store
or maintain any equipment on any portion of the parking area on the
Property. Tenant agrees to immediately clean up any spillage of trash
or debris which shall occur in connection with the use of any dumpster
or other trash collection container. Tenant shall maintain all
sidewalks adjacent to the Property in a broom-clean condition at all
times, and shall promptly arrange for the removal of snow or ice on
such areas.
ARTICLE VIII.
ALTERATIONS
Section 8.1. Installation by Tenant.
(a) Tenant may, from time to time, make or cause to be made any
interior non-structural alterations, additions or improvements which
do not damage or alter the structures located on the Property provided
that Landlord's consent shall have first been obtained in writing, and
provided that Tenant shall obtain all required governmental permits
for such alterations, additions or improvements.
(b) Tenant may, from time to time, make interior structural and
exterior structural or non-structural alterations, additions or
improvements, only with Landlord's prior written consent to detailed
plans and specifications therefor. Upon the expiration or sooner
termination of this Lease, Landlord shall have the option (exercisable
upon sixty (60) days' notice to Tenant except in the case of a termi-
nation of this Lease due to a default by Tenant, in which case no such
notice shall be required) to require Tenant to remove at Tenant's sole
cost and expense any and all improvements made by Tenant to the
Property or to elect to keep such improvements as Landlord's property.
In the event Tenant is required to remove any improvements, (i) Tenant
shall be responsible for the repair of all damage caused by the
installation or removal thereof, and (ii) if Tenant fails to properly
remove such improvements or provide for the repair of the Property,
Landlord may perform the same at Tenant's cost and expense.
Section 8.2. Signs. Tenant shall have the right to place signs
on the interior or exterior of the Property only in conformity with
all local regulations and with the prior written approval of Landlord.
ARTICLE IX.
MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY
Section 9.1. Maintenance by Tenant. Landlord shall deliver the
property to Tenant at the beginning of the term in its present condi-
tion. Tenant shall be responsible for all repairs and maintenance for
the Property and the improvements located thereon, whether ordinary or
extraordinary, structural or nonstructural, foreseen or unforeseen,
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 34)
309
including but not limited to, roof, walls, plumbing, heating, electri-
cal, air-conditioning, plate glass and windows, it being understood
that Landlord shall have no obligation or responsibility for any
maintenance or repairs to the Property or the improvements located
thereon that is less than $1,000.00. Landlord shall pay one hundred
percent (100%) of any repair costing more than $1,000.00, provided
that all repairs over $1,000.00 shall require prior approval of the
Landlord. Tenant's obligation to pay for repairs shall not exceed
$2,500.00 in any one year. Landlord's obligation to pay for repairs
over $1,000.00 shall only apply to repairs to the building and not to
any equipment in the building or the grounds. Tenant shall keep the
Property clean, neat, orderly, presentable and in good repair at all
times.
Section 9.2. Surrender of Property. At the expiration of the
tenancy hereby created, Tenant shall surrender the Property and all
keys for the Property to Landlord at the place then fixed for the
payment of rent and shall inform Landlord of all combinations on
locks, safes and vaults, if any, which Landlord has granted permission
to have left in the Property. At such time, the Property shall be
broom clean and in good condition and repair, commensurate with its
age and present condition. Nothing herein shall require the Tenant to
make any permanent improvements in the property. If Tenant leaves any
of Tenant's personal property in the Property, Landlord, at its
option, may remove and store any or all of such property at Tenant's
expense or may deem the same abandoned and, in such event, the proper-
ty deemed abandoned shall become the property of Landlord.
Section 9.3. Condition of Premises on Date of Commencement.
Tenant accepts the Property "as is" on the effective date hereof.
Landlord makes no representations or indemnities as to the condition
of the Property.
ARTICLE X.
INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY
Section 10.1. Liability Insurance of Tenant. Tenant covenants
and agrees that it will, at all times during the term of this Lease,
keep in full force and effect a policy of public liability and proper-
ty damage insurance with respect to the property and the business
operated by Tenant and any sub-tenants of Tenant on the Property in
which the limits of public liability for bodily injury and property
damage shall not be less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) per
accident, combined single limit. The policy shall name Landlord and
any mortgagees of Landlord as additional insureds. The policy shall
provide that the insurance thereunder shall not be cancelled until
thirty (30) days after written notice thereof to all named insureds.
Section 10.2. Fire and Extended Coverage. Landlord agrees that
it will, during the initial and any renewal term of this Lease, insure
and keep insured, for the benefit of Landlord and its respective
successors in interest, all buildings and improvements on the Proper-
ty, or any portion thereof then in being. Such policy shall contain
coverage against loss, damage or destruction by fire and such other
hazards as are covered and protected against, at standard rates under
policies of insurance commonly referred to and known as "extended
coverage," as the same may exist from time to time. Landlord agrees
to name Tenant as an additional insured on such policy, as its inter-
est may appear.
Section 10.3. Evidence of Insurance. Copies of policies of
insurance (or certificates of the insurers) for insurance required to
be maintained by Tenant and Landlord pursuant to Sections 9.1 and 9.2
shall be delivered by Landlord or Tenant, as the case may be, to the
other upon the issuance of such insurance and thereafter not less than
thirty (30) days prior to the expiration dates thereof.
Section 10.4. Waiver of Subrogation. Landlord and Tenant each
hereby releases the other from any and all liability or responsibility
to itself or anyone claiming through or under it by way of subrogation
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 35)
310
or otherwise for any loss or damage to property caused by fire or any
of the extended coverage or supplementary contract casualties, even if
such fire or other casualty results from the negligence of itself or
anyone for whom it may be responsible, provided, however, that this
release shall be applicable and in force and effect only with respect
to loss or damage occurring during such time as any such release shall
not adversely affect or impair the releasor's policies of insurance or
prejudice the right of the releasor to recover thereunder.
Section 10.5. Indemnity By Tenant. Tenant hereby agrees to
indemnify and hold harmless Landlord from and against any and all
claims, losses, liabilities, damages and expenses, including attor-
ney's fees incurred or suffered by Landlord which (a) arise from or in
connection with Tenant's possession, use, occupation, management,
repair, maintenance or control of the Property, or any portion thereof
which arise from or in connection with any negligent or wrongful act
or admission of Tenant or Tenant's agents, employees, licensees, or
invitees, or (b) result from any default, breach, violation or non-
performance of this Lease or any provision of this Lease by Tenant.
Tenant shall, at its own cost and expense, defend any and all actions,
suits or proceedings which may be brought against Landlord with
respect to the foregoing or in which Landlord may be impleaded.
Tenant shall pay, satisfy, and discharge any and all judgments,
orders, and decrees which may be recovered against Landlord in connec-
tion with the. foregoing and shall pay all costs, expenses, and reason-
able attorney's fees incurred, by Landlord in connection with such
litigation.
ARTICLE XI.
WASTE, NUISANCE~ COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS
Section 11.1. Waste or Nuisance. Tenant shall not commit or
suffer to be committed any waste or any nuisance upon the Property.
Section 11.2. Governmental Regulations. During the term of this
Lease, Tenant shall, at Tenant's sole cost and expense, comply with
all of the requirements of all county, municipal, state, federal and
other applicable governmental authorities, now in force, or which may
hereafter be in force, pertaining to the Property or Tenant's use and
occupancy thereof.
ARTICLE XII.
FIRE OR OTHER CASUALTY
Section 12.1 (a) Damage To Premises: If all or any portion of
the Property shall be damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty,
this Lease shall not be terminated or otherwise affected unless
Landlord elects not to rebuild in accordance with the following
provisions. Tenant hereby waives any and all rights to terminate this
Lease by reason of damage to the Property by fire, or other casualty
pursuant to any presently existing or hereafter enacted statute or
pursuant to any other law. In the event of any damage to the Property
by fire or other casualty which renders the Property untenantable in
whole or in part, there shall be an abatement of the rent payable
hereunder during the period of such untenantability but only if and so
long as Tenant is not engaged in the conduct of its business opera-
tions in the Property and only to that extent which the Property is
rendered untenantable, prorate.
Section 12.2 (b) Election To Rebuild: If all or any portion of
the Property is damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, then
all insurance proceeds under the policies referred to in the preceding
sections hereof that are paid to Landlord on account of any such
damage by fire or other casualty shall be paid to the Landlord or made
available for the payment for repair, or replacing, or rebuilding, and
the Landlord may elect as soon as~practical after the damage has
occurred (taking into account the time necessary to adjust the loss
with the insurance company or companies), whether or not to repair or
rebuild the Property or any such portion thereof to its condition
immediately prior to such occurrence, providing, however, that the
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 36)
311
foregoing provisions shall not require the Landlord to repair or
rebuild any part of the Property, or of Tenant's fixtures, equipment,
or appurtenances not constituting a part of the Property owned by the
Landlord. If an election to replace or rebuild is made by the Land-
lord, then this Lease shall remain in force and effect. If an elec-
tion not to rebuild is made by the Landlord or if no election is made
within ninety (90) days after such damage has occurred, then the Lease
shall be deemed terminated ninety (90) days following the occurrence.
ARTICLE XIII.
CONDEMNATION
If the whole or any part of the Property shall be taken under the
power of eminent domain, then this Lease shall terminate as to the
part so taken on the day when Tenant is required to yield possession
thereof. The Landlord shall make such repairs and alterations as may
be necessary in order to restore the part not taken to useful condi-
tion; and the rent payable under Section 4.1 shall be reduced propor-
tionately as to the portion of the Property so taken. If the amount
of the Property so taken is such as to impair substantially the
usefulness of the Property for the purposes for which the same are
hereby leased, then either party shall have the option to terminate
this Lease as of the date when Tenant is required to yield possession.
ARTICLE XI¥.
DEFAULT OF TENANT
Section 14.1. Insolvency or Bankruptcy. The occurrence of any
of the following:
(a) The appointment of a receiver or trustee to take possession
of all or substantially all of the assets of Tenant, or
(b) a general assignment by Tenant for the benefit of creditors,
or
(c) any action or proceeding commenced by or against Tenant
under any insolvency or bankruptcy act, or under any other statute or
regulation having as its purpose the protection of creditors and not
discharged within ninety (90) days after the date of commencement,
shall constitute a breach of this Lease by Tenant. Upon the happening
of any such event, this Lease shall, at Landlord's option, terminate
ten (10) days after written notice of termination from Landlord to
Tenant.
Section 14.2. Default.
The occurrence of any of the following:
(a) Tenant fails to pay when due any amount of rent, additional
rent, or other monies due under this Lease, including Sections 4.1 and
4.2, and such payment is not received by Landlord within ten (10) days
after written notice of such failure is received by Tenant, or
(b) a default in any of the other provisions of this Lease, and
Such default continues uncured for a period of thirty (30) days after
written notice thereof from Landlord, shall be deemed a "default"
under this Lease.
Section 14.3. Remedies. In the event of any default or breach
hereof by Tenant, Landlord shall have the right (in addition to all
other rights and remedies provided by law) to terminate this Lease or
to re-enter and take possession of the Leased Premises, peaceably or
by force, and to remove any property therein without liability for
damage to and without obligation to store such property, but may store
the same at Tenant's expense, and to collect from Tenant all rent then
due and which would accrue for the unexpired port,on of the term
hereof, together with reasonable attorney's fees. In addition, in the
event of a failure to pay rent, additional rent, or other money within
five (5) days of its due date, Tenant shall pay to Landlord the
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 37)
312
greater of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) or one-half (1/2) of one
percent (1%) of such sum for each day after the fifth day such rent or
other money is late.
ARTICLE XV.
HOLDING OVER, SIGNS~ SUCCESSORS
Section 15.1. Holding Over. Any holding over after the expira-
tion of the term hereof, with the consent of Landlord, shall be
construed to be a tenancy from month-to-month at double the rents
herein specified (prorated on a monthly basis) and shall otherwise be
on the terms and conditions herein specified as far as applicable.
Section 15.2. For Rent Signs. Tenant hereby permits Landlord
during the last ninety (90) days of the term hereof, to place for rent
or for sale signs in a prominent window and elsewhere on the Property.
Tenant will also allow Landlord, or its agents, during said period to
show the Property to prospective tenants or purchasers at such times
as Landlord may reasonably desire.
Section 15.3. Successors. Ail rights and liabilities herein
given to, or imposed upon the respective parties hereto, shall extend
to and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and
permitted assigns of the parties. All covenants,, representations and
agreements of Landlord shall be deemed the covenants, representations
and agreements of the fee owner from time to time of the Property and
Landlord shall be automatically released of all liability under this
Lease from and after the date of any sale by Landlord of the Property.
Ail covenants, representations and agreements of Tenant shall be
deemed the covenants, representations and agreements of the occupant
or occupants of the Property.
ARTICLE XVI.
ASSIGNMENT OR SUBLET
Tenant will not assign this Lease or sublet all or a portion of
the Property without Landlord's or Landlord's County Executive's prior
written consent. Assignment or sublease can only occur for purposes
permitted under the zoning regulations of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia.
ARTICLE XVII.
MISCELLANEOUS
Section 17.1. Lease Back. Landlord reserves unto itself and its
assigns the absolute right to lease back a portion of the Property not
being used by Tenant for classrooms or administrative purposes upon
six (6) months prior to July 1 notice to Tenant. If such occurs
during the term of this Lease, Tenant's rent shall be reduced propor-
tionately for the loss of square footage.
Section 17.2. Use of Grounds. Tenant is responsible for the
upkeep of the grounds of the Property, including, but not limited to,
grass cutting and snow removal, except that Landlord shall bushhog the
field at least twice per year. Notwithstanding anything in this Lease
to the contrary, Landlord shall have the right to use the grounds for
its parks and recreation program at no cost to Landlord at times not
inconsistent with such use by Tenant. Tenant shall allow the use of
the grounds by such neighborhood organizations as little league
baseball and soccer without charge to these organizations.
Section 17.3. Right of First Refusal. Landlord shall notify
Tenant of any intent to sell the Property during the term of this
Lease. Tenant shall have two months after receipt of notice of intent
to sell to accept or reject Landlord's offer. Upon the expiration of
this time period, this right of first refusal shall expire.
Section 17.4. Waiver. The waiver by Landlord or Tenant of any
breach of any term, covenant or condition contained herein shall not
be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant, or condition or any
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 38)
313
subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition
contained herein. The subsequent acceptance or payment of rent
hereunder by Landlord or Tenant, respectively, shall not be deemed to
be a waiver of any breach by Tenant or Landlord, respectively, of any
term, covenant or condition of this Lease regardless of knowledge of
such breach at the time of acceptance or payment of such rent. No
covenant, term or condition of this Lease shall be deemed to have been
waived by Tenant or Landlord unless the waiver be in writing signed by
the party to be charged thereby.
Section 17.5. Bntire Agreement. This Lease, and the Exhibits
attached hereto and forming a part hereof, set forth all the cove-
nants, promises, agreements, conditions and understandings between
Landlord and Tenant concerning the Property and there are no cove-
nants, promises, agreements, conditions or understandings, either oral
or written, between them other than as herein set forth. Any former
lease is hereby expressly cancelled and terminated. Except as herein
otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or
addition to this Lease shall be binding upon Landlord or Tenant unless
reduced to writing and signed by them.
Section 17.6. Notices. Any notice, demand, request or other
instrument which may be, or are required to be given under this Lease,
shall be in writing and delivered in person or by United States
certified mail, postage prepaid, and shall be addressed:
(a) if to Landlord, to Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive,
County of Albemarle, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia,
22901 or at such other address as Landlord may designate by written
notice;
(b) if to Tenant, to George H. Gilliam, Esquire, Box 2737,
Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902 or at such other address as Tenant
shall designate by written notice.
Section 17.7. Captions and Section Numbers. The captions and
section numbers appearing in this Lease are inserted only as a matter
of convenience and in no way define, limit, construe or describe the
scope or intent of such sections of this Lease nor in any way do they
affect this Lease.
Section 17.8. Partial Invalidity. If any term, covenant or
condition of this Lease, or the application thereof, to any person or
circ,,m~tance shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable, the
remainder of this Lease, or the application of such term, covenant, or
condition to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it
is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and
each term, covenant or condition of this Lease shall be valid and be
enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.
Section 17.9. Recording. Upon request of either party, a
memorandum of lease will be executed and recorded. Such memorandum
shall contain any provisions of this Lease which either party requests
except for the provisions of Article IV which shall not be included.
The cost of recording such memorandum of lease or a short form hereof
shall be borne by the party requesting such recordation.
Section 17.10. Governing Law. This Lease Agreement shall be
governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Virginia.
Section 17.11. Counterparts. This Lease Agreement may be
executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall consti-
tute one and the same instr~nnent.
ARTICLE XVIII.
BROKER'S FEES
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 39)
314
Tenant and Landlord hereby warrant that there are no brokerage
commissions due in connection with this Lease. In the event a claim
for real estate commissions is made, the party through whom such claim
is made shall indemnify the other party hereto.
ARTICLE XIX.
SUBORDINATION OF LEASE
This Lease and all rights of Tenant hereunder are and shall be
subject and subordinate in all respects to (1) all mortgages, deeds of
trust and building loan agreements affecting the Property, including
any and all renewals, replacements, modifications, substitutions,
supplements and extensions thereof, and (2) each advance made or to be
made thereunder. In confirmation of such subordination, Tenant shall
promptly upon the request of Landlord, execute and deliver an instru-
ment in recordable form satisfactory to Landlord evidencing such
subordination; and if Tenant fails to execute, acknowledge or deliver
any such instrument within ten (10) days after request therefor,
Tenant hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints Landlord as Ten-
ant's attorney-in-fact, coupled with an interest, to exeCute, acknowl-
edge and deliver any such instruments on behalf of Tenant. Tenant
further agrees that inthe event any such mortgagee or lender requests
reasonable modifications to this Lease as a condition of such financ-
ing, Tenant shall not withhold or delay its consent thereto.
ARTICLE XX.
NONRECOURSE
Notwithstanding any breach by Landlord of any of the terms of
this Lease, or any claim by Tenant arising hereunder, in no event
shall Landlord or any of the officers, agents and employees of Land-
lord have any personal liability hereunder and Tenant's only remedy in
the event of such breach, default or claim shall be to proceed against
Landlord's interest in the Property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have signed and sealed
this Lease as of the date first above written.
EXHIBIT A
PARCEL ONE: Ail that certain lot or parcel of land in Albemarle
County, Virginia, near Crozet, with all improvements thereon and
appurtenances thereto, containing 3 acres, more or less, and bounded
on the east by the road from Crozet to White Hall and on the north by
the school house lot, shown and described in deed and plat recorded in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia,
in Deed Book 186, page 361, with said plat at page 362; AND BEING in
all respects the same property conveyed unto County School Board of
Albemarle County, Virginia, by deed of Willie L. Wood and Nealie F.
Wood, his wife, dated February 14, 1945, and recorded in the aforesaid
Clerk's Office in Deed Book 262, page 302; and,
PARCEL TWO: Ail that certain lot or parcel of land in Albemarle
County, Virginia, in the vicinity of Crozet, with all improvements
thereon and appurtenances thereto, containing one and seventeen-
hundredths (1 17/100) acres, more or less, as shown and described by
plat and survey of Hugh F. Simms, S.A.C., dated February, 1924, of
record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 186, page 362; AND
BEING in all respects the same property conveyed unto County School
Board of Albemarle County, Virginia, by deed of J. M. Ballard and
Laura Ballard, his wife, dated February 18, 1924, and recorded in the
aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 186, page 361; and,
PARCEL THREE: Ail that certain lot, tract or parcel of land, in the
White Hall Magisterial District of Albemarle County, Virginia, in the
vicinity of Crozet, with all improvements thereon and appurtenances
thereto, containing 4 55/100 acres, more or less, as shown and
described by plat and survey of Hugh F. Simms, S.A.C., dated November,
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 40)
315
1922, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 182, page
270; AND BEING in all respects the same property conveyed unto Trus-
tees of the County School Board of Albemarle County, Virginia, by deed
of J. M. Ballard and Laura Ballard, his wife, dated December 18, 1922,
and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 182, page
269;
Being in all respects the same property conveyed unto The County
of Albemarle, Virginia, by deed from The County School Board of
Albemarle County, Virginia, dated November 12, 1990 and recorded in
the aforesaid Clerk's Office at Deed Book 1132, page 262.
(Mr. St. John left at 11:58 a.m.) At this time, the Board returned to
Agenda Item No. 9. Work Session: Community Facilities Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that the section on Schools is the last portion
of the Community Facilities Plan for review by the Board. The staff has
received input from the School Board. Some revision to the proposed language
has been done in accordance with the Board's previous requests. Mr. David
Benish, Chief of Community Development, is available to answer Board members'
questions. He added that if the Board endorses the Plan today, then the
entire document can be scheduled for public hearing.
Mr. Benish called attention to the revised draft attached to a memorandua
dted April 5, 1990. He mentioned the last two paragraphs of the Introduction
section and said this language clarifies the arrangement between Parks and
Recreation and the Schools as to the use of school facilities for recreational
purposes. This language reflects what was also included in the Parks and
Recreation section. He mentioned, that some of the standards under "Service
and Facility Standards" on Pages Four, Six and Seven for elementary, middle
and high schools were changed, specifically for parking, enrollment and build-
ing size. He said that these changes were reflective of comments from the
School Board. Requirements are consistent with the Zoning Text Amendment
adopted by the Board several months ago for parking at the schools. He said
that relating to high schools, this section specifically notes that this is
where student parking is taken into account.
Mr. Benish then discussed the section relating to "Needs Assessment". He
said that previously a Long Range Plan was referred to and recommended pro-
jects from that Plan were listed. He noted that the Plan is to be reviewed
annually so the format has been changed to refer to the Long Range Plan for
any updates instead of referring to specific projects. With the exception of
the changes that he mentioned, this is essentially the same document that was
previously presented to the Board.
Mr. Bowie stated that he does not think the last paragraph in the Intro-
duction section is clear. The paragraph states: "Presently, the School Board
and the Parks and Recreation Department have an agreement whereby the schools
purchase the land, provide grading, and install major sports facilities
related to school activities such as football and baseball fields and the
track. The Parks and Recreation Department then provides funding for the
remainder of the facilities." He mentioned that this paragraph suggests that
Parks and Recreation will provide funding for the facility. He believes that
the word, "maintenance" should be used. instead of "funding."
Mr. Benish answered that the present language is correct because those
facilities essential to the operation of school recreation or sports activi-
ties would be provided through the school as a function of that school. He
said that if, based on Parks' standards, a total of three ballfields were
required, the additional ballfields would be the responsibility of Parks and
Recreation. He added that both sections will have to be used in unison to
make that determination.
Mr. Bowie said he still does not believe the language in that paragraph
is clear. He thinks the language should state that the schools will pay for
those items which are essential to the schools. He indicated that there
should be a statement that explains that additional items required for genera]
recreation will be paid for by Parks and Recreation. He thinks that the way
the language is written implies that the total cost will be the responsibility
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 41)
316
of the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Benish said that the language
could be amended.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the item which generated the most discus-
sion by the School Board regarded the rated capacity enrollment standards for
elementary schools. It was decided that 600 students would be the rated
capacity guideline for an elementary school. He said the School Board approve
a rated capacity of 750 students for a middle school and the high school rated
capacity will be 1500. He said that those are the standards by which schools
will be designed.
Mr. Bowie asked the present rated capacity for a middle school. Mr. Bain
replied 750 students. Mr. Tucker indicated, however, that there has never
before been a rating standard for middle schools, and that only a guideline
was used. Mr. Cilimberg said that Walton is currently at capacity with 800
students.
Mr. Benish said an ongoing review process has already been established,
so this section of the Community Facilities Plan will be subject to continual
review and reassessment which is different from the other sections.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned the second sentence of the first paragraph of the
"Introduction" section where it reads, "The overriding goal for the county is
to provide educational opportunities for each student to achieve the highest
level of intellect possible consistent with their capabilities, aptitudes, and
interests." She said the word "intellect" should be changed to "achievement",
and the word, "their" should be replaced with"his or her." Mr. Bowie agreed.
Mr. Perkins called attention to paragraph four of the same section
relating to Murray High School, and said that he does not see a need for the
paragraph to be included in the plan. Mr. Benish agreed that it could be
deleted.
Mr. Bowie asked if the Board needed to take any action today. Mr. Tucker
replied that this is the final element of the Community Facilities Plan, and
time for a public hearing needs to be set. Mr. Bain suggested that the publi
hearing be held on June 5.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to set a public
hearing for the Community Facilities Plan for June 5, 1991. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Not Docketed: Mr. Cilimberg said when the Board discussed the request
last month to have Watterson Farm included in the Albemarle County Service
Authority's service area boundaries for water service, he thought the Board
had requested the staff to investigate the possibility of installing a fire
hydrant in the area. He believes the Board asked staff to look into the
possibility of meeting fire needs in general outside of the regular service
area boundaries where there is a waterline available. He said that the
applicant is interested in that approach and would like for the Board to
consider this aspect. He added that although the applicant was denied genera]
service area designation, the request can still be brought to the Board in
regard to getting some form of fire protection. He went on to say that this
is critical to Watterson Farm because of a need to either file to contest and
have the court rule on this Board's decision or to wait and see what happens
regarding fire protection in the rural areas.
Mr. Bowie said the general feeling of the Board was that fire protection
could be given to the rural areas, if the Board chooses to do so. He asked if
this was not the Board's intent.
Mrs. Humphris agreed that it was the Board's intent to consider fire
protection for the rural areas, but she said that the Board could not be held
to this intent until it has information to consider.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 42)
317
Mr. Bain said he cannot make a decision until all the information is
received. Mr. Cilimberg responded that Watterson Farm's position is that as
long as the matter is still considered open, then the 30 day period for filinE
a complaint will not begin. Mr. Bowie and Mr. Bain both said they consider
the matter still open, but are not sure what the Board's decision will be.
Mr. Cilimberg answered that the applicant is aware of that.
Mr. Bowie said a decision has to be made County-wide and not just for
Watterson Farm.
Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Acceptable Attendance Policy Revision.
Dr. Carole Hastings, Director of Personnel/Human Resources, rem~nded the
Board members that several months ago, an Acceptable Attendance Policy was
presented to them. The discussion continued into a joint meeting with the
School Board to discuss the fact that the current guidelines appear to have
worked in terms of reducing absenteeism. She said that the Board wanted to
clarify the fact that the employee's supervisor wanted to exercise some
discretion in applying those guidelines under extenuating circumstances. She
stated that she discussed the situation with the Employee Advisory Councils,
the Joint Personnel Committee, principals and department heads. It was
decided that a simple statement would be sufficient and this statement would
indicate that nothing in the above guidelines was meant to limit the supervi-
sor in exercising discretion in applying those guidelines to an individual
employee's circumstances. She said that this was the only change that was
necessary. She stated that the amendment that is before the Board would also
delete the restriction on the three day limit on death in the immediate
family, so that the supervisor could grant more time for that based on the
employee's need, as long as the employee has provided the supervisor with
justification of the time taken. Dr. Hastings pointed out that the School
Board have approved this amendment and asked that when individual supervisors
waive these guidelines, that a statement be attached to the employee's perfor-
mance evaluation form explaining why this was done. She said that provisions
have been made in terms of the employee evaluation to take the factor of
attendance out of the performance score and reflect it in other categories.
She went on to say that on each employee's evaluation, the supervisor would
still answer how the employee maintained the County's acceptable guidelines
and, if not, then a plan will need to be attached to address this problem~.
She added that it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the
amendment presented.
Mr. Bowie stated that he thinks that attendance should be a factor in an
employee's evaluation, and believes that this was a fair policy.
Dr. Hastings mentioned that she met with Mr. Mark CrOckett, President of
the Albemarle Education Association, again this morning on this issue, and the
teachers are still unhappy with this amendment.
Mrs. Humphris asked how teachers accrue sick leave. Dr. Hastings replied
that teachers accrue sick leave in the same fashion as other County employees.
The sick leave amounts to one and a quarter days per month for those who were
hired prior to November of 1989, with no limit on the number of days that can
be accrued. She said that the employee's extended time is still subject to
the supervisor's scrutiny. She stated that rather than the procedure that
indicates that these are the employee's days to take without question, moni-
toring is being done on sick leave.
Mr. Bain remarked that he has read all of Mr. Crockett's arguments. He
mentioned that his own firm did not have a sick leave policy in the past
because it was felt that if employees were treated fairly, then they would be
fair to the firm. He istated that because of abuse, a policy had to be adop-
ted. He said that his firm's policy is only for one-half day of sick leave
per month. He does not see that a policy such as this would affect profes-
sionalism because the Professionals are not going to abuse it. He said that
when an employee needs sick leave, it is there, and that is the way it should
be.
Dr. Hastings remarked that all of the research that she has read indi-
cates that if this type of benefit is to be contained, there has to be a
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 43)
318
standard. She thinks that it is very clear that if there are extenuating
circumstances, then the supervisor can use his or her best judgment, but he
she must say why a waiver was granted.
Mr. Bowie wondered why the policy does not include the statement that the
supervisor is expected to justify the extenuating circumstances in writing,
instead of writing a separate memo to handle this situation. Dr. Hastings
answered that this was done when the School Board approved the policy at one
Board member's suggestion. She said that it was not a formal recommendation
and could be included in the policy. Mr. Bowie believes that this should be
included in the policy because he thinks that it is fair to have the supervi-
sor justify why the extra time is being taken.
Mr. Bain pointed out that the supervisor is held accountable as part of
the process. He is not sure if this statement needs to be included in the
body of the policy.
Dr. Hastings stated that she could communicate the Board's expectation tc
the principals and department heads.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks all that is needed is a statement saying, "where
the supervisor exercises such discretion, he/she will justify it in writing,"
instead of having the statement in a separate memo. He is concerned that in
the future, the m~mo could be separated from the policy. Dr. Hamtings replied
that it is a simple matter to add the statement to the policy. Mr. Bowie said
that he would be happier with the policy if this statement were added.
Mrs. Humphris remarked, that she has been trying to understand the feel-
ings of those people who are upset about this policy and she can see why there
is a problem. She remembers when she was under such a system, and had to
explain and get permission from her supervisor to use certain sick leave days.
She said that there are times when there are extenuating circumstances. She
also understands that because of the possible abuses of a few people, it is
necessary to have the standards in writing to curb those abuses. She said it
is regrettable that this is difficult for other people who would not need a
written policy, to accept.
Dr. Hastings stated that, in the absence of a standard, there were
individual supervisors setting their own standards, which caused a lot of
discrepancies. She noted that with nearly 1900 employees and many supervi-
sors, this had become a problem. She remarked that the amendment which came
from the Joint Persormel Committee initiated by Mr. Crockett, asked for all of
the standards to be deleted and to allow the department heads and the princi-
pals to be held responsible for explaining the overall attendance ratio of
their departments. She believes that this Board is more comfortable with a
written standard, and research supports the fact that a standard is necessary~
Dr. Hastings indicated that a survey has been done with other school
divisions and that Albemarle County is unique with its policy. She said that
other school divisions are providing leave for the employee to take at his or
her pleasure. She believes that this much time away from the classroom has an
instructio~] impact.
Mr. Bain reiterated that he feels those employees who really care about
their jobs will be at work. If an employee cannot be at work, then there wil
not be a penalty, and he does not see anything punitive about it. He pointed
out that all an employee will have to do is to give an explanation to his or
her supervisor.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that attendance has changed dramatically in the
County since the policy was implemented.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt
the revised Sick Leave/Acceptable Attendance Policy, by adding the words "or
death" in the first sentence so that it now reads: "Albemarle County recog-
nizes that its employees may need time away from their positions to remain at
home due to personal illness or illness or death in their immediate
families."; delete all of the paragraph entitled "Death In the Immediate
Family."; under the section entitled "Acceptable Attendance" first paragraph:
delete the words, "absences which are for extended illness, i.e., more than 7
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting) 319
(Page 44)
consecutive days and certified by a physician, are excluded from this total."
in the last paragraph change the words "five days absence" to "2% of
work time" and add the words "Nothing in the above guidelines, however, is
meant to limit a supervisor in exercising discretion in applying these
guidelines to an individual employee's circumstances."; and add the following
language: "When this is done, however, supervisors will provide the reasons
for waiving the guidelines in writing and include them with the final
evaluation." Roll was called and. the motion carried by the following recorde~
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted Policy is set out below:)
PERSONNEL
SICK LEAVE/ACCEPTABLE ATTENDANCE
Acceptable Attendance
Acceptable attendance shall be defined as not missing more than
2% of one's available work time in any fiscal year for reasons of
personal illness or illness in family. For monitoring purposes the
following standards will apply:
1)
Up to 2% of available work time: satisfactory (for full-
time employees this is 5 days.)
2)
Over 2% and up to 4% of available work time: monitor the
situation for possible problem/determine whether a pattern
exists/counsel with employee.
3)
Over 4% of available work time (if a pattern exists):
unsatisfactory attendance. Employees shall have the reasons
for absences in excess of 4% of available work time docu-
mented on their final evaluations in order to provide the
basis for whether a pattern exists in ensuing years.
A pattern will consist of a review of the employees's leave usage
over a three year period, i.e. the current and two previous fiscal
years.
It is understood that in a particular year several illnesses,
illness of an employee's children, of a death in the family may result
in a loss of more than 2% of available work time. Employees should be
informed by their supervisors on a regular basis of the amount of time
that has been used for sick leave. Nothing in the above guidelines,
however, is meant to limit a supervisor in exercising discretion in
applying these guidelines to an individual employees's circumstances.
When this is done, however, supervisors will prove the reasons for
waiving the guidelines in writing and include them with the final
evaluation.
Agenda Item No. 11. Resolution in Support of the Mobility Assistance
of 1991.
Mr. Tucker said that this resolution is to support the Federal Mobility
Assistance Act of 1991 which increases transportation funding for the Section
18 program used by JAUNT for rural areas from four percent to seven and
one-half percent. It also increases transportation funding for small urban
areas from 8.6 percent to ten percent of the total Federal transit budget. He
said that this will mean that Section Nine funds will increase in the urban
area by $706,000, and Section 18 funds for rural areas throughout the State
will increase $6,800,000. He is recommending Board approval of this resolu-
tion which will be forwarded to Representative Slaughter and Senators Warner
and Robb requesting their support. Mr. Tucker believes that _this is not only
an opportunity to support these programs for additional funding, but would be
a major impetus to help the County in its traffic reduction strategies.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 45)
320
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt
the following resolution directing that it be forwarded to The Honorable 3ohn
W. Warner, The Honorable Charles S. Robb and The Honorable D. French Slaugh-
ter, Jr.:
R E S 0 L U T I 0 N
WHEREAS, Albemarle County provides public transportation to its
elderly, disabled and low-income residents through a regional para-
transit system; and
WHEREAS, sixty-eight percent of the County's population lives
outside the urban area and relies upon public transportation to meet
medical, economic, family and social needs; and
WHEREAS, the elderly population who are dependent upon public
transportation in Albemarle County has increased ninety-five percent
in the past twenty years and is projected to increase by another
twenty percent within the next decade; and
WHEREAS, public transportation is a vital link in creating
economic independence for poor and disabled County residents who have
no other means of transportation to get to work; and
WHEREAS, the demand for public transportation, which increased
eighty-seven percent in the urban area and one hundred percent in the
rural areas in the past two years, has placed an increasing financial
burden on Albemarle County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, strongly supports the Mobility Assistance
Act of 1991 which increases the share of Federal transportation
assistance to rural and small urban areas in an effort to provide
increased transportation services to meet the needs of the elderly and
the disabled; and
DIRECTS that copies of this resolution be forwarded to The
Honorable John W. Warner, The Honorable Charles S. Robb, and The
Honorable D. French Slaughter, Jr.
Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following record-
ed vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16a. Appointments: TJSPARE Committee (1). No name was
offered for appointment.
Agenda Item No. 16b. Appointments: GTE-GIS Road Naming Committee.
Mr. Bowie reminded the Board that the GTE-GIS Road Naming Committee needs
to be appointed. He said that it was decided that a person from each magiste-
rial district would be appointed and a couple of people would be named at-
large because of their knowledge of the area. He then asked if any of the
Board members had names of people to be appointed to this committee.
Mr. Bain recommended that Mrs. Jean C. Wheby from the Samuel Miller
District be appointed to the GTE-GIS Committee.
Mr. Bowerman said that he did not have an appointment at this time
because both people that he had asked could not accept the appointment.
would make a recormmendation at the April 17 meeting.
He
Mr. Perkins recommended Mr. Steven Meeks to serve on the Committee.
Mr. Bowie recommended that Mr. Howard H. Newlon be appointed to the
Committee.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 46)
321
Mrs. Humphris recommended that Mr. Charles E. Moran, Jr., from the Jack
Jouett District be appointed. She also recommended that the two appointees
at-large on the Committee be Mr. Richard B. Martin and Mr. Lawrence M. Rogers.
Mr. Way recommended the appointment of Mr. George S. Howard from the
Scottsville District.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to appoinl
the above recommended names to the GTE-GIS Road Naming Committee. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board.
Mr. Tucker said that since the Board has appointed the Road Naming
Committee, he requests that the Board authorize him to sign the agreement wit!
GTE-GIS for implementation of the building locator system. The contract has
been amended so that the building location system project will not begin untiJ
the County approves the starting date.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to authorize
the County Executive to sign the following agreement with GTE-GIS for implemeI
ration of the building locator system. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowermmn, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(The agreement is set out in full below:)
AGREEMENT
between
GTEGIS AND ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
for a BUILDING LOCATION SYSTEM
THIS AGREEMENT is made this 10th day of April 1991 between GTE Govern-
ment Information Services, Incorporated having offices at 100 S.
Ashley Street, Fourth Floor, Tampa, Florida 33602 (hereinafter re-
ferred to as "GTEGIS") and Albemarle County, Virginia having offices
at 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (hereinaf-
ter referred to as "THE COUNTY").
WHEREAS, THE COUNTY has a requirement for a Building Location system
in support of the installation of Enhanced 9-1-1, and
WHEREAS, GTEGIS has the expertise to provide the required mapping and
addressing system, and
WHEREAS THE COUNTY has chosen GTEGIS to provide such system,
NOW, THFJlEFOHE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained
herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:
Article 1: General Requirements
GTEGIS agrees to provide addressing method consulting, digital
base map construction, addressing preparation and assignment
utilizing software applications, field verification of addres-
ses, and address updates and corrections based on the field
verification process. GTEGIS shall also construct a Master
Street Address Guide including Emergency Service Number
assignments.
Additionally, GTEGIS agrees to install hardware and geobased
maintenance software tool kit for continuing maintenance by
the County.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 47)
322
Article 2: Agreement Documents
2.1
This Agreement consists of the documents listed below. In the
event of conflict between the provisions of the documents, the
order of precedence shall be in the order listed.
2.1.1
These Agreement "Terms and Conditions," and any additional
contract changes as may be incorporated by reference.
2.1.2 Exhibit A - Statement of Work
2.1.3 Exhibit B - Delivery Schedule
2.1.4 Exhibit C - Payment Schedule
2.1.5 Exhibit D - Schedule of Deliverables
2.1.6 Exhibit E - Software Maintenance Support Agreement
2.1.7 Exhibit F - Functional Specifications
2.1.8 Exhibit G - County of Albemarle RFP 90-3
Article 3: Time of Performance
3.1
Time is of the essence. THE COUNTY shall provide GTEGIS, in
writing, the date it is ready to begin work on the Building
Location System project which is the subject matter of this
Agreement. Such date shall be used as the start date for all
schedules associated with the project. All Work shall be
completed within the time periods specified in Exhibit A,
Statement of Work, Exhibit B, Delivery Schedule, or elsewhere
in this Agreement. GTEGIS agrees to comply with schedules and
completion dates as agreed upon herein or as may be changed by
amendment.
3.2
There are several acts required to be performed by THE COUNTY
as conditions precedent to performance by GTEGIS of its
obligations herein. A failure to perform such conditions
precedent shall entitle GTEGIS to delay performance of its
obligations or additional compensation or both, where appro-
priate.
3.3
GTEGIS shall accept partial deliverables from THE COUNTY and
shall proceed with the work to the extent that such partial
deliverables allow. THE COUNTY shall have a period of sixty
(60) days from the end of each phase to complete its delivery
obligations for that phase. In the event that THE COUNTY is
unable to complete its delivery obligations within such sixty
(60) day period, GTEGIS's responsibility for the completeness
of the project and its deliverables to THE COUNTY shall be
limited to the level of completeness of THE COUNTY-provided
data or information. For example, if GTEGIS receives approved
road names for only 90% of unnamed county roads, and a period
of more than 60 days has elapsed from the otherwise scheduled
end of that phase, then GTEGIS shall be obligated to proceed~
with the project, and subsequent deliverables from that phase
onward shall be only 90% complete as a result.
Article 4: Price and Payment
4.1
In consideration for satisfying the requirements of this
Agreement, THE COUNTY shall pay GTEGIS a total sum of
$331,392.00 for the hardware, software, and services identified
elsewhere in this agreement, in accordance with the schedule
defined in Exhibit C, Payment Schedule. This price is based in
part on a project consisting of approximately 15,000 dwellings
which do not already have the grid-style addresses desired by
THE COUNTY. Should the number of such dwellings be greater
than 15,000 by more than 500 dwellings, a per-dwelling fee of
$4.43 will be charged for all such dwellings in excess of
15,000.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 48)
323
4.2
Payments will be net thirty (30) days. If GTEGIS does not
receive payments within thirty (30) days, GTEGIS may assess THE
COUNTY a late charge equal to 1 1/2% per month or the highest
late charge allowed by law, whichever is lower.
4.3
Price does not include any State or Federal Taxes which may
apply. Should a duly authorized taxing authority levy any taxes
on the price of this project, GTEGIS shall invoice THE COUNTY
separately for such taxes.
4.4
After the initial three-year maintenance support period,
included in the purchase price, the a~nual software maintenance
fees are subject to adjustment annually on the anniversary date
of the commencement of service for each software and hardware
system. Adjustments will be made on the basis of the Consumer
Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI),
U.S. City Average, all times, in effect in the month that this
Agreement becomes effective and the subsequent annual anniver-
sary months. Adjustments will be made by multiplying the
annual support fee by a factor derived from dividing the
current CPI in effect in the anniversary month of this Agree-
ment by the CPI in effect the previous anniversary month. The
resulting figure, rounded to two decimal places, shall be
multiplied by the current annual support fee to establish the
new support fee which shall be in effect the twelve month
period beginning on the anniversary date of this Agreement. In
the event of an adjustment to the support fee, GTEGIS Inc.
shall notify THE COUNTY by the County Board of Supervisors of
such adjustment thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of
service.
4.5
THE COUNTY's obligation to pay the sum stated herein for the
Building Location System shall be contingent upon the approval
by the County Board of Supervisors, of a special Eg-l-1 sur-
charge appropriating the necessary funds for 58.1-3813 of the
Code of Virginia. In the event that the County Board of
Supervisors fails to appropriate the necessary funds, then, and
only in that event, the Agreement will terminate at no addi-
tional cost or obligation to THE COUNTY. In such an event,
GTEGIS Inc. shall have no further obligation to THE COUNTY, and
shall have the right to recover all items, products, documents,
and materials for which THE COUNTY has not paid. All warran-
ties givenunder the Agreement shall also be terminated.
4.6 Invoices shall be sent to:
Wayne Cilimberg
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA
22901
4.7 Payments shall be remitted to:
GTE GIS, Inc
ATTN: Accounts Receivable MS 51F
P.O. Box 2924
Tampa, FL 33601-2924
Article 5: Point-of-Contact/Notice
5.1
Ail contact for technical requirements and contractual issues
will be handled by the following personnel:
5.1.1 GTEGIS:
GTE GIS, Inc.
Attn: Project Manager Albemarle County
P.O. Box 2924
MS 4lB
Tampa, Florida 33601-2914
cc: Contract Administrator
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 49)
324
5.1.2 THE COUNTY:
Project Manager
Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning
Assistant to the Project Manager
Tex Weaver
Information Resources Planner
5.2
Ail notices under this Agreement shall be deemed duly given
upon delivery, if delivered by hand (against receipt) or three
days after posting if sent by certified or registered mail,
return receipt requested, to a party hereto at the address
herein designated by the notice pursuant hereto.
Article 6: Implementation Services
6.1
GTEGIS shall provide implementation services in accordance with
the procedures described in Exhibit A, Statement of Work and
per the schedule delineated in Exhibit B, Delivery Schedule.
6.2
GTEGIS shall make available to THE COUNTY text files in ASCII
format and/or graphic files in DXF format in order to assist
THE COUNTY in any future integration of mapping to Computer-
Aided Dispatch (CAD). The CAD vendor selected by THE COUNTY
shall be responsible for capturing the data provided by GTEGIS
and for manipulating such data into the formats/configurations
necessary to support the integration. GTEGIS shall, upon
request from THE COUNTY, provide support services beyond making
available text files in ASCII format and/or graphic files in
DXF format at its then prevailing professional service charges.
Article 7:
Force Majeure
7.1
GTEGIS shall not be in default because of any failure to
perform this Agreement under its terms if the failure arises
from causes beyond the control and without the fault or negli-
gence of GTEGIS. Examples of these causes are: (1) acts of
God or of the public enemy, (2) acts of the Government in
either its sovereign or contractual capacity, (3) fires, (4)
floods, (5) epidemics, (6) quarantine restrictions, (7)
strikes, (8) freight embargoes, and (9) unusually severe
weather. In each instance, the failure to perform must be
beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of
GTEGIS. "Default" includes failure to make progress in the
work so as to endanger performance.
7.2
Whenever GTEGIS knows or has reason to believe that timely
performance of the work may be delayed for any reason, includ-
ing an actual or potential labor dispute, GTEGIS shall immedi-
ately give written notice thereof, including all relevant
information to include reason for delay and length of delay, if
known, with respect thereto, to THE COUNTY.
Article 8: Limited License
8.1
Ail software and data furnished under this Agreement supplied
to THE COUNTY under this Agreement is proprietary to GTEGIS or
to GTEGIS's subcontractors. THE COUNTY agrees that such
software and data is furnished solely and exclusively for use
by THE COUNTY on the equipment identified in Exhibit C, Sched-
ule of Deliverables.
8.2
GTEGIS shall cause the Source Code for the software to be
utilized in furtherance of this Agreement, to be placed in
escrow with a neutral third party depository which is identi-
fied as
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 50)
325
Sherrets, Smith and Gardner
Attorneys at Law
260 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Omaha, Nebraska 68114
Escrow instructions shall provide that the Escrow holder is to
convey nonexclusive title to the software to THE COUNTY (i) in
the event of GTEGIS' insolvency, bankruptcy, liquidation,
and/or (ii) in the event GTEGIS ceases manufacture or the
support of the software and/or (iii) in the event of GTEGIS'
material breach or termination of this Agreement as determined
by appropriate legal or arbitral proceeding.
8.3
THE COUNTY agrees that it will abide by the terms and condi-
tions of the software manufacturer's software license agree-
ments which shall be provided to THE COUNTY at the time of
software installation. THE COUNTY may not transfer, resell,
assign, or lease software to another party without consent and
written permission of GTEGIS and/or the software manufacturer
and without providing specific reference and inclusion of the
proprietary rights instruction set forth in the specific
software license agreements.
8.4
Except as set forth elsewhere in this Agreements, no licenses,
express or implied, under any patents, copyrights, trademarks,
service marks or trade secrets are granted by either party to
the other under this Agreement.
Article 9: Termination
9.1 Either party may terminane this Agreement:
9.1.1
by written notice if the other party breaches any material
provision of this Agreement and does not remedy such breach
within thirty (30) days after receipt of such written notice,
or
9.1.2
effective forthwith by written notice in the event the other
party (i) intentionally makes (or is discovered to have made)
any material false representations, reports or clain%s in
connection with the business relationship, or (ii) is insol-
vent, makes assignment for the benefit of creditors, is unable
to pay debts as they mature, files or has filed against a
petition in any court setting forth or alleging any of the
foregoing, or has a trustee or receiver or officer of the court
appointed to control or supervise all or any substantial part
of its assets or business.
Article 10: Warranty
10.1
GTEGIS warrants the completeness of the Master Street Address
Guide, the Digital Map File on diskette medium, the map books
of the comm~unity provided to emergency service providers as
designated by THE COUNTY, and the D-sized maps (24" x 36") for
walls provided to each Public Safety Answering Point as of the
date that this project commences. Should TIlE COUNTY discover
any material errors in any of these items for a period of one
year after date of delivery, GTEGIS shall make corrections as
required and shall issue necessary page changes and diskette
updates.
10.2
Should THE COUNTY request service under this warranty clause,
and should it be discovered that the error in the materials
provided by GTEGIS is the result of any action taken by THE
COUNTY or by some entity external to GTEGIS which has caused a
physical change in the data compiled by GTEGIS, either before
or after delivery of the products described in paragraph 10.1,
above, GTEGIS shall make corrections as necessary and the cost
of making such changes shall be borne by THE COUNTY.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 51)
326
10.3
Except for the express warranties stated herein, GTEGIS dis-
cla~-m, without limitations, all other warramties, express or
implied for fitness of a particularp~rpose, or implied warram-
ties arising from c~stom or ~sage of the trade.
Article 11: Documentation, Special Tools, Test Equipment
Documentation, schematics, tools, test equipment, software
(including diagnostic software) for which a license has not
been granted, and associated media to be used by GTEGIS or its
designated subcontractor personnel at the site shall remain the
exclusive property of GTEGIS or its subcontractors and shall be
for the sole use of GTEGIS or its subcontractors.
Article 12: Limitation of Liability
12.1
GTEGIS shall in no event be liable to THE COUNTY or any third
party claiming through THE COUNTY for indirect, special,
reliance incidental or consequential loss or damage, including
lost profits, arising out of the subject matter of this Agree-
ment. In addition, GTEGIS shall not be liable for damages of
any nature in excess of the total purchase price of this
Agreement.
12.2
GTEGIS assumes no liability for schedule stoppage or non-
completion of work that is contingent upon county-provided
equipment or services.
Article 13: Indemnification
13.1
Each party shall indemnify and hold the other, its assigns,
agents, officers and employees, harmless from and against any
loss, costs, damage or expenses (including reasonable attor-
ney's fees) arising out of damage to property and/or injury to
persons, including death, resulting from the willful act of
negligence by said party, its employees or its agents, acting
within the scope of their authority.
13.2
It is a condition of the obligation of either party to indemni-
fy the other that the indemnifying party be given prompt notice
of any claim asserted against the indemnified, part for which a
right of indemnification is claimed hereunder. The indemnifying
party shall be entitled to conduct the defense of any claim
arising hereunder and to settle or compromise such claim~ as it
shall see fit. The indemnified party shall cooperate fully in
the defense of any claim subject hereto.
Article 14: Amendments
No modification, amendment or waiver of any of the terms or
provisions of this Agreement shall be binding or effective for
any purpose whatsoever, unless mutually agreed to and reduced
to writing.
Article 15: GTEGIS's Insurance
15.1
GTEGIS, at its own expense, shall provide the following insur-
ances, with limits on an occurrence basis not less than those
shown.
a. Comprehensive Third-Party General Liability and
Property Damage Insurance.
Minimum Limits:
Bodily Injury
Property Damage
$500,000
$250,000
b. Automobile Liability (Owned, Non-Owned)
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 52)
327
Minimum Limits:
Bodily Injury
Property Damage
$500,000
$25o,ooo
Employer's Liability Insurance covering each employee
in the execution of the work to the extent that such
employee is not covered by Workers' Compensation.
Secure and maintain adequate worker's compensation,
disability benefits, and unemployment insurance in
accordance with the laws of the appropriate state.
15.2
GTEGIS's policies of insurance shall name THE COUNTY as addi-
tional insured and shall be endorsed to specify that such
policies cover the liability assumed by GTEGIS under this
Agreement. GTEGIS shall furnish a Certificate of Insurance to
THE COUNTY, upon request.
15.3
Such insurance shall be taken out with an insurance company
licensed to do business in the county(s) where the work will be
performed and the policy shall provide at least thirty (30)
calendar days notice in writing to THE COUNTY before such
policy is suspended, cancelled, amended, or terminated..
15.4
It is expressly covenanted and agreed that THE COUNTY may
cancel this agreement at any time on written notice and without
any further obligation to GTEGIS should GTEGIS not maintain and
keep in full force and effect such insurance herein required.
Article 16: Controlling Law
The Contract shall be interpreted, and rights of the parties
determined, under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
including its recognition of applicable Federal Law.
Article 17: Other Rights
17.1
Failure of the parties to insist, in any or more instances,
upon the performance of any of the terms, covenants, or condi-
tions of the Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of,
or a relinquishment of, future performance of any such term,
covenant, or condition and the parties' obligation with respect
to such future performance will continue in full force and
effect. Moreover, the rights and remedies of the parties
provided in the Agreement shall not be exclusive and are in
addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law.
17.2
It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that if any
part, term, or provision of the Agreement is by the courts held
to be illegal or in conflict with any law of the state where
made, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions
shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the
parties shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did
not contain the particular part, term, or provision held to be
invalid.
17.3
The captions heading the various paragraphs of the Agreement
are for convenience and shall not be considered to limit,
expand, or define the contents of the respective paragraphs.
Article 18: Confidentiality
18.1
Both GTEGIS and THE COUNTY acknowledge that certain information
that each may receive from the other, such as but not limited
to non-public information concerning the business or finances
of either party, and any other confidential information the
disclosure of which might harm or destroy a competitive advan-
tage of the disclosing party, may be confidential and proprie-
tary to the disclosing party. Neither receiving party shall,
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 53)
328
directly or indirectly, disclose any information concerning the
disclosing party's business methods, customers or finances, or
any other information which is disclosed to it by the other
party, whether or not in writing and whether or not designated
as confidential, without the prior written permission of the
disclosing party, unless such disclosure is specifically
required in the course of the performance by the receiving
party of its obligations hereunder. The obligations of GTEGIS
and THE COUNTY under this Section 18 shall not extend to any
information which (i) becomes publicly available other than
through the action of the receiving party, (ii) is subsequently
rightfully furnished to the receiving party by a third party
without restriction on disclosure, (iii) is furnished by the
disclosing party to a third party without restriction on
disclosure, or (iv) is rightfully known by the receiving party
at the time of receiving such information. Provided, however,
that nothing herein shall preclude the receiving party from
disclosing information which is required to be disclosed by
valid order of a court or other governmental body or otherwise
required by law, to the extent that such disclosure is so
required.
18.2
GTEGIS and THE COUNTY both acknowledge that any breach by them
of their respective obligations under this Section 18 will
cause irreparable harm to the other party for which its reme-
dies at law will be inadequate and that in the event of any
such breach either party shall be entitled to equitable relief
(including without limitation injunctive relief and specific
performance) in addition to other remedies provided hereunder
or available at law. The obligations of the parties under this
Article 18 shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
Article 19: Fee and Gratuities
GTEGIS, or any agent or representative of GTESIS, shall not
offer gratuities to any employee or agent of THE COUNTY with a
purpose toward securing favorable treatment with respect to the
awarding or the performing of the Agreement.
Article 20: Assignment and Subcontracting
Assignment of any payment due or to become due under the Agree-
ment without the prior written consent of THE COUNTY, which
consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, shall not be
binding on THE COUNTY.
Article 21: Publication
Without first obtaining THE COUNTY's written permission, GTEGIS
shall not in any manner, advertise or publish the fact that it
has furnished or has contracted to furnish THE COUNTY with any
items ordered, nor disclose any of the details connected with
the Agreement to any third party.
Article 22: Not Used
Article 23: Permits/Authorizations/Certifications/Registrations
Ail permits and licenses necessary for work to be performed
hereunder shall be obtained by GTEGIS at THE COUNTY's expense.
GTEGIS shall invoice THE COUNTY for such expense within thirty
(30) days of the date such permit, license, or authorization is
received.
Article 24: OSHA, Toxic Substances
GTEGIS warrants that the procedures covered by this Agreement
and the services performed pursuant to this Agreement comply
with the standards, rules, orders, and regulations promulgated
or prescribed pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 and the Toxic Substances Control Act, as applica-
ble.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 54)
329
Article 25: Not Used
Article 26: Relationship to THE COUNTY
GTEGIS shall not accept nor act upon any instructions, direc-
tions and/or modifications concerning GTEGIS's performance
hereunder which would affect the Terms and Conditions and/or
price of this Agreement unless in writing and signed by the THE
COUNTY's authorized representative. No other person may make
commitments or changes that affect cost and schedul~ on behalf
of THE COUNTY.
Article 27: Entire Agreement
This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the
parties and supersedes all prior discussion, negotiations, and
agreements whether oral or written. Any amendment to this
Agreement, including an oral modification supported by new
consideration, must be reduced to writing and signed by both
parties before it will be effective.
*Exhibits mentioned in the agreement are on file with the
records of this meeting.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned the ordinance granting real property tax exemption
to the elderly and handicapped. He asked if the state enabling legislation
has increased the net worth limit above $65,000. Mr. Tucker said "no". Mr.
Bowerman asked if a disabled veteran is eligibleunder this legislation. Mr.
Tucker said he does not believe so.
Mrs. Humphris said a citizen has suggested to her that the County adopt a
policy whereby property taxes for a certain class of elderly people would be
deferred until the sale of the property. She asked if this is allowed under
present law.
Mr. Perkins mentioned the letter to which Mrs. Humphris referred. This
person mentioned that the County has agricultural land use taxation which
relieves the tax burden on the farmer. Mr. Perkins said the land use taxation
might help, but it does not relieve the farmers' burden because the whole
basis of their operation is based upon the land. He added that it amounts to
the same thing as taxing the degree that a lawyer or doctor has. Mrs. Humphris
said the land use taxation is a benefit to all County residents to have that
land remain in farming.
Mr. Perkins said that having any increase in the tax rate can still be a
substantial burden to a farmer.
Mr. Way mentioned the informal meeting held last week with Mayor Thacker
of Scottsville where Mr. Thacker inquired about the possibility of the town
annexing a part of the County. He suggested that a meeting be set up with a
couple of members of this Board, a couple of members of the Town Council,
their respective attorneys, and perhaps one citizen from the proposed annexed
area to discuss this proposal. Mr. Bain suggested that before a meeting takes
place, that the Board review the information on this matter. Mr. Bowie agreed
that it would be helpful to have information on the fiscal impact on both
areas and the legal problems that might occur before meetings begin. He
suggested that the information be presented at the May 8 meeting. Mr. Way
said that was agreeable to him.
Mr. Bowie said Mr. Bain wanted to discuss Item 5.10 on the Consent Agenda
relative to the long range plans for a new middle and high school.
Mr. Bain said he heard from his representative on the School Board about
the back up timing on the middle school aspect and he believes that now the
high schools are at the same point. He wonders if this is something that
needs to be considered as part of the long range planning.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 55)
330
Mr. Tucker remarked that the School Board had recommended a timetable
last year in the CIP. His staff removed the item because there was no funding
to cover it. He said that if this is the timetable, then perhaps it is time
to start considering it. He said that one reason it was removed from the CIP
was because the Long Range Planning Committee was going to consider it again.
He added that a recommendation has not been made at this time, but he hopes
that the Long Range Planning Committee can make its recommendation by April or
May. He thinks that there is still time for the Board to discuss what direc-
tion it wishes to take.
Mrs. Humphris asked what timing needs to be considered if a hond referen-
dum has to be held. Mr. Tucker replied that a decision does not have to be
made for another 30 to 45 days. He thinks that the Board needs to make a
decision during the summer.
Mrs. Humphris asked if it would be possible to have a referendum on a
meals tax and a bond issue for two new schools on the November ballot. Mr.
Tucker responded, "possibly."
Mr. Bain mentioned that he just heard from his School Board member that
the only space that the City has available is at the high school, but that
only 400 additional students could be accommodated. He thinks that more
students than that could be accommodated and would like to have this issue
addressed.
Mr. Bowerman said that the Community Facilities Plan includes recommenda-
tions for maximum capacities at the elementary, middle and high schools. He
wonders if adoption of that Plan would mean an examination by this Board or
School Board of any alternatives to the upper limits of attendance of one of
these facilities in the future. He wonders, too, if it would mean that
education for 12 months of the year has been found unacceptable. He asked if
these alternatives have been considered by the Long Range Committee and are
these options to be considered now. Mr. Bowie said he did not bring this
question up on the facilities plan because he believes that studies show the
size of the school increasing from 600 to 750 or 900 students makes no differ-
ence at all. He added that the size of the class is what makes the differ-
ence. As far as capital is concerned, larger schools are better. He agreed
with Mr. Bain that if space is available locally, it should be used.
Mr. Bowerman said he was referring to the rated capacity and not the
maximum capacity. Mr. Bain asked the definition of "rated capacity". Mr.
Tucker responded that the rated capacity is approximately 90 percent of
maximum capacity.
Mr. Bain commented that the Community Facilities Plan is part of the
Comprehensive Plan, and it is important to have guidelines in place for
development. He thinks that matters such as this should be constantly brought
up to the public as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bowie commented that he has said consistently that he will not
support funding either of these projects in the CIP without having a bond
referendum.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the Board needs to discuss a meals' tax and bond
referendum. Mr. Bowie suggested that an interim report be given to the Board
in May with a full report in June. Mr. Bain agreed that he would like to get
as much information as possible in June. Mr. Tucker suggested that an interim
report be given to the School Board and Board of Supervisors from the Long
Range Planning Committee. Mr. Bowie recommended that the joint meeting be
held with the School Board on the afternoon of May 8.
Mr. Perkins commented that he cannot support building a new middle
school. He thinks that something cheaper can be done by adding on to the
existing middle schools. He feels that all of the middle schools, except
Burley, could have additions. Mr. Perkins stated that the plan seems to be to
use the easy approach~ even if it is the most expensive thing to do.
Mr. Bain said he needs information as to how much it would cost to put
additions on the middle Schools.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 56)
331
Mr. Bowie reiterated that he would like for this Board to have as much
information as possible by the May 8 meeting.
Agenda Item No. 18. Recess. At 12:51 p.m., the Board recessed.
Agenda Item No. 18a. Call to Order.
The Chairman called the meeting back to order at 7:03 p.m. and announced
that this meeting would include public hearings on both the 1991 tax rates and
the 1991-1992 County Budget.
Agenda Item No. 18b. Presentation of Colors - Virginia Militaria Collec-
tors Association Honor Guard.
Mr. Bowie said that he was very pleased and proud to introduce the Honor
Guard of the Virginia Militaria Collectors Association which would present a
special opening ceremony. He next read the names of the people involved in
the Association. They are as follows: Messrs. Jack Kirk, Les Barnett, Jim
Bond, and Mike and Mark Trippe, which is a father and son combination. He
went on to say that this Honor Guard features the uniforms and the equipment
used by all of the armed forces since the Revolutionary War, and he asked
everyone to rise while the colors were being presented.
Agenda Item No. 19. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 20. Moment of Silence. Mr. Bowie asked that the public
remember those people who would not be returning home from Desert Storm, but
also those who sacrificed their lives in all wars.
Agenda Item No. 20a. Proclamation Return of Desert Storm Veterans.
Mr. Bowie said that present at this meeting was Mr. Tom Powell, who was
the organizer of the "Support the Troops" Parade last February. He then read
a Proclamation which supported the efforts of those Americans engaged in
defending freedom, and he called upon all citizens of Albemarle County to do
likewise. The Proclamation designated the week of May 20 26, 1991 as
"Welcome Home Troops Week" so that special attention can be paid to the
sacrifices of the men and women of the armed forces in "Operation Desert
Storm." The Proclamation also requests that all County citizens show their
support by flying a United States Flag, wearing or displaying yellow or red,
white and blue ribbons, participating in patriotic activities and by attending
the parade to be held in honor of the troops. Mr. Bowie stated that he hoped
the Board will adopt the Proclamation.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
adopt the proclamation supporting the Desert Storm Veterans and designating
the week of May 20 - 26, 1991 as "Welcome Home Troops Week". Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
At this time Mr. Bowie gave the Proclamation to Mr. Powell. Mr. Bowie
then explained that the parade that Mr. Powell organized in February was
videotaped and edited and copies were sent to the armed forces in Saudi
Arabia. He commented that returning veterans have come to Charlottesville to
thank Mr. Powell for this support. Mr. Bowie called attention to the fact
that Mr. Powell has been nominated for the "Citizenship of the Year Award"
from the Woodsmen of the World and also other annual awards from other organi-
zations. He thanked Mr. Powell, on behalf of the County, for his efforts.
Mr. Tom Powell spoke next and told the Board and the group that he is the
Chairman of the first annual Memorial Day Parade Committee in Albemarle
County. He said that this year's parade will be entitled, "Operation Welcome
April 10, 199i (Regular Meeting)
(Page 57)
332
Home" and is intended to honor those who have fallen in defense of freedom
throughout history and to welcome home those from Desert Storm. He added that
the Parade will be held on Saturday, May 25,,at 11:00 a.m. and will travel
left along Hydraulic Road ending at Lamb's Road. He invited everyone to the
Rio Hill Shopping Center at the Civil War Battle Site for a welcomehome party
and ceremony to honor the troops. He said that the Virginia Air National
Guard has been requested to participate~ and 200 units are expected to join
the parade. He formally extended an invitation to the Board of Supervisors
and all of the people in Albemarle County and Central Virginia to attend the
first Memorial Day Parade to welcome home the brave men and women from Desert
Storm. He asked for the blessing from the Board of Supervisors for the Parade
Con~nittee's efforts.
Mr. Bowie answered that the Board's blessing has been given with the
Proclamation, He added that this morning the Board voted to have all of
Hydraulic Road closed during the parade instead of having two lanes of traffic
open. Mr. Bowie again thanked the Honor Guard of the Virginia Militaria
Collectors Association.
Agenda Item No. 21. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 2la. County Executive - Overview of 1990-91 Budget.
Mr. Bowie announced that there has been a change in the law which re-
quires this year that two public hearings be held, one for the increase in the
tax rate occasioned by the reassessment and one for the budget. He stated
that the Board will have both of them tonight. He said that first the County
Executive would present an overview of the budget as recommended by the Board
of Supervisors.
At this time Mr. Tucker showed transparencies that indicate what the
budget entails. He concluded with comments regarding a comparison of the
March 13 recommended budget and what has transpired since that time. He said
that the Board and staff have had four work sessions since the March 13 public
hearing. He mentioned that the General Government budget has decreased in
expenditures and funding from the recommendation at that time, but he noted
that the school division expenditures has increased substantially. He pointed
out that $1,700,000 has been added to the school budget, and that State
funding has also increased by approximately $660,000. He concluded his
presentation by calling attention to the proposed change in the Real Property
tax rate from 74 cents to 72 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, and the
proposed change in the Personal Property Tax rate to $4.30 per $100 of assessed
value.
Mr. Bowie asked if any of the Board members had questions for Mr. Tucker.
There were no questions.
Agenda Item No. 22. Public Hearing: Notice of Proposed Real Property
Tax Increase (required by Virginia Code Section 58,1-3321). (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on April 2, 1991.)
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ed Jones spoke first, as the Spokesperson for the SHARE Coalition,
which includes 23 agencies and groups, and which he says is a reflection of
citizen concerns related to meeting the ~still unmet needs of County residents.
He said that the membership in SHARE includes voluntary organizations, service
providers and individuals. He then presented to the Board petitions in
support of retaining the existing tax rates and the allocation of the increased
revenues from increased property assessments to meet human resource, education
and related needs. He noted that 750 county residents have signed these
petitions, and many have expressed the belief that the future of Albemarle
County will be intimately tied to the quality of the hummn resource programs.
He called attention to the fact that SHARE encourages the Board of Supervisors
to develop a strategic plan designed to identify and address projected human
services needs. He said that this plan, in conjunction with the report of the
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 58)
333
Blue Ribbon Commission on Education, could be especially valuable as a guide
to future action in the five to ten year range. He next encouraged the County
to continue to explore alternative revenue sources that will help meet the
expanded demands that inevitable growth will bring to this County. He said
that he believes his coalition has strong citizen support, and he thanked the
members of the Board for the courtesy and attention that has been given to him
during these meetings and in individual discussions.
Next to speak was Mr. William Kehoe, who serves as Chairman of the Fiscal
Resource Advisory Committee. He said that it was the recommendation of his
Committee, in its report to the Board of Supervisors in December of 1989, that
the real property tax rate remain at 72 cents per $100 valuation. He added
that the Board did maintain the property tax rate at 72 cents, except for the
two cents increase that was added to fund the school debt service due to the
failure of the meals' tax, thereby bringing the taxation level to 74 cents per
$100 valuation. He added that the Advisory Committee supports the Board's
decision to reduce the real property tax rate from 74 cents to 72 cents. He
said that this 72 cents rate was and is the recommendation of the Fiscal
Resource Advisory Committee.
Mr. Carlo Colombini, a property owner and citizen of the County, said
that his County property tax for the past year totaled $8,235, not considering
rent use. He said that the rest of his property has been reappraised with
increases of a minimum of 15 percent to a maximum of 46 percent. He
calculated that under the present circumstances there will be an increase in
his taxes of approximately $2,200 making a total of $10,435. He went on to
say that he feels these appraisals are unrealistic. He thought the new
appraisals would be followed by a substantial rate reduction so the tax
increase would be kept to a minimum, but instead, after long debating, the
proposed rate reduction is only two cents. He feels this represents an insult
to the citizens of Albemarle County. He pointed out that it is easy for those
who own little or no property to suggest that the same rate of taxation be
maintained with the purpose of spending more and more money. He believes that
he represents a good section of Albemarle County when he suggests that the
Board consider reducing the appraisals or the rate of taxation or both, so
that the realistic tax increase would be kept to a minimum. He commented that
in times of recession, losses of income will be suffered, and this should be
reflected in the County budget.
Mr. Roger Houghon, a citizen of Western Albemarle, commended the Board on
its new proposed budget, and recommended that it be adopted. He noted that by
lowering the tax rate, it will enable many persons on a fixed income to remain
retired and not have to seek employment. He noted that a large volunteer
source is in existence today and involves a lot of volunteer hours. He
mentioned the University of Virginia Hospital, and pointed out that in the
years from August of 1989 through August of 1991, that 250 volunteers donated
31,959 hours in various activities, and he wondered how many actual hours are
given to agencies and schools by senior citizens. He said that the work force
could be eroded if these citizens are forced to return to work for compensa-
tion in the future.
A gentleman who did not identify himself added his congratulations to the
Board for a job well done, up to this point. He said, however, that in
looking at the proposed rate changes it would seem that the major benefici-
aries are new car buyers and large landowners. He added that the more afflu-
ent people are, the bigger the benefit is for them. He wishes that the
reductions would be of more help to the lower and middle income brackets and
people on fixed incomes. He went on to say that the budget is uSeless to him
because there is not enough detail shown. He said that Federal, State and
County tax bills are difficult to understand, and he would like to think that
something could be done about this at the county level by the publication of
more detail. He thinks that the budgeting process and therequirements of the
school system, especially, are the "tail that is wagging the dog." He said
that with more detail, constructive criticism would be forthcoming instead of
complaints.
Mr. Bowie thanked the gentleman and reminded the group that this hearing
is on the tax rate, only.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 59)
334
Mrs. Sally Thomas spoke next, representing the League of Women Voters.
She thanked the Board for all of the courtesies that it had extended to her
during the last three years. She recalled a meeting of more than 20 years ago
when she had to stop in the middle of her presentation in order to get the
Board members' attention. She went on to say that the League still thinks
that the Board should retain the 74 cents per $100 tax rate. She mentioned
that the personal property tax rate has been lowered by 10 cents over the past
few years, which the League agrees with, because almost everyone in the County
will benefit from this reduction. According to Mrs. Thomas, lowering the real
estate tax by two cents per $100 saves individual homeowners only a relatively
small sum, which is not much relief for people who have experienced increases
in their assessed value. By lowering the real estate tax rate by two cents
per $100, the County will gain $755,000, and that is needed to balance the
school budget and avoid lay-offs of teachers and staff. She mentioned the
growing school population and said that reductions in teaching and other staff
will affect class size and school programs. She reminded the Board that they
have said repeatedly that they do not want to cut any programs. She said that
when the preliminary decision was made on the 72 cents tax rate, additional
State funds were assumed that are now seriously in doubt. Mrs. Thomas pointed
out that even if these State funds are received, the $15,000,000 that the
Governor is hoping will go to local school systems may come with a price tag
of $18,000,000 of increased expenses for retirement funds which is hardly a
windfall. She said that the League trusts that the Board will reconsider the
school budget.
Mrs. Thomas said that she would speak at the next portion of the public
hearing about the League's concern within the county budget. She remarked
that beginning next year, the county's debt service expense will increase by
more than $1,000,000, and there will be additional growth expenses in the
schools, the police department and elsewhere. The League is concerned that
paring the budget with this tax rate will result in delayedmaintenance and
expenditures that will cost taxpayers even more in the future. She said that
it is even more difficult to increase a tax rate than it is to hold it in
place. She informed the Board that the League hopes that, whether or not the
tax rate is decreased, it will look into increasing the real estate tax
exemption for low, fixed income, elderly and disabled people. The League
feels that in so doing, this may be a reasonable response to the public
comments at the budget hearing this year. She added that the League has also
learned that the County has the authority to offer rental assistance for low
income residents which she suggested that the Board explore. Mrs. Thomas
thinks it is imperative that the County proceed to develop a long range fiscal
plan that is recommended by the Fiscal Resources Committee and others. She
said that the presence of a fiscal management analyst on the staff and of the
Fiscal Resources Committee, which is already in place, should make this
possible. She asked that the Board involve members of the public in this
process.
There being no other comments on the increased tax rate occasioned by the
reassessment, the public hearing was closed at 7:37 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 23. Public Hearing: Albemarle County Proposed Budget
for Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 1991. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
April 2, 1991.)
Mr. Bowie mentioned that the March public hearing was not required by
law, but the Board did listen to what was said, and he added that Mr. Tucker
has pointed out that school funding has been increased by the county and the
state by $2,500,000, since the public hearing. He said that several letters
have been received concerning the nurses' positions. He explained that, once
the School Board receives the $2,500,000, it will be the School Board's
prerogative to decide which positions will be funded. He reiterated that,
based on comments the Board received at the March meeting, plus work done by
Mr. Bowerman, $2,500,000 has been added to the proposed School budget since
March 13.
At this time, Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing and asked if there was
anyone who wished to speak concerning the General Government categories of
Administration, Judicial, Public Safety, or Public Works. No one spoke.
Next, he asked if anyone wanted to talk about Human Development?
:April 107.199!~.(Regular Meeting)
(Page 60)
335
Mrs. Shirley Dorrier spoke as a taxpayer in Albemarle County and for the
Board of Trustees of the Jefferson Madison Regional Library. She thanked the
Board of Supervisors, the County managers, and the County financial department
for every dollar that could be given for the library system and budget. She
said that the Library Board, the director and staff all know the difficult job
that is faced in filling the needs of a growing county. She mentioned that
her Board has already trimmed its own budget to a minimum, and she promised to
spend efficiently and wisely the money that is allotted for library needs,
She beiieves that the supervisors know the positive role that the library
plays in Albemarle County, and the public should be fully aware of the support
that the Board provides the library. She said that tax dollars that the
citizens pay provide them with an enormous wealth of recreational and informa-
tional services from their library. With the computer cataloging, every book
in any library in the county is available to each citizen of the county. She
added that with the opening in the fall of the new Northside Branch Library,
locations of libraries will be more equalized. She said that the citizens of
Albemarle and the JMRL Board of Trustees thank the Board for its support and
for sharing the belief that better libraries provide more abundant living and
a better life for the people of Albemarle County.
Mr. Douglas Heard, President of Friends of the Jefferson Madison Regional
Library, supported what was said by Mrs. Dottier. He mentioned that the
Friends' sale began last Saturday in the new Northside Branch. He said that
on the first day of the sale, the people were lined up from the front door
past the Safeway Store, and the sale brought in approximately $30,000 worth of
business that day, which he believes has set a record. He added that the net
proceeds of the sale go to the Jefferson Madison Regional Library. He said
that the volunteers who have made all of this possible have been impressed
with the excitement expressed by the people attending the sale in this new
Northside Branch. He thanked the Board, as President of Friends of JMRL, for
its support in a very difficult year. He pointed out that there are many
legitimate needs in the County, and he thinks that the Board's support for the
library will benefit the County for many years to come.
Next to speak was Ms. Carter Lominack, Executive Director of the Shelter
for Help in Emergency, who publicly thanked the Board for its continued
support of the program that is offered to battered women and children in this
community. She said that it is true that without this Board's support, there
would perhaps not be a place where women and children could seek safety. She
added that it is on behalf of these women and children that she took this
opportunity to thank the Board.
Mr. Bowie thanked Ms. Lominack for her comments, There was no one else
who wished to speak concerning H,,man Development, so Mr. Bowie asked if there
were any comments about Parks, Recreation and Culture, Community Development
or Non-Departmental sections of the budget. He also mentioned what was
included with these sections. No one wished to speak, so Mr. Bowie asked for
comments on the Education section of the Budget. He reminded the group,
that personal comments needed to be limited, to two minutes and organization
comments to five minutes.
Dr. Michael Kovac spoke as a Western Albemarle High School parent and as
an orthopedic surgeon in this comm~unity. He said that as a parent he has been
proud of the sophisticated academic tradition that the Albemarle County
Schools has worked so hard to develop. He commented that this is particularly
evident at this time of year when the seniors are being, notified of their
college admissions. He said the fact that so many are being admitted to ivy
league schools and other superb universities proves that this community's
commitment to excellence is paying off. He mentioned that, as an orthopedic
surgeon, he is also proud of the excellent and sophisticated level of medical
services in this community. He said that this community has two great hospi-
tals and many fine physicians and surgeons and hundreds of great nurses, both
professional and practical, plus innumerable, excellent allied, medical person-
nel. HoWever, he pointed out that the excellence of this medical community
does not stop in the hospitals and doctors' offices. He said that the County
also has an excellent public health department and an. excellent home health
care program. To date, there has been excellent professional nursing care in
the two County high schools. He said that others will be listing the many
ways that these two professional nurses have been helping the high school
teenagers with the many difficult and, at times, life threatening issues that
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 61)
336
they face. He commented that with the trend for keeping children with compli-
cated medical problems in attendance at regular public schools, the demand for
professional on-site care for the children with spinal disabilities, seizure
disorders, immune disorders, etc. is increasing, rather than decreasing. He
said that occasionally emergency care is needed that only a professional nurse
is qualified to render. He pointed out that frequently these nurses must use
the professional skills they learned in their college training to decide if
referral to an appropriate medical specialist is required. He has always been
impressed that when a school nurse sends in a patient for an evaluation, the
patient usually needs to be seen. He recognizes that excellence in education
and excellence in health care are both expensive. He mentioned that the job
description for the county high school nurses has to this point preferred that
applicants have Master's studies and has required that applicants have public
health and school nursing experience as well as a Bachelor's Degree. He is
confident that many, if not most, communities as sophisticated as Charlottes-
ville and Albemarle County will be found to have such nurses in many of their
schools. He said that teachers are not hired with Associate Degrees to teach
the children, and a step should not be taken backward by hiring nurses with
less than professional degrees to take care of the children's health needs.
He added that at the Kluge Childrens' Rehabilitation Center, there are four
school teachers as part of the professional staff and he thinks that it is
just as appropriate that there be one professional nurse as part of the
professional staff at each of the county high schools. He recognizes that the
stated cost of $79,000 for the two professional nurses is very significant.
However, with 2,600 students in the two high schools and 180 days in the
school calendar, this represents an expense of approximately 17 cents per
student per school day. He remarked that since the teachers in the feeder
schools frequently call the two school nurses, the expense might appropriately
be divided between the number of children in the entire county school system
which would, of course, make the cost extremely small per student. He adder
that excellent health care and excellent education go hand in hand and should
be expected in a sophisticated community such as this one.
Dr. Kovac concluded his comments by thanking Board members for their
commitment to excellence and asking them to do whatever is necessary to keep
the professional nurses in the county high schools, either by increasing the
School Board budget and going on record as supporting this position or by
funding such professional nurses through the County Health Department.
Mr. William Kehoe, Chairman of the Albemarle County Fiscal Resource
Advisory Committee, spoke next. He said the Board is aware that the report of
the Committee expressed concern about the School Board budget and requested an
audit of the school budget to determine if growth in school enrollment was
compatible with the growth in expenditures. He remarked that with the hiring
of a new superintendent, the Committee feels it is appropriate to ask that
question again, as to whether growth in school spending is compatible with
growth in enrollment. He commented that the Committee is not advocating
taking money from the classroom, from teachers or from children, but the
Committee believes that it is time to zero base school administration. The
Committee hopes that the new Superintendent will elect to reduce adminis-
trative overhead. He believes that the way to do this is to zero base each
administrator, and, where possible, to return administrators to the classroom
and utilize the money saved to support and enhance teachers in the way of
salary benefits and professional development. He said the Committee feels
this is imperative and should be a top priority. He personally commented that
there is a report from the Pugh Foundation that suggests for all levels of
education in this country that faculties during the 1980's abandoned or
surrendered a lot of their prerogatives to administrators. He added that all
levels of education in this country are probing administrative overhead. His
Committee feels that it is imperative to exmm~ne this and he hopes the new
superintendent will move in that direction.
Ms. Susan Taylor, President of Vocational Industrial Clubs of America, at
the Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Education Center, said that she
- graduated from Western Albemarle last June and is enrolled as a post secondary
student in CATEC's Cosmetology II program. She came to this meeting to
express her concerns about the funding cutbacks that are threatening the
programm at CATEC. She said that while a student at CATEC, she has become
involved in a support group where students join together to discuss issues
affecting the schools and its programs. At the last meeting, this support
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 62)
337
group confronted the serious issue of funding cutbacks and their impact on
CATEC. In response, she and her fellow students wrote a letter to the editor
of the Daily Progress expressing their views on this matter. She shared the
letter with the Board and said that she hoped the Board would realize the
importance of vocational and technical education to the high school students,
adult students and the people of our community.
Ms. Tracy Morris, a student at CATEC and enrolled in Cosmetology I,
expressed her views which she said are shared by most of the students at
CATEC. She said that they feel that the trades learned at CATEC are not the
standard things that can be learned in college. She commented that these
trades are what these students want to do when they are out in the working
world. She feels that CATEC has a wonderful environment and that students
have grown to like the teachers there as. more than just teachers, but also as
friends and companions. She also explained that services rendered to the
public through CATEC are helping the students in their careers as cosmetolo-
gists, masonry workers, etc. She asked that the Board consider these state-
ments because it is very important to CATEC students.
Ms. Kathy Birckhead, a student in Cosmetology I at CATEC, asked the Board
members who would build their houses, fix their cars, and cut their hair if it
wasn't for the training that comes from vocational education. She said that
if this is taken away, then many of the students in CATEC will not go any
further. She added that they will work in fast food restaurants, and they
will not have a career. She believes, too, that if this is taken away, some
of the students probably will not even graduate. She mentioned a conversation
with another student recently who said that if it wasn't for CATEC he would
not have gotten through the eleventh grade. He would have quit and would not
have gotten to his senior year. She asked the Board to consider what she has
said and not to close their school.
Ms. Charlotte Birckhead remarked that she would like to address the
gentleman who had discussed the nurses' positions in the schools. She said
that while it is desirable to have nurses in all of the schools, she thinks
the schools' main objective is to educate students. So, if it is a matter of
education versus school nursing, she thinks that education is much more
important. As far as taxes are concerned, she thinks that the tax base should
be maintained that is now in operation so that the programs that children need
can be afforded and the County can produce educated, well-rounded children.
She said that the two cents and the ten cents is not going to break anybody.
Mr. Way asked the Chairman if he could respond to some of the comments.
He said it has been implied that the Board of Supervisors is not interested in
having vocation~], technical training. This is not the way he understands the
issue at all. He understands that the School Board ham made a request to
either do away with some of the vocational programs, or hire an Assistant
Principal and a Guidance Counselor. He thinks that this is the issue, rather
than what has been brought out tonight. He agrees with the students totally,
and thinks that these kir~ts of programs are needed rather than the guidance
counselor and the assistant principal if such a choice has to be made.
Mr. Bowie said this matter was discussed at a work session and the Board
made it clear that it did not want technical training reduced. He said that
the Board objected to the money being transferred to higher office positions
if technical training had to be eliminated, but he does not believe that there
was any kind of funding for training. The $100~000 was enough to pay for the
two positions, but Mr. Bowie remarked that the majority of this Board did not
think that the positions should be added. He appreciates the comments that
were made tonight, but he wants everyone to understand that there is full
support by this Board for CATEC and the CATEC programs were funded. He
pointed out, however, that what happens to the money after this Board appro-
priates it is up to the School Board.
Mr. Bowerman said the comments would be better directed to both the City
and County School Boards, and through them to their representatives on the
CATEC Board. He thinks that it is the CATEC Board that is setting the direc-
tion for CATEC. He mentioned, though, that the direction that is being set by
the CATEC Board differs dramatically from what he envisioned as~ the mission
and role of that institution.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 63)
338
Mr. Bowie explained to the CATEC students that this Board agrees with
them, and is doing everything that it can to secure the programs there. He
said that it is the CATEC Board and the two School Boards which determine what
is being taught there.
Ms. Daphne Burton, a resident and employee of Albemarle County, spoke on
behalf of the Albemarle County NAACP. She said that she is Chairman of the
Educational Committee, and she wanted to address the Board on two issues.
First, she agrees with the School Board that although teachers are needed,
nurses are needed also. She shared with the Board an accident that she had in
1982 at Western Albemarle High School. She said that if it had not been for
the school nurse, Patsy Bragg, she feels that she would have had a permanent
injury. She said that her neck was seriously injured, and she got emergency
assistance at the school. She went on to say that judging from not only her
injury, but inju=ies of other people, the school nurses are very important,
and play a big role in the high schools today, even if it is just for counsel-
ing. The second issue that she discussed as a representative of the NAACP
concerned the tax rate. She asked that the 74 cents per $100 be kept. She
suggested that the Board look into the budget and make sure that the appropri-
ations meet the students' and families' needs. She asked that the Board make
Albemarle County a place where the residents will be glad to live.
Mr. Craig Carpenter spoke next and said that he lived in the Stony Point
Road area. He understands that this Board does not have control over which
employees will stay and which ones will be excluded, but he would like to say
that he has run a business in the area for nine and one-half years, and he
understands how hard it is to trim a budget. He does not want to see anyone
lose their jobs, but he wanted to speak on behalf of the students at Western
Albemarle and Albemarle High School, and address the elimination of the two
nurses' positions. He said that everyone would hate to see what would happen
if the nurses were not there whenever their talents are needed, because these
benefits are obvious. He noted that he has a son who is a junior at Albemarle
High and a son who is in the fourth grade at Stony Point School° His secre-
tary has two children at Albemarle High School, and he hears frequent comments
about their relationship with the nurses. He said that his son, as well as
many other students, has grown up in high school, which he is sure is the most
difficult growing period in anyone's life. He believes that these nurses have
a special role during this growing period. He said that his son has built a
bond with the Albemarle High School nurse, and he feels that there have been
times when some of these children havehad certain things that concern them so
deeply that they would possibly go to these nurses before they would go to
their own parents. He said that these children need somebody to talk to
because of all of the peer pressures and problems facing children today. Mr.
Carpenter pointed out that the nurses are not guidance counselors, but they
are needed as counselors as well as for the medical aspect of their duties.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Carpenter if he would present his suggestions to the
School Board, and Mr. Carpenter said that he would be happy to do so.
Next to speak was Dr. Charles Machen, who has a private medical practice
which is exclusively for teenagers and young adults in this community. He is
the father of two teenagers in Albemarle County Schools, and he is a property
owner as well. He said the nature of his practice b~ings him into constant
contact with the school nurses at the high schools so he is here to speak on
behalf of preserving their positions in those schools. He has been a child
advocate for a number of years, and he has heard the rhetoric over and over
about how important our children are as our most important natural resource.
He said that whenever there are fiscal constraints and the budget has to be
trimmed, the first things that are trimmed are services to youth. He consi-
ders the services of the school nurses at the two high schools as a very
necessary and vital service to the youth in the schools. At a time when many
school systems and municipalities are looking toward setting up school cli-
nics, this County is considering eliminating the only two school nurses in the
County schools. He pointed out that Albemarle County is a wealthy county, yet
many youth find adequate help unaffordable and inaccessible because both
parents are working and are not there to get them to the proper medical
facilities. He said that many adolescent health issues are of such a sensi-
tive nature that often students are uncomfortable going to their teachers or
parents, and they might be shying away from the more traditional sources of
medical care such as coming to doctors' offices or the hospital or to health
units. They may find that the nurse who is always there and who is nonthreat-
ening and nonjudgmental is their closest ally in the public school.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 64)
339
Dr. Machen mentioned that when the school nurse program first came into
being in the 1920's and 1930's, the whole purpose was for them to detect and
to aide in the prevention and the referral of treatment for contagious
disease. He said that this role has changed a great deal, and now it is a
broader role, because the school nurse provides acute and chronic care for
children who are injured because of increased violence on campuses or because
of the increased participation of students in athletic programs. He remarked
that the school nurse also takes care of children with chronic disease and
those with mental and physical handicaps who are being mainstreamed into the
public school system. He went on to say that a school nurse is a counselor, a
health educator and a liaison between the school, the family and the medical
community. He mentioned that Virginia House Bill 1413 mandates the family
life education program in all of Virginia's public schools° He said that he
and a number of other people in this room have spent countless hours as
members of the CIT trying to advise regarding this program and to come up with
a program that best suits the needs and the desires of the families in this
community. He personally has researched volumes of literature looking at
family life education programs and their success. He said that one factor
that has prevailed has been the presence of the school nurse to reinforce that
which is taught in the classroom, and this has been one of the single factors
that has provided for a successful family life education program in preventing
ineffective behavior.
Dr. Machen said he met with the School Board on Monday night, and Mr.
Bagby asked if it was the responsibility of public education to address and
intervene in these health care needs and in the psycho-social needs of adole-
scents. He said that Mr. Bagby left him with the impression that maybe it was
not public education's responsibility to do so. Dr. Machen believes that it
is the responsibility of public education to address the issues that society
has imposed on young people. He urged the Board to find the necessary funds
to preserve these positions and to impress upon the School Board the impor-
tance of making these positions a priority as they begin to allocate the funds
that this Board provides.
Mr. Bowie stated that because of the comments at the last public hearing
this Board added $1,700,000 to the School Board's budget, and the State has
also allocated some more money, so the School Board's budget now has $2,500,000
more money available. He pointed out, also, that the Supervisors cannot
mandate whether positions will be left in or eliminated, but th~s Board has
provided additional money to the School Board based on the concerns brought
out at the last public hearing. He said that he understands everybody's
positions on the nurses' situation, and he reiterated that the School Board
has the authority to add or take away the nurses' positions.
An individual who did not identify himself said he speaks from a diffe-
rent perspective from the people who have spoken previously. He is a senior
at Western Albemarle High School and is an elected member of the Student
Council. He decided on Monday of this week to see how the rest of the school
felt about the nurses' positions issue. When he first heard about this
situation, he said he was opposed. He did a survey at the school and collect-
ed approximately 315 signatures from the students at WAILS who do oppose this.
He was surprised to see the open objection to cutting the nurses' program. He
related an incident when he was injured, and feels that without a nurse
present, he would have been permanently damaged. He said he was playing
basketball, and he broke his nose. Re added that he told the nurse that his
nose was not broken, but she thought it was a serious injury, and sent him to
the hospital anyway. Consequently, he said that he has a nice nose today.
(At the sound of laughter, he said that it may sound humorous, but to him and
other children it may be serious.) For this reason, he thinks that a school
nurse is important, and he also feels that he should be able to sit in his
classroom with healthy students. He fears that if there is an LPN or no nurse
at all, there will be no one to decide who is sick and who is not sick. He
also thought that he would look at the situation from this Board's perspec-
tive. He wondered why this situation would even be considered, and he won-
dered what problems might arise from cutting the nurses' positions. He said
that a serious injury that is not diagnosed can become more serious and can
possibly be a permanent injury which could cause a law suit to be filed. This
might be more disastrous for the school, the Board and the county. For these
reasons, he believes that the school nurse positions are important. He said
that his fellow classmates would address this issue, some more.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 65)
340
Mr. Bowie stated that the Board would rather not hear other comments
about nurses. He reiterated again to the audience that $2,500,000 additional
funds have been provided to the School Board. He said that whether or not
nurses' positions are kept will be a decision of the School Board. He added
that the Board would listen to brief comments about the nurses' positions, but
he would prefer to get on to another subject,
Mrs. Humphris mentioned that she and Mr. Bowerman, together with their
School Board representatives, Patsy Moore and Mr. Bagby, were on a panel at
the Greet PTO meeting last night, and this subject came up. She said that
Patsy Moore gave a wonderful explanation of the situation. Mrs. Humphris
understands that there is an April 15 deadline which the School Board will
have to meet in sending out notices to people who may not be returning next
year. In order to meet the deadline, the letters must go out, however, the
School Board at a later date, after the Board of Supervisors has adopted a
final budget, will know exactly how much money will be available. They will
also know what the attrition situation will be within various positions within
the system. She said they will know, too, how many people who have received
letters indicating that they will not be asked to return, will be then asked
to fill positions left vacant by attrition or for other reasons. Mrs. Humph-
tis agreed with Mr. Bowie that it is not this Board's responsibility to do
anything at all about the nurses' positions. She mentioned that the School
Board is aware of the situation because it is receiving the same letters,
phone calls and comments that this Board has received, She pointed out that
she is not insensitive to the situation and is not lacking in knowledge that
the situation exists, but the resolution of it remains for the School Board to
decide at a later date.
Mr. Benjamin Soyka, a Junior at Western Albmm~rle High School, stated
that he had attended the Monday night School Board meeting, and he spoke
before that Board also. He said that his impression from that meeting was
that the School Board was concerned about the situation, but he did not think
that a very good explanation was given at that time. He added that the only
way he got a clear explanation of the situation was from a Board member in the
parking lot.
Mr. Soyka said he came before this Board to ask for its influence, on the
School Board because the School Board seems to be unsure as to what its
decision will be. He understands the budget constraints, but it seems to him,
after attending the School Board meeting and hearing this Board's remarks,
that perhaps the issue that needs to be considered is what is most important
for the students. He said that~ after all, education is supposed to be
helping the students. He agreed with a previous speaker that a healthy
environment is needed for everybody to learn and grow. He said that he is not
asking this Board to fix the problem, because he knows that it is not its
responsibility, but he is asking this Board to give its influence to the
School Board because he believes that the School Board members are disenchant-
ed with the feeling that everybody thinks that"it is their fault." He said
the students are not trying to make it anybody's fault and they understand
what is going on. He wants to make sure that everything possible is done so
that these positions will not be eliminated, because he feels they are impera-
tive to the school system.
Mrs. Humphris commented that these priorities are brought to the School
Board as a recommendation by the administration, and the School Board members
have no way of knowing which positions need to be kept, except upon the
administrations recommendation.
Mr. Soyka replied that if there is going to be a School Board, there
needs also to be a way to have public input. He said that a similar statement
was brought out at the School Board meeting, but he feels that the School
Board should not be tied to administrators recommendations, and should be more
inclined to hear what the public is thinking. He pointed out that he is one
of the students who will be affected.
Mr. Bowie complimented Mr. Soyka on one of the more balanced and logical
presentations, but he reminded Mr. Soyka that it is the School Board who needs
to hear these comments. He told the people who were present and who had not
already been to a School Board meeting, that they must go to that Board,
because that is where the decision will be made.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 66)
341
Mrs. Jane Deaton, the mother of a 1989 graduate of Albemarle High School
and a daughter who will graduate this June, thanked the Supervisors for any
support that they have given to the School Board and for especially champion-
i lng the vocational and technical education, remedial education and special
_. education programs in the County. She said that because of the good and
unique progrmmm of Albemarle County, her two children, who were bright but had
learning disabilities, will now have a very successful future. She added that
it took a lot of extra money on this Board's part, and it took $19,000 of
extra money on her part for extra tutoring, extra counseling and extra private
schooling, but it worked and these children will be fine.
Ms. Jessica Sadler, a Junior at Western Albemarle and a representative of
the Virginia affiliate of the American Diabetes Association, stated that she
has been a diabetic for 14 of her 16 years. She asked the Board for its
support of the school nurses' positions. She said that rm~ny of the health
maintenance students at Western and Albemarle High Schools need a nurse,
especially in situations such as epileptic seizures and insulin reactions
where a high quality of health care is needed. She recalled a situation when
she was a student at Henley Middle School when she had a severe reaction and
fainted. Unfortunately, there were no school nurses there, and her mother was
called and she lives 15 minutes away from the school. She said that her
mother got there in time, and no ambulance was called, but had it been a
longer time, she would have had to go to the hospital for medical attention.
She stated that the medical attention received from the school nurse helps
them physically and also mentally when they have problems that they are afraid
to mention to their doctors or parents. She asked the Board members again for
their support for the nurses' positions, and she thanked them for their
attention.
Mr. Bowie asked if anyone knew when the next School Board meeting was
going to be held? He was told that the School Board had just met this past
Tuesday. Mr. Bowie then told interested persons to leave their names and
addresses With the Clerk, and they would be informed as to when the next
School Board meeting will be held.
Ms. Karen Powell, Chairman of Very Involved Parents at Albemarle High
School, thanked the Board members for their effort with this budget. She said
that she did not come prepared to speak, but rather to listen to comments.
She is confused now, however, by some of the comments concerning the
$2,500,000 that has been given to the school system. Her understanding was
that this amount of money would go toward growth and the opening of Murray
Elementary School, and that the original budget that was proposed did not
include those major items. She said that she is concerned because there is a
lot of difficulty trying to communicate between parents, the School Board and
the Board of Supervisors. She noted that several supervisors are working more
closely with the School Board members, and she appreciates this fact, because
unless the supervisors are involved with the school system, she is afraid that
they will be unaware of the needs of the students. She went on to say that if
the supervisors are allocating money to the school system, she thinks that
they need to be more aware of the needs of the school system. She mentioned
that a lot of children are lost in the system. She said that she had heard
the comment, relative to overcrowded classrooms, that students need to get
used to this situation because of college overcrowding. She pointed out that
these children are not in college, and are only 14 to 18 years old. She
reminded the Board that many of the high school students have had difficulty
throughout their school years, and she does not think that they should be
forgotten. She is concerned about a reduction in force because of the budget,
and thinks that the opportunity is there for the Supervisors to support giving
more money to the schools so that the pupil/teacher ratio will not be so
large. She believes that if there were smaller pupil/teacher ratios, there
would not have to be some of the programs that are needed now. She hopes that
this Board will take these considerations seriously when it makes it decision
on the tax rate and how it will affect the education budget.
Ms. Vidi Yancey said she is the parent of a Woodbrook student and pos-
sibly a parent of a child at Agnor-Hurt Elementary School. She is especially
grateful for the additional funds recently appropriated to the schools. She
said that she would like to express her desire that the rate for both real
estate and personal property remain as advertised and not lowered. She would
also like to learn more from the Board as to what other avenues it would
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 67)
342
support to increase local revenues. She called attention to the fact that
enough growth is anticipated in the next few years to open a new elementary
school each year and, as called for in the five year plan, to open both a
middle and a high school. She said that the schools are the greatest future
asset, and not only are they being underfunded, but other local concerns are
in need. She called special attention to classified employees' salaries, such
as police and bus drivers. She is concerned that some of the people in the
less populated areas in the County will be confused in 1992 when the School
Board asks for an increase to fund all of the positions in the new schools
that are opening. She is not sure which areas in the County are not witness-
ing the incredible growth that is happening in the areas served by the Holly-
mead, Woodbrook and Greer Elementary Schools. She said that kindergarten and
first grade enrollments are double what they are in fourth and fifth grades at
these schools, but she understands that there are other ar~ in the County
that have a normal growth in the lower elementary grades.
Mr. Mark Crockett, President of the Albemarle Education Association,
commended the students at Western Albemarle High School and CATEC for appear-
ing and speaking to their concerns. He remarked that, as a government teach-
er, he wishes that a lot more young people would attend these meetings and
become concerned about issues that are important to them. He thanked the
Board for its comments to the students, because he said that it reflected its
interest in the students. He commended Mr. Tucker and Mr. Bowerman for their
work with the budget. He added that the newspapers have reflected not only
Mr. Bowerman's work, but his initiatives in bringing budget proposals to this
board.
Mr. Crockett said this Board had mentioned the fact that it provides the
money, and the School Board is legally charged with making the curriculum and
the instructional staffing decisions. He agreed that this is true, yet, there
is no question that some members of this Board would like to take charge of
the schools, and he feels that they have done their best to do so. He said
the statement that Board members have made tonight concerning what is the
School Board's responsibility is true legally and technically, but politically
it is not quite the case. He mentioned that he had heard some members of the
School Board on Monday night shy away from the responsibility that should come
with their decision-making. He said that they tried to blame this Board for
some of the decisions, instead of taking the responsibility. He said that he
knows that the two Boards have been meeting collectively for some time trying
to establish a tighter relationship, but he finds it disconcerting that the
two Boards are criticizing one another. He does not think that this is how
the government should be handled.
Mr. Crockett said he is pleased that the school system is getting ~u
additional $2,500,000, but it will probably only cover growth, and that is
all. He mentioned that there were $2,788,000 in reductions in the budget
earlier. He said that when growth, which was estimated at one time at
$2,400,000, is added to the figure for reductions, it amounts to approximately
$5,200,000. This is what he understands is needed by the school system. He
remarked that the school system is only getting half of the $5,000,000 that it
realistically needs, so personnel has to be eliminated, 12 year cycles for
replacement of buses will have to be considered, as well as larger classes.
He pointed out that teachers, in the second highest cost of living area in the
State, will be forced to do with less. He believes that this will affect the
quality of education that students receive. He assured the Board that the
teachers in this County will give 100 percent because they are professionals,
and he is impressed by the people he works with. He feels, however, that the
$2,500,000 will not be enough. He mentioned the American Federation of
Teachers' survey that discovered that out of 15 industrialized nations, our
nation ranks tenth in private and public spending. He mentioned a study was
done a year ago which showed that the United States public and private spend-
ing on pre-primary, primary and secondm~y education levels of school is lower
than most other countries. He said that out of 16 industrialized countries
the United States ranks twelfth, and with only public spending included, the
United States ranks fourteenth. He knows that the Board has a difficult job
and wants to reduce tax rates somewhat to provide assistance to the citizens
of the County. He is a taxpayer in the County and he does not want his taxes
to go up any more than they have to, yet he feels that education is probably
the best investment that can be made. He remarked that the $2,500,000 is a
start, but it is probably not as good as it could be. He commented that in
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 68)
343
the next three and four weeks in his classroom, he will be dealing with local
government, and he invited some of the Board members to come into the class-
room and see the students. He hopes that Board members will take time to
participate in the educational process and speak with the children face to
face.
With no one else rising to speak, Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing on
the budget. He reminded the group that the Board will take no action tonight.
He said that the Board will consider what has been said tonight, and he told
the CATEC and Western Albemarle High School students that their comments were
excellent. He hopes that the students will appear before the School Board.
He mentioned that when he was in school, he did not know or care how the
county's decisions were made, and he invited the students back to spend some
time with the Board members when there is not a lot on the agenda.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Colombini if he takes advantage of land use taxa-
tion on his property that is eligible. Mr. Colombini answered~ "yes." He
said, however, that the figure that he gave the Board did not include land use
taxation.
Mr. Bain said drafting a budget this year has been a long and involved
process mainly in terms of revenue sources. The Board had certainly expected
some help from the General Assembly in the way of meals' tax legislation or
equal taxing powers with the cities. This did not happen. He thinks this
Board wants to push forward on these issues. He feels the School Board did an
excellent job. The staff, particularly Bob Tucker's staff, has done an
excellent job in looking carefully at everything and making recommendations to
the Board. He thinks this Board's review and the compromises reached in terms
of funding for the schools was realistically all that could be done with the
funds whichwill be available next year. He is never personally pleased with
the outcome of the budget cycle, but he thinks that he can support the budget
proposed.
Mrs. Humphris agreed with Mr. Bain that the work that Mr. Tucker and his
staff did was remarkable. Mr. Tucker had to make recommendations to this
Board based on the fiscal realities of what the County is faced with next
year. She went on to say that the County is faced with the fallout from
growth which is costing a lot of money, and the County is faced with an
economic down turn which removes revenues. She mentioned that the people in
Albemarle County, when they get their property tax bills this year, will see
an average of more than an 18 percent increase in their taxes. She does not
think that people realize what these numbers mean to them, but it is going to
be very difficult for a lot of people in Albemarle County to come up with
funds to pay those taxes. She said that so often it is heard that Albemarle
County is a wealthy County, affluent and one of the richest counties in the
country. She agreed that this is true, but she said the General Assembly does
not allow Albemarle County to have the keys that will unlock the treasure that
is needed to pay for the things that the citizens want. She remarked that the
Board is limited by the General Assembly so that the main burden falls on
property taxes. She added that it is not a fair tax, and it does not tax
people according to their ability to pay. She thinks that the Board needs the
citizmns' support in going to the General Assembly saying that they are no
longer "country cousins," and they need funds to meet the needs in the County.
She said the County needs the ability to tax people according to their ability
to pay. She said that this Board may have to have a referendum on the meals
tax, because the General Assembly did not allow this Board to adopt a
tax without a referendum. She mentioned that the other kinds of taxes that
are allowed are miniscule such as the utility tax, motor vehicle decals, etc.,
in terms of being able to raise the funds needed to provide the quality of
services that the people in Albemarle County are beginning to expect. She
said that there has to be a change in the source of revenues, and the Board
needs the citizens' help to get that change. She added that every year this
Board asks its delegates to the General Assembly to try to get some alterna-
tives, and every year there are no alternatives. She feels it would be
positive and productive if the citizens would join with the Board in a cam-
paign to that effect.
Mr. Bowie announced that a tax rate would be set and the budget finalized.
at next week's meeting. He thamked the people for coming to the public
hearing and told them to feel free to come anytime.
April 10, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 69)
Agenda Item No. 24. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 25. Adjourn. There being no other business to come
before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
344
CHAIRMAN