Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 26 81 PC MinutesMarch 26, 1981 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on Thursday, March 26, 1981, from 3:30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., in the Board Room, Third Floor, County Office Building, Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. R. Keith Mabe, Principal Planner; Mr. John Massie of the Department of Education; Mr. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer; Mr. Ira B. Cortez, Fire Marshall; Mr. William Brent, Albemarle County Service Authority; Mr. Pat Mullaney and Mr. Robert Crickenberger of the Parks and Recreation Department. In addition, Ms. Janel Hazlett represented the Charlottesville -Albemarle County Airport. Mr. Michael Boggs, Airport Manager, was out of town and unable to attend the work session. The Chairman called the meeting to order after establishing a quorum. Mr. Robert W. Tucker opened the meeting with a statement about the background of the Capital Improvements Program. He stated that the Project Request Worksheet sent out to all County Department heads and agency heads was similar to that used in previous years. Mr. Tucker that Mr. Mabe, Principal Planner, had sent out the Project Request Worksheet with a few changes from last year's form, but that the response had been limited. Mr. Tucker mentioned that there had been some difficulty in compiling the information requested, due to this lack of response in filling out the form and returning it. Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the various department and agency heads had been invited to the work session in order to elaborate on the projects in their respective areas and in order to answer any specific questions that the Commissioners might have. Mr. Tucker said that before turning the meeting over the Mr. Keith Mabe, he would like to reserve time at the end of the work session to discuss scheduling further work sessions and possible dates for the Capital Improvements Program to be heard by the Board. Mr. Mabe stated that the information that had been requested on the Project Request Worksheet included how each project relates to the Comprehensive Plan, the urgency of the project, in the opinion of the department or agency, and how each project is to be funded. Mr. Mabe stated that much of the information was preliminary and incomplete, but that it was a beginning. He said that in the materials he was hand- ing out to the Commission they would find a tentative schedule, a form with defini- tions that were used by the Department and agency heads to assign priority to each project, and a summary of the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Mabe said that on the last page he has provided, at Mr. Skove's request, a tentative budget for the County, broken down by Department and agency. Mr. Mabe stated that there are eleven program areas. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Mabe whether, if it would not interrupt his presentation too much, the meeting could start with a review of the Airport submittal, since the Airport representative was in attendance. 20� Mr. Mabe agreed that the meeting should start with the second program area, the Airport; since the County Engineer was not yet present, Mr. Mabe said that this change in the sequence of program areas was actually better. Ms. Janet Hazlett introduced herself and explained that the Airport Manager, Michael Boggs, had been unable to attend. Ms. Hazlett stated that the Airport has fourteen projects submitted for inclusion in the Airport Master Plan. The first six projects involve $70,000 requested from the County and are scheduled for 1981. The remaining projects (Nos. 7-14) are very preliminary requests, she stated, included in the Draft Capital Improve- ments Program, subject to change next year. Ms. Hazlett said that the Airport Master Plan is scheduled to come before the County Planning Commission on April 7 and would be adopted by the Aviation Board as soon as the County and City take action on it. Mr. Mabe read from the Capital Improvements Program Project Narrative, copies of which had been distributed to all members of the Commission: II. AIRPORT 1. Phase I - Terminal Development Plans. Develop financial and construction plans and specifications. Project to begin 1981; request of $20,000; urgent priority. Total Project Cost $40,000. Mr. Skove asked whether the amount requested of the County was its share, whether the cost would be half County and half City. Mr. Mabe replied yes, that the $20,000 represented the County's half. Mr. Skove asked whether this project was part of the Airport Master Plan. Ms. Hazlett replied that it was, that the $20,000 request to the County was to cover preparation of plans and specifications for utilities and drainage and site preparation, which will begin the Master Plan. Mr. Tucker stated to the Commission that all of these Airport projects came directly out of the Airport Master Plan. He stated further that it was unfortunate that due to scheduling the Commission had not yet reviewed the Airport Master Plan, that this information would make more sense. He mentioned again that the Master Plan will come before the Commission on April 7. Mr. Mabe again read from the Narrative: 2. South GA Complex. Construction of new South General Aviation Complex. Project to begin 1981; request of $45,000; urgent priority. Total Project Cost $450,000. Mr. Mabe stated to the Commissioners that on their sheet they would note that the County and City were requested to contribute equally, $45,000 each. Mr. Skove asked whether this was the formular of 20 percent local contribution and 80 percent federal funding. Ms. Hazlett replied that the Airport does not have ADAP funding yet. She stated that Congress has not passed the ADAP bill and they are hoping to hear that it does pass. Ms. Hazlett noted that the figures for the project did not reflect ADAP funding. She added that if ADAP funding became available, those figures had been projected also. However, Ms. Hazlett pointed out that even if ADAP funds became available, not all of the South General Aviation Complex would be 20S' ADAP allowable, because the project must be associated with safety and/or the airfield itself. She was certain that the project would not be 100 percent ADAP allowable. Mr. Skove asked how it could be that the County and City were being asked to contribute 20 percent of the cost, if the other 80 percent of the funding was not available. Ms. Hazlett explained that the remaining 80 percent was not contingent on ADAP funds, that there were other sources. Mr. Mabe explained that other sponsors of the Airport - airlines, businesses at the Airport - generated further sources of income for the Airport. Mrs. Diehl asked whether construction of the Complex as not then contingent on ADAP funds. Ms. Hazlett replied not really, and again said that not all of this cost would be ADAP allowable anyway. Mrs. Diehl asked whether it was true, though, that should ADAP funds become available, they would be applied to the total $450,000 rather than to the County's $45,000. Ms. Hazlett replied yes. Mr. Gloeckner asked whether this facility would be similar to the Wilcox facility. I%ww Ms. Hazlett replied that as one enters the Airport, there is a hangar directly in front of you. This business, the South Fixed -Base Operator, would be moved further south and this hangar space used for storage, eventually to be demolished under the Master Plan. Mrs. Diehl asked whether this was a private firm, serving private aircraft. Ms. Hazlett replied that it was a privately -owned firm, but that the buildings belonged to the Airport. Mr. Bowerman asked what the acronym ADAP was. Ms. Hazlett replied, Airport Development Aid Program. Mr. Mabe once more read from the Narrative: 3. Airport Maintenance Building. Construction of airport maintenance building south of the terminal. Project to begin 1981; request of $5,000; necessary priority. Mr. Mabe asked Ms. Hazlett whether $10,000 was the correct figure for the total project cost. Ms. Hazlett answered that it was, approximately. Mr. Mabe continued to the fourth project and read from the Narrative: 4. North General Aviation Complex. Construction of new North General Aviation Complex including 10 T-hangars, site preparation, pavement and miscellaneous improvements. Project to begin 1981; no request; necessary priority. Total Project Cost $219,000. Mrs. Diehl inquired as to why no funding was requested for this complex - why 2% funding was requested for one and not the other. Ms. Hazlett explained that the South General Aviation Complex is an Airport - owned facility and that the nature of the North General Aviation Complex is different, that it consists of independent businesses that can partially at least generate their own income. Mr. Mabe proceeded to the fifth project, reading from the Narrative: 5. Crash/ Fire/Rescue Vehicle. Purchase of new crash/fire/rescue vehcile. Project to begin 1981; no request; necessary priority. Total cost $245,000. Mrs. Diehl asked whether this was the cost of one vehicle. Ms. Hazlett replied that it was. Mr. Mabe proceeded to the sixth project and read from the Narrative: 6. Runway Overrun Safety Area. Construction of runway safety areas at both ends of runways. Project to begin 1981; no request; necessary priority. Total Project Cost: $1,235,000. Mr. Mabe added that this had been a need for some time and that it was a real safety requirement now with the larger aircraft. Mr. Mabe remarked that projects 7-14 had not had priorities assigned, were planned for 1982, and were subject to changes. He stated that the first six projects had been submitted to the Airport Board as scheduled, for 1981. Mr. Mabe elaborated, saying that in looking over the first six projects initially, $300,000 had represented the County's half in the draft. And, he added, from that figure it came down to $70,000. So, he cautioned the Commission that the figures for projects 7-14 were very tentative now. Mr. Bowerman asked whether he was saying that those figures were high. Mr. Mabe answered that he did not know for certain if they were high, but based on how the first six projects' funding requests were pared down from $300,000, to $70,000, he just wanted to point out that the figures right now were in no way absolute. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the figures for Project 7 were the lowest possible figures for cost. Ms. Hazlett replied that the figures had been compiled very recently, this year, and should be realistic. She added that there could possibly be a lower cost figure, depending on how much revenue is generated by the 1981 developments. Ms. Hazlett stated that the Airport is supporting some of this project without sponsor shares. Mr. Mabe returned to the Narrative: 8. Air Cargo Complex. Construction of air cargo complex north of the terminal including site preparation, airfield pavement, auto parking, cargo building and miscellaneous improvements. Project to begin 1982; preliminary request of $1,415; priority cannot be established at this time. Total Cost of the Project is $180,300. Mr. Mabe continued to 9. Property Aquisition/Obstruction Removal. Acquisition 1140) of property adjacent to northeast property line and removal of obstructions in that area. Project to begin 1982; preliminary request of $500; priority cannot be established at this time. Total cost estimated at $10,000 207 Ms. Hazlett said that the Airport was presently looking into acquisition of the property at the northern end of the Airport and that the acquisition was actually for the purpose of removing obstructions. Mr. Mabe said that this was a safety requirement and that he was not certain about how many acres were involved. Ms. Hazlett said that the property could be seen on the map and although she was uncertain of the exact size, she believed that it amounted to less than an acre. Mr. Mabe returned to the Narrative: 10. Access Road Construction and Auto Parking Area. Improvements to access road and auto parking area adjacent to the terminal. Project to begin 1983; preliminary request of $107,250; priority cannot be established at this time. Total Cost of Project $309,000. Mr. Mabe mentioned that this project is in order to reroute the access road. Ms. Hazlett stated that this project might be funded or approved by the Virginia Airport Industrial Access and could be started as early as later this year or next, depending on Reagan. Mr. Mabe returned to the Narrative: 11. Crash/Fire/Rescue Building. Construction of a new crash/fire/rescue building adjacent to the air cargo complex. Project to begin 1983; preliminary request of $14,275; priority cannot be established at this time. Total Project Cost $152,000. Mr. Mabe went on to the twelfth item, reading from the Narrative: 12. Pedestrian Bridge and Landscaping. Construction of pedestrian bridge and landscaping in the terminal area. Project to begin 1984; preliminary request of $135,000; priority cannot be established at this time. Total Project Cost $270,000. Mrs. Diehl asked what the pedestrian bridge would connect. Ms. Hazlett replied that recommendations received from Airport engineers called for long-term parking at some distance from the terminal, where short-term parking would be located. She stated that the bridge and elevator would be provided for the handicapped in connecting the two areas and levels. Mr. Bowerman asked why adequate handicapped parking, both short- and long-term, could not be provided at the terminal building. Ms. Hazlett said that it was possible that all handicapped parking at the terminal building could be occupied and that the further, long-term parking lot would have to be used by the handicapped. She added that she did not know whether the consideration of handicapped parking was the only factor in this recommendation from the engineers. Mr. Bowerman asked whether this item and similar issues would be addressed when the Airport Master Plan came before the Commission for review. Mr. Tucker replied that that was correct. Mr. Mabe proceeded to project 13. Fuel Farm Complex. Construction of Fuel complex south of the terminal including its preparation, storage tanks, and pump equipment, pavement and miscellaneous improvements. Project to begin 1984; preliminary ' request of $41,680; priority cannot be established at this time. Total Project Cost $83,360. Z6 0 Mr. Mabe continued to the last Airport project, reading from the Narrative: 14. Air Carrier Apron and North Parallel Taxiway Strengthening. Improvements to air cargo apron and north parallel taxiway; other miscellaneous improve- ments including lighting, seal coat and marking. Project to begin 1985; preliminary request of $48,265; priority cannot be established at this time. Total Cost of Project $535,300. Mr. Mabe asked whether there were any questions on the Airport projects. Mr. Skove asked to go back to Project 10. Access Road Construction and Auto Parking Area. He inquired whether any other roads in the area would be impacted by the Airport and whether the six -year Highway Department plan also includes roads that would be affected by the Airport. Mr. Tucker replied that the Airport Master Plan addresses the road issues and added that the intersection of Route 649 is supposed to be changed completely. Mr. Skove said that, then, this would not be included in the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Tucker stated that he believed that in referring to an access road, reference was being made to the private road within Airport property, inside the gate. Mr. Tucker said further that he believed that the Airport Master Plan referred to the Airport's own private access road. Ms. Hazlett said that no, she was referring to the State Route 649 in discussing the access road in project ten, that the plans involved the road outside of Airport property. She stated that funding or approval had come through from the Virginia Airport Industrial Access and that realignment could start possibly as early as this year or next. Ms. Hazlett showed Mr. Tucker pictures that she had brought of the proposed project. Mr. Tucker stated that when he had seen these proposed improvements originally, he believed they had been under Phase III, projected for the 1990's. He said that with the funding available that intersection of 649 would undergo a major change. Mr. Skove asked whether the Airport Master Plan and the Highway Department's Six - Year Plan were coordinated. Mrs. Diehl said in addition, yes, is the right hand aware of the left. Mr. Tucker said that he saw where their concerns were, that you could have a two- lane facility coming from Route 29 emptying into a four -lane facility. Mr. Tucker stated that the Highway Department does not have any plans for improvements beyond that intersection of Route 649 out to Route 29 in its current six -year plan. Ms. Hazlett said that Airport Master Plan engineers had been working together with the Highway Department in developing these plans. Mr. Tucker said that they had developed the plans together, but clarified that to his knowledge no funding exists through the Highway Department for any improvements beyond that intersection out to 29, that further improvements were in the Highway Department's long-term plans. Ms. Hazlett concurred./�� Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any further questions concerning the Airport. There were none and Mrs. Diehl thanked Ms. Hazlett on behalf of the Commission for having represented the Airport at the work session. Mr. Mabe proceeded to the third program area, Education. Mr. John Massie was in attendance from the Department of Education. Mr. Mabe read from the Narrative: Ten projects with requested funding of $10,646,488 were submitted for the Capital Improvements Program. Two projects, Red Hill Elementary and Scottsville Elementary, are near completion and require no further funds but are shown for information purposes. Mr. Mabe proceeded to read a description of each of the ten Education projects: 1. Albemarle High Renovation - Phase II. Modernize and renovation of original building including locker rooms, auditorium, classrooms, and lighting. Project to begin 1981; request of $1,382,988; necessary priority by School Board. Total Project Cost is $1,594,000. Mr. Mabe stated that $211,000 had been previously funded for planning. Mr. Skove asked whether these were all County funds. Mr. Massied replied that certain funding was available to the County through Literacy funds from the State agency, which lends at an interest rate of three percent. Mr. Mabe continued to read from the Narrative: Project 2. Albemarle High School Renovation - Phase III. Improvements to administrative area, plumbing, mechanical and electric systems; installation of partitions and doors. Planning funds needed 1981 - $109,000; project to begin 1982 - $1,591,000; necessary priority by School Board. Total Project Cost is $1,700,000. Mr. Mabe proceeded to Project 3, reading from the Narrative: Broadus Wood Elementary Addition and Renovation. Addition of classrooms to replace four mobile units; addition of physical education area. Planning funds needed 1981 - $30,000; project to begin 1982 - $710,000; necessary priority by School Board. Total Project Cost $740,000. Mrs. Diehl asked how long those mobile units had been there. Mr. Massie replied at least five years. Mr. Mabe proceeded to Project 4, reading from the Narrative: Burley Middle School Renovation - Phase II. Improvements in fire alarm system, emergency lighting and provisions for handicapped; upgrade lighting, and repairs to auditorium seating. Project to begin 1982; request of $518,000, deferrable priority by School Board. Total Project Cost $518,000. Mrs. Diehl asked about the improvements in the fire and alarm systems, whether there was a safety question involved. 210 Mr. Massie explained that any renovation to the building, which is very old, would require updating these systems and making provisions for the handi- capped. Mrs. Diehl said, then, that these improvements were contingent on the auditorium repairs and would not be undertaken otherwise. Mr. Massie added that this building has had frequent violations. Mr. Mabe continued to Project 5 in the Narrative: Greenwood -Crozet Elementary. Upgrade facilities to achieve more efficiency in operation. No alternatives for this project have been selected by the School Board. Project to begin 1981; request of $3,000,000; deferrable priority by School Board. DEFER UNTIL END OF PROGRAM UNLESS AN ALTERNATIVE IS SELECTED. Mr. Bowerman asked what was meant by alternatives. Mr. Mabe replied that it meant when it was decided what will be done with the school. Mr. Tucker explained that there were several alternatives available, but that nothing had as _yet been decided. Mrs. Diehl said, then, the funds are being requested without any exact use being known, without knowing exactly how the funds will be used. She asked whether in speaking of reviewing the matter at the end of the program, that meant the five- year period. Mr. Mabe replied that it did and that perhaps it would be reviewed again next year. Mr. Mabe continued to the sixth project, reading from the Narrative: Jouett Middle, Henley Middle, Brownsville Elementary Masonry Repairs. Replacement of deteriorated mortar joints and waterproof brick walls. Project to begin 1981; request of $65,000; urgent priority by School Board. Total Project Cost $70,000. Mrs. Diehl said that she believed she remembered something about structural problems being brought up by the Board and she inquired as to whether any compensation had been received. Mr. Massie replied that it had been fifteen years and that the matter had been pursued with no results. Mr. Mabe continued to the seventh project and read from the Narrative: Murray- Meriwether Lewis Elementary. Replacement of present building with new facility; raze old building after occupancy. Project to begin 1981; request of $2,773,000; necessary priority by School Board. BOARD DEFERRED THIS PROJECT ON JANUARY 27 BECAUSE OF NO FUNDS. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the $50,000 allocated for planning was still being used. Mr. Massie replied that it was being held and would not be applied to any other project. Mr. Mabe proceeded to read from the Narrative: 8. Red Hill Elementary. Construction of new building to replace old three-story section. Project to be completed August 1981; no request for additional funding. Total Project Costs $1,752,000. 9. Scottsville Elementary. Addition of library, cafeteria and physical education facilities to building. Project to be completed July, 1981; no requests for additional funding. Total Project costs $1,690,000. 10. Woodbrook Elementary Masonry Repairs. Correction of masonry problems in exterior walls. Project to begin 1981; request of $88,500; urgent priority by School Board. 11. Energy Conservation. Study feasibility of performing energy conservation projects at all school locations. Project to begin 1981; request of $179,000; urgent priority by School Board. Total Project Cost $450,000, with the remainder being funded by the Federal Government. Mr. Massie stated that it was 50-50 matching funds. He stated that not all of the buildings have been studied yet and that the $450,000 figure was a rough estimate of the total possible cost. Mr. Massie said that seven buildings have just been completed and that the cost was $175,000, both shares, half County and half Federal Government. Mrs. Diehl asked whether this was part of a study done several years ago. Mr. Massie replied no, that was a study initiated by Mr. McClure to see whether energy could be saved. He stated further that since that time, Federal legislation has made it possible for school divisions and certain other institutions to go into feasibility -type studies of their buildings; and if they meet the specifications sent out by the Feds, they can participate in the program. Mrs. Diehl inquired who does these studies. Mr. Massie asked whether she wanted names. Mrs. Diehl replied, no, that she was just curious about how one goes about doing these feasibility studies. Mr. Massie answered engineering firms. Mr. Skove mentioned that such items as school buses are not included in Education's Capital Improvements budget. Mr. Massie replied that items such as the buses are in their regular fiscal budget. Mr. Tucker explained that the fiscal budget includes more renewable -type items as opposed to fixed, like a building, which are included in Capital Improvements. Mr. Skove asked, then when the Board get Education's annual budget, buses will be included as a capital item. Mr. Tucker concurred. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Massie whether it costs $22,000 to study each school, so far, ' approximately. Mr. Massie said on an average, yes. ?/z Mr. Mabe returned to read from the Narrative: 12. Miscellaneous Repairs. Replacement of roofs and expansions joints as needed. Project to begin 1981; request of $200,000, $50,000 each year; urgent priority by School Board. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any further questions of Mr. Massie by the Commissioners. Mr. Skove said that he would like to point out that if he was not mistaken, the amount of County funds available for Capital Improvements would never begin to cover these requests. Mrs. Diehl said that she was glad that he was bringing that matter up. Mr. Tucker remarked that, as he had mentioned to Mrs. Diehl earlier, the staff had not really gotten into the matter of acutal funding. He stated further that what the Commission should do is look at the projects and determine needs and priorities for the County. Mr. Tucker said that he thought that Ray Jones or Guy Agnor would have to determine whether or not funds existed for the various projects. He also mentioned that if people felt strongly enough about certain projects and there were not sufficient County funds available, that perhaps other alternatives would be pursued, such as bonds, in order to acquire funding. There were no further questions, and Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. Massie for having attended the work session. Mr. Mabe proceeded to area IV. FIRE, RESCUE AND SAFETY Mr. Mabe stated that these lists of needs come from the Jefferson County Firefighters' Association; the priorities were listed according to the volunteer fire departments in the County. Mr. Mabe stated that there are twenty-two projects with requests totaling $683,082. Project number two, Fire Hydrant Installation Program, has been included in the County request, but funding has not been determined at this time. Mr. Mabe began to read through the projects under IV. FIRE, RESCUE AND SAFETY: 1. Fire Hydrant Installation Program and Waterline -Schools. Installation of fire hydrants and upgrading waterline to Western Albemarle, Henley, and Brownville Schools. Project is underway; $87,750 previously funded; no request for additional funding. Mr. Mabe added that 53 out of a total of 80 hydrants have been installed, that the project is underway. Mr. Bill Brent of the Albemarle County Service Authority said that he did not believe that this figure included the cost of the waterline. Mr. Mabe continued to project number two: Fire Hydrant Installation Program. Continuation of extension of waterlines and installation of fire hydrants. Project to begin 1981; request of $75,608; however, funding is undetermined at this point; desirable priority. (Proposed locations/See Narrative.) Mr. Mabe continued to read from the Narrative: 3. Radio Relay Tower. Installation of radio relay tower in southern part of County. Project is underway; $20,000 previously funded; request of $7,000; urgent priority. Total Cost $27,000. Mr. Mabe added that the tower is located on top of a forestry Z! lookout station on top of Carter Mountain. Mrs. Diehl asked what the purpose of the tower is. Mr. Ira Cortez, County Fire Marshall, replied that the relay tower would pick up and amplify signals in an area of the County that at present is dead and additionally provide a second radio channel. He further stated that there is presently low -mileage transmission resulting in not very good fire service between the City and certain parts of the County. He stated that the tower will improve transmission, reception, amplify the signals and provide the second channel. Mr. Cortez stated that the one channel now in use is a general announcement channel. Mrs. Diehl asked whether, then,this second channel could be used for other emergency -type services also. Mr. Cortez said that was correct. Mr. Mabe read from the Narrative: 4. Emergency Phone System - 911. Installation of emergency access number system in County. Project date is unknown; request is unavailable; desirable priority. DEFER UNTIL MORE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE. Mr. Cortez said that a study was made several years ago, involving the City, County, and University. The costly nature of the proposed system prompted the Board of Supervisors to shelve the project as cost -prohibitive. Mrs. Diehl asked for a few more details as to what the expense had been, the study or actual installation. Mr. Cortez replied that the expense had been the projected cost of installation, but that there had been problems about where the system would go, who would pay for what, etc. Mrs. Diehl remarked that it was too bad, that she liked very much the idea of an emergency phone system. Mr. Mabe continued to project five in the Narrative: 5. Water Line Extension - Free State Road, Route 651. Installation of water line and hydrant every 800 feet. Project to begin 1985; request of $20,00; deferrable priority. DEFER UNTIL END OF PROGRAM. Mr. Mabe added that there were approximately 15 units with an estimated cost of $1,300 per unit. Mrs. Diehl said that it might help on these cost-effective figures to get a general idea of how much more developing will go on in that area. Mr. Tucker said that the Comprehensive Plan designates that area as low- to medium - density residential. He stated further that in order to obtain that density, a developer would have to provide water and sewer, that the line will be installed eventually by whoever develops these properties. Mr. Cortez said that was why it was deferrable. Mr. Mabe said that he would just like to remind the Commission that the Jefferson County volunteer firefighters were the ones who had made these requests. Mrs. Diehl asked whether at least 8" pipe would be put in, if the $1,300 figure included this. She wondered whether pipe adequate to future development would be installed initially. Mr. Mabe proceeded to: 6. Waterline Extension and Additional Hydrants - Four Seasons Area. Installation of additional water line and fire hydrants in Four Seasons area. Project to begin 1981; request of $34,000; necessary priority. Mr. Cortez stated that the Four Seasons area was a problem, that where the apartments are located has become high density. He elaborated on the problem of adequate water supply, explaining that it is his understanding that due to engineering problems,water lines as initially installed were not functioning. This prompted moving a fire hydrant which at this time is very much needed in its original location, Mr. Cortez continued. Mr. Cortez also said that an engineering study had been requested to determine what the problem might be and also an operable hydrant had been requested. He added that at the last fire, it took 1,200 feet of hose to get to a hydrant and then the water pressure was minimal. Mrs. Diehl said that, in effect, then you are asking to put the original hydrant back. Mr. Cortez replied yes, in essence, and to redesign the system to work properly. Mr. Mabe continued to read from the Narrative: 7. Proffitt Road Water Line. Increase water line size or install pumping station to increase fire flow on existing hydrant system. Project to begin 1981; request of $12,000; desirable priority. Mr. Mabe said that it is an 8-inch line at this time and what they need is to increase it or install a pumping station. Mr. Cortez stated that this section of the County is starting to develop into an industrial corner and unless we come up to Route 29 from the church and old Ford building where the main water line there has adequate flow ... Mrs. Diehl asked whether it would cost $12,000 to upgrade the line. Mr. Cortez said that he had not spoken specifically to the engineer or Service Authority about what the problem is, that this was a request from the Jefferson County Firefighters' Association. Mr. Skove asked about a sprinkler system at 84-Lumber. Mr. Cortez said that they put in a fire wall instead, a popular practice to skirt sprinkler requirements. Mr. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, said that the Jefferson Village line goes back to Hollymead and that you would be drawing water from two taps. He further stated that the line was originally to have been pared from the high level source that is on Piney Mountain. Mr. Bailey added that there are controls on regulating valves that could make that possible. He stated that he believed this area is still serviced from the South Rivanna. Mrs. Diehl asked if it was true that hooking up to Hollymead was not suggested. ?46 Mr. Cortez said that if it is going to be done anyway, could be deferrable. Mr. Mabe went on to read from the Narrative: 8. Extension of Water Line to Airport Hangars and Runways. Installation of approximately 1,000 feet of water line and two additional fire hydrants at T Hangars and Cardinal Airlines. Project to begin 1983; request of $11,000; necessary priority. DEFER UNTIL MORE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE. Mr. Cortez stated that there is no water at the Airport. Mr. Tucker said that he thought there had been some discussion about Cardinal Airline bringing in a water line but it had been determined that it was not reasonably available and they were not required to bring in the line. Mr. Cortez said that another part of the problem was two buildings out there that had been associated with Mr. Wood, who was to have run a water line down Route 606, but never did. Mr. Cortez said that there are two buildings directly across from Cardinal Airlines that are sprinklered but have no water. Mr. Mabe proceeded to Project 9. Extension of Water Line to Stony Point Subdivision. Extension of water line and installation of fire hydrants in Stony Point Subdivision. Project to begin 1984; request of $169,206; necessary priority. DIFFICULT TO JUSTIFY COSTS. Mr. Mabe said that there were approximately twenty units with an estimated cost of $8,400 per unit. Mrs. Diehl asked where the line comes from. Mr. Mabe answered that it runs through the shopping center and continues. 10. Extension of Water Line to Scottsville Shopping Center. Extension of water line and installation of three hydrants in shopping center. Project to begin 1981; request of $70,268; necessary priority. DEFER UNTIL MORE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE. Mr. Tucker stated that the water line is not to the shopping center yet. Mr. Skove asked whether there would be one line to the shopping center and one to the subdivision. Mr. Mabe said that project 10 would involve an extension of the water line 1,200 feet and the installation of three hydrants. Mrs. Diehl said that there had been a big discussion about water lines in this area about two years ago. Mr. Cortez said at that time there had been an attempt made to interest three large land owners in the area in contributing to the expense of extending the line. He said that other parties had offerred to contribute, including the town of Scottsville, but that nothing had ever come of it. Mr. Brent stated that there is now renewed interest in providing water to the shopping center by certain parties and that within thirty days he expects to see something come of it. Mr. Cortez said that it was a very high risk building and that it would mean Z!/� quite a loss of tax base if a fire ever started in it, because it could never be stopped as the situation stood now. Mr. Tucker inquired of Mr. Brent whether the bank was one of the interested parties. Mr. Brent replied yes. He further stated that several wells have started to dwindle in the area and that there is now serious concern for water supply. Mr. Mabe proceeded to project 11. Fire Station. Planning study for construction of fire station in the Route 29 South and Route 250 West area. Project to begin 1981; request of $5,000; desirable priority. Cooperative effort with the City. Mr. Cortez said that for some time concern has been building over increased development and the need to narrow response time from a fire station. Mr. Cortez said that discussions with the City have been going on for a long time about locating a station, jointly paid for, at a point convenient to servicing the County as far west as West Leigh and as far south as Biscuit Run. Mr. Cortez said that 29 South, the Old Lynchburg Road, and Route 20 South were all in need of a closer fire station. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the County has any paid firemen. Mr. Cortez replied that the County pays the salaries of 11 City firemen to provide one truck, on 24-hour basis, to the County. Mr. Cortez said that the County gave the city two trucks and the City maintains them; at this time there is no contract between the City and County. The City sends out one truck whenever there is a fire call from the County, Mr. Cortez informed the Commission, but it is getting to be a problem; he added that there is a high risk involved in the tremendously long response time from stations serving the southern part of the County and that it is the south and west of the County that will continue to develop. Mr. Gloeckner asked where the station would be located. Mr. Cortez answered that he did not know at this time, that a study was needed to determine the best location. Mr. Gloeckner asked whether it would be somewhere the intersection of I-64 and Route 20 South. Mr. Cortez replied that he thought so. Mr. Mabe proceeded to 12. Fire Service Training Center. Provide five (5) acres of land near Avon Street for a state -funded fire training building. Project to begin 1981; request of $10,000; desirable priority. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he would think that project eleven might be a higher ranked priority than 12, especially considering the time factor and the need to find a site, that the project should be started since it involves some time. Mrs. Diehl asked what the response times were. Mr. Cortez replied that from Crozet to Ivy/West Leigh response time was 12 - 14 minutes run time and from North Garden to properties on Fifth Street, it took 18 - 20 minutes. Mr. Cortez added that when one truck gets to a fire, when two 2-2-inch hoses are used off the truck, it takes three minutes to empty Z/7 a 1,000 gallon truck. This allows saving a life within the structure at most, and it may be fifteen minutes later that the volunteers arrive. Mr. Cortez said that ventilating the building is important in firefighting, that the backup manpower are needed to get a hole in the roof and open up the burning structure, aside from the need for water. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the acreage was already available. Mr. Cortez said that the Jefferson County Firefighters' Association had talked to Mr. Agnor about having the County donate the land, that there was a way to get funding for constructing the station if they had the land. Mr. Skove inquired who would receive training at the training center. Mr. Cortez replied that all firefighters in the area. Mr. Mabe proceeded to number 13 in the Narrative: Fire Engine. Replace County Engine #10 due to condition and high mileage. Project to begin 1981; request of $125,000; urgent priority. Mr. Cortez said that the County has only one engine operating now, #11. Mr. Mabe proceeded to project 14 in the Narrative: Aerial Fire Equipment. Contract services with City for use of aerial equipment. Project to begin 1981; request of $100,000, $20,000 annually; necessary priority. Mr. Skove asked what this equipment was. Mr. Cortez explained that it was an aerial truck, ladder truck. Mr. Bowerman asked who would serve the proposed hotel/conference center complex. Mr. Cortez said that there was no contract right now between the City and County. Mrs. Diehl asked how high a distance up firemen can go without an aerial truck ladder. Mr. Cortez said that ground ladders would reach to heights of 35 or 40 feet, but that they are extremely dangerous for a firefighter. Mr. Skove asked where the County would use aerial equipment. Mr. Cortez answered wherever in the County it were needed, for example, that Windham, the six -story nursing home, would be a prime location to use an aerial truck in case of fire. Mrs. Diehl asked how much an aerial truck costs. Mr. Cortez replied $250,000 and that the cost was prohibitive. He added that the County is so large and in the City with so many multi -story buildings, it may be called out only as often as three times a year. Mr. Cortez added that the City as two aerial trucks, but only maintains one due to lack of another station and crew to run the second truck. Mr. Cortez said that the City had intended to build another station at the southwest quadrant, but never had and just stored the second truck. The County does not have access to that second truck. He added that for the County a rental fee or contract with the City at whatever charge would be the solution. 219 Mr. Cortez reiterated that it was getting to be a problem that had to be resolved. The City is -.reluctant to send out their one aerial truck to far distances in the County; they claim that in the travel time involved the City is left unprotected and that the late arrival of the truck may be of little use in fighting the fire anyway. Mr. Cortez gave as an example the Berkshire fire last year. He said that the City sent the truck out but never used it. Mrs. Diehl asked whether then the contract would insure that the City would always send the truck, whenever requested. She further inquired whether the City would sell its second truck used to the City. Mr. Cortez replied yes to Mrs. Diehl's first question, and he stated again that a contract with the City at whatever price would best suit the County needs for now. Mr. Tucker mentioned the aerial truck in rescue operations, such as the six-foot high nursing home, aside from firefighting needs, how vital this equipment would be. Mr. Gloeckner mentioned that Windham was sprinklered. Mr. Cortez mentioned that Miller School was another high risk. Mr. Skove asked how high River Heights would be. Mr. Cortez replied that River Heights will be limited by the Zoning Ordinance to 65 feet, about six stories. Mr. Wood intends to put in a sprinkler NOW system, Mr. Cortez stated, but it is conceivable that it is not required. Mr. Cortez added that Holiday Inn South is not sprinklered. Mr. Mabe then proceeded through projects 15 - 30, mentioning on project 21. Lambs Road, Route 657, there are about 35 units, 20 duplexes and a couple of mobile homes, and an estimated cost per unit of $571. Mr. Mabe asked whether there were any questions on any further matters concerning this area. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there are any figures available on how dense an area a fire station can serve. Mr. Cortez said that the Insurance Service Office which determines the County's rates has rated the area, which is not good with the exception of the northern corridor on 29. That corridor has a rate of "7" on the scale, Scottsville and Crozet have "8" if on public water, and the City has "6" with a paid fire depart- ment. Mr. Cortez said that there is an area in the southeast part of the County where certain carriers will not insure property, due to the high fire risk and distance of a fire station. Mr. Cortez stated that there is low density in this region, but a high percentage of the fires are total structural losses. Mr. Cortez further stated that the State maintains a pool for these uninsurable property owners, a pool into which they contribute and draw as needed. Mr. Gloeckner said that he would make the observation that there was certainly an amazing difference between the education and fire/rescue/safety budgets. He z1s said that he did not know exactly what the County's priorities were, but that certainly in terms of public health, safety and welfare the Commission should give a good hard look to these requests. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any more questions; there were none, and Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. Cortez for having attended the work session. Mr. Mabe proceeded to area I. ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS in the Narrative: A total of $2,937,491 is requested for the provision of office and supporting space for administrative and court -related functions of the County government. 1. Lane Building - Phase I. Renovation of former high school building for use as office building; development of site with off-street parking. Project to be completed August, 1981; no requests for additional funding. Total Project Cost of $6,309,903, including the purchase price of $800,000. Mr. Mabe said that it may turn out to costs slightly under this amount. Mr. proceeded to 2. Lane Building - Phase II. Architectural Fees Only. Request $119,644 for architectural fees for Phase II of Lane Building. Mr. Bailey stated that this is the firm that was originally engaged to renovate the building. Mr. Bowerman asked how realistic this figure was. Mr. Bailey answered that one of the factors determining how realistic a figure is is time. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the two years it takes to complete a project is taken into account when cost figures are projected. Mrs. Diehl asked what Phase II covered, if it was additional office space. Mr. Tucker answered that Phase III was additional office space in the gymnasium area and completion of off-street parking. Mr. Mabe read 3. Lane Building - Phase III. Renovation of gymnasium building of high school for additional office space; completion of off-street parking areas. Project to begin 1982; request of $1,315,200; desirable priority. 4. Courthouse Building - Architectural Fees Only. Architectural fees of $100,000 previously funded; no requests for additional funding. Mr. Skove asked what the purpose of the architectural work might be. Mr. Bailey replied that he believed that the purpose involved connecting the Courthouse and the County Office Building. Mrs. Diehl said that it would be helpful to get more information on this project. Mr. Mabe continued to read from the Narrative: 5. Courthouse Building. Renovation of building for General District Court and related services. Project to begin 1982; request of $1,500,000; desirable priority. 6. Juvenile Court Building. Renovation of ground floor for holding cells and detention area. Project to be ZZV completed in 1981; request of $2,647 to complete project; urgent priority. Mrs. Diehl remarked that the only costs more astounding to her than the cost of fire and rescue equipment were architectural fees. Mr. Gloeckner told the Commission that the architectural fee is generally 10 percent of the construction cost, 12 percent if it is an out-of-town firm. Mr. Bowerman asked whether engineering fees were based on a similar percentage. Mr. Gloeckner replied yes, that designing street systems, lights, drainage systems - all were pretty costly and that unless an applicant were fairly certain that the County was going to approve a project, there was reluctance to go to the expense beforehand. Mrs. Diehl wondered how many hours were actually spent on architectural plans. Mr. Gloeckner replied that it was hard to determine how many hours might be spent, but that the fee covered liability, structural omissions, etc. He added that if something goes wrong, the engineer and architect take the blame. Mr. Gloeckner stated that coverage for architects and engineers runs high, something like a minimum of $6,000 a year in premiums. Mrs. Diehl asked why an architect had to be involved in renovating the Courthouse. Mr. Gloeckner explained that the architect provides the ideas and designs and the engineer carries them out; the engineers are secondary to the architects. Mr. Gloeckner further stated that in paying for an architect you are paying for ideas and familiarity with materials. There were no further questions of Mr. Harvey Bailey and Mrs. Diehl thanked him for having attended the work session. Under Area IX. PARKS AND RECREATION, Mr. Mabe read from the Narrative: Eight new projects totalling $129,500 have been submitted in the Parks and Recreation Program Area for the Capital Improvements Program. Thirteen projects, which have been previously funded, are at various stages of completion and require no additional funding with the exception of the Ivy Creek Natural Area. Mr. Pat Mullaney and Mr. Robert Crickenberger of this Department attended. Mr. Mabe pointed out that projects 1 - 13 had already been budgeted. Mrs. Diehl asked about what playground costs $4,000 on Project 16. Stony Point Recreational Improvements. (Construction of more adequate baseball/softball backstop. Installation of picnic table and playground equipment. Project to begin 1981; request of $4,000; desirable priority.) Mr. Pat Mullaney replied that a backstop costs about $2,500 and that he was not certain what the additional costs would be on this project, including a cement slab picnic table. Mrs. Diehl asked about use of Mint Springs Valley Park from November to April, whether there were any figures available. (17. Maintenance Facility Improvements. Provision of running water year round at facility. Project to begin 1981; zzi request of $2,500; desirable priority) Mr. Mullaney answered that the water supply was needed by employees during the off-season months in their maintenance work. He added further that there is a natural water supply in the summer, but that for the past six years there has been no water during the winter months. There followed some discussion of Project 21. Softball Field Lighting. Lighting for softball field at Piedmont Virginia Community College. Project to begin fall 1981; request of $35,000; project is cooperative effort of County and City; urgent priority. Mr. Mullaney said that there are 167 softball teams playing in the City. He stated further that this money would be the cheapest way the County could help the City and that there are 90 County softball teams who need a place to play. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the number of people who might receive recreational opportunities through one project compared to another could be a criteria. He stated further that in comparing the proposed tennis courts in Project 15 at Jack Jouett to this project of lighting the softball field at Piedmont, it would seem that more people would be served in the latter. Mr. Mullaney was asked how much it would cost to convert a field area to a soft- ball field. Mr. Mullaney answered that a backstop and wing fencing, plus a little grading, would probably run in the neighborhood of $3,000 to $4,000. Mr. Bowerman said that you could get three softball fields in lieu of tennis courts. Mr. Mullaney told the Commission that lighting the Piedmont softball field had wide appeal because of its convenient location to City and County residents and there would be no problem of residents in the neighborhood complaining of the lights, a problem they encountered in the past when another City site was proposed for a lighting system. Mr. Mullaney said that the extended playing time lighting afforded would be a great help in providing more playing time for the various teams. Discussion of the Parks and Recreation projects ended here. Mrs. Diehl expressed an interest in seeing the annual report of the Education Department or whatever supporting documents they put out in order to explain and justify their budget requests. Mr. Mabe mentioned that Mr. Chris Devan, Director of the Jefferson -McIntire Library, wished to attend the next work session. Mrs. Diehl expressed an interest in exploring rental possibilities for a branch library. Mr. Tucker said that they are currently looking into this possibility and will check into retail space in local shopping centers as alternatives to the construction of an expensive branch near the intersection of Route 29 North and Rio Road. 22Z Mr. Skove expressed an interest in exploring the whole issue of the Crozet interceptor. He said that it was .a meaningless exercise on paper to bring it back year after year. Mr. Skove said that if in reality the funds were not available, that some workable solution should be sort. Mr. Tucker said that this year the annual $250,000 County contribution to the Capital Improvements Program would not be made. Mr. Skove said that considering the limited funds available, the Commission would have to take a good hard look at priorities. Mr. Bowerman added that some items could not be deferred. Mr. Skove additionally mentioned looking at the overall picture of utilities in relation to the Comprehensive Plan. It was decided among the Commissioners and Mr. Tucker that the next work session date should be decided at the March 31, 1981, meeting, when more Commissioners would be in attendance and a convenient time for the majority might be determined. Mrs. Diehl adjourned the work session at 6:00 p.m. rt W. Tucker, Jr., Secre Z73