Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-12-12December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 1) (Note: Due to the death of the County Executive's daughter, this meeting was rescheduled from its regular time of 9:00 A.M. until 8:00 A.M., to allow Board members to attend funeral services on this date at 11:00 A.M.) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 12, 1990, at 8:00 A.M., Room 7, .County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Deputy 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 8:04 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 accept the items on the Consent Agenda and to approve Items 5.12, 5.13 and 5.14. 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. Item 5.1. Copy of James River Alcohol Safety Action Program Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 1990 was received as information and is on file in the Clerk's office. Item 5.2. Copy of James River Alcohol Safety Action Program Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1990 was received for information. Item 5.3. Letter dated December 5, 1990, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, concerning Route 678 reconstruction project was received as follows: "Reference is made to the Board of Supervisors' action at their November 14, 1990, meeting requesting the Department to do everything possible to make improvements to Route 678 during 1991. As of this date, the Department has not yet received plans for this improvement from Albemarle County. When this project was instituted, it was agreed that the County would develop the plans in an effort to complete the preliminary engineering process, in a shorter period of time. During the preliminary engineering process the County requested the Department to purchase the right of way for this project. This change in the process from that originally agreed to will require the Department to advertise for a willingness to hold a public hearing as a minimum. This process will take a minimum of three months from the time the plans are developed to a point where they are acceptable for public review. If a public hearing is needed, this time peKiod may be extended to as much as six months. Once the public hearing process is completed, the plans can be signed for right of way. Right of way negotiations normally take a year but could be compressed somewhat on this project since no relocations are involved. Even if the project is given priority, I do not believe it is feasible to advertise this project in less than one year and it is more likely the time will be longer. 3_68 December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 2) This project is currently scheduled for advertisement in March, 1992. This date was set based on reasonable time periods needed for public hearings and right of way negotiations and was based upon the assump- tion that the County would get completed plans to the Department for review shortly. Much additional delay in receipt of such plans can only result in additional extension of the advertisement date." (Mr. Bain requested that this item be discussed with Other Highway Matters. Item 5.4. Letter dated December 3, 1990, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, giving a monthly update on the Construction Schedule of Current Highway Improvement Projects was received for information. Item 5.5. Monthly Bond Report from Arbor Crest Apartments for September and October, 1990, was received for information. Item 5.6. Letter dated November 20, 1990, from Senator Charles S. Robb in reply to the Board's resolution concerning the possible elimination of state and local taxes as deductions from Federal income was received for information. Item 5.7. A copy of the Executive Summary for the "The Virginia Nontidal Wetlands Inventory", September, 1990, from Mr. Roland B. Geddes, Director, Virginia Department of Conservation and Resources, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, was received for information. Item 5.8. Copy of the Planning Commission's Minutes for November 27, 1990, was received for information. Item 5.9. County Executive's Financial Report for July 1, 1990, to October 31, 1990, was received as follows: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET REPORT FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1990 TO OCTOBER 31, 1990 GENERAL FUND REVENUES 1990/91 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS TOTAL EXPENDITURES 56,670,098 5,180,731 51,489,367 - 4,254,388 1,027,620 3,226,768 - 160,400 12,843 147,557 - 524,145 0 524~145 - 61,609,031 6,221,194 55,387,837 - 9.14% 24.15% 8.01% O.OO% 10.10% 1990/91 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD YTD YTD GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION 3,771,276 JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 1,287,796 PUBLIC SAFETY 5,686,794 PUBLIC WORKS 2,340,322 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 3,572,977 EDUCATION 28,974,085 PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL 2,073,318 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1,566,828 TRANSFERS 9,476,565 NONDEPARTMENTAL 2,859~070 TOTAL 61,609,031 1,266,172 448,540 2,393,718 553,132 1,158,756 7,232,958 639,923 550,621 1,627,505 20~846 15,892,171 2,505,104 + 839,256 + 3,293,076 + 1,787,190 + 2,414,221 + 21,741,127 + 1,433,395 + 1,016,207 + 7,849,060 + 2~838,224 + 45,716,860 + 33.57% 34.83% 42.09% 23.63% 32.43% 24.96% 30.86% 35.14% 17.17% 0.73% 25.80% December 12, (Page 3) SCHOOL FUND 1990 (Regular Meeting) 1990/91 RECEIPTS 169 BALANCE COLLECTED REVENUES EST. REVENUE YTD LOCAL SOURCES 686,385 57,240 COMMONWEALTH 20,006,716 5,261,105 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 431,775 0 TRANSFERS-IN 29~131,533 7,226~250 TOTAL 50,256,409 12,544,595 1990/91 EXP/OBLIG EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD INSTRUCTION 39,394,013 8,702,396 ADMIN., ATTENDANCE, & HEALTH 1,853,376 802,835 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 4,211,544 2,419,721 FACILITIES OPERATION & MAINT 4,632,968 1,637,793 FACILITIES 164~508 59,885 TOTAL 50,256,409 13,622,630 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 1990/91 RECEIPTS REVENUES EST. REVENUE YTD LOCAL SOURCES 291,800 64,914 COMMONWEALTH 452,040 0 NONREVENUE RECEIPTS 12,104,082 4,258,520 FUND BALANCE 924,330 0 TRANSFERS-IN 6,500~000 1~500~000 TOTAL 20,272,252 5,823,434 1990/91 EXP/OBLIG EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION 99,747 JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 1,403 PUBLIC SAFETY 592,351 PUBLIC WORKS 3,039,413 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 7,000 EDUCATION 12,532,318 PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL 2,198,086 26,788 0 285,830 267,911 0 5,603,964 340,031 YTD YTD 629,145 - 8.34% 14,745,611 - 26.30% 431,775 - 0.00% 21~905~283 - 24.81% 37,711,814 - 24.96% BALANCE EXP/OBLIG YTD YTD 30,691,617 + 22.09% 1,050,541 + 43.32% 1,791,823 + 57.45% 2,995,175 + 35.35% 104~623 + 36.40% 36,633,779 + 27.11% BALANCE COLLECTED YTD YTD 226,886 - 22.25% 452,040 - 0.00% 7,845,562 - 35.18% 924,330 - 0.00% 5,000,000 - 23.08% 14,448,818 - 28.73% BALANCE EXP/OBLIG YTD YTD 72,959 + 26.86% 1,403 + 0.00% 306,521 + 48.25% 2,771,502 + 8.81% 7,00O + O.00% 6,928,354 + 44.72% 1,858,055 + 15.47% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 301,356 TRANSFERS 1~500~578 TOTAL 20,272,252 OTHER FUNDS 12,822 0 6,537,346 1990/91 RECEIPTS REVENUES EST. REVENUE YTD 288,534 + 4.25% 1~500~578 + 0.00% 13,734,906 + 32.25% BALANCE COLLECTED YTD YTD METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 0 DCJS: DRUG ENFORCEMENT 0 SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 0 MODERATE REHAB. GRANT 0 GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 134,997 FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 0 DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 0 FOOD SERVICES 1,510,500 CHAPTER I 538,994 CHAPTER II 57,929 MIGRANT EDUCATION 57,093 FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT 25,000 DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT 0 DRUG EDUCATION GRANT 74,181 ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH 14,995 SLIAG PROGRAM 34,219 CBIP SEVERE 461,547 E. D. PROGRAM 622,315 CDMMUNITY EDUCATION 637,500 T~XTBOOK RENTAL FUND 369,411 MCINTIRE TRUST FUND 10,000 A H S FIRE DAMAGE 0 JOINT SECURITY 2,626,614 JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL 30,619 JOINT DISPATCH FUND 784,642 JOINT RECREATION FACILITY 179,905 STORM WATER CONTROL FUND 2,341,333 VISITOR CENTER FUND 0 DEBT SERVICE FUND 3~429,096 TOTAL 13,940,890 0 8,555 0 262,988 0 154,077 32,099 211,997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38,205 86,022 1,215 0 945,121 0 391,152 4,569 0 16,934 127~505 2,280,439 0 - 0.00% (8,555)+ o.oo% 0 - 0.00% (262,988)+ 0.00% 134,997 - 0.00% (154,077)+ 0.00% (32,099)+ 0.00% 1,298,503 - 14.03% 538,994 0.00% 57,929 0.00% 57,093 0.00% 25,000 0.00% 0 0.00% 74,181 0.00% 14,995 0.00% 34,219 0.00% 461,547 0.00% 622,315 0.00% 599,295 5.99% 283,389 23.29% 8,785 - 12.15% 0 - 0.00% 1,681,493 - 35.98% 30,619 - 0.00% 393,490 - 49.85% 175,336 - 2.54% 2,341,333 - 0.00% (16,934)+ 0.00% 3~301~591 - 3.72% 11,660,451 - 16.36% December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 4) 1990/91 EXPENDITURES APPROP EXP/OBLIG YTD 170 METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 0 906 BALANCE EXP/OBLIG YTD YTD (906)- 0.00% DCJS: DRUG ENFORCEMENT SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION MODERATE REHAB. GRANT GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT FOOD SERVICES CHAPTER I CHAPTER II MIGRANT EDUCATION MISC. SCHOOL CRANTS FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT DRUG EDUCATION GRANT ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH SLIAG CBIP SEVERE E D PROGRAM COMMUNITY EDUCATION TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND MCINTIRE TRUST FUND A H S FIRE DAMAGE JOINT SECURITY FUND JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL JOINT DISPATCH FUND JOINT RECREATION FACILITY STORM WATER CONTROL FUND ¥ISITOR CENTER FUND DEBT SERVICE FUND TOTAL 0 0 0 1,869 0 304,762 134,997 35,706 0 167,000 0 43,507 1,510,500 309,076 538,994 105,846 57,929 11,743 57,093 12,849 0 3,996 25,000 2,695 0 0 74,181 14,774 14,995 25 34,219 8,252 461,547 102,240 622,315 84,107 637,500 139,323 369,411 202,793 10,000 0 0 152,689 2,626,614 800,693 30,619 16,789 784,642 268,621 179,905 64,511 2,341,333 32,213 0 16,934 3~429~096 297~550 13,940,890 3,201,469 0 0.00% (1,869)- 0.00% (304,762)- 0.00% 99,291 + 26.45% (167,000)- 0.00% (43,507)- 0.00% 1,201,424 + 20.46% 433,148 + 19.64% 46,186 + 20.27% 44,244 + 22.51% (3,996)- 0.00% 22,305 + 10.78Z 0 0.00% 59,407 + 19.92% 14,970 + 0.17% 25,967 + 24.12% 359,307 + 22.15% 538,208 + 13.52% 498,177 + 21.85% 166,618 + 54.90% 10,000 + 0.00% (152,689)- 0.00% 1,825,921 + 30.48% 13,830 + 54.83% 516,021 + 34.23% 115,394 + 35.86% 2,309,120 + 1.38% (16,934)- 0.00% 3~131,546 + 8.68% 10,739,421 + 22.96% Item 5.10. Memorandum dated December 7, 1990, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, re: Correction to Albemarle County Substance Abuse Report'was received for information. (The memo indicates that on page 5 of the Substance Abuse Report, it stated that Turning Point, one of two outpa- tient treatment programs, was in danger of closing due to a lack of patients able to pay for its services. The Executive Director of the program has indicated that this statement is in error. Turning Point is not only continu- ing to provide comprehensive services to people in need of outpatient treat- ment, but is, in fact, expanding.) Item 5.11. Memorandum dated December 6, 1990, from Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and COmmunity Development, outlining the 1991-92 deadlines for filing applications for reZonings and planned develop- ments was received for information. (The memo indicates that beginning in February, Planning will start accepting applications on a bi-monthly basis rather than monthly. This schedule is intended to allow a more dedicated time period for staff review of each group of applications rather than the signi- ficant overlap of reviews that currently exists. Hopefully' this will also enable staff to conduct a more focused and concentrated review of applica- tions, better research, and address issues of interest to the Commission and Board, particularly in the area of development impact and proffers.) Item 5.12. Memorandum dated December 7, 1990, from Mr. David B. Benish, Chief of Community Development, concerning CDBG requirements was received as follows: "Prior to executing a contract with the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development for CDGB funds, severalitems must be approved by the Board of Supervisors. They include: Adoption of a 'Section 3' Plan. This Plan serves to comply with Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 by making provisions to use to the greatest extent feasible lower income project area Persons for employment and training posi- tions, and project area businesses for contracts in implementing the project. This Plan designates the entire County as the project area. 171 December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 5) Adoption of an Anti-Displacement Plan. This Plan indicates that no existing dwellings exist on the project site and, therefore, no displacement or conversion of occupiable structures is antici- pated. Certify by resolution that an action will be carried out each year to affirmatively further fair housing. The Board has already taken an action this year in the form of a resolution supporting fair housing in the County. Board designation of Project Manager and Financial Officer. Staff recommends David Benish, Chief of Community Development as Project Manager, and Ed Koonce, Chief Accountant, as Financial Officer." By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following "Section 3" Plan: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE SECTION 3 PLAN The County of Albemarle designates as its Section 3 covered project area the boundaries of the County. The County of Albemarle, its contractors, and designated third parties shall in utilizing Community Improvement Grant funds utilize businesses and lower income residents of the Section 3 covered Project Area in carrying out all activities, to the greatest extent feasible. In awarding contracts for work and for procurement of materials, equipment or services the County of Albemarle, its contractors, and designated third parties shall take the following steps to utilize businesses~which are located in or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the Section 3 covered area: (a) The County of:Albemarle shall ascertain what work and procurements are likely to take place through the Community Improvement Grant funds. (b) The County of Albemarle shall ascertain through various and appropriate sources including: Charlottesville Daily Progress the business concerns covered by Section 3 which are likely to provide materials, equipment and services which will be utilized in the activities funded through Community Improve- ment Grant. (c) The identified business concerns shall be apprised of opportunities to submit bids, quotes or proposals for work or procurement contracts which utilize CIG funds. (d) To the greatest extent feasible the identified businesses and any otherlproject area business concerns shall be utilized in activities which are funded with CIG's. In the utilization of trainees or employees for activities funded through CIG's the County of Albemarle, its contractors, the designated third parties shall take the following steps to utilize lower income person residing in the Section 3 covered project area. (a) The County of Albemarle in consultation with its contractors (including design professionals) shall ascertain the types and number of positions for both trainees and employees which are likely to be utilized during the project funded by CIG's. 172 December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 6) (b) The County of Albemarle shall advertise through the follow- ing sources the availability of such positions with the information on how to apply. Charlottesville Daily Progress (c) The County of Albemarle, its contractors, and designated third parties shall be required to maintain a record of inquiries and applications by project area of residents who respond to advertisements, and shall maintain a record of the status of such inquiries and applications. (d) To the greatest extent feasible, the County of Albemarle, its contractors, and designated third parties shall utilize lower income project area residents in filling training and employment positions necessary for implementing activities funded by CIG's. In order to ascertain substantial compliance with the above affirmative actions and Section 3 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1968, the County of Albemarle shall keep, and require to be kept by contractors and designated third parties, listings of all persons employed and all procurements made through the implementation of activities funded by CIG's. Such listings shall be complete and shall be verified by site visits and interviews, crosschecking of payroll reports and invoices, and through audits if necessary. By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Anti-Dis- placement Plan: Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan Affordable Housing Subdivision, Crozet, Virginia The County of Albemarle accepts the responsibility to replace all occupied and vacant occupiable low/moderate dwelling units demolished or converted to a use other than as low/moderate-income housing as a direct result of activities assisted with funds provided under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. The County also will provide relocation assistance to all displacees as provided for in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. The County's FY 1990 project includes the following activities: The development of a thirty lot subdivision consisting of thirty new single-family, detached dwellings. Access will be provided with the construction of a public road. The proposed site consists of 40+ acres. Construction is proposed on approximately 20 of the 40 acres. The property is undeveloped, no dwellings exist on site. The activities as planned will not cause any displacement from or conversion of occupiable structures. As planned, the project calls for the use of existing right-of-way, or easements to be purchased, or the acquisition of tracts of land that do not contain housing. The County will work with the grant management staff, engineers, project area residents, and the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development to insure that any changes in project activities do not cause any displacement from or conversion of occupiable structures. In all cases, an occupiable structure will be defined as a dwelling that meets local building codes or a dwelling that can be rehabilitated to meet code requirements for $25,000 or less. By the above recorded vote, authorized the County Executive to sign the following resolution: December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 7) 173 RESOLUTION In compliance with Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, I, Guy B. Agnor, Jr., Albemarle County Executive, do hereby make the following declaration: WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has been offered and intends to accept Federal funds authorized under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; and WHEREAS, recipients of funding under the Act are required to take action to affirmatively further fair housing. NOW, THEREFORE, the County of Albemarle agrees to take at least one action to affirmatively further fair housing each calendar year during the life of its project funded with Community Development Block Grant funds. The action taken will be selected from a list provided by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. By the above recorded the vote, the Board designated David Benish as Project Manager and Edward Koonce, III, as Financial Officer for the Crozet Housing project. Item 5.13. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Common- wealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Sheriff for November, 1990, were approved by the above recorded vote. Item 5.14. Designate David Benish, Chief of Community Development, as the Section 504 Coordinator for the County 1990 Community Development Block Grant and adopt a Nondiscrimination/Equal Employment Opportunity Policy. By the above recorded vote, the Board designated David Benish as Section 504 Coordinator for the County 1990 Community Development Block Grant and adopted the following Nondiscrimination/Equal Employment Opportunity Policy: NONDISCRIMINATION/ EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY It shall be the policy of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that all persons are entitled to Equal Employment Opportunities and that it does not discriminate against its employees or applicants for employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, age, sex, handicap or other nonmerit factors provided they are qualified and meet the physical requirements established for the position. The County will abide by Section 504 of the Handicapped Rehabilitation Act. For the purposes of complying with Section 504 of the Rehabilita- tion Act of 1973 for the 1990 Community Development Block Grant, Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, Albemarle County Depart- ment of Planning and Community Development is designated as Section 504 Coordinator. The nearest telecommunication system for the hearing impaired is located in the Virginia Department of Rehabilitative Services, 300 Preston Avenue, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22901, telephone 296-5621. Agenda Item No. 6. November 7(N) and November 8, 1990. Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of November 7 (N), 1990, pages 1 (ending #10) and found them to be satisfactory. Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of October 31, 1990, pages 1 found them to be satisfactory. Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of November 7 (N), 1990, pages 6 (beginning #10) - end and found them to be satisfactory. Approval of Minutes: October 31, November 7(A), 10 and 174 December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 8) Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of October 31, 1990, pages 18 (begin- ning #10) end and found them to be satisfactory with the exception of some typographical errors. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve the minutes as read. 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. 7a. Highway Matters: Presentation of Crozet Road Feasibility Studies. Agenda Item No. 7b. Tabor Street (Route 691)/Park Road (Route 1204) Project. Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report: "On September 19, 1990, the Virginia Department of Transportation (¥DoT) held a location public hearing for the proposed improvement of Park Road in Crozet. This is a recommended project in the County's Comprehensive Plan for the Crozet Community. The purpose of the project is to alleviate existing and future traffic and safety prob- lems by providing an additional access to the Park Road area. Four alternatives for improving access to the area were presented by VDoT. Alternatives 1 and 2 provide for a new alignment west from Park Road to Route U. S. 240. Alternative 3 is to improve the existing alignment of Tabor Street. Alternative 4 is a northern connection from Park Road at Claudius Crozet Park to Route U. S. 240 (adjacent to Con-Agra). Alternative 4 is also designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a recommended improvement to the roadway network in Crozet. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, VDoT, has provided comments from ¥DoT concerning the results of the public hearing. The majority of those who commented at the public hearing favored Alternative 4, primarily because it provided the only true alternative to the eastern access to U. S. Route 240 from Park Road and had the least impact to existing residences. However, upon further review by VDoT, it appears that Alternative 4 is not a viable alternative because an at-grade crossing of the railroad near U. S. Route 240 could not be constructed to meet current VDoT road design standards. The alternative of constructing an underpass or overpass would be cost prohibitive. Of the remaining three alternatives, Alternative 1 appears to provide the best location for a new access to this area in terms of safety and providing an alternative access to Tabor Street. However, this alternative was opposed by those who spoke at the public hearing. The Comprehensive Plan also recommends a project that would extend Park Road eastward and tie into a U. S. Routes 240/250 connector road. Staff has discussed with YDoT officials whether construction of Park Road extended to the alignment for the U. S. Routes 240/250 connector road, and then construction of the U. S. Routes 240/250 connector road southward from this point to U. S. Route 250, could be considered an alternative for this project. The preliminary indication is that this could be considered as a fifth alternative. Construction of this alternative would provide an alternate access to this area, further develop the roadway network in Crozet by establish- ing a portion of the ultimate connector road, and would open areas of the growth area for development. VDoT has estimated the cost of the project at $1.8 million; however, this is a very preliminary estimate. Six Year Secondary Road construction funds could be used for this project. Summary: Alternative 4 was the favored alternative of the public who commented at the public hearing. While included in the Comprehensive Plan, this alternative is not now considered viable by VDoT due to design constraints and cost. 175 December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 9) Of the three remaining alternatives presented at the public hearing, Alternative 1 appears to offer the best solution to providing a second access and improving safety. However, this alternative was opposed by many of the public in attendance. An extension of Park Road east and then south to U. S. Route 250 along the proposed alignment of the U. S. Routes 240/250 connector road would be considered by VDOT as an acceptable fifth alternative. The advantages of Alternative 5 are: 1. Provides an eastern access alternative to the Park Road area; me A portion of the proposed U. S. Routes 240/250 connector could be constructed up to Park Road utilizing secondary road construction funds; Undeveloped areas of the Crozet Community are made much more accessible. The disadvantages are: Cost this alignment is much more expensive than the initial scope of the proposed project. Cost impact would likely delay other projects in the current Six Year Secondary Road Plan or funding of the project would have to be carried out over a longer period, thus delaying this project's construction. Should the Board endorse Alternative 5, staff would also recommend that intersection safety improvements be made at the Tabor Street/ U. S. Route 250 and Tabor Street/Park Road intersections. This would provide for safer access from the west side of the Park Road area. The Jarman's Gap Road project, another project in the Six Year Plan, should remain a higher priority than Alternative 5 in the Six Year Secondary Road Program. Recommendations: Have YDoT hold a public meeting to present Alternative 5 as the ultimate improvement project. Undertake improvements to Tabor Street at U. S. Route 240 and Park Road as short term safety improvements. Accomplish the Tabor Street intersection improvements under the current schedule for the Park Road improvement. The construction Of Alternative 5, if chosen to be built, should be prioritized lower than improvements to Jarman's Gap Road in the Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan." Mr. Cilimberg said the firm of McKee/Carson prepared planning feasibility studies on two roads recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for construction in the Community of Crozet, the U. S. Route 240/Park Street connector and the U. S. Routes 240/250 connector. Four alternative alignments were evaluated for the U. S. Routes 240/250 connector. Two alternative alignments were evaluated for the U. S. Route 240/Park Street connector. In addition, the Board has been provided information from ¥DoT concerning its public hearing on potential road improvement projects in Crozet which included alternative alignments for the U. S. Route 240/Park Street connector or the alternative of upgrading Tabor Street. He then introduced Mr. Bob McKee, from McKee/Carson. Mr. McKee said this study was prepared in April, 1989. McKee/Carson evaluated the following four alternatives for the U. S. Routes 240/250 con- nector: Alternatives A-1 and A-2 intersect with U. S. Route 250 immediately west of the existing commercial area on U. $. Route 250, approximately 0.7 mile east of the U. S. Route 250 West intersection with U. S. Route 240. This intersection location was selected because it provides direct access to the existing commercial area and minimizes the impact upon existing dwelling units; 176 December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 10) t Alternatives B-1 and B-2 intersect U. S. Route 250 approximately 0.5 mile east of the Route 250 West intersection with U. S. Route 240. This intersection location resulted from an attempt to minimize the severity of the Lickinhole Creek crossing. However, sight distance at this intersection is marginal and its proximity to U. S. Route 250 West/U. S. Route 240 intersection could create some conflicts. Mr. McKee said the following criteria was used in the analysis and evaluation of the various alternatives: safety, environmental impact, land acquisition and land use accessibility. Based on the analysis, it is their opinion that Alternative A-1 is the preferred alignment. A-1 affords the greatest benefits in terms of higher degree of safety, comparable land acqui- sition, fewer displacements of existing dwelling units and better overall access to the designated growth area. In addition, a grade-separated crossing of the existing Chesapeake and Ohio railroad tracks is proposed for Alterna- tive A-1. Alternative A-2 would require an at-grade interchange. It is estimated that the cost for Alternative A-1 is $3.9 million for its full construction. All of the roads are slightly over 8000 feet in length. They also propose that the ultimate design be four-laned divided with a median. The costs for A-2, B-1 and B-2 are approximately $3.0 million each. Mr. McKee said they also evaluated two alignments for the U. S. Route 240/Park Street connector. The primary difference between the two is the location and type of crossing at the C&O Railroad tracks. Alternative 1 provides an underpass crossing of the railroad tracks; Alternative 2 provides an at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks. Mr. Cilimberg said Alternative 1 was incorporated in VDoT's public hearings for the Crozet road improvements. Mr. McKee said it is his understanding that the two alternatives were dis- missed as viable alignments. Mr. Cilimberg said the reasons there were dismissed was because of some difficulty in constructing Alternatives 1 or 2. Mr. Bain asked why the U. S. Route 240/Park Street connector is being designed for a 50 mile per hour speed limit. Mr. McKee said it was initially proposed for a 45 mile per hour design speed, but was changed by V DoT. Mr. Perkins asked if an overpass of the railroad tracks could be done as opposed to an underpass. Mr. McKee said the recommended underpass is in an attempt to minimize the impact to existing buildings and land uses. They felt this was the most reasonable alternative in which to connect the land south of the railroad to U. S. Route 240 without creating a considerable impact. Mr. Perkins said he thinks that an overpass should be considered because it is much cheaper than digging a tunnel. It would be just to the west of the driveway to Mrs. Lady Walton's property. Mr. McKee said they will examine that alternative and report back to Mr. Cilimberg. Mr. Perkins said even though he lives in Crozet, he had trouble trying to figure out the direction of the routes and tying it all together, particularly without any detailed maps. To him it would seem foolish to construct a U. S. Route 240/Park Street connector, if Alternative A-2 were constructed. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct. Further study indicated that the shorter connection (Alternatives 1 and 2) is not a good public investment if ulti- mately a U. S. Routes 240/250 connector is built. Mr. McKee said depending on which alternative is evaluated, they have estimated the U. S. Route 240/Park Street connector to cost between $81,000 and $94,000. The total right-of-way acquisition for Alternative A-1 and the Park Street connection is approximately 22 acres. Mr. Bowie said he was confused about the two projects. Mr. Cilimberg said initially a feasibility study for the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation was done which included two different road alignments, i.e., U. S. Routes 240/250 and U. S. Route 240/Park Street next to Claudius Crozet Park. At a later date, VDoT held a public hearing on improvements that did not include the U. S. Routes 240/250 connector. The public hearing included the U. S. Route 240/Park Street connector and additional improvement alignments that would have connected Park Street at its west end to U. S. Route 240 and would also include upgrading of Tabor Street. The reason this is being presented to the Board as one item is that the staff has looked at the possibility using part of the U. S. Routes 240/250 connector in combination with a connection to Park Street to provide an alternative for access in the area. 177 December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 11) Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, said he needs a resolution from the Board concerning the improvement project for this area, a project which already has some funding in the Six Year Plan. This project is in response to the Board's desire to have a second access into the Park Road area. Initially his understanding was that the Board wanted a cheap solution to the access problem. The Department looked at three alternatives: 1) the first alternative ties Park Road to U. S. Route 240 and runs through the Locust Grove Subdivision area; 2) the second alternative is a straight access from Park Road out to U. S. Route 240; and, 3) the third alternative is an upgrading of existing Tabor Street. The Department was prepared to hold its' location public hearing on these three alternatives when County staff asked that it consider a fourth alternative. He does not think the Department did as much review of that fourth alignment as it should have or it would have recognized that the at-grade crossing at the railroad track would not be acceptable. It was only at the public hearing and immediately thereafter that they realized this alignment was not acceptable as an at-grade railroad crossing. To construct this alignment as an overpass or underpass with a connection into U. S. Route 240 would cost considerably more than the original $600,000 estimate. If Alignment 4 is discounted, none of the other three alignments had any support in the community which was clear from the public hearing. The Board needs to tell the Department what to do. There is a fifth alternative of building part of the connector road. The first choice the Board has to make is whether it wants to use the plan before it as one of the alternatives or go back to one of the plans presented at the public hearing or consider an entirely different alternative so the Department can start prepar- ing detailed designs. He has made a cost estimate to construct along Align- ment A-1 at the grade and curvature, as shown on the plan before the Board, between the Park Road connector and U. S. Route 250, but it would only be a two-lane roadway and wide enough to accommodate the anticipated traffic from the subdivision. It would mean that the section would have to be widened to four lanes at some time in the future and there would still be the rest of that connection north from that point to U. S. Route 240. VDoT's estimate to build this road is $1.8 million. One of the reasons this section is expensive is because of the major drainage structure. The fourth alternative for an overpass over the railroad would be in the cost range of $2 to $3 million. He cannot verify the $3.1 million quoted by Mr. McKee earlier in the meeting. Mr. Perkins asked if anyone studied having an intersection further west on U. S. Route 250. Mr. Roosevelt replied "no". Ail the Department looked at in preparation for today was an estimate of Alignment A-1 because they knew that was the recommendation staff was preparing to make of all the alter- natives that had been studied. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Roosevelt to address the issue of the design speed. He asked if the speed could be lowered and if by lowering it, there could be a cost savings. Mr. Roosevelt said the Department reviewed these alternatives at the beginning of the year and sees this road as being a collector road. Based upon the estimated traffic expected to be on this road, the road should be built to a 50 mph design standard. There are people within the Department with the authority to waive or reduce this standard back to 40 mph, but he thinks with the volumes of traffic that will be using the road and the use of this road, the 50 mph is the proper design speed. This is going to be a connector road used by trucks going from the interstate into the industrial areas. He see no factors here that would allow management to waive the speed back to 40 mph. Mr. Tucker asked if the fact that all of the surrounding area is residential could have a bearing. Mr. Roosevelt said if the County is going to make this a connector and expect it to function as such, he does not think the Board would want the residential area to have direct access to the road. He does not think the Board would want to have private home entrances onto this road, but instead have intersections with subdivision streets for all of the development within the subdivision to use. Mr. Tucker said there will be a lot of residential traffic using the road. From the staff's per- spective, a greater reason to lower the speed is because of the heavy trucks traveling the road. Mr. Roosevelt said if this alignment is chosen and a project along this alignment is pursued, there will have to be another loca- tion and design public hearing and this is a factor that can be studied at that time. He is not saying that it is not altogether possible to reduce the speed. (Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 8:43 A.M.) 178 December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 12) Mr. Bain said he understands Mr. Roosevelt's comments, but he still thinks the speed should be lower. He does not think there needs to be anymore high speed designs in that community. The speed can be lower and still accom- plish what needs to be done as the community grows. Mrs. Humphris said she is not prepared to make a decision today and would like to go back to Crozet and look around. Mr. Way said he also would like to take a tour of the area. (Mr. Bowerman returned at 8:45 A.M.) Mr. Bowie asked that staff prepare a map that specifically outlines the proposed alignments. Mr. Tucker said staff could prepare a tax map and/or an aerial photograph. Mr. Bowie said an aerial would be preferable. Mr. Cilim- berg said he can also go out to the sites with the Board. Mr. Roosevelt said he would be able to go on a tour also. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 8:46 A.M.) Following some discussion, it was agreed that the Board, staff and representatives from the Highway Department would go to Crozet and review the proposed construction locations on Wednesday, December 19, at 1:00 P.M. Mr. Roosevelt said knowing that the staff would recommend that there be some spot improvements along Tabor Street, he has done a "quick and dirty estimate" of the cost to be between $70,000 and $80,000. The improvements would include improving the radaii and opening up the sight distance where Tabor Street and Park Road intersect. He can show Board members some of the spot improvements which may be the recommendation the Board may want to make in the interim measure under this project and save the entire project for sometime later in the Six Year Plan. Mr. Bowie suggested that action on these items be deferred until January 9, 1991. The other Board members concurred. Agenda Item No. 7c. Highway Matters: Naming of portion of ROute 678 between Route 614 and 676. Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report: "The above referenced road segment was originally requested to be named Briar Lane by a number of residents along its length. Staff endorsed this name. At the October 3, 1990, Board of Supervisors' meeting, information was provided that a place of historic signi- ficance named Decca existed at the northern end of this road segment near its intersection with Route 614. A request was made to consider this name in lieu of Briar Lane. The Board requested the staff to research the name Decca for this section of road and bring back a recommendation. Staff has found no reference to 'Decca' in any of the historical documents in our office. However, the name does appear on our Tax Map Section 42 and older Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) highway maps. It is not shown on the current USGS quad for that area or on the current %fOoT highway map. Mrs. Marcelle Schubert, who had originally requested the name Briar Lane, has submitted a letter (on file) summarizing the property owner's comments regarding the alternative name Decca. Most appa- rently would prefer Briar Lane, but are not opposed to the name Decca Lane. Mrs. Schubert and others are very interested in getting a road name as soon as possible for postal delivery reasons. Staff has found no problem with the name Decca Lane in terms of duplicating other road names currently existing in the County. In consideration of all interests, staff can recon~nend the use of Decca Lane in lieu of Briar Lane." Mr. Cilimberg then handed out a petition, prepared by Ms. Sherry Buttrick, with eight signatures requesting the portion of Route 678 between Route 614 and 676 be named Decca Road. The petition also provided historical data on the name Decca. 179 December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 13) Mr. Bowie said the letter from Mrs. Schubert states that everybody she spoke with prefers the name Briar Lane except one person who does not particu- larly care. Mrs. Humphris said her impression of what the Board wants to do when it goes to the E-911 system is to attach historical significance everywhere possible to the naming process. That is assuming the Board wants to retain as much history as possible and there is some identifiable history. There are a number of "Briar" name things in the community. She thinks that Decca Lane attaches the history of the place to the name. She prefers retaining the identity of places in the County. Her interpretation from Mrs. Schubert's letter was that the people did not care what the name was as long as the road was named. Mrs. Schubert said nobody is dead set on the name. It all seems so trivial, but they would prefer the name Decca Lane to Decca Road. Mrs. Sherry Buttrick said, with the exception of her name, all of the signatures on the petition are residents of the road. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Route 678 between Route 676 and Route 614 for approximately 1.83 miles be named Decca Lane. 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. Mrs. Humphris said she has some information from other counties where they have set up historical district committees to help consultants with naming roads. She asked if the staff plans to do something similar to that. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff intends to discuss with the consultant the possibility of having a representative from each magisterial district to work with the road names. Ideally the staff would like to bring before the Board all the road names in groups to eliminate controversy. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks historical significance should be given priority in naming the roads and that a citizen's committee from each district should be appointed to help select the names. She then handed to Mr. Cilimberg information she had gathered from another county about how they went about the process. Agenda Item No. 7d. Other Highway Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public and Board Members. Regarding Item 5.3, Route 678, Mr. Bain said he did not know that there was much right-of-way to negotiate on the road. He thought a significant part of the right-of-way had been dedicated at Locust Hill and that it involved only three landowners. That is one of the reasons he questioned the time period. Mr. Roosevelt said the Department has a process and time constraints it must go through when dealing with acquisition of right-of-way. It takes the same amount of time to deal with two property owners as it does to deal with 20 property owners because of the steps required. There is the initial contact, an offer is made, consideration of the offer, acceptance or denial of the offer, and, if there is denial then a counter offer is made, etc. There are certain legal and policy steps that the Department must go through. In his letter he referred to a letter he wrote to the County Engineer in July, 1990, when the Department set the advertisement date for March, 1992, and he had indicated that this date was based upon receiving project plans as of August 1, 1990. The Engineering Department indicated that the plans would be available at that time. It is now December 12 and the Highway Department still does not have the plans. He cannot do any work toward this project until he has the plans to review. December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 14) 180 Mr. Tucker said staff has not been able to move forward on this project as quickly as anticipated. The Engineering Department contracted with an independent engineer to do the engineering work rather than doing the work in-house. He knows that this is a priority for the County Engineer, but the consultant engineer has other priorities which have caused complications. Mr. Bain reemphasized the need to expedite the plans for the improvements and, if possible, to still get the work done in 1992-93. Mr. Bowie asked if there is still time to get the work done if the Highway Department receives the plans soons. Mr. Roosevelt said the process could be shortened if there is no request for a public hearing, but he does not know. Mr. Bain said Hawkwood Court is a residential street serving six homes near Meriwether Lewis School. The road was designed to be taken into the State system. The builder started doing maintenance work on the road some time ago, but has since gone bankrupt. The builder posted a road bond, but it is insufficient to complete the work necessary to bring the road to State standards. The people who live along the road would like an opportunity to address the Board to ask if the County will help in paying for the work. Mr. Tucker said the road bond is for $4800 and the County has received a verbal bid of $9000 to do the work. In addition, there is the maintenance bond the County would have to put up with the state for the 12-month period until the Highway Department actually took over maintenance. In the past, if the County did not actually post the bond, but gave assurance that it would maintain the road. In certain instances the County has gone 50/50 with the property owners, which would be a cost of $2100 to the County. When he gets the figures in writing he will bring it back to the Board for further discus- sion. Mrs. Humphris asked how often this type of thing happens. Mr. Tucker said not often. Several years ago there were some roads that had not gotten into the system because there was not adequate funding and the Board started putting money into the CIP to bring those roads up to standards. Those were roads in which the property owners had agreed to share in the costs. Mr. Bowie then asked that the Board be provided at the January 9 meeting a current report on the number of roads not in the State System where there is not adequate funding to have the roads improved to the necessary standards and where the property owners have agreed to share in the costs of the improve- ments, including Hawkwood Court. Mrs. Humphris asked how the amount of the bond is established. Mr. Tucker said the bond is based on actual construction costs. Mrs. Humphris asked what went wrong. Mr. Tucker said as parts of a road are built, portions of the bond are released. In this case, the builder went bankrupt and when the County went back to look at the road some things that should have been discovered two years ago were just found. Mrs. Humphris said she has a problem asking taxpayers to pay for something that was overlooked by the County. There was no further discussion on this item. Agenda Item No. 8. Appeal: Foster Well Company Office/Shop Site Plan Amendment. At the request of the applicant, motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to defer the appeal for Foster Well Company Office/ Shop Site Plan, until January 9, 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. 181 December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 15) Agenda Item No. 9. Abandonment: Old Roads in Rosemont and Ragged Mountain Farm (Deferred from November 28, 1990). Mr. Bain said he has a conflict on this item and would abstain from voting. At the request of the applicant, motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to defer action on this abandonment until January 9, 1991. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Bain. Agenda Item No. 10. Report: Funding of Teen Mother Program. Mrs. Karen Morris, Director of Social Services, said her staff notified and talked to guidance counselors at all three high schools, as well as the middle schools about this program. There are currently nine teen mothers enrolled in the program. One of the mothers is a freshman, one is a senior and the remaining are sophomores and juniors. One of the mothers is using a certified home, one child is in a day care center and the other children are in non-certified homes. Social Services does conduct a search on the homes to be sure the basics are safe, there is adequate play area, the house is struc- turally sound, etc. United Way disburses the payments. They have used Central Virginia Child Development Agency for referral sources. Ail of the County schools are participating and more requests are being received. The current nine students enrolled will cost $5000 for the year, but more students are expected to be added. Mr. Bowie asked if there are any students from Murray High School in the program. Mrs. Morris replied one student is from Murray. Mr. Bowie asked if there are any in-school programs involving the children being t Mrs. Morris replied not that she is aware of. Mr. Bowie thanked Mrs. Morris for the report and asked that an update on the Teen Mother Program be provided every couple of months as a Consent Agenda item. of. Agenda Item No. 16. Personnel Policy: Acceptable Attendance, revision This item was deferred to January 9, 1991. Agenda Item No. 20d. Authorize Chairman to Sign a Deed Accepting Convey- ance of Old Crozet School Property to the County. Mr. Tucker said the School Board, on November 27, 1990, declared the Old Crozet Elementary School property as surplus to school needs. To consummate the transfer of title from the School Board to the County, the Board of Supervisors needs to authorize the Board Chairman to accept the conveyance of the property. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to author- ize the Chairman to sign the deed accepting conveyance of the Old Crozet School property to the County. 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 deed is set out below:) THIS DEED made this 12th day of November, 1990, by and between THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, Grantor, and THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantee, whose address is 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22901. 182 December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 16) WITNES SETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of TEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10.00), cash in hand paid, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY OF TITLE unto the County of Albemarle, Virginia, in fee simple, the following described property: 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: All 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 appurte- nances 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, 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 Trustees 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; The above-described property being in all respects the same property which was subject to a resolution of the County School Board of Albemarle County adopted on November 27, 1990, a copy of which is attached (on file) hereto and recorded herewith, which resolution declares the property surplus, and which resolution under the terms of Virginia Code Section 22.1-129 vests title to the property in the County of Albemarle, Virginia. Reference is made to the aforesaid deeds for a more particular description of the property herewith conveyed. This conveyance is made SUBJECT TO any and all easements, re- strictions, reservations and conditions contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other instruments constituting constructive notice in the chain of title to the above-described property which have not expired by a time limitation contained therein or otherwise have become ineffective. This deed is exempt from taxation pursuant to the Code of Virgin- ia 1950, as amended., Section 58.1-811.A-3. December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 17) 183 Non-Agenda Item. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to appoint Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., to vote at the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority meeting on behalf of the County Executive. 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. 10a. 9:30 A.M. Recess. There being no further discussion at this time, the meeting was recessed at 9:21 A.M. in order for Board members to attend the funeral of Sarah Agnor. The Board reconvened in Room 7 at 1:45 P.M. with all members present. Agenda Item No. 17c. Discussion: Transfer of Development Rights Legis- lation. Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom addressed the Board regarding legislation related to the transfer of development rights which will be coming up in the 1991 session of the General Assembly. He said it is a re-introduction of bills carried over from the last session. Mr. Lindstrom explained that the bill is designed to authorize local governments to enact ordinances for the transfer of development rights (TDR). He said this would allow on a County-wide basis what the County is already partially doing in the rural areas. That is, the property owner is allowed to transfer development rights which may be spread over his property to one corner of his property in exchange for an easement on the remaining portion. This legislation would allow the transfer of development rights from one side of the County to another side of the County, with an easement placed on the land from which the. development rights were transferred. The result is a more intense level of development in the area to which the rights are transferred. Mr~ Lindstrom explained the essentials of the legislation. The locality must have a comprehensive plan in which sending and receiving zones are designated. Sending zones are the areas to which development rights will be allocated for the purpose of selling them to people who own land in receiving zones. In addition to designating the sending and receiving zones in the comprehensive plan, the locality is required to have adequate infrastructure in the receiving zone to accommodate the development rights. Mr. Lindstrom feels that the language in this section is vague because infrastructure can mean everything from a police department to sewers. Therefore, someone could argue that the infrastructure is inadequate and the prerequisite for having a TDR ordinance is not met. He pointed out that there is language to address this problem and he expects this portion to be amended. In order to have a TDR ordinance, downzoning cannot have occurred within the receiving zone for 24 months prior to adopting the TDR ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said this is implemented by designating an area as a sending zone which would become an overlay zone. The urban area which is planned for growth would be designated as a receiving zone. Mr. Lindstrom said the legislation does not mandate it, but he thinks it is logical to downzone the sending zone to reduce the devel- opment potential by reducing the development lots or by increasing the lot ~ size, etc. The current development rights of owners in the sending zone which cannot be used after the zoning is changed, would be the development rights to be sold. If someone wants to develop currently in the urban zone, he must obtain a rezoning. Under this scheme, he would be able to develop to the density now permitted in the zoning ordinance without having to buy any development rights. If he wants to develop to the designated density, he has to buy the additional development rights from someone in the sending zone. That way, the people in the sending zone are compensated to some extent for the downzoning. The people in the receiving zone do not get a windfall by rezoning to a higher density. This legislation allows for a locality to preserve open space more extensively than currently is allowed because of the ability to compensate by TDR's. It is essentially a three-tier stage. The owner has the development rights he owns before the ordinance is adopted. He then buys development rights designated for use in the adoption of the ordi- nance. The owner can acquire an additional density level by application if 184 December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 18) the County approves the request. The County may negotiate a conditional zoning proffer with the owner for that additional density. Before final approval of a site plan is given, the developer would have to demonstrate to the locality that he owns additional development rights acquired from someone in the sending zone. Mr. Lindstrom said the legislature was concerned that developers not be required to first buy their development rights and then have to pay a lot of money for proffers. Therefore, the law says that if an area is designated as a receiving zone, conditional zoning cannot be used there. What the locality can do is zone a portion of the units per acre. The developer buys five units and may initiate a rezoning request for the remaining units. If he uses the first portion with development rights which he has required, the locality may then grant him the rezoning and negotiate proffers with him for the additional units. Mr. Lindstrom said when development rights are transferred from the sending zone, the statute requires that a permanent conservation easement be imposed on the land. This freezes the land use at the level in existence for that zone when the transfer was made, not including the development rights. He noted that once the TDR ordinance is implemented regarding a receiving zone, the zoning is frozen. He said' under this legislation, development rights could be transferred between the City and the County because the statute allows interjurisdictional transfer of development rights. Mr. Lindstrom said the Legislature wanted to ensure that there is a market for development rights. Therefore, for every deVelopment right allo- cated to a sending zone, the capacity for 1.5 developments rights must be created in a receiving zone. This makes it a seller's market. If 1000 development rights are created in a sending zone, the capacity to use 1500 development rights must be created in the receiving zone. There is nothing in the statute that tells exactly how to allocate development rights. Mr. Lindstrom said his opinion is that technically this bill works, with an amendment to the language regarding infrastructure. It does allow the locality more authority in protecting the watershed, for example, without downzoning or without compensation. He feels it is a useful tool for locali- ties. Mr. Bowerman said it seems that speculative rezoning for residential development would be abolished in the receiving zone by this bill. Mr. Lindstrom said that is true, but the County does not have to designate all of the growth area as a receiving zone. Outside the receiving zone, nothing is changed. Mr. Lindstrom said there is nothing in the statute which prohibits a locality from designating all growth areas as receiving zones and all rural areas as sending zones. He said that is not what is expected and is probably a complicated process. He said there is nothing in the statute that requires the locality to downzone the sending zone before implementing the legislation. He said he personally does not know how the legislation would work effectively without downzoning first. Mr. Bowie said the Board wanted to discuss this matter before meeting with the legislators and to consider whether or not to add TDR legislation to its legislative package. He supports the concept because he feels it ade- quately protects rural areas. Mr. Lindstrom said he would keep the Board informed of the progress of this legislation. Agenda Item No.17b. Public Recreational Facilities Authority: Discus- sion of easement form. Mr. Lindstrom said that Mr. David Emmitt and Mr. Scott Peyton, two members of theAuthority, in addition to himself, are present today. He said the Board initially approved a basic easement document in May, 1990. The Authority has reviewed the form and is recommending some changes which were unanimously agreed to and supported by staff. He noted that the County Attorney has no objections to the recommendations as well. Mr. Lindstrom said there are four types of changes being made to the form. Technical changes 185 December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 19) were made to refine the language. Secondly, the form is being standardized so that negotiation is not required for every development. There is an option for historic preservation and one for watershed protection. The third change is intended to separate the restrictions of the easement from changes in the Zoning Ordinance. The ori§inal easement form was written to restrict the developer to the uses permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. The whole reason for the Authority is to separate the control and protection of the land from the political process. The original document was written to change the easement any time an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is made. To emphasize the need for the Board of Supervisors and the Authority to work to§ether, Mr. Lindstrom said there are some allowances where a developer may request approvals. Those approvals can be made only if the Authority and the Board of Supervisors agree. Mr. Lindstrom said the Authority raised one question for the Board to resolve regarding whether it is the intent of the Board to prevent future development of the lots as well as the easement parcel. Theoretically, someone could at a future time subdivide the lots further. The question is whether the easement is intended to restrict those lots from having more than one house. The thought is that if someone purchases a lot in a rural preser- vation development, should they be guaranteed that the neighborhood will not change, in addition to the guarantee that the easement tract will not change. The Authority feels this is a decision the Board should make. If the Board wants to freeze the development pattern on the lots as well as the preserva- tion tract, there is language in brackets included in the easement form which will do that. The bracketed language should be included if that is what the Board intends. Mr. Bowie asked what happens if in 40 years the County decides it is better to double the existing developments than to allow other rural develop- ment. Mr. Lindstrom said that is a good question. He said the conservation easement technically is not conserving anything on lots already developed. He feels the Board would have greater discretion than the Authority to release the easement of the lots. As to the preservation tracts, the release of the easement is governed by State Code. Mr. Bowie said he does not want to make a decision today that could not be reversed in 20 years if it became necessary. As long as the Board has the option of changing its mind, he can see the advantage. Mr. Lindstrom said the way the easement form is written, it will require both the Board and the Authority to make that decision. Mr. Perkins asked about the statement that "no timber cutting shall be permitted except in accord with a plan subject to approval by the Grantees." He suggested that the plan for cutting be subject to approval by the Depart- ment of Forestry. Mr. Lindstrom said theAuthority is using a form based on that of the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, which allows managed select cutting. Some members of the Authority feel that a purchaser may buy a lot based on the thought that the area is to be preserved as it is. Then the owner of the tract decides to timber the forest, and the land is not preserved as the lot owners had thought. The reason for the reference to a cutting plan is so the Authority and the Board are not caught without any way to respond to the public's concern in such a situation. He said there is no intent that the Authority not accept a plan from the Forestry Department. Mr. Scott Peyton added that the Authority does not intend to get into the business of developing forestry plans. It wants to maintain the opportunity for review and approval of the plan with regard to the easement aspect. Mr. Bain suggested that the Board discuss this item further and make a decision on the recommendations of the Authority after the legislative meeting scheduled next on the agenda. Mr. Lindstrom said the only urgency is that there are a number of ease- ments pending. The previously adopted easement form is the one that is currently being used. The problem with that form is that it allows things that he feels the Board did not intend with respect to the preservation parcel. December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 20) 186 Agenda Item No. 19. Discussion of Legislation Proposed for the 1991 Session of the General Assembly. Mr. Bowie said he appreciates Senator Thomas Michie, Delegate George Allen and Delegate Mitch Van Yahres taking the time to meet with the Board before the General Assembly Session begins. Mr. Bowie began the discussion by saying that because State aid is being cut and mandates continue to come from the State, the localities are asking for help. Senator Michie said he favors broad taxing powers for localities. However, he generally does not favor blanket distribution of funds back to localities on a per capita basis. He is more inclined to distribute funds on the basis of need. He has arrived at that perspective through his represen- tation of a variety of local governments, some with a good tax base and others with low tax bases. He feels the basic job of the State is to even out the natural abilities of localities to provide the needed services. Mr. Van Yahres said it would be helpful to him to hear from the Board what its priorities are in terms of legislative positions. He said he under- stands that revenue is a major concern. However, he would like to know what the Board feels is most important. Mr. Allen said he feels this is going to be a difficult year at the General Assembly because of budget restraints. He said the legislators will have to make hard decisions. Members of government are talking about raising taxes to increase revenues, while at the same time the taxpayers are facing layoffs and salary freezes. He said in his opinion this would be the most inappropriate time to take more money from working people. He feels that a portion of the lottery funds could be used for capital expenditures such as schools, roads or landfills. Regarding equal borrowing power, Mr. Allen feels that voter approval should be the discipline for potential borrowing. It is not consistent with his philosophy to support borrowing power without voter approval. Regarding a regional gasoline tax, Mr. Allen said he can support such a tax if it is used for roads and if the tax is minimal. Regarding transfer development rights, Mr. Allen said he supports the concept because it is an encouragement for rural landowners to conserve land as opposed to downzoning and taking use away from landowners. The waste management issues are primarily addressed by legislation passed recently by the General Assem- bly. He said the key to successful recycling is developing markets for the products. Mr. Allen asked the Board to let the legislators know which state man- dates it would like diminished. He agreed that some mandates need to be relaxed if the revenues coming back to the localities are going to be de- creased. Regarding spending priorities, Mr. Allen's view is that the most important one is basic aid to localities for education. Mr. Way said he recognizes that these are hard times, especially for the poor man. The problem is that the County cannot simply reduce expenses to the point that additional revenue is not necessary. He looks at state aid as a way to equalize the burden of costs. He said the County could possibly reduce the personal property tax, if it had the ability to have other types of taxes to make up the difference in revenues. Mr. Bowie said it makes more sense to him to have a portion of the tax on property based on the ability to pay rather than on property. That is the philosophy he supports, although he is not sure how such a tax could be implemented. He said he does not agree with putting the tax on homeowners, whether they can afford to pay or not. Mr. Van Yahres agreed with the philosophy that the state should give localities the flexibility to have revenue-raising programs because the localities are subject to the will of the people. He does not like the sales tax and feels that it is regressive, especially since it also is added to- food. He feels that the local option income tax is the least regressive tax. He asked how Board members feel about an increase in the income tax state- wide. The state would collect the money and give a portion back to localities through education funds or other ways. Mrs. Humphris said her constituents are asking why the legislators are not explaining how the State went from a surplus to the economic condition it is in now. Therefore, the idea of sending more money to Richmond, not knowing what happened to what was already sent, she feels will not go over well. 187 December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 21) Mr. Michie explained that Northern Virginia has contributed approximately 35 percent of the gross tax receipts in the State even though their population equals gross tax receipts of 23 percent. Therefore, the rural areas of Virginia in particular have been living on the surplus contributed by Northern Virginia. This year, the revenues from Northern Virginia dropped from 35 percent of the gross tax receipts to 23 percent during the period from January to July. He said that represents an enormous loss of funds. The reason for the drop is that the construction industry, which has been booming in Northern Virginia for a number of years, came to a screeching halt. The resulting "spin down" of connected income such as sales tax, income tax and unemployment caused a huge drop in Northern Virginia's revenue. He pointed out that although the Democrats are in charge at this time, they were not alone in foreseeing the sudden crash in the construction industry. He said it is an unfortunate situation and one that the State will have to live with for several years in order to adjust. He said the people of Virginia should understand that this is not because there was spending beyond what was budget- ed. Rather, it is a sudden, unexpected decrease in projected revenues. He feels that there is not much hope to be held out for localities with regard to State aid. However, he supports localities having more taxing powers them- selves and feels that the General Assembly should consider selective tax increases. Mr. Allen said he gets the same questions from constituents that were asked by Mrs. Humphris. He pointed out that Senator Michie is referring to projected budget deficits in a two year budget ending on June 30, 1992. He feels that the revenue forecasts were too optimistic prior to the election of the Governor and after the election, the budget shortfall was made known to the public. Mrs. Humphris said the major problem in the locality is the property tax, both real estate and personal property. She said people are literally being taxed out of their homes. She asked what the General Assembly can offer to give the localities power to tax on the ability to pay. She said the taxpay- ers here actually believe that the Board of Supervisors can raise the taxes of the people who have the ability to pay. It is difficult to explain that it does not work that way, but the localities need that ability. She said people who are retired have found their property values zooming because of what their neighbor's homes are selling for. These people have no intention of selling, but they are stuck with rising real estate tax bills. Mr. Allen pointed out the availability of tax relief for the disabled and elderly. Mrs. Humphris said someone has to be very poor to qualify for that relief. She is talking about people who are house poor because their equity is in their homes, but they do not want to sell. They do not have the dollars to pay the taxes because of what growth has done to property values in Albemarle County. She said she does not know the method that can be used to tax by ability to pay and is depending on the legislators to provide some answers. Mr. Allen said with property values going up, the localities are actually in better shape than the State. Mr. Bowie said there is currently no way to give a tax break to the middle class American who is retired. He said their income is down and the house value is up for this category of people. Mr. Van Yahres agreed that property tax as the basic source of revenue causes problems because it is a regressive tax. However, he feels that replacing it with a local option income tax is not the solution. He asked about the possibility of increasing the income tax on a state-wide basis, with a portion coming back to the localities. He agreed that the localities should have more help from the State, particularly for education. Mr. Bain said the Board is not committed to the local option income tax. The point is that the localities need to receive a significant portion of the State revenues. The problem is that the localities do not have any flexi- bility. There are different needs in each locality, and the localities need to be able to make decisions. Mr. Michie said when all the taxes levied in Virginia are compared to other states based on the income of the citizens, Virginia ranks in the bottom of the list. He said Virginia is a low tax state in relation to the income of its citizens. He feels that for government to provide good services, the citizens must be willing to pay taxes. December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 22) 188 Mrs. Humphris said the problem is deciding which taxes should be paid. Mr. Michie agreed and said he supports the localities having the flexibility to decide which taxes are appropriate. Mr. Bowie said he has problems with the idea of the State raising the income tax rate and distributing the money as it sees fit. Mr. Michie said he represents poor areas as well as wealthy areas of the state. He believes in sharing the wealth and pulling together to help each other out. Mr. Bowerman said the elected officials make decisions often far removed from their constituents. It is at the local level that the services are provided and where the citizens have a lot to say about local government decisions. He feels that more of the decision-making about taxation belongs at the local level where the people are and where local representatives can be reached. Mr. Van Yahres agreed that the local government officials are closer to the people. Unfortunately, unlike himself, very few state legislators have local government experience and do not understand local and state problems as expressed by the Board members today. Therefore, state legislators do not trust localities to a large extent. However, he recognizes that the State has mandates to do certain things on a state-wide level, although it has gone overboard on some mandates. Mr. Way said most of the items on the list for discussion were sent to the Virginia Association of Counties. He pointed out that the last item under Education, that School Board members serve at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors, is strictly a local issue and he asked for a response from the legislators. Mr. Van Yahres said he disagrees because such a method would politicize the role of the School Board. Mr. Way said he feels this method would enable the School Board members to be more in touch with the people. He said the people of Albemarle County actually believe that the Board of Supervisors is in charge of education, and it is not. He said the Board actually has no authority at all in education. He said he has been opposed in the past to elected School Board members, which Mr. Allen supports. However, he now thinks Mr. Allen is right and that it is time that the citizens have something to say about their schools. Election of School Board members gives the citizens an elected official to talk to. In his opinion, currently it is hopeless to think that citizens have any say in education. Mr. Van Yahres said he understands Mr. Way's point of view. However, Board members appoint the School Board members and, therefore, are responsible for the appointments. Mr. Way said he does not feel the current system works. Mrs. Hnmphris said sometimes a School Board member is appointed and does not have the time to make the commitment that is required, but loves being on the School Board and will not think of resigning. She said it is not that the member is not qualified, but he may not have the time to make a commitment. Yet, the public thinks that the Board of Supervisors plays a role in educa- tion. She said it is sheer frustration when the Board cannot do anything about the problems it sees. Mr. Michie said when he was on the School Board 25 years ago, the super- intendent made it crystal clear to him that education is a State function and not a local function. It is required by the Virginia Constitution that the State of Virginia provide quality education. Historically, school boards were appointed by a circuitous route. Local circuit judges were appointed by the General Assembly. The local circuit judges appointed school electoral trust- ees who in turn appointed school board members. This method was really indirect and removed from the people. However, that system came into being because it was felt that the appointees would look to what the State thought was needed. Mr. Michie said it was always anticipated that there would be tension between the local government, which was funding education, and the school board members. And it is debatable as to whether that tension should be there. Mr. Michie said he supports the school board having a measure of independence with set terms given. He further thinks that the job of the school board is to represent the State and to provide quality education within December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 23) 189 the mandates of the State standards of quality. He feels that a measure of independence is important so that the school board is not a rubber stamp for the board of supervisors. Mr. Michie said he understands how much better the Board would like more authority in education, but if education is a State function, then there should be that measure of independence. Mr. Allen said he will co-sponsor a bill for a local option for school board selection again this year. He said there are overriding State policies for education to provide state-wide uniformity. However, he feels that there is a shared responsibility for education. The State sets the policy, but it is administered locally. He understands the idea of an independent school board, and he also understands the frustrations and fears of the Board of Supervisors over appointees. He said he could support Mr. Way's suggestion as one of several options available to the citizens. Mr. Bowerman asked about the possibility of two-year terms. Mr. Allen said that can also be a part of the bill. He feels there is not enough direct responsibility to the public in such an important position. By comparison, Soil and Water Conservation District representatives are elected, but school board members are not. Mr. Bowie said one advantmge to elected school board members is that the member would feel responsible to all of the people of the district, whether or not they have children in county schools, and not just to the superintendent of schools. Mr. Allen said those are the people to whom school board members should be responsible because they are paying for education. Mr. Way agreed and said it is not working that way. Mr. Michie said the local people are paying a portion, but the State is also paying a portion. And education is a State function. Therefore, the duty of the school board is to the State. Mr. Bowie said he feels local schools should be run by local people. He said the State sets up basic curricula requirements using standards of quality and should then let the school board run the local schools thereafter. Mr. Bowerman said the law may say it is a function of the State, but he feels that education is a function of society. He said the school board should not be any less responsible for local concerns than it is for State mandates. He is not saying that the State should not have standards of quality and some ability to make the quality of education more equitable on a state-wide basis. Mr. Van Yahres said he disagrees with a two-year term for school board members because it is too complex a job to be involved in for only two years. He also disagrees with having school board members elected. Mr. Michie said he does not see anything wrong with four'year terms for the school board and he would find it hard to support two-year terms. He has consistently been opposed to elected school boards unless they are given taxing power, which takes a constitutional amendment. Mr. Perkins said he would like to discuss one issue not on the list and that is the four-year contract for the superintendent of schools. He feels that such a contract is not beneficial to the County. Mr. Michie said the same argument is made that there needs to be a measure of independence from the school board and the local governing body by the superintendent. He said it is an example that education is a State function delegated in part to the locality, but not entirely. Mrs. Humphris said there is one more issue not on the list which she wishes to address having to do with the Alternative 10 Bypass and the Route 29 decision. She said that chaos is growing in the Jack Jouett District, and phone calls are coming to her every day about jobs, homes on the market, etc. She said the Board asked the Secretary of Transportation to let it know when the filing would take place that starts the legal process for a rehearing of the decision made by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. The Board did not get an answer, but learned this morning that the legal filing was done on 190 December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 24) December 3, and the Department of Transportation did not tell the Board. She feels that not only was the $3.5 million study a sham, but the whole process of getting a rehearing seems to be starting off that way. Ail that the Board knows is that the whole Route 29 corridor is put on hold for an indefinite period of time that could go through a life time. She said it is not right to let the people affected by this road live in that kind of suspense. She asked what is going on when a state agency can paralyze a part of the community that way. She does not understand how in good conscience the Transportation Board could make the decision which it made. Mr. Van Yahres said he has talked with the Governor about having a meeting with the Secretary of Transportation and the Governor about this very question and is in the process of setting up a meeting right now. He also raised the question regarding the amount of preliminary work done on one alternative only before any decision was made. Mr. Allen said when the road plan is decided, the first step is to buy up the right of way. The homeowners must have evidence that this decision has adversely affected their property. That is difficult because of the current real estate market condition. He said even if a rehearing is given or if the decision is reversed, he is not sure that would solve the problem. The people who benefited from the Alternative 10 choice were those living along Alterna- tives 11 and 12. Whatever alternative is chosen, someone's property will be affected. He feels that the fairest way to handle a bad situation is for the State to condemn the land. Mrs. Humphris said the fact is that the Commonwealth Transportation Board made its decision not based on fact. The $3.5 million study says that Alter- native 10 will not be needed even in the year 2010 if the CATS recommendations are carried out, including the building of the Meadow Creek Parkway. Building Alternative 10 after making the improvements on Route 29, including the grade- separated interchanges, only raises the level of service from level B to level A. For that, the Commonwealth Transportation Board is willing to spend over $109 million in today's dollars. If they had followed the recommendation to upgrade Route 29 North and to build the Meadow Creek Parkway at a cost of $30 million, no bypass would be needed in the foreseeable future. Mr. Bowerman said the underlying issue is not how to handle the transpor- tation problems, but how the process works. He said the public is totally cynical because of the way one or two people can influence a decision, in spite of all of the information that was made available. He feels that the process used makes a laughing stock of government and bureaucracy. He feels that Mr. Van Yahres' efforts to talk to the Governor and the head of Transpor- tation are very appropriate. (Mr. Van Yahres left at 3:30 P.M.) (Mr. Bowie left at 3:32 P.M.) Mr. Allen asked if the Board's objection is primarily with the Common- wealth Transportation Board or with the Department of Transportation Adminis- tration. Mr. Bowerman said the decision by the representative of the Highway Department for the Culpeper District to support the recommendation for Alter- native 10 is what influenced the other members of the Commonwealth Transporta- tion Board. He said he does not understand how the Commonwealth Transporta- tion Board reached its decision based on the facts in the document. He said the decision to build Alternative 10 and to not make the improvements to Route 29 and not to build the Meadow Creek Parkway makes it impossible for the CATS~ plan to work. If the Highway Department would put the money on the CATS plan, build the Meadow Creek Parkway and forget Alternative 10 until everythingelse is completed, there would be no need for Alternative 10. He feels that VDoT is determined to build Alternative 10. He said he does not know what the influences are which caused such a conclusion not based on the facts given. Mr. Bain added that this decision is not in the public interest for this community. Mrs. Hnmphris pointed out the exorbitant amount of money for Alternative 10 versus the amount it would take to make the CATS plan work. She feels that the ~CTB representative for this community did not represent this community at December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 25) 191 all. She pointed out that the Commonwealth Transportation Board is politi- cally appointed and there is no appeal available. Mrs. Humphris feels that anyone who observed any of the presentations could attest to the fact that the whole process was a total sham and charade. In fact, there was not even an attempt to make it look real. She said the citizens are totally cynical about government and what is for the public good and what is to be done with public funds. There was no further discussion of legislative issues. The meeting recessed at 3:35 P.M. and reconvened at 3:45 P.M. in Room 7. The Board continued its discussion of Agenda Item No. 17b. Public Recreational Facilities Authority: Discussion of easement form. Mrs. Humphris said she prefers insertion of the bracketed phrase, "nor on any development lot". She then offered a motion to include the bracketed language in the adoption of the "Revised Rural Preservation Development Ease- ment'' noted as Attachment B to a memorandum dated December 4, 1990, from Guy B. Agnor, County Executive, entitled "Rural Preservation Open Space Ease- ments''. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said the Public Recreational Facilities Authority and staff agreed on all the other points. Mr. Bowerman asked if this Board can take an action today that would prevent a future Board from allowing a re-subdivision. Mr. Lindstrom said [he statute does not address this, but he feels that it cannot. Mr. Lindstrom said the easement, although it is part of the subdivision process, really is a document that is independent of the Board's legislative function. Putting the bracketed language in could mean that the easement clearly benefits the lot owners in a way that gives them a right to enforce the easement contract. Even if a future Board wanted more density, unless the lot owners agreed, it could not be done because of the independent contract, the easement, which applies to the lots. A private contract cannot be affected by the Board's public action in general terms. Mr. St. John said if the easement applies to development lots, he feels they should be described. Mr. Cilimberg said in a previous application, the entire development was both described and covered under the easement language. Mr. St. John said the language does not have to be worked out now. He understands the motion to mean that the Board wants to put into effect a means to prevent the re-subdivision of lots. He said it is perfectly legal for that subdivision to happen unless something is adopted by the Board to stop it. He wants to have the opportunity to take a close look at the language. Mr. St. John suggested that this same limitation be placed on every subdivision. Mr. Lindstrom said the Authority wants to reflect what the Board wants with regard to restriction of the development lots. He said stronger easement language is needed than the current easement form contains. Mr. Cilimberg said staff will know the Board's intent, even if minor adjustments must be made later to the language. Mr. St. John said he thinks the Board would do well to include the development lots in the easement description. Mr. Lindstrom said that means that all of the restrictions that apply to the preservation tract, in addition to the restriction limiting the number of structures, apply to the lots as well. With respect to the number of structures and the kind of structures that can be put on the residential lots, this easement will bind that land. If the Board wants the restrictions that apply to the preservation tract to apply to all of the lots, then this statement needs to be somewhere else. If the Board wants the restriction to pertain only to the number of dwellings that can go in the lots, then the bracketed language goes in here. If the Board wants no restrictions, then delete the language. Mrs. Humphris asked if the bracketed language would prevent a later revision if that is deemed necessary. Mr. St. John said it would not. 192 December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 26) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 20. Discussion of Water Resource Protection Areas Ordinance. The Chairman suggested that this item be deferred to January 9 for a work session because of the lateness of the hour. There were no objections from Board members. Agenda Item No. 20a. Amendment to Education Budget re: Title II Demon- stration and Exemplary Program Grant. Mr. Tucker said this is an amendment to the education budget to receive revenue from the state for a science program. The school division has re- ceived a grant from the State for $23,311, enabling them to focus on document- ing a pilot program at Greet, preparing an assessment component, and replicat- ing the program at other schools. He said Ms. Lori McCulloh from the Educa- tion Department is present to answer questions. Mr. Perkins 'asked who is the consultant. Ms. McCulloh said the consul- tant is Ms. Alise Harrison who works with the Department of ¥olunteerism in Richmond and is a free lance consultant. She said a program at Greer is being assessed and involves parent surveys, teacher surveys and student surveys. It is necessary to have someone other than the teachers to distribute surveys, collect data and analyze the data. She said the consultant also works with the teachers at Greet to develop specific assessment instruments. She said there is a national movement to teach science by telling kids about science less and having them experience science through hands-on activities. The problem is the difficulty in testing that type of learning. She said there has been progress in this type of teaching but not in the assessment and measurement of what children are learning. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain ,and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to approve an appropriation of $23,311 by adopting the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. None. Mr. Bowie. FISCAL YEAR FUND PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 90/91 GRANT-PAL STATE GRANT FOR SCIENCE PROGRAM-PROCESS APPROACH LEADERSHIP (PAL) FACILITIES. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1320361101601300 1320361101210000 1320361311312500 1320361311550100 1320361311550400 1320361311580000 1320361311600100 EDUC. & RECREATION SUP. FICA PROF. SER. INSTRUCTIONAL TRAVEL-MILEAGE TRAVEL-EDUCATION MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES OFFICE SUPPLIES TOTAL $10,410.00 752.00 10,000.00 360.00 582.00 657.00 550.00 $23,311.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2320324000240500 STATE GRANT-PAL TOTAL $23~311.00 $23,311.00 Agenda Item No. 20b. Presentation: Ivy Landfill Tipping Fees. Mr. Tucker said that Mr. William Sessoms, Director of Administration for the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, will make a presentation regarding tipping fees, which will be the subject of a public hearing tomorrow night by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 27) 193 Mr. Sessoms said the Authority was formed as an independent regional authority for Charlottesville and Albemarle County for the purpose of operat- ing existing facilities until a future facility is acquired, for recycling facilities and programs, and for developing and providing other disposal alternatives in the context of meeting local, state and federal regulations. The short term goal of tipping fees is to provide the funds to get the Author- ity running, to start operating the Ivy Landfill and to begin funding the future planning for capital expenditures. Mr. Sessoms handed out a summary for fiscal year 1991 of the capital costs included in the tipping fee analysis. These are funds intended to be provided in cash for various capital needs of the Authority such as cell development, design work, site improvement and leachate management, etc. He said the $1.540 million in capital costs is actually a reduction of the forecasted needs developed by the City and the County and provided to the consultant. The consultant for the tipping fee study was charged with providing suitable waste categories and deciding what categories of expense should be broken out. He said an estimate had to be made of the weight of the waste that would be collected. Exhibit 3 shows the various categories which were developed. The intent was to develop a tipping fee for each of these catego- ries. Exhibit 4 shows the annual expenses for operating the Ivy landfill as a forecast provided to the consultant. Approximately one-half is for capital improvements. Mr. Sessoms noted that it was presumed that the Authority would begin operation of the Ivy Landfill around July 1. The new anticipated date is January 1. The method of funding for the first half of 1991 is through City/County allocations based upon tonnage to provide the operational cost to the Authority. The capital improvements funding would be provided in the second six months of the fiscal year. The operational costs do not change per ton. Exhibit 5 is an example of the components of tipping fees for domestic waste, while Exhibit 6 shows the components for passenger tires. The last exhibit is a reproduction of the advertised tipping fees to be addressed at public hearing tomorrow night. He said the residential fees per load were calculated using the tipping fees recommended by the consultant. On Exhibit 2, Mr. Sessoms pointed out that the capital program needs to begin as soon as possible. The existing landfill cell is due for cap and closure sometime during the summer. He said the cost for cap and closure is approximately $110,000 per acre. Mr. Tucker asked what the $32 per ton equates to for a household. Mr. Sessoms said the estimates are provided by the consultant. They estimate $32 to $39 per year per family. Mr. Bain said it is clear that two-thirds of the $32 figure is attribut- able to capital improvement costs. He asked if all of the work being done is mandated by the State and if the large capital cost will continue. Mr. Richard Moring, County Engineer, said the existing landfills have to be re-permitted by 1992. That means all the old cells have to be closed and capped in accordance with the new regulations from the State. Mr. Sessoms said the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority discussed the 1992 budget and the timing for reviewing the tipping fees. He said the Authority feels that more operational experience is needed to determine future costs. The Authority concluded that the tipping fees would need to be in effect indefinitely. It would have to be determined within the next few months when exactly the budget development for the next cycle would take place. If it is not ready by July 1, the existing rates will continue to be used. Mr. Way asked if any of the capital costs are related to the Keene Landfill. Mr. Moring said they are not. The closing of Keene is not reflect- ed in the tipping fees. Mr. Bain asked what the Authority will recommend at the public hearing regarding timing for implementation of the fees. Mr. Tucker said the fee cannot be increased above what has been advertised. If the fees are reduced, it will impact both the capital and operational funds. One problem the 194 December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 28) haulers in the County have expressed is the timing of implementation of the fees. Mr. Tucker said if the Authority had been created and the fees estab- lished in July as planned, the fees may have been less than currently recom- mended. Revenue now has to be provided in one-half the time originally recommended by the consultant. However, in order to accommodate the haulers and give them time to get the word out to their customers of the new rate and effective date, another month is being allowed before haulers begin charging their customers. The haulers are basically passing this fee along to their customers. To do that, the month of January will be paid for by the County. The Authority will begin running the landfill with the new fee structure in January. However, the haulers will not be charged and will begin passing the fee on to their customers on February 1. Mrs. Humphris said she is concerned about the whole situation. She feels that a lousy job of informing the public has been done. She feels that the Board "dropped the ball" and that it is fair to allow the haulers another month of grace. She is still concerned about the process for informing the public. She feels the Board, the Authority and the haulers have an obligation to inform the public because the vast majority have no idea of why the Author- ity was created, what the State mandates are about and what has to be done by 1992. Someone must implement a plan to inform the public immediately to go along with the efforts of the haulers with their customers. The County or the Authority must do that. She is also concerned about when the County is going to address the issue of recycling and waste reduction. She said yard waste should not be going to the landfill anymore. She feels there are many loose ends and she is unhappy with the way this project is being handled. Mr. Tucker agreed that this project has not moved as smoothly as he had hoped and the educational effort has not moved forward as he envisioned. Ideally, the Authority should have been created and staff hired to begin its work of informing the public. Unfortunately, the Authority was not created and staff hired in a timely fashion; therefore, there has been an effort to move quickly. Mr. Tucker said there has been media coverage during the discussions of the Solid Waste Task Force and the consultant's report to the City and County. In addition, there was media coverage on the creation of the Authority. Mr. Tucker pointed out that there was very little public interest in the creation of the Authority, and he is not sure how to get the public interested. He said that Mr. Way held several public sessions in the Scottsville area with hardly any response. Mr. TuCker said information can be offered to the public during the month of January by the Authority at the same time the haulers are attempting to educate their customers. Mrs. Humphris said it may take a large advertisement in the paper to explain that these are State requirements affecting Albemarle County and other localities. She feels that public sessions will not work. Mr. Way agreed and added that the trash haulers are seemingly being set up to fail in this situation. For the solid waste program to succeed, the haulers must be successful, and the County must see to it that they are suc- cessful. Mrs. Humphris said the haulers must have a basis from facts and experi- ence to set their fees at a level that will not cause the customers to leave the current hauler and find a cheaper one. She said the public has to be happy and the haulers have to know what their costs will be for an extended period of time in order to make a profit and stay in business. The County needs the haulers in business to make the program work. Mr. Tucker said he agrees but does not know the best means of informing the public. Mr. Bowerman suggested that a flyer be provided to the haulers for distribution to the customers and possibly as an insert in the Daily Progress. Also, meetings can be held throughout the County at various schools for people who want to ask questions of the Authority. Mr. Bain said it seems the haulers feel they can live With the delay to February 1. He feels the key is communication throughout the initial process between the haulers and the Authority. The haulers will have access to information that may have tremendous impact early in the process. If the communication fails, the funds will not come in and garbage will be taken here, there and everywhere. Mr. Bain said it might be possible to have an advisory subcommittee made up of the haulers to work with the Citizens Advis- ory Committee. He said there are some critical things that must happen to give this program a reasonable chance to work. December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) ~_95 (Page 29) Mr. Tucker said the idea of a subcommittee was discussed with the haulers on Friday, and they agreed that it is a good suggestion. Mr. Tucker feels that it is important to work through the Advisory Committee. Mr. Way agreed that the haulers will be more in touch with the reality of trash disposal than anyone else. Mr. Perkins asked if other localities have implemented tipping fees. Mr. Moring said there have been instances where public relations firms were employed to inform the public. He said the County is at a disadvantage in not having a means of general mailings to communicate with the public. The only means is through putting a flyer in the tax bill. He said a general mailing is expensive and so is hiring a public relations firm. Surprisingly, the press has been disinterested in this subject. He said other localities have also used press conferences. Regarding the amount of tipping fees compared to other places in the state, he said a canvass of various localities last spring indicated that fees vary from $25 to $34 per ton. Generally, these rates apply to all types of waste. There are many localities with tipping fees that are far less as well. He feels that the proposed rates are comparable to other communities. Mrs. Humphris asked what the rationale is for the cap and closure of the Ivy Landfill coming from the tipping fee instead of from the General Fund as is the case with the Keene Landfill. Mr. Tucker said the Ivy Landfill is to be owned by the Authority. Because Keene was already in the process of closing, it did not make sense to turn that over to the Authority. Ivy still has some useful life. Mr. Perkins said the important thing is what it will cost the average family to have their trash picked up. Mr. Sessoms said the average is an increase of $33 to $39 per year. Mr. Tucker said that figure depends on the service from the hauler and the weight the household generates. Mr. Bowerman said the City and County have transferred the cost of capping some of the Landfill to the new Authority. Only a certain portion of the Landfill will be used with the implementation of the new Authority. It is clear that some of the cost that would have been borne by general government has been transferred to this Authority for some of the dumping that has taken place in the past. Mr. Bain said the question is if that is fair to the customer who will now pay for it all. He said the Board and the City Council can agree to pay for one-half, which would then lower the tipping fee. Mr. Bowerman said some of this does not look altogether equitable in terms of the fees being passed on to the public. Mr. Bain said some of these requirements just became law in the past year. The cost has not really been deferred, but possibly it should have been anticipated. Mr. Way said it appears that the person who takes his trash to the dump is charged by the vehicle he is driving, rather than the contents of the load. Mr. Moring said there is language which is not included here that specifies portions of loads and it is up to the operator to make an estimate. He said the annual sticker applies to pick-up trucks. Mr. Bowerman said the recycling effort will make more sense to the public when they relate the cost of dumping to the weight produced by their house- hold. Mr. Tucker said the Authority has no money to operate and is borrowing money from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to begin staffing. The plans for recycling must be developed and public relation informational sessions must be scheduled. However, the fee is necessary in order to operate and fund the things that should have been done ahead of time. Mr. Bowerman said he cannot see any way that an educational program Could have been implemented ahead of time for this program. The practice of govern- ment has always been to fund needs as they are presented, and this situation is no different. Mrs. Humphris said she would like reassurance that when the County's representatives on the Solid Waste Authority go to public hearing that they December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 30) 196 are considerate of the input from haulers regarding the amount of the tipping fee and the implementation of the fee. She hopes there is much discussion about communication. Mr. Way agreed. Agenda Item No. 20c. Naming of Southern Regional Park, discussion of procedure for. Mr. Tucker said that advertisements soliciting proposed names for the Southern Regional Park did not result in any proposed names being submitted. The only proposal on hand is one made by the Cove Garden Ruritan Club in 1988 for the name to be "Walnut Creek Park". Unless Board members have other names to propose, staff recommends that the original committee of the Southern Regional Park be directed to consider a possible name and make a recommen- dation to the Board. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Bowerman that Mr. Way and Mr. Bain serve as a committee to bring a recommendation for a name for Southern Regional Park back to the Board within 60 days. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 2la. Appointments: Airport Commission. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to reappoint Mr. Gene W. Francis and Mr. Edward B. Lowry to the Joint Airport Commission, terms to expire December 1, 1993 and December 1, 1991, respectively. (Mr. Lowry had agreed to only a one-year reappointment.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. None. Mr. Bowie. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to reappoint Mr. Edward B. Lowry to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Authority, term to expire December 1, 1991. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 21c. Appointments: Planning Commission. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Way to reappoint Mr. Werner Sensbach as the University of Virginia's non-voting representative on the Albemarle County Planning Commission, term to expire December 31, 1991. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 21d. Appointments: Public Recreational Facilities Authority. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to reappoint Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., David Bass and John ~. Birdsall, III to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority, terms to expire December 13, 1993. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 31) 197 Agenda Item No. 2lb. Appointments: Housing Committee. The Board agreed to make these appointments at the night portion of this meeting. Agenda Item No. 2lc. Appointments: Fiscal Resources Committee, Discus- sion of future of. Due to time constraints, no discussion was held at this time. Agenda Item No. 22. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from Board Members. Mrs. Humphris referred to a letter addressed to Mrs. Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, dated November 28, 1990, from Mr. E. C. Cochran, Jr., VDoT, filing the Commonwealth Transportation Board's approval of the Route 29 Corridor Study Project No. 6029-002-122, PE-100. (See the entire letter set in the minutes of December 5, 1990.) She feels that the Board should adopt a resolution requesting a rehearing of the Common- wealth Transportation Board's decision. She feels that the people of this community have the right to have the Commonwealth Transportation Board hear their reaction to the process and hear how they feel about the effects of this decision. She feels that the Board has an obligation to give the public that opportunity. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt the following resolution requesting a rehearing. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board, at its meeting on November 15, 1990, approved the location of Project 6029-002-122, PE-100, Route 29 North Corridor Study; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors opposes this decision; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby request a rehearing of the said decision in accordance with Section 33.1-18 of the Code of Virginia. Agenda Item No. 23. Recess for supper. There being no further business to consider, at 5:05 P.M., the Board recessed for supper. Agenda Item No. 24. Reconvene in Room 7. At 7:30 P.M., the Board recon- vened with all members present. Agenda Item No. 25. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Mr. Dick Abidin, of the Earlysville Forest Homeowners Association, addressed the Board regarding a February Board meeting in which the fire hydrant at Earlysville Forest was discussed. Mr. Abidin referred to the minutes of that meeting and said that Mr. Daley Craig, the developer, at that time was trying to get the County to take over responsibility for the fire hydrant located on Earlysville Forest Drive. At that meeting, Mr. Abidin said the Board denied Mr. Craig's request. After the meeting, the Association was given the option of taking over maintenance of the fire hydrant or having, it abandoned. Mr. Abidin said the Association is not in the position to fund or to be responsible for the hydrant. The Association intends to find some way of defraying the costs associated with the maintenance of the hydrant. If the Board cannot help the Association, their only choice is to abandon the hy- drant. Mr. Abidin said the Association met with the Earlysville Fire Depart- ment and were told that the hydrant would be used on a monthly basis. Mr. December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 32) Abidin said the hydrant is not used except for training of new recruits. He said the likelihood of a fire which would require the use of this hydrant is only a five to ten percent chance in that area of the County. Mr. Abidin said the Association has been testing the hydrant on a monthly basis to make sure it works, but the cost and the liability to maintain the hydrant is out of the range of the Association's insurance policy. Mr. Bowie recalled that the Board declined to take over the maintenance of this hydrant because there are many of hydrants of this type throughout the County, and they are not the responsibility of the COunty to maintain. Mr. Bowie said the Board recommended that the hydrant be the responsibility of the homeowners association or to one of the volunteer fire departments. Mr. Bowie asked staff to review the situation and bring back a report. Mr. Abidin said the Association has tried to find someone who knows how to maintain and operate a dry hydrant. There are plumbers who understand the operation, but the problem is the cost of having it tested each month. Mr. Tucker said staff was under the impression that the Earlysville Fire Department was to maintain and test the hydrant. Mr. Abidin said that does not happen and there is a new chief as well. He suggested that the best idea is to get all the parties back together to solve the problem. Mr. Bowie asked staff to get the parties together and let the Board know the status and also the process which would be followed to abandon the hy- drant. There were no other members of the public to address the Board at this time. Agenda Item No. 26. Public Hearing: 1991-92/1995-96 Capital Improve- ments Program. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 4, 1990.) Mr. Bowie said there is apparently some misunderstanding about the proposed field house at Albemarle High School and he understands there are people present to address that issue. Mr. Bowie explained that the field house is, indeed, included in the Phase I renovations to Albemarle High School in 1991-92. Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, listed the items under Libraries requested for funding in this fiscal year. Those include roof and electrical repairs for the main branch of the Jefferson Madison Regional Library, replacement of the HVAC system at the Gordon Avenue Branch and an allocation for the new Northside Branch at Albemarle Square. Mr. Way asked about the bookmobile. Mr. Benish said this item is for replacement of the existing bookmobile which has over 100,000 miles on it. Mr. Bowie asked if $75,000 is the complete replacement cost. Mr. Benish said he believes it is. Mr. Bain noted that the $75,000 amount is not scheduled until 1992-93. At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing to receive public comments with regard to libraries. Mrs. Shirley Dorrier, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Library, said she has an emergency request for the bookmobile due to the fact that the bookmobile had repairs this year totalling over $3700. The bookmobile was out of commission for 22 days. Therefore, there needs to be a replacement of the bookmobile this year in order to continue this service which is 22 years old. She said the bookmobile serves people who do not come to the branches. As the new branch is built, the bookmobile route will be changed. The bookmobile is the third largest circulation system in the library system, after the Central Library and the Gordon Avenue Branch. She said the Board has already commit- ted to the Northside Branch and the Library Board is asking for this year's full funding for space, staff, furnishings and for the collection of volumes. Mrs. Dorrier said the circulation is expected to be 100,000 the first year. Currently there is a 25 percent increase. Mrs. Dorrier said the Library Board is working hard to use its allocation of tax dollars in the best possible way. Mr. Bowie asked if the bookmobile serves any jurisdiction other than Albemarle County. Mrs. Dorrier said the bookmobile serves five places within December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 33) the City of Charlottesville. These could possibly be changed because the bookmobile may not be funded by the City. Currently, the City of Charlottes- ville gives five percent. Mrs. Dottier said when the Northern branch opens, the bookmobile will provide service to areas that are not within a radius of three or five miles of an existing branch. She said it takes about six months to obtain a replacement bookmobile after the order is placed. Mr. Benish presented the items under Parks and Recreation recommended for funding in the CIP from 1991-92 to 1995-96. The public was invited to speak to these items at this time. Mr. Jim Herndon, resident of the City of Charlottesville, spoke concern- ing the Rivanna Park Five Senses Trail. He is a member of the Handicap Parks/Playground Committee formed to make sure there are accessible parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities in the City and County. Since the formation of this committee, it has provided City Parks with handicapped spaces, with ramps and whatever is needed to be sure that any member of the community can enjoy recreation. Another project this committee is studying is the five senses trail. This project has been given favorable comment by the City/County Joint Recreational Committee for the Rivanna Park. He is asking that the Board favor the Five Senses Trail as well. The goal of the first phase is to reach $75,000. Of that, $25,000 is requested of the County and $25,000 from the City. The Committee will raise the last $25,000. Mr. Herndon said the Committee has already raised over $9000 in funds and materi- als. He said the trail will consist of a small parking area, a trail about one-quarter of a mile in length with stations designed to define and illus- trate the five senses. He said this idea is not unique. There is such parks in New Jersey and Florida. The important thing is that this park is to be enjoyed by and participated in by all of the community. It will be excellent for school children. He asked the Board to continue to fund the $25,000. Mr. Way pointed out that $25,000 is included in 1991-92 and another $25,000 for Phase II in 1994-95. Mr. Herndon said that when the ideas for the stations are finalized, his committee will be glad to present them to the Joint City/County Parks and Recreation Committee. Mr. John Dorrier, owner of the property across the road from the proposed park, said he is delighted with the idea of the trail. He enjoys walking in this area and thinks this is an opportunity for everyone to enjoy the park. Mr. Rick Shasby, resident of Albemarle County and employee of the Albemarle County School system, said he is a member of the Handicap Park/Recreation Committee. Mr. Shasby said he is aware of the need for accessible recreational facilities in the City and the County, and he is impressed with the responsiveness of the City and the County in making changes in the facilities recommended through the Committee. He supports the Five Senses Nature Trail as a viable way to enhance the recreational opportunities for all citizens. He sees it as an important educational experience available to the City and County elementary and middle school students. He encourages the Board to consider the potential this has for providing an important experience. Mr. Tucker said the total revenues needed to fund the program from 1991-92 to 1995-96 are $37.7 million. The existing resources are primarily .through General Fund appropriations at $1.0 million each year. He pointed out regarding the field house that a community contribution of $300,000 is to be provided. Mr. Tucker said a large portion of the funding source is from splitting the tax collection of personal property takes. The majority of the funding will be from borrowing funds next year. Mr. Tucker noted that an oversight regarding the urban elementary school may necessitate an amendment to the CIP. During the review process the cost of the land was originally projected at $400,000. In reality, the cost is going to exceed $1.0 million. That amount was not funded in the CIP, but is to be included in the amount of the next bond issue. Mr. Tucker suggested December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 34) 200 that no action be taken until the bids are received in January. Another item for consideration for the urban school is that VDoT is requiring a higher standard of improvement for the Berkmar Drive Extension than was originally anticipated, and that may necessitate additional funding. He noted that the CIP budget for 1991-92 will not be adopted until the operational budget is adopted. Mr. Bowerman said there is about $1.4 million difference between the amount of money in the CIP for the urban area elementary school and the amount of the bond issue. Mr. Tucker said that is for the road and goes ultimately to the utility improvements on Berkmar. There being no other members of the public who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Way said he suggested during the work session the possibility of discontinuing the use of the bookmobile. The fact that the bookmobile has greater circulation than some of the branches seems to indicate a need for it. If the Board decides to continue the bookmobile, then funding should probably be moved up to 1991-92. Otherwise, the County will be without the service for a year. Mr. Tucker said if that is the consensus of the Board, when an amendment is made to the CIP for the urban school, this change can be made at that time. That will give staff a chance to look at the revenue sources for the $75,000. Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with moving funding for the bookmobile forward if the $75,000 is available by deleting some other project. Mr. Bain agreed that there is a need for the bookmobile. He understands staff will make funding recommendations later. Mr. Tucker said it is possible to in- crease the General Fund contribution by $75,000. Other than that, some other project will have to be deleted. However, there is time to consider this before the budget is actually adopted. It was the consensus of the Board to fund the bookmobile next year, if at all possible. Mr. Bowie said adoption of the Capital Improvements Program will be placed on the December 19 agenda. Not Docketed: Mr. Bain had read the minutes for October 31, 1990, Pages 11 to 18, and found a typographical error. Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to approve the minutes as read. 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. Perkins suggested that someone from the Crozet community serve on a committee to screen prospective applicants for the Crozet Crossing Housing Project. He also suggested the possibility of having a resident council to oversee the project. Mr. Benish said no advisory organization has been established for the community or the Board. Within the program design, there are two committees to be established. One is a selection committee having a member from Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, Charlottesville Housing Foundation and an attorney. There has been discussion about the possibility of having another representative from the County. At the Board's discretion, additional representatives could be added. The committee is solely for the purpose of deciding which applicants qualify and who will be selected to enter the program. The only other organization to be established is a homeowners association. Mr. Benish said another type of committee could be designed to present quarterly or annual reports to the Board. He said staff can look. into the possibility. Mr. Perkins said he was thinking about having four or five people from the Crozet community who live near the project serve on a committee to see what is happening on a day to day basis. He is willing to serve and possibly the Planning Commission representative for the White Hall District could serve on such a committee. 201 December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 35) Mr. Bowie said he can understand why the people in Crozet would like to be briefed on the development and he can support the concept. Mr. Bain said he is concerned about the logistics of implementing the idea. He is not sure such a committee should have input on an applicant!s income. There are things the community has a right to know about and other things are not really anyone's business. In general, he does not object to the process because it can serve to eliminate rumors. Mrs. Humphris asked what powers the Board would give to this committee. Mr. Perkins said he wants the committee to observe the project and see that it is being developed in the way it was presented. Mrs. Humphris asked what happens if the committee finds something objectionable. Mr. Bain said the committee has no power except to come back to the Board of Supervisors. He also feels the Board needs to be kept informed by staff as to the development of the project. Mrs. Humphris feels that the committee needs to be defined as to what its job is. There need to be limitations and a job description needs to be written. Mr. Perkins said perhaps staff can study this suggestion and come back to the Board with recommendations. He got the idea from a letter from Mr. Jack Kemp, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, who mentioned the use of resident committees in other locations. Mr. Tucker said staff can define a charge for this committee and come back to the Board with a recommendation. Mr. Perkins restated his interest in someone from the community serving on the selection committee for applicants to this project. Mr. Benish asked if this is to be a standing committee, or just through the construction phase of the project. Mr. Perkins said he is thinking of the construction phase. After that, possibly the neighborhood association would take over the responsibility. Mr. Bowie said the Board needs to designate Mr. Tucker as the County Executive effective January 1, 1991, with the power to vote in the interim in the absence of the current County Executive. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Bain, to designate Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. as County Executive of Albemarle County, Virginia, effective January 1, 1991, with the power to vote in the absence of the current County Executive for any reason in the interim. 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. Bowie said a public hearing on redistricting is being held in Staunton this Friday. He feels that it is not helpful to have a portion of the County split off and have three delegates. Mr. Bowie said that can be expressed in a resolution and mailed to the meeting. Mr. Way said he agrees that it should be put in the record somehow. It was the consensus of the Board that the Chairman convey the Board's wishes to the redistricting hearing. At 8:29 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing possible appointees to the Housing Committee and the Regional Solid Waste Task Force under Section 2.1-344.A.1. 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. December 12, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 36) 2O At 8:52 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris certifying the Executive Session as set out below. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. VOTE: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: None. ABSENT DURING MEETING: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Perkins to appoint Mr. Kevin Cox, Ms. Virginia M. Greenwood, Mr. Forrest D. Kerns, Ms. Karen V. Lilleleht, and Mr. Burton M. Webb to the Housing Committee, terms to expire December 12, 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. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain to nominate Mr. Randy Layman, and Mrs. James B. Murray and Mr. Peter Stark as Albemarle County representatives to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Solid Waste Task Force. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Humphris. 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. 27. Adjourn. At 8:59 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to adjourn to December 19, 1990, at 1:00 P.M. at the County Office Building for the purpose of reviewing the road alignments in Crozet (see Agenda Item No. 7c). 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. CHAIRMAN