Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-07-11July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 11, 1990, at 9:00 A.M., Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie, Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 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. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve Item 4.1 on the Consent Agenda and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was' called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris. Item 4.1. Resolution to accept South Pantops Drive in the State Secon- dary Highway System. At the request of Virginia Land Company, the Board adopted the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-229, the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, South Pantops Drive: Beginning at approximately Station 6+37.97, a point common to the centerline of South Pantops Drive and the edge of pavement of Riverbend Drive (State Route 1116), thence in a southeasterly direction approximately 3,717.72 feet to Station 43+55.69, the centerline of State Farm Boulevard (State Route 1117), thence in a southwesterly direction approximately 40 feet to Station 27+37.42 of State Farm Boulevard. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation be and is hereby guaranteed a 60 foot unobstructed right-of-way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 976, page 692; Deed Book 1069, page 509; Deed Book 768, page 644; Deed Book 984, pages 50, 51, 62, 63; Deed Book 1058, page 539; Deed Book 797, page 697; Deed Book 1035, page 237; Deed Book 798, page 174; Deed Book 1050, page 623; and Deed Book 669, page 16. Item 4.2. Letter dated June 29, 1990, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, concerning a request to post speed limit signs for the gravel portion of Route 637 between Miller School and the Ivy Landfill, was received as information. (In his letter Mr. Roosevelt states that due to the low traffic volume on Route 637 between Miller School and the Ivy Landfill, the Highway Department was unable to collect an adequate radar sample for a speed study. The Traffic Engineer reviewed the roadway alignment and the traffic accidents which have occurred during the past three years. Four accidents occurred during this period which is not unusual and does not warrant requesting a waiver of the Highway Department's policy concerning July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 2) 2 speed limit posting. The Traffic Engineer has, therefore, recommended, with Mr. Roosevelt's concurrence, that this section be posted for a maximum safe speed at a number of locations to warn motorists of the existing conditions.) Item 4.3. Letter dated June 26, 1990, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, concerning a request for traffic signals at the intersec- tions of Rio Road with Hillsdale Drive and Greenbrier Drive, was received as information. (In his letter, Mr. Roosevelt states that the Traffic Engineer is scheduling a study of the Greenbrier Drive intersection and will advise him of the results when the study is completed. A study was made at the Hillsdale Drive location on 3une 5, 1990. The basic warrants for a signal are the comparison of the volumes of traffic on the main road (Rio Road) and the side streets (Hillsdale Drive/Northfields Road). Review of the study indicates that the location meets the required volumes of traffic for only two hours of the eight required.) Item 4.4. Notice dated June 18, 1990, from Central Virginia Electric Cooperative, of an application filed with the State Corporation Commission, for a general increase in rates, was received as information. Item 4.5. Notice dated June 26,.1990, from Commonwealth Gas Services, Inc., of an application filed with the State Corporation Commission, for a general increase in natural gas rates, was received as information. Item 4.6. Copy of Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 1990, was received as information. Item 4.7. Letter dated June 28, 1990, from Mr. Barry R. Lawrence, Executive Director, Virginia Association of Counties, re: resignation from position, was received as information. Item 4.8. Copy of Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expenditures for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1990, pursuant to Section 15.1-166, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, submitted by Mr. Walter J. Kucharski, Auditor of Public Accounts. Received as information. Item 4.9. Letter dated July 6, 1990, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive, re: Vehicle Accidents on Route 20 near Route 746 during the Memorial Day Weekend. (In response to a request made at the June Board meeting, Mr. Roosevelt said he reviewed the accident reports and locations of the accidents. He thinks that each accident was caused by a southbound vehicle on Route 20 losing control or crossing the centerline and causing a northbound vehicle to lose control. It is his feeling that rain from an extremely heavy thunderstrom covered the pavement with water and made one vehicle hydroplane. In the other two cases, he believes that speeds too fast for road conditions were the cause of the accident. He inspected the pavement which did not appear slippery or any less textured than other sections of pavement on other curves in the area.) Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: May 16 and June 6, 1990. Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of June 6, 1990 (Pages 21 - End) and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, 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, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris. July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 3) 3 Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Status of Improvement Projects and Projects Currently Under Construction. Mr. Roosevelt presented the following letter dated June 29, 1990: "Enclosed you will find two reports for the Board of Supervisors concerning the status of improvement projects in Albemarle County. The first report (copy on file) entitled 'Project Listing, Albemarle County, July 1990' indicates the status of improvement projects that are now in the design stage. This is the report which the Board and I agreed would be updated quarterly. The second report entitled 'Projects Under Construction' lists the status of all contract con- struction projects currently under construction. This listing will be updated monthly. PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ALBEMARLE COUNTY, JULY 1990 ROUTE LOCATION STATUS EST. COMP NO. DATE 601 Bridge Replacement - Buck Mt. Creek 620 Bridge Replacement - Buck Isl. Creek 631 Int. Rte. 659 (near SPCA) Int. Rte. 768 (Pen Park) Int. Agnese Street 631 Rio Road from Fashion Sq. to Rt. 650 240 0.5 Mi. North Rt. 250 (box culvert) 654 Turn lane at Georgetown Rd. 60% Complete Sep. 90 25% Complete Aug. 90 25% Complete Oct. 90 10% Complete Started 6-90 Started 7-90 656 Turn lanes between Barracks & Hydraulic Started 7-90 810 At School in Crozet Started 6-90 Dec. 90 Dec. 90 Nov. 90 Nov. 90 Sep. 90" Mr. Bowie commented that the information provided is helpful. Mr. Bowerman agreed. Mr. Way referred to a project listing attached to the above list and asked why the Route 20 project (At Avon St. Extended (Rt. 742) - Construct Turn Lanes) was being deferred. Mr. Roosevelt said the project is on hold pending resolution of an underground tank problem. New Federal regulations require the Highway Department to review all projects with an underground tank located on the property. The owner of the property is responsible for any problem involving the underground tank whether the problems occurred prior to their ownership of the property. The Department has been instructed to not purchase any properties that contain underground tank with problems. The Department thinks there is an underground tank leak at this location and until it gets resolved, the Department will not purchase the property. Mr. Bain asked how the process can be speeded along. Mr. Roosevelt said the State Water Control Board (SWCB) will pursue the correction of the under- ground tank problem. After the problem is corrected, the Department will purchase the property. A leak can cause groundwater pollution and can be extensive and expensive to correct. It is his understanding that partly because the law is new and partly because of the volume of problems being discovered, the SWCB is not moving rapidly to resolve the situation. It is, therefore, possible that this problem could drag on for quite a while. Mr. Bain asked if a letter from this Board to the SWCB would expedite the process. Mr. Way commented that he does not think the school buses will be able to make the turn from Route 20 without backup movements. Mr. Roosevelt said he will get some additional information to the Board and proceed from there. Mr. Bowie suggested that the information be provided for the July 18 meeting. There was no further discussion at this time. Agenda Item No. 6b. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Bain said he has received correspondence from citizens about the southern portion of Route 637. He asked if posting maximum speed signs will address the concerns. Mr. Roosevelt said the Department thinks that speed July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 4) limits should be set at what the people feel comfortable traveling. It is difficult to enforce any speed limits in the rural areas. Posting a speed limit that would probably be slower than what the motorists use only sets up a situation where the speed limit will be violated with impunity and there would be little chance of enforcement. The Department is trying to warn the motor- ists of the curves that exist on the road. The Traffic Engineer feels that posting for maximum safe speed on roads of this type has a far stronger affect on the speed than posting an artificially low speed limit. Mr. Roosevelt commented that the same situation is happening in Northfields Subdivision. If the current 35 mph speed limit cannot be enforced, reducing another ten miles an hour will not change the speed that the people travel. Mr. Bain said he thinks the posting of a maximum safe speed may be of some help. Mr. Bowerman asked the definition of "warrants" as used in Item 4.3. Mr. Roosevelt said warrants are things the Highway Department looks at when posting a traffic signal. One warrant is accident data at the intersection. The basic warrants that usually apply are ones that compare the volume of traffic on the main streets with the volume on the side streets giving prior- ity to the volume on the side street. When the volume on the side street reaches 150 cars an hour for eight hours and the volume on the main line is 500 cars per hour, then a traffic signal is warranted. The second warrant emphasizes the fact that though there is a lesser volume on the side street, there is so much traffic on the main line that the lower volume cannot get into the traffic stream. Basically when the volume gets above 750 cars per hour on the main line then the volume on the side streets can be reduced (traffic that is approaching the intersection from one side). Mr. Bowerman asked if it makes sense that the traffic is counted separately on the side street. A lot of the traffic is conflicting traffic, some is going across and some is turning traffic. Mr. Roosevelt said the figures provided are what the Highway Department defines as conflict traffic. The traffic that is turning right out of the side street is not counted because that traffic does not have a problem with getting into the flow. It is his opinion, and the Traffic Engineer's opinion, that this is a fair way to do the traffic study. These warrants are used nationally. The Traffic Engineer emphasizes, and he agrees, that before a signal is installed he wants to be sure that there are strong warrants to stop traffic on the main line in order to let the traffic out of the side street. Mr. Bain asked when the traffic signal will be operational at the Farmington/250 intersection near Ednam. He also asked if those warrants justified the signal. Mr. Roosevelt said a signal has to meet only one of the eleven warrants to be approved. The signal at Farmington does meet the warrants. People have called him about that intersection since 1976. The people living in Farmington have continuously brought this problem to the Department's attention. The Department has studied that intersection about a dozen times. Finally, the last time it was studied it met one of the warrants. Mr. Bain asked the source of funds for the Route 643 improvements. Mr. Roosevelt responded that maintenance funds were used for those improvements. Mr. Way thanked the Highway Department for stopping traffic during the Fourth of July parade in the Town of Scottsville. Mr. Bowie asked if the plant mix on Route 250 East was installed at night. Mr. Roosevelt responded the work was done in the late afternoon. Mr. Bowie said the work was handled extremely well and, as far as he could tell, there was only minor disruption of traffic. Mr. Bowie said he feels the highway crews are handling the traffic well for the work being done on Rio Road. Mr. Roosevelt thanked Mr. Bowie for his comment and added that he has received some calls on the opposite side. July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 5) 5 Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: Public hearing to consider the proposed budget for Secondary Road Improvements for FY 1990-91. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 26 and July 3, 1990.) Mr. Roosevelt said the Board must adopt a secondary roads improvement budget for FY 1990-91. In May, he forwarded a letter to the County which indicated that there would be $3,159,446 available for secondary improvements this coming year. He also sent a recommendation on how those funds should be distributed to projects. In June the Board agreed to take his recommendations to public hearing. The list shows projects in three categories: incidental construction projects which cover county-wide services that his Department usually supplies such as traffic services, pipe and preliminary engineering; regular projects which are major improvement projects that are let to contract and normally take a full construction season and funding over a number of years; and, third, unpaved road projects. The public hearing was opened. There being no comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bain asked where the Millington Bridge project is in the process. Mr. Roosevelt said the Department has held a location and design public hearing and the Transportation Board has approved the location and design that came out of that hearing. The plans are being updated for release to the right-of-way department and the next step will be to make appraisals of the land and begin contacting property owners. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the following Secondary Highway Improvement Budget for Fiscal Year 1990-91: ALBEMARLE COUNTY SECONDARY IMPROVEMENT BUDGET 1990-91 ROUTE PROJECT/ITEM AMOUNT INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION County Wide Traffic Services $ 20,000 County~Wide New Pipe 25,000 County Wide Preliminary Engineering 20,000 County Wide Seeding 5,000 County Wide Site Plan Review 30,000 County Wide Rural Additions 80,000 625 Hatton Ferry 10,000 692-5000 From 635 to 693 Plant Mix 120,000 676-5001 From 614 to 1645 1.90 Miles - Plant Mix 80,000 1417-5002 At 29 Modify Intersection 8~000 SUBTOTAL $ 398,000 REGULAR PROJECTS ROUTE/PROJECT # DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0631-002-219, C504 0631-002 219, C501 0654-002-220, C501 0656-002-221, C501 0631 002-222, B651 0671-002-191, C501 0671-002-191, B646 0660-002-187, C501 0660-002-187, B644 0743-002-235, C501 0631-002 224, C501 0810-002-240, M501 At Route 659 (Rio Road) $ At Pen Park (Rio Road) Right Turn Lane (Barracks Road) At Old Forge Road (Georgetown Road) Bridge at Biscuit Run (Old Lynchburg) Millington Bridge Millington Bridge Rae's Ford Bridge Rae's Ford Bridge At Route 606 (Hydraulic Road) Stagecoach Road (Old Lynchburg) At Crozet School (White Hall Road) SUBTOTAL 40,000 40,000 109,470 83,690 74,400 170,000 260,000 110,000 318,000 170,700 628,661 30~000 $2,034,921 July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 6) UNPAVED ROADS ROUTE PROJECT AMOUNT 0674-002-231, N501 0674-002-231, B654 0662-002-230, N501 0627-002-229, N501 From 810 to 673 $ Bridge on Branch Doyles River From 660 to 1 Mile West From 727 to 708 SUBTOTAL $ 201,389 61,572 155,277 308,287 726,525 GRAND TOTAL $3,159,446 Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 6b. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Bain referenced Item No. 4.9 on the Consent Agenda and said he feels Mr. Roosevelt's letter concerning the accidents on Route 20 North summarizes the situation adequately. He thanked Mr. Roosevelt for the information. Agenda Item No. 7. Appropriation: Capital Improvements Program for FY 1990-91. Mr. Agnor said there are two processes involved in the Capital Improve- ments Plan; one is adoption of the five year plan and the other is appropria- tion of funds. The appropriation requested today is the same as that approved by the Board in January for FY 1990-91. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the appropriation for funding of the Capital Improvements Program for Fiscal Year 1990-91, by adopting the following resolution: Mr. Bain asked if the funds allocated to the Chris Greene Lake swim area are for reducing the depth of the lake. Mr. Agnor replied yes. Mr. Bain commented that he did not think the project had been approved to be in the CIP. Mr. Way and Mr. Bowie agreed. Mr. Way then amended his motion to delete the Chris Greene swim area project - $55,000 from the CIP until the Director of Parks and Recreation can make a presentation to the entire Board on its necessity. Mr. Bowerman, as seconder, accepted the amended motion. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way. None. Mrs. Humphris. FISCAL YEAR: 89/90 FUND: Capital PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Funding of FY 90/91 Capital Improvement Budget EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1900012200800700 1900032020561470 1900033020700002 1900041000700006 1900041000800963 1900041000800964 1900041000950059 1900041000950064 1900041000950066 1900041000950067 INFORMATION SERVICES FIRE/RESCUE ALLOCATION JOINT SECURITY EXPANSION IVY LANDFILL STREET LIGHTS-WHITEWOOD TO GEORGETOWN STREET LIGHTS-GEORGETOWN TO COMMONWEALTH KEENE LANDFILL CLOSURE RTS. 708/631 INTERSECTION RT 810 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS RTS 743/606 INTERSECTION $85,900.00 250,000.00 124,780.00 380,000.00 12,000.00 16,000.00 225,000.00 35,000.00 45,000.00 25,000.00 July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 7) 1900041000950068 1900041000950069 1900041000950070 1900041000950071 1900041000950072 1900041000950073 1900043100800301 1900043100800901 1900051020800901 1900060201800605 1900060202800675 1900060205312300 1900060205800650 1900060208800901 1900060212312400 1900060212800901 1900060215800605 1900060255312350 1900060301800901 1900060303800901 1900060510312350 1900071000950003 1900071000950004 1900071000950048 1900071000950077 1900071000950078 1900071002312400 1900071002800650 1900073020950062 1900073020950076 1900093010930202 7 1910041038800975 1910041039800975 1910041049800975 1910041050800975 RTS 729/250 INTERSECTION 10,000.00 RT 654 FOUR LANE UPGRADE 82,500.00 RT 601 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS 100,000.00 GREENBRIER DR EXTENSION 275,000.00 PARK ROAD EXTENSION 65,000.00 SIDEWALK-FIFTH STREET 78,000.00 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING-PBX SYSTEM 160,000.00 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING-ADDITION 82,000.00 HEALTH DEPT 7,000.00 BROADUS WOOD ELEMENTARY 600,000.00 BROWNSVILLE-PAVING 8,100.00 HOLLYMEAD ELEMENTARY-ARCHITECT 60,000.00 HOLLYMEAD ELEMENTARY-CONSTRUCTION 555,000.00 ROSE HILL ELEMENTARY 70,000.00 WOODBROOK-ENGINEERING 8,000.00 WOODBROOK-HVAC SYSTEM 160,000.00 URBAN AREA ELEMENTARY 1,600,000.00 URBAN AREA MIDDLE SCHOOL 50,000.00 ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL-PHASE I 2,150,000.00 MURRAY ELEMENTARY 2,681,000.00 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITY 5,000.00 CROZET PARK 12,000.00 MINT SPRINGS TOT LOT 20,000.00 ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL TENNIS COURTS 110,000.00 EARLYSVILLE COMM PARK 5,000.00 CHRIS GREENE-ENTRANCE BOOTH 15,000.00 RIYANNA PARK-ENGINEERING 12,817.00 RIVANNA PARK-CONSTRUCTION 270,348.00 CENTRAL LIBRARY-ENTRANCE 5,000.00 NORTH BRANCH LIBRARY 600,000.00 TRANSFER TO STORM DRAINAGE 1~500~578.00 TOTAL $12,556,023.00 REVENUE BERKLEY SEWER PHASE I LICKINGHOLE SEDIMENTATION BASIN WOODBROOK CHANNEL WINDHAM JARMA~'S CHANNEL PHASE II TOTAL 75,620.00 1,365,382.00 21,500.00 38~076.00 $ 1,500,578.00 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2900015000150101 2900015000150210 2900019000190305 2900024000240414 2900041000410500 2900051000510100 2900051000510110 2900051000510110 2900051000512004 2900051000512004 2910051000512000 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS $200,000.00 MCINTIRE SCHOOL SALE 55,000.00 RESCUE REPAYMENT 36,800.00 STATE REIMBURSEMENT-JAIL 300,000.00 BORROWED FUNDS 4,966,723.00 CIP FUND BALANCE 497,500~00 GENERAL FUND TRANSFER-CARRYOVER BAL 200,000.00 SCHOOL FUND TRANSFER-CARRYOVER BAL 200,000.00 GENERAL FUND TRANSFER 1,000,000.00 GENERAL FUND TRANSFER-SPLIT BILLING 5,100,000.00 TOTAL $12,556,023.00 TRANSFER FROM CAPITAL IMP FUND TOTAL $ 1~500~578.00 $ 1,500,578.00 Not Docketed: Mr. Bain asked when the Board would receive a report on the proposed Northern area Branch Library. Mr. Agnor replied the Board would be receiving a report at the August 8 meeting. Agenda Item No. 8. Personnel Policy: Alcohol/Drug Free Workplace Policy, Adoption of. Mr. Agnor said the revisions to the Alcohol/Drug Free Workplace Policy requested by the Board at the May 9 meeting have been incorporated into this latest draft of the policy. The School Board adopted the policy without any further revisions. Mr. Bowie said this draft of the policy shows everything the Board requested. July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) 8 (Page 8) Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the Alcohol/Drug Free Workplace Policy for General Government employees, as set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris. County of Albemarle Personnel Policy ALCOHOL/DRUG FREE WORKPLACE Albemarle County has a vital interest in maintaining a safe, health- ful, and productive environment for its employees. The use of alcohol or illegal drugs, or unlawful use of prescription drugs undermines the quality of job performance, endangers co-workers and brings discredit to the County. The County will not tolerate the possession or use of illegal drugs, alcohol, or the unlawful use of prescription drugs by its employees in any job-related context and is committed to the eradication of them from the workplace. This policy is not intended to prevent County employees from participating in social functions outside of County facilities or schools where alcohol may be served. Any County employee determined to have violated this policy will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. All County employees shall be responsible for reporting any evidence of the use of drugs or alcohol by students or staff to their princi- pal/department head. Ail such reports shall be thoroughly investi- gated and reported to the County Executive/Superintendent/or designee and appropriate action will be taken as necessary. The board will not tolerate any violation of the law and, in accor- dance with the law, will fully support any employee who, in good faith and with probable cause acts to report the activities of students or other persons as they relate to the use of alcohol or drugs in the public schools or on County property. In order to comply with federal law, the County requires that an employee notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five days after such conviction. Failure to notify the County of drug related convictions is grounds for dismissal. The County must notify any federal contracting agency within 10 days of having received notice that an employee engaged in the performance of such contract has had any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace. The County will impose a sanction on any employee who is so convicted. Procedure for Compliance I. Employee Assistance The County recognizes that alcohol and drug dependencies are illnesses and major community health problems. Early recognition and treatment of alcohol and drug abuse are essential to successful rehabilitation. The County main- tains an employee assistance program (EAP) to assist employ- ees with alcohol and drug abuse problems as well as with other personal problems and will also make referrals to appropriate treatment programs. Employees voluntarily seeking assistance for a substance abuse problem through EAP or a medical source will not be disciplined as a result of their disclosure of prior drug or alcohol use, and treatment by EAP or another source will be handled in confidence. July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 9) 9 The County shall establish a drug-free awareness program to inform all employees about the dangers of drug abuse in the workplace and that the maintenance of a drug-free workplace is the County's goal. The awareness program shall identify counseling and rehabilitation programs and shall emphasize the penalties for employees' violating this policy and its administrative procedures. II. Use of Drugs A. Controlled Substances (Illegal Drugs) Any employee who enters upon County property or reports for duty while possessing or under the influence of controlled substances (illegal drugs) shall be immediately suspended until the County Executive or Superintendent shall take such action as is advisable. The County Executive/Superintendent shall investigate all charges and shall make such recommendations to the board as he judges to be appropriate which may include dismissal. Any County employee who is convicted of the illegal possession, use or distribution of con- trolled substances (illegal drugs) either in or outside of the workplace will be relieved of his or her duties in accordance with due process. Upon being charged by legal authorities, the employee will be suspended without pay until the case is resolved. If the employee is convicted, the employee will be dismissed effective the date he or she was originally suspended. If not convicted, the employee will be reinstated with full pay retroactive to the date of suspension. III. Use of Alcohol/Legal Drugs A. In the Workplace If an employee enters upon County property or is caught in the workplace under the influence of or possessing alcohol or is misusing legal drugs, the employee will be referred to the Employee Assistance P-rogram. A determination regarding extended rehabilitation will be made by the Employee Assistance Counselor, the employee and the immediate supervisor. If the employee refuses this option for counseling/rehabilitation, disciplinary action including dismissal, may be taken. B. Driving Under Influence of Alcohol/Legal Drugs 1. Employees Who Drive as Primary Occupation If a County employee is charged with or convicted of a.motor vehicle offense involving alcohol or the misuse of legal drugs whether in or outside of the workplace and their position in the County requires driving as a primary responsibility, they will be dismissed from their employment in accor- dance with due process. Upon being charged by legal authorities, the employee will be suspended without pay until the case is resolved. If the employee is convicted, the employee will be dismissed effective the date he or she was origi- nally suspended. If not convicted, the employee will be reinstated with full pay retroactive to the date of suspension. July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 10) 10 2. Other County Employees County employees whose primary occupation does not involve driving and who are convicted of a motor vehicle violation involving alcohol or the misuse of legal drugs will be suspended from driving a County vehicle for one year from the date of conviction. Employees convicted of such offenses must notify their immediate supervisor of the conviction and will be referred to the Employee Assistance Program for counseling. IV. Preemployment Testing/Referral for Testing A substance test will be given at County expense to all new persons offered permanent employment in certain safety related positions with the County. These positions will be designated on a list approved by the County Executive or Superintendent and will be main- tained by the Assistant Superintendent/Director of Personnel. In addition certain positions that require annual physical examinations will have a substance test added to the examination as a requirement for continued employment. Two positive results on any substance test will result in denial of employment rights. Principals/Department Heads may require that employees undergo testing for substance usage if they suspect such usage in the workplace. Such testing will be coordinated through the County Physician services provided by Martha Jefferson Hospital. Employees in certain safety-related positions who are taking a prescribed medication which may impair performance, are required to inform the supervisor of such medication and to bring a statement from his/her physician regarding the likely effects of the medica- tion on the employee's job performance. The positions covered under this provision will be included on a list in the Personnel Office and will be made known to employees in those job classes. Through this program of providing every employee with the information listed above as well as alcohol/drug abuse education and training programs and the Employee Assistance Program, the County is making a good-faith effort to main- tain a drug-free workplace. SAFETY RELATED POSITIONS POSITION School Division Cafeteria Worker Courier Maintenance/Building Services Director Custodial Supervisor Maintenance Supervisor REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION Use of potentially dangerous equipment Extensive driving Vehicle operation, supervision of employees and safety inspections Carpentry Foreman Electrical Foreman Plumbing Foreman Grounds Foreman Custodial Foreman Custodial Supervisor I & 11 Vehicle operation, safety inspection, machinery and equipment operation, and supervision Carpenter Maintenance Mechanic Maintenance Helper Grounds Custodians Vehicle operation, machinery and equipment operation July 11, lg90 (Regular Meeting) (Page 11) Pupil Transportation School Bus Drivers Substitute School Bus Drivers Transportation Aides Substitute Transportation Aides Automotive Mechanics Senior Automotive Mechanics Parts Manager Shop Aides Driver Supervisors Shop Foreman Assistant Shop Foreman Supervisor of Transportation Director of Transportation Positions listed are responsible for the operation, maintenance, repair, and/or the supervision of the above functions, for Pupil Transportation. Additionally the shop staff is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the Police Department vehicles and all other County Department vehicles. Shop/Technology Teachers Operation of potentially dangerous equipment Local Government Police Officers Use of force/operation of emergency vehicles Social Services Social Service Aide Frequent transportation of clients Senior Social Service Aide Social Worker Senior Social Worker Senior Employment Services Worker Social Work Supervisor Parks and Recreation Life Guard Park Foreman Lead Groundskeeper Groundskeeper Safety of public Use of dangerous equipment Part-Time Bus Driver unless already employed by schools) Transportation of participants Joint Communications Center Center Manager The planning, directing, and evaluation of the entire operation of the 911 Joint Dispatch Center Communications Supervisor II 1) The supervision of three communication shift working 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. Personnel supervised are Commu- nications Supervisor 1 and Communica- tions Officers. 2) Directs all the activities of call taking, and dispatch- ing of Police Communications and Emer- gency Medical Dispatch. Communications Supervisor I 1) Supervises Communications Officers during assigned communications shift. 2) Conducts communication work pertain- ing to the receipt of emergency calls from the public and the maintenance of radio cox~unications with Emergency Police and Rescue Units. Communications Officer Performs communications work pertaining to the receipt of emergency calls from the public and the maintenance of radio communications with Emergency Police and Rescue Units. July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 12) Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: from March 9). 12 Somerset Farms Preliminary Plat (deferred Mr. Bowie said a letter dated July 9, 1990, has been received from Mr. Richard Carter, attorney for the applicant, requesting that Somerset Farms Preliminary Plat Appeal again be deferred, this time until September 12. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to defer the appeal on the Somerset Farms Preliminary Plat until September 12. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris. Not Docketed. Referencing Item No. 4.4 on the Consent Agenda, Mr. Bain asked if the Board has ever become involved in a request from a utility company to the State Corporation Commission for an increase in rates. Mr. St. John said he does not believe the County has ever been involved in any way in evaluating or making an appearance on the question of a general public rate increase. Ms. Neher, Clerk, said before Mr. St. John was County Attorney the Board did do something like that for the citizens concerning an increase proposed by Virginia Power. Mr. Agnor said an extremely complex analysis is required. Mr. Perkins commented that the electric cooperative's rates are based a lot on their wholesale rates. Mr. St. John commented that the Divi- sion of Consumer Affairs in the Attorney General's office is assigned the responsibilities of representing the public. Since the meeting was running ahead of schedule, the Chairman suggesting moving to other items on the agenda and then come back to the scheduled public hearing. Agenda Item No. il. Request to set a public hearing to adopt an ordi- nance to assess fees taxed as costs in each criminal or traffic case in a district or circuit court. Mr. Agnor said new legislation went into effect July 1 that enables local jurisdictions by ordinance to "assess, as part of the fees taxed as costs in each criminal or traffic case in a district or circuit court, a sum not in excess of two dollars". These additional revenues may be used by the locality for the construction, renovation or maintenance of a courthouse or jail and court-related facilities and to defray any increases in the cost of heating, cooling, electricity and ordinary maintenance. Although the provisions of this act expire on July 1, 1991, there is a strong possibility that once the fee is established the sunset clause may be eliminated during the 1991 General Assembly session. Mr. Agnor said based on the total number of court cases, the percentage of those persons who are found guilty, and an extremely low collection rate of ten percent on court costs, such an ordinance would only provide between $2,000 and $4,000 in local revenues. Although not a large source, the addi- tional funds could be used for a one-time purchase or as the legislation stipulates to help defray the costs of courthouse maintenance, albeit minimally. Since revenues are directly returned to courthouse expenses, the additional assessment might serve as an incentive to improve the collection rate. Mr. Bowie said it was his impression that court costs were assessed against the person who lost the case in court and if the costs were not paid, the individual went to jail. Mr. St. John said an individual who has no means cannot be made to pay. Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with enacting this ordinance. Mr. Bain agreed. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to set a public hearing for August 8 on an ordinance to assess fees taxed as costs in each criminal or traffic case in a district or circuit court. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris. 13 July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 13) Agenda Item No. 12. Request to set a public hearing for a dog leash law at The Meadows. Mr. Agnor said a petition has been received from the Jordan Development Corp. signed by the residents at The Meadows to enact the dog leash law at The Meadows. The staff have verified that the persons who signed the petitions are residents of the property. The staff recommends setting a public hearing for August 8 to include The Meadows in the dog leash law. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Way, to set a public hearing for August 8 on a request for a dog leash law at The Meadows. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way. None. Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 13. Request from SPCA for Rate Adjustment for Stray Dogs. Mr. Agnor said the Charlottesville/Albemarle SPCA requests the Board to consider a rate adjustment for stray dogs. The present rate is $2.00 per day, maximum six days. The proposed rate is $3.50 per day, maximum six days. Mr. Agnor said the present rate has not been adjusted since October, 1980, and costs associated with boarding these dogs appear to justify the proposed rate. The additional annual cost to the County for this service will be approxi- mately $5,000, a 55 percent increase over the $9,000 appropriated for this fiscal year. The staff recommends Board approval of the requested rate adjustment to $3.50 per dog, per day, retroactive to July 1, 1990. Funds for this change will be sought at the end of Fiscal Year 1990-91 from overage in other cost centers. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve a rate adjustment to $3.50 per day, per stray dog, retroactive to July 1, 1990. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris. At 10:09 A.M., the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened at 10:19 A.M. Mr. St. John did not return. Not Docketed. At this time, the Chairman introduced Major John Marston from Fork Union Military Academy, present with students to observe the Board meeting. The students then introduced themselves: Shawn Hoy from San Antonio, Texas; Tom from Pinehurst, North Carolina, and Jennifer Hitchcock from Fork Union, Virginia. Agenda Item No. 14. Claim Against the Dog Tax Fund. Claim against the Dog Tax Fund was received from Mr. Spencer Young of Barboursville for 12 sheep killed by dogs on January 31, 1990. Mr. Young requested $400 for this claim. TheVirginia Cooperative Extension Service recommended $400. Claim against the Dog Tax Fund was received from Albemarle Farms for 53 lambs, 28 ewes and one ram killed by dogs between September 23, 1989, and February 14, 1990. Albemarle Farms requested $9,520 for this claim. The Virginia Cooperative Extension Service recommended $7,034. Mr. Agnor said the appropriation for such claims in Fiscal Year 90-91 is $300, therefore the money will have to come from the General Fund Balance. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bain, to authorize payment of $7,434 for sheep killed by dogs to come out of the General Fund Balance. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: July 11, lg90 (Regular Meeting) (Page 14) AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris. (Mr. St. John returned at 10:28 A.M.) 3_4 Agenda Item No. 21. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. Mr. Way said he is concerned about the front of this building which is literally becoming hidden by overgrown trees. This is a lovely building. He realizes that the trees were donated, but they have gotten out of control. In another couple of years you will not be able to see the top of the flag pole. He thinks that an analysis of the landscaping and grounds in front of the building should be done. He has spoken with Mrs. Patricia Cooke, Chairman of the Beautification Committee, who has agreed to look at the grounds in front of this building and bring back a proposal. He would suggest that the Board ask Mrs. Cooke to undertake this project and to also include Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, on the Committee. Motion was then offered by Mr. Way to ask Mrs. Patricia Cooke, to work with Mr. Pat Mullaney to make a report on what can be done to the grounds in the front of the County Office Building to keep them from becoming completely overgrown. Mr. Bowerman asked about the weather vane that was on top of the County Office Building. Mr. Agnor said the weather vane rusted the roof of the cupola on a constant basis which would have caused a lot of maintenance. The weather vane was removed while the building was being renovated. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the building needs a weather vane. Mr. Way agreed and then added to his motion discussion of putting a weather vane on top of the County Office Building again. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris. Mr. Bain asked the Board to consider extending the hours of operations at Chris Greene and Mint Springs parks until dark. The hours would be extended until dark through Labor Day. The cost for additional personnel at the two parks would be $2,770. He usually attends the parks in the evenings. This is not a long period of time and is not a large amount of money. Mr. Bain then offered motion to appropriate $2,770 from the General Fund Balance to extend the hours of operation at Chris Greene and Mint Springs Parks until dark and to adopt the following resolution. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Mr. Bain said it was a budget item to close the parks at 8:00 P.M. This would have the parks open an hour longer. Mr. Bowie said he would support the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris. FISCAL YEAR: 1990-91 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING TO EXTEND HOURS OF OPERATION AT CHRIS GREENE AND MINT SPINGS PARKS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100071000130000 REVENUE SALARIES-PART-TIME TOTAL $2~770.00 $2,770.00 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100051000510100 APP FROM GENERAL FUND BALANCE $2~770.00 TOTAL $2,770.00 July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 15) Mr. Perkins announced that he would be taking comments from Board members over the next week for a pre-audit meeting. Mr. Perkins said he and Mr. Agnor attended a breakfast meeting with the Secretary of Economic Development, Mr. Larry Frame. Mr. Linwood Holton was also present. This breakfast was held by the Center for Innovative Technology and Mr. Frame was the keynote speaker. Mr. Perkins said his impression from the talk was that localities are not educating or adequately training the present workforce. He thinks it is time to take a different approach in the educational system. He thinks there is a need to put more emphasis in voca- tional programs. Mr. Agnor said a recent survey in Virginia among a variety of employers asked their #1 problem with hiring. The response was having to train every new employee. The employers did not feel that the school systems were ade- quately training people for the workforce in Virginia. Mr. Agnor said he read in the local newspapers that the School Superintendents of Albemarle and Charlottesville have developed a proposal for revamping the Charlottesville- Albemarle Technical Education Center. Agenda Item No. 20b. Work Session: Resolution - Policy for Deferral of Land Use Applications and Appeals. Mr. Cilimberg said this policy is in response to a request of the Board to develop a procedure which would address situations when any substantially new information is received on development applications after the request has been acted on by the Planning Commission. The staff feels this policy will address the concerns expressed by the Board, and~will allow staff to confi- dently tell applicants that if they do not have the information for review by the Planning Commission, then the Board will not hear the request. Mr. Way asked how the staff intends to interpret "substantial". Mr. Cilimberg said it will be a judgment call. Mr. Bowie said this is a Board policy and the Board will make the deter- mination as to whether the new information is substantial based on staff advice. Mr. Bain agreed. Mr. Cilimberg said that at its meeting on July 10, the Planning Commis- sion adopted a similar resolution which states that if the applicant does not give the information to the staff before review by the Commission, the Commis- sion will refer the application back to staff. Mr. St. John said when a petition has been advertised for public hearing and put on a Board's agenda, that request cannot just be dropped. The request must come up as an item on the agenda. If new material has been submitted that would require the application to go back to the Commission, he thinks the Board needs to make that announcement at the beginning of the meeting. The Board should not go ahead 'and hold half of a public hearing while at the same time new material is going back to the Commission and will have to come up through the process again. No public hearing should be held at all until the request is ripe and ready for a public hearing. Mr. Agnor said his concern is that citizens may show up not knowing that new material was submitted and will want an opportunity to speak. Mr. St. John said he does not think the citi- zens should be given the opportunity for comment until the final public hearing is being held. Mr. Bowie asked if a letter could be sent to adjacent property owners when new material is received that the Board will not hold the public hearing. Mr. Cilimberg responded yes. Mr. Bowerman said when he was Chairman of the Planning Commission and this situation came up, he told people who were present if they felt they had to say something they were free to do so, but it was at their own risk if they did not come back to the final public hearing because the Commission could not be expected to retain their comments. Mr. St. John said it is a value judg- ment on the part of the Chairman. July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 16) 16 Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the following policy for deferral of land use applications and appeals. Mr. Agnor suggested for clarification of the proposed resolution, in the third sentence adding "applicant or appellant" and "application or appeal". Mr. St. John agreed with the proposed change. Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Way agreed to' the change in the proposed resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris. POLICY RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that in the case of any land use application or appeal which comes before this Board, if the applicant or appellant submits any substantial new material in support of such application or appeal subsequent to the action of the Planning Commission on such applica- tion, this Board will not act upon nor hold public hearing upon such application until the Commission has reviewed and acted upon such new material; and FURTHER RESOLVED that this policy shall apply to appeals of subdivision and site development plan decisions, and to applications for special use permits, Comprehensive Plan amendments, and rezonings, including submission of proffers. Any substantial amendment to a previous proffer shall be deemed new material. FURTHER, that this Board may suspend this policy in any case upon a majority finding that its enforcement would serve no public purpose. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 10:49 A.M.) Agenda Item No. 20c. Work Session: EIS for Department of Forestry Headquarters. Mr. Cilimberg presented the following memorandum dated July 6, 1990: "Staff has received the Environmental Impact Statement for the Depart- ment of Forestry's headquarters office building and administrative support facility. This complex will also house offices of the Divi- sion of Mineral Resources, State Police and Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. As discussed with the Board in March, the proposed site is in the northeast quadrant of Tax Map 91, Parcel 2, commonly referred to as the Hillcrest property. This site is adjacent to PiedmOnt Virginia Community College (north) and Willow Lake (east). General County comment regarding this siting can be summarized from earlier discussion with the Planning Commission and Board of Super- visors. This area is recommended for low density residential in the Compre- hensive Plan. The adjacent area to the north is designated for public/institutional use. Use of this area for the office building will reduce the available low density designated area in the Plan by approximately 26 acres (104 maximum potential units). Recent revi- sions to the Comprehensive Plan attempted to assure retention of developable low density residential areas in the Urban Area. Pros/Cons of Preferred Site: Pros: 1. Next to existing institutional site (PVCC). 2. Public water/sewer reasonably available to the site and would be made more available to other parts of Hillcrest property. 3. Development of site proposes to construct a portion of the Avon Street/Route 20 connector and access road. July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 17) Cons: 1. Loss of low density residential area as designated in the Compre- hensive Plan. 2. Compatibility of office development with future adjacent residen- tial development. 3. Pressure for additional non-residential land designation on adjacent property in Hillcrest currently designated as residen- tial in Comprehensive Plan. The Hillcrest site is preferable to the original Route 20/Route 53 sites. However, it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of designated land use. The Department of Forestry has stated that sites consistent with the Comprehensive Plan are prohibitive. With that assumption, staff feels the proposed site at Hillcrest is a reasonable alternative. It has good physical development potential with the extension of utilities, construction of a road system as proposed and sensitive site design which considers the adjacent residential areas. Use of this property for the office complex will necessitate amending the Comprehensive Plan to show only this property as Public/Semi-Public. Staff desires to continue working with the Forestry Department's consultants in site design to assure impact to adjacent properties is minimized. At this point, the consultant is indicating a building layout that has shifted the headquarters and administrative support facility buildings to a down-grade orientation rather than the ridge line orientation originally shown. Staff has recommended consideration of such an orientation and believes it provides for a better site development. Extensive landscaping is indicated and buffering from Willow Lake is shown. As regards Part III of the EIS 'Significant Potential Effects on the Environment', staff has no objection to most findings. Staff would comment that, regarding future land use, occupancy will not neces- sarily have a positive effect for the reasons stated earlier in this memo. However, those effects can hopefully be mitigated through good site design and adherence to the Comprehensive Plan for remaining areas." Mr. Bain asked the height of the top of the building in relationship to the ridge line. Mr. Cilimberg said the front side of the building is to be two stories and the back side one story. The top will probably slightly exceed the elevation of the top of the ridge by about one-half story on the back side. The staff encouraged the Forestry Department to locate the office building so that the roof line would not greatly exceed the ridge line as it currently exists. Mr. Bain asked how far the building is proposed to be set back from Willow Lake. Mr. Cilimberg responded there will be approximately 200 feet to the parking area from the Willow Lake property line. Mr. Bain said he agrees with the staff comments that the remainder of the Hillcrest property should be kept as residential and it should not become commercial and office. Mr. Way agreed and said the County should not be pressured into allowing additional commercial development at that location. Mr. Bowie asked if the staff has the authority to require that the proposed site plan shown is the one actually built. Mr. Cilimberg responded not technically, but the Forestry Department has indicated its desire to work with the County and reach an agreement concerning the site. A state agency does not come the County's site plan review process. Mr. Bowie commented that this facility could set a precedent. Mr. Cilimberg said that is true, but the Board has gone on record by its actions that this is a state office facility and it has been best located based on the options available. It is next to another institutional use. The Board stated its intention of not changing any of the rest of that area from a residential to a nonresidential use. Mr. Bowerman said this conversation today should be July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 18) 18 added to the Hillcrest file. The Board's and Commission's intention regarding this property needs to be in the file in the event there is a change in personnel. Mr. Bain agreed. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff will recommend a designation of public use for the property and it will not need to be desig- nated office service. Mr. Cilimberg commented that the staff is now process- ing a rezoning that is across the lake from this site for a residential development on another part of the Hillcrest property. There was no further discussion at this time. (Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 11:00 A.M.) Agenda Item No. I0. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 19.1, Article II, Protection of Public Drinking Water, of the Albe- marle County Code to provide for the collection of a pro-rata share of the contributions for construction of regional sedimentation basins. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 26 and July 3, 1990.) Mr. Agnor briefly summarized the proposed changes to the Runoff Control Ordinance. The public hearing was opened. There being no comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. (Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 11:09 A.M.) Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the following Ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 19.1, Article II, Protection of Public Drinking Water, of the Albemarle County Code. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris. ARTICLE II. PROTECTIbN OF PUBLIC DRINKING WATER "RUNOFF CONTROL" ORDINANCE Sec. 19.1-4. Purpose and construction of article. The purpose of this article is to protect against and minimize the pollution and eutrophication of the public drinking water supply impoundments in the county resulting from land development in the respective watersheds thereof. It is hereby found by the board of supervisors as a matter of legislative determination that this article is necessary to prevent pollution of such impoundments and to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the county. This ordinance is declared to be remedial in nature and protective of a paramount public interest and shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose. The provisions hereof shall be deemed to be supplementary to any other provision of law relating to the control of land development, to the prevention of soil erosion and sedimentation, to the control of stormwater discharges, to the pollution of water or any related matter. Sec. 19.1-5. Definitions. For the purposes of this article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section: Development. Any construction, external repair, land disturbing activity, grading, road building, or other activity resulting in a change of the physical character of any parcel of land, except as herein otherwise expressly provided. Impoundment. Any impoundment of surface waters in the county designed to provide drinking water to the public. July. ll, 1990 (Regular Meeting) ]_9 (Page 19) Permit. Any building permit, erosion control permit, or other permit, including the approval of any subdivision plat or site devel- opment plan, which is required to be issued by any board, committee, officer, employee or other agency of the county as a prerequisite to any development. Regional Sedimentation Basin. Any public facility designated in the Comprehensive Plan designed to capture and detain stormwater for the geographically defined upstream watershed for the purpose of providing water quality benefits. The area of such watershed shall be based upon naturally existing contours as shown on topographic survey maps. Runoff control official. The officer or employee of the county authorized by the board of supervisors to enforce this article. Sewage disposal system. Any sewerage system or treatment works composed of a facility or combination of facilities, including plumb- ing, piping and fixtures, constructed for the transport and/or treat- ment of domestic, commercial or industrial sewage. This shall include facilities which do not result in a point source discharge and alter- native discharging sewage systems for which a permit is required. This shall not include publicly owned facilities for the transport and/or treatment of sewage. Tributary stream. Any perennial or intermittent stream, includ- ing any lake, pond or other body of water formed therefrom or thereon, flowing, whether directly or indirectly, into any impoundment. Watershed. That portion of the county lying within the watershed of any impoundment. Sec. 19.1-6. Runoff control permits--Required for development. (a) (1) Except as otherwise herein expressly provided, it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in any development which is otherwise permitted by law in the watershed of any impoundment until a runoff control permit for such development shall have been issued by the runoff control official pursuant to this article. It shall thereafter be unlawful for any person willfully to fail to conform to the provisions of such permit in carrying out such development. (2) Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, it shall also be unlawful for any person to construct any sewage disposal system any part of which lies within the limits prescribed in this section, as follows: a. Within two hundred horizontal feet of the one hun- dred year flood plain of any impoundment; or b. Within one hundred horizontal feet of the edge of any tributary stream. (3) Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, it shall also be unlawful for any person to construct any structure for which a permit is required under the Uniform Statewide Building Code within the limits as described in subsections (2)(a) and (b). This provision shall not apply to accessways, public utility lines and appurtenances, stormwater management facilities or other water dependent facilities to provide reasonable usage of the property where no reasonable alternative exists. The foregoing notwithstanding, in the event that the runoff control official shall determine that it would be impracticable to construct a lawful sewage disposal system on any parcel of land of record as of October 22, 1980, except within limits hereinabove prescribed, the runoff control official may authorize the construction of such a system upon such terms as he may determine to be necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare and upon the approval of the state department of health. For the purposes of this section, July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 20) 2O the construction of a sewage disposal system shall be deemed impracti- cable in any case in which construction of such a system without the limits prescribed hereinabove would (1) be physically impossible within the geometric limits of such lot or parcel, (2) require the pumping of effluent, or (3) require the construction of such system on soils found to be unacceptable by the state department of health for such construction. (b) No permit shall be issued by any officer, board, commission or agency of the county for any development requiring a permit for which a runoff control permit is required hereby unless and until the requirements of this article have been complied with; provided, that nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the approval of any subdivision plat or site development plan where no physical develop- ment is to be carried out within any watershed. (c) In the event of any change in any plan for development subject to the provisions of this article, the developer shall submit to the runoff control official such additional data, plans and speci- fications as may be reasonably necessary to insure the control of any additional surface water runoff occasioned by such change. The procedure for the submission of such additional data, plans and specifications shall conform to the procedure for the submission of any original application for a runoff control permit for such develop- ment. (d) Whenever any development is proposed to be carried out by any person other than the owner of the land, the responsibility for complying with this article and with all conditions imposed pursuant hereto, including, but not limited to, the maintenance, repair and replacement of any temporary or permanent runoff control measure, shall remain on such owner. (e) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) hereof, no runoff control permit shall be required for any of the following activities, provided that the same are otherwise permitted by law: (1) The tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural or forest crops or products or engineering operations under subsection (c) of section 21-2 of the Code of Virginia, as amended; (2) The installation, repair, replacement, enlargement or modification of any water supply or sewage disposal system serving not more than two dwelling units; provided, that no such sewage disposal system or part thereof, shall be located within the limits prescribed in s~bsection (a) (2) hereof; (3) The interior repair, remodeling or reconstruction of any existing structure; (4) The construction, reconstruction, remodeling, repair, enlargement or demolition of any development otherwise permitted by law resulting in a total impervious lot coverage of not more than five percent of the area of the parcel on which the same is or is to be located; provided, however, that, after such development, no division shall be made of such parcel without the issuance of a runoff control permit, post hoc, for such development; (5) Any development involving the establishment of not more than five hundred square feet of impervious cover and disturbance of not more than one hundred cubic yards of earth; or (6) Any development for which all necessary permits had been issued prior to the effective date of this article. (f) Whenever any development is proposed within the watershed of a regional sedimentation basin, the developer shall pay a pro-rata share of the construction costs associated with the regional facility before the issuance of any permits for such development. Pro-rata share contributions shall not be used for the maintenance, repair or reconstruction of any regional sedimentation basin. July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 21) 21 Sec. 19.1-7. Same--Procedure. (a) Any person applying for a runoff control permit pursuant to this article shall submit with his application to the runoff control official a runoff control plan with specifications for the temporary and permanent control of surface water runoff in such detail as the runoff control official shall deem reasonably adequate, considering the nature and extent of the proposed development. The runoff control official shall have the power to establish reasonable procedures for the administration of this ordinance which shall be available to applicants. These administrative procedures shall be approved by resolution of the board of supervisors. (b) The runoff control official shall review the plans and specifications so submitted to insure that there will be occasioned by such development no greater rate of surface water runoff than would be present in the absence of such development; and he shall further review such plans and specifications to insure that such runoff, after development, (1) will be of no lesser quality, upon leaving the site, than would be the case in the absence of such development, or (2) will have a maximum suspended solids loading of one hundred thirty-five pounds per acre per year and a maximum total phosphorous loading of 0.68 pounds per acre per year; whichever of the foregoing shall be less. In carrying out such review, the runoff control official may seek the advice of any other person having knowledge or expertise relevant to the review of such plans and specifications. In the event that the runoff control official shall determine that the plans and specifications so submitted are deficient in any respect, he shall promptly notify the applicant to correct the same. In addition, the runoff control official may require the submission of such additional data as may be reasonably necessary to carry out a thorough review of the application. (c) In the event that the plans and specifications submitted by the applicant shall be found to be adequate, the runoff control official shall require, prior to the issuance of a runoff control permit, a bond with surety or other security of the type satisfactory to the runoff control official in an amount determined by him to be sufficient for and conditioned upon completion of the controls speci- fied in such plans and specifications in the manner and within the time prescribed in such permit. In addition, the runoff control official may, if he deems the same to be reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, require a bond or other security for the maintenance, repair and replacement of any permanent runoff control measure, including, but not limited to, the creation of any entity with power to require assessments for such maintenance, repair and replacement. (d) Upon approval of the plans and specifications so submitted and upon receipt in proper form of the bond or other security required by subsection (c) hereof, the runoff control official shall issue a runoff control permit for the development in question not more than forty-five days after the submission of the original application therefor. In the event of the failure on the part of the applicant to comply with the provisions of this article, the runoff control offi- cial shall deny the permit within forty-five days of the date of such application. Failure of the runoff control official to act within forty-five days of the date of such application shall be deemed approval. (e) Any development subject to the requirement of a runoff control permit pursuant to Sec. 19.1-6 (e)(4) located within the watershed of a regional sedimentation basin shall pay a pro-rata share for the construction of such facility. Pro-rata share payments shall be based upon a fee schedule as outlined in Sec. 19.1-8 (c) below. Sec. 19.1-8. Standards for review. (a) The runoff control official shall prepare and adopt guide- lines, to be entitled "Guidelines for the Preparation and Review of July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 22) 22 Runoff Control Permit Applications", for the calculation of pre-development and post-development runoff flow and characteristics, and for runoff control. Upon adoption of such guidelines the runoff control official shall submit the same for approval by the board of supervisors which may be done by resolution or otherwise. After ap- proval by the board of supervisors, such guidelines shall govern the review of all runoff control applications submitted pursuant to this article; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the runoff control official from approving any runoff control measure which he shall find to provide protection for any impoundment to an equal or greater extent to the measures set forth in the said guidelines. (b) Nothing herein shall be construed to require the approval of any application or any part thereof which is found by the runoff control official to pose a danger to the public health, safety and general welfare or to deviate from sound engineering practice. (c) The runoff control official shall maintain a fee schedule for the calculation of pro-rata share contributions for development within the watershed of a regional sedimentation basin. The fee schedule will include guidelines for the preparation of plans to be submitted to the runoff control official in order to determine the pro-rata share contribution for a particular development. Such fee schedule shall be established by resolution of the board of supervi- sors and shall include provision for annual adjustment as to infla- tionary factors. The board of supervisors, from time to time, may also adjust the fee schedule in consideration of circumstance, includ- ing, but not limited to, amendments to the Albemarle County Comprehen- sive Plan. Sec. 19.1-9. Inspections and enforcement. (a) The runoff control official and his designated agents shall have the right to enter upon the property subject to this article at all reasonable times for the purposes of monitoring surface water runoff and of making inspections and investigations relating to compliance with the provisions of this article. (b) If, upon complaint of any citizen or upon his own observa- tion, it shall appear to the runoff control official that any permit holder has failed to comply with any permit previously issued pursuant to this article or that the measures provided in accordance with such permit have proved to be inadequate to protect the quality of water in any impoundment or that any development within the watershed is occasioning any significant degradation in the quality of such water, the runoff control official shall immediately serve upon the permit holder and the owner of the property in question by registered or certified mail to the address shown on the tax records of the county for such owner a notice to comply with the provisions of such permit or to submit a plan in accordance with section 19.1-7. Such notice shall set forth specifically the measures needed to come into compli- ance herewith and shall specify the time within which such measures shall be completed. Any person failing to comply within the time specified shall be subject to the revocation of any such permit previously issued and shall, in addition, be deemed to be in violation of this article. (c) In the event that the person so notified shall fail to comply with a notice as provided in subsection (b) of this section, upon finding that such action is reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, the runoff control official may cause the necessary measures to be taken and shall proceed to recover from the owner of the land or permit holder the expenses of such action, including all reasonable administrative costs incurred in connection therewith. (d) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, any holder of a permit granted pursuant to this article may dedicate to public use such facilities required by such permit as the runoff control official may deem appropriate to protect the public health, July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 23) 23 safety and general welfare, together with such easements and appurte- nances as may be reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of this ordinance. After the acceptance of such dedication and the expiration of any bond or other security required pursuant to the last sentence of subsection (c) of section 19.1-7, the responsibility for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the facilities so dedicated shall be that of the county, and the permit holder shall have no further responsibility therefor; provided, that nothing in this section shall relieve any person of the responsibility of otherwise complying with this article and with any approved plan; and provided, that any person who shall willfully damage, destroy or otherwise interfere with the construction, operation, maintenance, repair or replacement of any feature of any such plan shall be deemed to be in violation of this article. (e) Any dedication made pursuant to this section shall be deemed accepted only upon recordation in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county after written approval by the runoff control official. Sec. 19.1-10. Penalties~. legal remedies. (a) Any person violating any provision of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to a term of imprison- ment not exceeding twelve months or to both such fine and imprison- ment. (b) In addition to any other remedy, the runoff control official may institute any appropriate proceeding, either at law or in equity, to prevent violation or attempted violation of this article, to restrain, correct or abate such violation or prevent any act which would constitute such violation. Agenda Item No. 20e. Work Session: Proposed Budget Reductions to Local Governments. Mr. Bowie said the Board members received a letter dated June 29 from Ms. Ellen R. Davenport, Acting Executive Director of VACo, and today he handed out a letter dated June 28 from Governor Wilder. The letters indicate that state aid to local governments will be cut and the cuts will begin this fiscal year. The Social Services Department has been requested to submit information on what will happen if their budget is cut one percent, three percent or five percent. The Director of Social Services has stated that a cut of five percent means reducing staff, thereby reducing services. Mr. Bowie said he thinks there are two issues that need to be addressed. Counties have already set their 1990 tax rates and any reduction in funding is probably a direct reduction in education and social services. There is nothing the county can do about the tax rates at this time. Secondly, the state needs to provide to the counties some way to gather revenues. He thinks the Board needs to do something. Mr. Bain agreed. Mr. Bowie said he feels the Board should adopt two resolutions. One resolution would address this year's proposed cuts and the other resolution would address the need if the state continues to cut aid; counties need to have some way other than property taxes to raise money. He thinks that these resolutions should be forwarded to all counties in Virginia. He suggested that something be written and forwarded to the Board for adoption at the July 18 meeting. Mr. Bain agreed. Mr. Bowie said if there are any public hearings in Richmond or meetings where public input is allowed, he would be happy to attend and present the Board's resolutions. At this time, the concurrence of the Board was for staff to draft resolu- tions for review at the July 18 meeting to cover proposed budget reductions to local governments for the current fiscal year and future years. There was no further discussion at this time. July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 24) Agenda Item No. 20d. Work Session: "Equalization of Pay" Ordinance. Mr. Agnor said in response to a request from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to revise their compensation from $25 per meeting, to a flat monthly stipend of $100, staff has reviewed the compensation of other boards and commissions, including those under the Equalization of Pay Ordinance, to determine an equitable amount. There are 35 different boards and commissions. On 12 of these citizen members are compensated for their services. The staff has the following recommendations: The compensation set out in the Equalization of Pay Ordinance be raised from $25 per meeting to $35 per meeting; Only three appointed boards or cox~issions should remain under the Equalization of Pay Ordinance: Board of Zoning Appeals, Equaliza- tion Board, and Land Use Advisory Board. Compensation to the other three community agencies, Monticello Area Community Action Agency, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and Piedmont Virginia Community College , should end on June 30, 1991; Compensation for Planning Commission members should be increased from $2,400 to $3,000 per year, making their salary comparable to the School Board compensation approved by the 1990 General Assembly. Mr. Agnor said the BZA meets fairly consistently at least once every month, but staff did not feel the BZA should be compensated if it did not have meetings in a particular month. Mr. Way concurred with Mr. Agnor's suggestion. He then suggested that the compensation paid the Board's vice-chairman be $35 for each meeting chaired rather than $25. Mr. Bowie said he thinks the Board made a mistake in taking off the stipend for the vice-chairman. He has had to ask the vice-chairman to attend functions which he could not attend in addition to chairing the meeting. It seems to him that the purpose for having a vice-chairman is to do more than just chair a meeting. He will agree to the change, but thinks the Board needs to take a look at whether it really expects the vice-chairman to carry out his duties with no compensation. There should be some recognition. Mr. Bain said he has no problem with the change suggested. Mr. Way said he thinks that the Board should consider reinstating the stipend but at the next organizational meeting in January. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to set public hearings for August 1, on an ordinance to increase the compensation of the Planning Commission, an ordinance to increase the compensation of those boards and commissions listed in Section 15-3 of the County Code, and an ordinance to increase the compensation of the Vice-Chairman of the Board. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 15. Executive Session: Personnel and Acquisition of Property. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 11:25 A.M.) Mr. Bowie requested an executive session for the following items: Section 2.1-344.A.3, purchase of property for the urban area school; Section 2.1-344.A.1, personnel to discuss the specific performance of an individual; Section 2.1-344.A.7, legal matters relating to Bargaman vs. Board of Supervisors, George Graham vs. BZA, nativity scene case, Nimrod Clarke vs. County of Albemarle, Spradlin case and Ripper case. At 11:27 A.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adjourn into executive session for the items listed above. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris. July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 25) 25 The Board reconvened into open session at 2:38 P.M. with all members present with the exception of Mrs. Humphris. The County Attorney, and the County Executive were also present. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman certifying the Executive Session as follows. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris. 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, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: Mrs. Humphris. ABSENT DURING MEETING: Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 17. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program Annual Report. Ms. Theresa Tapscott, Executive Director of Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, gave a slide presentation ~f the accomplishments of AHIP through the 1987 Community Development Block Grant Funds. She described three houses which were rehabilitated through CD~G funds and one'house which was completely built through donations from the co,unity and volUnteer labor. The rehabili- tated houses were located in Esmont~the Hatton Ferry area of southern Albemarle County, North Garden, and Afton. Ms. Tapscott reported that several of these homeoWners had been on AHIP's waiting list for a number of years. Ms. Tapscott reported that because of the overwhelming volunteer support from the County on one project, the Charlottesville Housing Foundation is funding one-half a position at AHIP to continue the use of volunteerism in replacing several houses over the next few years. Ms. Tapscott handed out a summary report to Board members outlining the accomplishments of the most recent ~700,000 Community Development Block Grant, with a brief description of the work done on each project. She pointed out that the cost per unit was proposed at $22,182, but the final unit price was actually $24,972. She said that AH~P was able to address some of the worst housing in the County during 1988 a~d 1989, causing the unit price to be somewhat higher than anticipated. She said the Midway Housing Development Corporation borrowed $135,000 from the Virginia Housing Development Authority July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 26) 26 to purchase five substandard units in the County. AHIP rehabilitated those units, and they were placed in the County's moderate rehabilitation rental program. There was no further discussion of this item. Agenda Item No. 18. AHIP: Report on Impact of Loss of Community Devel- opment Block Grant Funding. Ms. Tapscott reported that, in 1976 Albemarle County and the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP), formed a partnership in order to address the housing needs of low income families in Albemarle County. The County agreed to fund a "core" operation at AHIP which would enable it to seek out and secure resources necessary to assist low income homeowners in making necessary repairs and improvements to their homes. AHIP has been successful in using the County's support to gain more than $2.0 million in outside funding to Albemarle County. The funding secured by AHIP has been used almost exclusively to pay the cost of carpentry labor, materials and subcontract grants to families. By providing labor at no cost to the client family, and by making available some material grant funding, AHIP has been able to serve the lowest income families living in the worst housing in the County. Fami- lies are expected to pay as much of the material and subcontract cost as they can reasonably afford, however. During the past three years, 28 percent of AHIP's clients had incomes at or below 50 percent of the area's median income. Over the past two years, 41 percent of the clients have been at the poverty line, which means they had little or no borrowing ability. Currently, AHIP is utilizing a Farmer's Home Administration Rural Housing Preservation Grant. This funding will be available through August, 1990. When the FHA grant expires, AHIP has no firm commitments from outside sources for carpentry labor funding, with the exception of the one crew funded by Albemarle County. Additional funding has been applied for through the Office of Community Services Discretionary Program (OCS). However, grant awards will not be announced until September, 1990. Ms. Tapscott said that, in the event OCS funding is not secured, AHIP will be forced to temporarily scale back its operation from four carpentry crews to two. Less extensive rehabilitation programs requiring that some homeowners pay the full cost of both material and labor as well may be neces- sary. That means that families of a higher income level will be served. She said that AHIP has at its disposal over $150,000 in low interest loan funds through the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development's Single Family Rehabilitation Program, as well as loan funds available to client families from the Charlottesville Housing Foundations' Loan Fund. In addition to these known sources, AHIP Outreach staff has been very successful in assisting low income families secure low interest loans and grants from FHA's 504 Program. Ms. Tapscott said this program makes money available on a quarterly basis, and AHIP has received funding each time an application has been made. The funding is specifically for elderly families in the amount of $5,000 for grant funds, with loan money as low as one percent. She said AHIP intends to utilize these funds to the fullest extent possible. Ms. Tapscott feels that these funding mechanisms should make it possible for AHIP to sustain a reasonable level of rehabilitation until more grant funding can be secured. AHIP intends to apply for the Indoor Plumbing Program through the Vir- ginia Department of Housing and Community Development in early August, 1990, with awards to be made in early September, 1990. As much as $15,000 per family is available under this grant. The FHA Rural Housing Preservation Program will accept applications late in 1990, with awards in the spring of 1991. Also, AHIP anticipates that the County will submit another application on behalf of Housing Rehabilitation to the Community Development Block Grant Program in March, 1991. If funded, CDBG funds could again be available to low income families in Albemarle County by next summer. Mr. Bowie asked for clarification of the median income level and the reference to 125 percent of the poverty level. Ms. Tapscott said the median income in Albemarle County is adjusted annually and varies based on family size. It is approximately $34,000. The qualifying level for CBDG grants is July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 27) 27 80 percent of the median level. She said 125 percent of the poverty level referred to in her report represents approximately $12,000. Mr. Bowie said it sounds like AHIP is pursuing all possibilities to keep its programs going. Mr. Cilimberg reported that an appeal on the loss of the CDBG funding this year is not feasible. However, staff will submit an application fOr funding next year with changes in the way information is provided. He said the loss of the grant is no reflection on AHIP's performance, but reflects the level of competition among the 35 applications submitted. There was no further discussion of this item. Agenda Item No. 19. AHIP: Appropriation of 1988-89 Carry Over Funds. Mr. Agnor said AHIP is requesting that a $1,514.29 surplus in 1988-89 carry over funds be used for training on a computer system and increased audit expenses this year. He said staff recommends that AHIP be allowed to retain the funds. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the request as recommended by the County Executive. Mr. Bowie asked why computer training is necessary. Ms. Tapscott said that the various funding sources used by AHIP require separate financial documents. She said AHIP's manual system is no longer sufficient to handle these demands. There was no further discussion of the matter. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 20a. Discussion: Alternative Point-Source Discharge Sewage Disposal System - Intermittent Sand Filtration. 'Mr. Cilimberg said several months ago Mr. George Graham unsuCcessfully attempted to gain approval for this system under the County's ordinance through an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Since that time, staff has gathered an extensive amount of information on the discharge system he propos- es. Staff is concerned with the policy and maintenance aspects of such a system, while Mr. Graham is concerned with the system as an operational alternative that would allow development of lots on which septic fields cannot be sited. Mr. Cilimberg said the sand filtration system is one of several on-site discharge systems being considered by the State. Mr. Cilimberg noted that Mr. Graham feels staff has placed a great amount of emphasis on the technical aspects of maintenance and monitoring, while the proposed system does not require high maintenance and monitoring. Mr. Cilimberg said that after meeting with Mr. Graham, staff agrees that the sand filtration system does not necessarily require maintenance and monitoring at the level of a package treatment plant. However, staff feels that its com- ments to the Board in a m~mo dated May 23, 1990, are still pertinent. He noted that a Wisconsin Sand Mound system may be of interest to Mr. Graham as an alternative under the County's Zoning Ordinance. However, the Wisconsin Sand Mound system is subject to review and a ruling by the Zoning Administra- tor for compliance with current zoning ordinance regulations. Also, the Health Department indicates that such a system must be approved by their Regional Office. Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, said staff reviewed in May, 1990, the State Water Control Board report to the General Assembly on discharge systems and the policy of the Regional Director of the Virginia Department of Health. Since that review, staff received the current policy from the State Health Commissioner, and Mr. Keeler said he will summarize that report as well. He July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 28) 28 said these three documents will give a good idea of how the whole issue is being transferred from the State Water Control Board to the State Health Department and how the new regulations will be implemented. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the policy from the State Health Commissioner states that until regulations are adopted and become effective, the policies are a guide in evaluating discharge permits for systems that treat 1000 gallons or less per day. Mr. Keeler said staff recommends that the County not allow discharge systems. He said the Comprehensive Plan recommends that central utilities be allowed only in designated growth areas. The Plan states in several instance~ the repeated policy that rural areas are intended to receive a minimal level of government services. Zoning Ordinance regulations are based on long- standing County policy that rural development should be limited to the site's capability to support the development. He said this is reflected in a number of zoning regulations, including lot size requirements, building site require- ments, etc. Other localities have also expressed concerns as to the monitor- ing and maintenance of discharge systems, including the fear that State agencies would eventually pass this responsibility to the locality. Mr. Keeler said that Albemarle County has repeatedly experienced private systems becoming public burdens. He pointed out that some discharge systems are expensive to operate, causing problems with renewal of permits. Should a property owner fail to properly maintain the system, the County would likely be called upon to correct the situation. He said discharge systems may involve chlorination and de-chlorination as well as other sophisticated maintenance. Given the apparent lack of concern by homeowners as reported by the State Water Control Board, it is anticipated that should a malfunction occur, pollution could continue while enforcement measures are pursued. Mr. Keeler summarized by saying that discharge systems for individual dwellings are inconsistent with long-standing County policy and the Comprehen- sive Plan. These discharge systems represent a potential burden to the County in terms of staffing, expenditure and/or enforcement. These systems are likely to result in environmental degradation if improperly maintained and while corrective measures are pursued. For these reasons, staff recommends that the County not endorse usage of point-source discharge systems. Should the Board be inclined to allow such systems, Mr. Keeler suggested that a comprehensive and enforceable monitoring and maintenance program be estab- lished and that implementation of such a program be delayed until the Virginia Department of Health has established regulations regarding point-source discharge systems. Mr. Keeler said his understanding from discussions with people at the State Water Control Board is that such regulations will take about a year to have in place. Mr. Keeler then explained that there are two categories of septic sys- tems. Subsurface absorption systems absorb the effluent into the soil. The second category of surface discharge systems requires a permit from the State for operation. The vast majority of systems in the rural areas are septic tank systems which are subsurface absorption systems. There are two alterna- tive systems which the Health Department terms as on-site systems because the effluent is taken care of on-site. In the low-pressure distribution system, the effluent is pumped into the field. This is used in cases where the field is large and requires even distribution, or in cases where the soils are not absorbent enough. Another alternative is the Wisconsin Elevated Sand Mound system, in which a large rectangular area is filled with sand and lime to distribute the effluent more evenly over a larger surface area. He said permits are issued currently by the State Water Control Board for systems requiring them. Under new legislation effective July 1, the permitting process will be handled by the State Health Department. Systems requiring a permit are the Aerobic Treatment Plant, or package treatment plants, Sand Filter Systems with Pump, and Sand Filter Systems without Pump. The last category is the one which Mr. Graham is pursuing. According to the Health Department's policy, the septic tank system is preferred. After exhausting the possibilities of the three subsurface absorp- tion alternatives, then the Health Department may consider issuance of a permit for one of three surface discharge systems. Mr. Keeler read from a policy issued June 1 from the State Health Commissioner, "For thousands of Virginias, on-site sewage disposal systems serve as satisfactory sewage disposal devices. In some cases where soil and site conditions prohibit its July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 29) 29 use, other alternatives may be considered. A sewage treatment and discharging system requiring a permit is one such alternative. However, this alternative presents a wide array of health and environmental concerns. Because of these concerns, the State Water Control Board solicits input from the Department of Health on the public health significance of all applications for issuance of permits. The purpose of the Department's comments is to protect the public health and the environment and avoid potentially serious nuisance problems. The 1990 General Assembly increased the role of the Health Department in the permit program. The Department received the authority to issue construction permits, conduct inspections and monitor the on-going operation of systems permitted by the State Water Control Board under a general permit. Further- more, the Health Department was authorized to collect fees for these services and require permit holders to have maintenance contracts." Regarding the maintenance contract, Mr. Keeler said the State Health Department's policy states that, "Due to the potential for degrading surface water and ground water quality, for jeopardizing the public health, or both, routine maintenance of these systems is recommended. In order to assure maintenance is performed in a timely manner, a maintenance contract between the permit holder and a person capable of monitoring and operating the system should be required." He said that the Health Department defines a person capable of monitoring the system as someone who holds a Class 4 operator's license, which allows operation of a package treatment plant. Mr. Keeler said language in the policy indicates that the Health Depart- ment is not adverse to localities becoming involved in establishing these systems. In localities where a public service authority or sanitary district exists which monitors andmaintains the systems permitted under a discharge permit program, the requirements for a maintenance contract may not be neces- sary. Localities whose economic development depends on discharge systems, may consider the creation of a sanitary district or service authority to control the design and use and to provide the necessary management for review, instal- lation, inspection and operational maintenance. The Health Department's policy recommends monitoring on a monthly basis for the first year and quarterly thereafter for aerobic and sand filter systems using a pump, under the subsurface absorption category. For the sand filter system without a pump (a surface discharge system), it is recommended that monitoring be once per quarter for the first year and twice a year thereafter. Review would be performed by the contracting agency. Mr. Keeler pointed out that once a problem has been identified and repairs are necessary, discharge from such a system should be discontinued until corrections are completed and a sample has been certified. Mr. Bain asked when the Health Department will adopt these regulations. Mr. Keeler said he understands the process will take one year at a minimum. Mr. Bain asked if those regulations apply only to the surface discharge systems. Mr. Keeler said the regulations are already in place for the subsur- face absorption systems. The new regulations apply to the surface discharge systems. Mr. Keeler clarified that the policy he has been quoting from contains preliminary procedures and regulations, but final regulations will be issued after a state approval process. He said this policy deals with technical recommendations, point of discharge, type of system, application and review, development density, site plan requirements, installation review, and monitor- ing. There is also a miscellaneous section addressing repair or replacement of failing on-site sewage disposal systems with an alternate system. Mr. Way asked if the only system under the subsurface types used by Albemarle County is the septic tank system. Mr. Keeler said he believes that the School Division considered a low pressure distribution system for Meriwether Lewis School. Other than that he is not aware of any systems other than septic tank systems in the County. Mr. Way asked if the package treat- ment plant is the only type in use in the County under the surface discharge category. Mr. Keeler said as far as he is aware. Mr. Bain asked how widespread is the use of the Wisconsin Sand Mound system. Mr. Keeler said he does not know. Mr. Bain asked if a percolation test is required for the Wisconsin system as the Health Department currently July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 30) 30 requires for a septic tank system. Mr. Keeler said a percolation test is required, but the area of absorption for the Wisconsin Sand Mound system is much greater for the same amount of distribution. Mr. Bowie asked who is responsible for inspection of surface discharge systems. Mr. Agnor said the permit holder is required to have a maintenance contract with a private business or in some localities this is provided by the service authority or sanitary district service. A Class 4 operator would be required to test the discharge periodically. At this time the Chairman allowed Mr. George Graham to come forward and address the Board. Mr. Graham said he hand-delivered materials to each Board member explaining the sand filter system. He also has a video tape of the sand filter system which he will make available to any Board member who wishes to see it. Mr. Graham said he bought lots in a subdivision in Albemarle County which had been approved by the County. He and five other neighbors built homes and were looking forward to the subdivision being completed as planned. Some of the lots will not meet the requirements of the local Health Department. In checking with the State, Mr. Graham found that alternative disposal systems are available, but apparently are not being approved by the County. This led him on a quest before the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Planning Commission, and now the Board of Supervisors seeking permission to use an alternative system. Since he began this process, the State law has changed regarding sewage disposal systems. Prior to action by the 1990 General Assembly, this matter came under the authority of the State Water Control Board. Effective July 1, the State Department of Health is in charge of these systems. Mr. Graham said he talked with the chemist at the Consoli- dated Labs in Richmond who analyzes the discharge from these systems. The chemist said he has no problem with the sand filter system and finds the level of filtering to be acceptable. Mr. Graham said h~ is before the Board today because the BZA feels this is a matter for this Board to decide. Mr. Graham said the State law which allows this disposal system places the responsibility for monitoring under the authority of the State Health Department. He said staff has cited the preliminary regulations under which the Health Department is operating at the present time. Detailed regulations will be available in the future. Mr. Graham said the law does not specify how often the system should be monitored. The practice by the State Water Control Board prior to the new law was for a five-year monitoring plan. Mr. Graham said he travelled to Richmond and talked to an executive in the State Water Control Board. He feels that much of the information presented by staff today about maintenance problems actually deals with mechanical septic systems; that is, systems which are operated by motors. Mr. Graham said the problem with mechanical systems is that if the motor breaks down, the system stops working and must be repaired within several days. Mr. Graham said he went to the Regional Office of the Health Department and found that the sand filter system is preferred over the mechanical systems for this region. Therefore, Mr. Graham abandoned the idea of a mechanical system and began to investigate the sand filter system. According to the State Water Control Board, there are not as many problems with the maintenance of the sand filter system. Instead of a pump, a siphon system can be used to guarantee uniformity in the flooding of the drain lines to the sand filter unit. He said the soil scientistsfor the State, for the Environmental Protection Agency, and for other research pro- grams, say that 98 percent of the discharge is filtered using the sand filter system. The State has been using a chlorine/dechlorine system to complete the filtering process. In talking with EPA, Mr. Graham said he was advised that an ultraviolet light system is better for filtering the two percent of dis- charge which the sand does not take care of. He checked with the State Water Control Board executive office, which is aware of EPA's recommendation for an ultraviolet light, and the office concurs with its use. Mr. Graham said he knows of a persho who has had a sand filter system in Cumberland County for about seven years with no problems. His last permit allowed him to remove the chlorine system altogether. He now has no ultraviolet light or chlorine system. Mr. Graham said the State has tried to find ways to handle a situation for areas with failing septic systems, which is a problem throughout the United States. Mr. Graham asked the Board to keep in mind that the State Water Control Board has issued permits for over 10 years for this system. The General Assembly ordered a study in 1988. Mr. Graham said the State law is in July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 31) 31 place and was made clearer by the 1990 law. Mr. Graham said he was advised that the Federal government is spending millions of dollars in grants to take a system which has been in use for over 100 years and improve on it. Reading the most recent report from studies conducted by the University of West Virginia~ Mr. Graham said only one-third of the land in the United States is capable of handling the septic tank system. For development throughout Virginia and other states, alternative ways have to be found. Mr. Graham said he feels that the General Assembly has already studied the issue, the exper- tise of the Environmental Protection Agency supports the system and the General Assembly revised the law. Mr. Graham said the technical manuals say that the sand filter system may not experience maintenance problems for 20 years. Mr. Graham said the system operates with 30 inches of sand over a 12 feet by 20 feet area. The sand is a graded type of sand which acts as the filtering agent and is available from Petersburg, Virginia. If there is a problem with this system, several inches of soil and rock which is above the sand is first removed. Then, the top two inches of sand is removed, which will likely correct any problem with filter- ing. The sand can be taken to a land fill or purified by the weather and placed back into the system. A peroxide type of solution can be used to cleanse the sand, and immediately be returned to the system. Mr. Graham said filtering problems are corrected by adjusting the sand, Sand can be removed down to 24 inches. Mr. Graham said that the filtering is actually done in up to the first 12 inches of sand. He feels this is a method that helps the County to assist citizens experiencing difficulties with septic systems and one where the expense of operating public water and sewer facilities has to bE incurred. Ms. Sherry Buttrick, a representative of the Piedmont Environmental Council, said she concurs with the staff report that in view of the Compre- hensive Plan's effort to discourage development in the rural areas, this proposal is not appropriate for rural areas. Mr. Bowie said the matter is before the Board. Mr. Way said he feels there could be some constructive uses for this type of system within the County. He feels the basic problem is that this would be a way to create development lots throughout the County which are presently not developable. On the other hand, a number of lots in the County already have houses on them with septic systems which are leaking. He feels that these failing systems could possibly be replaced with a system as described by Mr. Graham. There may be other lots on which this would be more appropriate than the standard septic system. He does not want to discard the whole issue because it could be beneficial to Albemarle County to have such a system. He feels there is merit in considering this system. He said he agrees that every lot in Albemarle County should not have this option. Mr. Bowerman said the current ordinance has specific requirements for drainfield areas. He feels that Mr. Way is talking about subdivisions which were in existence before the current ordinance with lots that are not build- able. He said it seems that on such lots if the applicant can get Health Department approval for a waste disposal system, then it is in the hands of the Health Department. If the Health Department can approve a system, Mr. Bowerman asked why Mr. Graham is before this Board. Mr. Way said he is here because the Health Department will not approve the surface discharge systems unless the systems are allowed by County ordi- nance. Albemarle County has an ordinance that does not specifically allow them. Mr. Cilimberg said the County's ordinance allows the septic tank system and central or public utilities as the alternative for growth areas. The ordinance does not allow the aerobic treatment plant in growth areas. Mr. Graham said his property has already been approved for residential use, and he understands that as of July 1 when the new State law became effective, no other ordinance is required. Mr. Agnor said the new law still requires local government approval. Mr. Bowerman said that means the County would have to include the Wiscon- sin Sand Mound system and the sand filters with or without pumps in its ordinances before the Health Department could approve such a system. Mr. July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 32) Cilimberg said it is questionable at this point as to whether the ordinance allows the Wisconsin Sand Mound system. That requires an interpretation by the Zoning Administrator because it is a subsurface system. Ail of the surface discharge systems would require an amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Graham has remedy through existing ordinances to explore an alternative with the Health Department. Mr. Cilimberg said he does have the Wisconsin Sand Mound possibility and the low pressure distribu- tion system. He would need approval by the Regional Health Department and either a favorable decision by the Zoning Administrator or the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Bowie said Mr. Graham is actually talking about two lots which are not developable without this system. He said there is a difference between a septic problem at someone's home and septic problems on lots which make them undevelopable. He said he cannot support a system which would allows develop- ment of land in the rural areas which is not developable under current County ordinances. He feels that if there is a subdivision where septic tank systems are failing, then other alternatives may be considered. However, he does not want to consider any alternative that would increase the ability to develop lots in the County. Mr. Bowie is interested only in solving a problem for people who have homes which they would have to leave them unless an alterna- tive system is found. Mr. Bain said he would like more information about the Wisconsin Sand Mound system which is a subsurface system. If this system has to meet the percolation test requirements of the Health Department, he feels that in some areas of the County it will still be difficult to use this system. Mr. Bain said he wants to exhaust the possibilities of subsurface systems before considering anything in the surface discharge category. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Wisconsin Sand Mound system is a septic system where existing soil which will not "perk" is removed and replaced with a material that will pass the tests. Mr. Agnor said that is his understanding. Mr. Bain said he has concerns about surface discharge systems, even though the County allows sewer treatment plants. Mr. Way said the surface discharge system does not frighten him, but that may be because of his ignorance of the dangers. However, he feels that there is a possibility that one of these discharge systems could be a better alter- native. He said no one knows that at this time. Mr. Perkins agreed that the Board should know more about surface dis- charge systems. He pointed out from personal experience that sewage pumps do fail. He said that the AHIP report submitted earlier discussed a case where a sewage pump was installed to pump material across a creek. Mr. Perkins feels that it is possible that a system such as one of these could be better than installing a pump with a life span of two years. He said many people do not replace failed pumps. In those cases, there is the same problem which has been discussed regarding discharge systems. Mr. Bowerman said if there are systems in the County which have already failed, essentially that is a point discharge system because sewage is coming out on the ground. He said there might be a way to improve those situations by going to one of these alternatives. Mr. Bowie agreed that such a situation is a legitimate consideration. Mr. Bain asked who would study these systems and what time frame a study would involve. He said this sounds more like an engineering study than one for the Planning staff. Mr. Agnor said that State Health Department represen- tatives have offered their technical expertise to the staff if that becomes necessary. Mr. Way said it is possible that a study would allow a choice of which type of system to use in the County. Mr. Bain said from staff's report, the State Health Department's recom- mendation is that the subsurface discharge systems are to be used before considering the surface discharge systems. Mr. Bowerman said he feels that July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 33) the ordinance should reflect that in the creation of new lots. The County has a good system now which requires two septic fields. There is a problem of failing septic systems, and Mr. Bowerman agrees with Mr. Bowie that the County should not create new, developable lots that otherwise could not be developed. However, if there is an alternative subsurface system which is acceptable to the Health Department, then he has no problem applying that system to a lot already created in the rural areas, as well as in an existing system that has failed. He said he does not see the difference between the two. Mr. Bowerman said he would not, however, consider changing the current ordinance. He said there may be situations where nothing will work. In many cases where the lots are unbuildable, they will remain unbuildable, even if the Wisconsin Sand Mound system complies with the ordinance. Mr. Agnor said the Zoning Administrator should be requested to examine the Wisconsin Sand Mound system to determine whether it complies with the County's ordinance. If it complies, that may be as far as the Board wants to go. If information is needed on the point discharge system, that will take more work. Mr. Bowie said he personally would like to know if the Wisconsin Sand Mound system will work on a lot where a septic system has failed and there is not room for another drainfield. Mr. Richard Moring, County Engineer, said the answer is site specific for each lot, depending on soil conditions. Mr. Bowie said in the case of a failing septic system where there is an existing house, he would like to know which one of these systems will techni- cally correct the situation. He has no desire to go beyond that. Mr. Agnor said if there is a failing septic system and the sewage must bE treated and discharged off site, a discharge permit is requested from the State for a homeowner's packaged treatment plant or a sand filter system for discharge to the ground or to a stream. The County does not allow such a system under current ordinance. Mr. Agnor said in discussions with represen- tatives of the State Health Department, he understands that any of these alternatives could be used for failed systems in which the building has to be abandoned. The reason given by the State Health Department is that if the soil will handle the on-site treatment process, that should be used. Other- wise, soil that will not handle on-site treatment will allow a discharge to neighboring property. Mr. Bowie said he still wants to know how to handle a crisis on existing property. If the only alternative to burning down a house is to use a point source discharge system, then maybe the ordinance should be amended. Mr. Agnor said instructions to staff can be two-fold. The Zoning Admin- istrator can give an opinion on the three subsurface discharge systems as to compatibility with current ordinance provisions. Then, the Board can conside~ a Zoning Text Amendment that would allow a point discharge system off-site for failed septic systems. Mr. Bowie asked if Board members want information beyond what Mr. Agnor has said. (Mr. St. John arrived at 4:15 P.M.) Mr. Way asked what the statement means in which Mr. Graham said his subdivision was approved by Albemarle County and the local Health Department. Mr. St. John said this is a subdivision in which the Health Department made a cursory check of soils, rather than checking each specific lot. This is done in all subdivisions above a certain number of lots. By approving the subdivi- sion itself, the Health Department was not making a statement nor a guarantee that every individual lot would accommodate a septic system. When building permits are issued, then the specific lots must obtain Health Department approval. When that was done, several lots failed the requirements of the Health Department. These lots were sold to Mr. Graham with the caveat that they were unbuildable, and the price was based on that knowledge. Mr. St. John said that is his understanding of this situation. Mr. Graham said when he moved to the subdivision, he bought lots with the understanding that the entire subdivision was going to be developed. He said he bought the next lot because the developer had financial problems, and the subdivision road was not completed. He said he obtained Health Department July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 34) 34 approval on that lot and the subdivision road was completed. He showed the Board a document which was filed when the subdivision was approved indicating Health Department approval. Mr. Graham feels that anyone coming into this County to purchase property in that subdivision would be led to believe from reading that document that every lot has been approved for development. Mr. St. John disagreed and said that normally, as a condition of the sale, the subdivider furnishes a certificate that the Health Department has approved the lot or a condition is included that no approval has been ob- tained. Mr. St. John then asked Mr. Graham if he knew when he bought these undevelopable lots that the Health Department had said that a conventional septic system could not be used. Mr. Graham said when he bought the lots, he knew three things. He said the developer was having financial problems, and in talking with the developer's lawyer he assumed that the sale of the lots would solve the situation and allow the subdivision to be completed. However, two lots did not pass Health Department requirements, and the developer went bankrupt. Mr. Graham said he knew of a third lot which the bank was selling. Mr. Graham said he purchased these lots and brought in a soil scientist from Virginia Tech who found two drainfields and two reserve fields in a different location from the original test by the Health Department. He said he was aware of only three lots of the 13 he owns that would not "perk". Mr. Bowie said there is a request from Mr. Graham relating to specific lots, and there is a question regarding policy. He asked if any Board member wished to make a motion regarding Mr. Graham's request. No motion was of- fered. Mr. Bowie summarized the direction to staff that a report be given on the three subsurface systems as to whether or not current ordinance provisions allow any of them. If not, what can be done to solve the problem of failed septic systems in the County. Mr. Way agreed that these are the questions for staff. Mr. St. John asked regarding the subsurface systems, if the Board is asking the Zoning Administrator to see if the present zoning ordinance permits them. If they are permitted, then the implication is that they will not be permitted only as remedies for failed systems. They would be allowed as an alternative choice by right. Mr. Bowie said if all three are allowed, and one can, in fact, replace a failed system, then nothing else is needed. If all are allowed under the ordinance, but none can solve the problem of failed systems, then another solution is required. Mr. Bain said if these systems are allowed under the current ordinance, there can be no limitation to just failed systems. Mr. Cilimberg said if these systems are determined to be allowed by right, there is no policy question. Mr. Bowie agreed and said the second question is whether one of the subsurface systems will solve the problem of failing septic systems. Mr. Agnor said none of these subsurface systems will solve that problem in every case. Mr. Bowie said the limitation could be placed that the subsurface systems would have to be tried first. Mr. Agnor said that means the Board would have to consider a zoning text amendment, if that is what the Board wants. Several Board members concurred. Mr. Way said he feels the Health Department is the expert in this matter and not the County. If the Health Department allows these systems, why would the County have ordinances opposing their use. Mr. Bowie said the County is responsible for land use, not for sewage discharge. Mr. Agnor added that ordinances regulate septic systems because they can ultimately become a public responsibility in terms of operation or maintenance. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that if the Zoning Administrator determines that all three subsurface systems are permitted under current ordinances, the Board can still choose to change that and allow whatever the Board agrees upon. Mr. Agnor said he assumes that these questions can be answered by the August 8 Board meeting, depending on how much technical information the Zoning Administrator will need. July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) 35 (Page 35) Mr. Moring said the difference between the subsurface systems and the surface discharge systems is the question of disinfection. Any time there is a discharge, the main question regards the health problems associated with that discharge. He said this issue has been going on between the State Water Control Board and the Health Department for years, and they have not resolved it among themselves. He said that is why this matter was removed from the authority of the State Water Control Board and placed in the Health Depart- ment's purview. Ail of these systems work as far as biological treatment. However, the underlying issue is disinfection. So much depends on the home- owner's initiative. If a homeowner does not take the responsibility for proper maintenance, there is a potential for diseases to be transmitted. Mr. Perkins said the same danger is present for failed septic systems or failed pumps. Mr. Moring agreed and added that this is an enforcement issue as well. Agenda Item No. 21. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public and Board. Mr. St. John said an Executive Session is necessary for property acquisi- tion for the urban area elementary school site. At 4:28 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing acquisition of property for the new urban area elementary school according to State Code Section 2.1-344.A.3. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris. The Board reconvened into open session at 4:36 P.M. Motion was i~nedi- ately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman certifying the Execu- tive Session as follows: CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE M~RTING 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 pubiic 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, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: Mrs. Humphris. ABSENT DURING MEETING: Mrs. Humphris. Mr. Perkins suggested that citizens be given the opportunity to address the Board at the beginning of Board meetings, rather than having to wait July 11, 1990 (Regular Meeting) (Page 36) 36 through the entire meeting. He then offered a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Way, to have "Other Matters From the Public" moved back to the beginning of meetings and limited to 15 minutes total with five minutes per person. Mr. Way suggested that the motion be for a total of 15 minutes but allow the Chairman to use his discretion. Mr. Perkins agreed. Mr. Bain asked if this applied to all meetings. Mr. Bowie said it does, and this will begin at the next meeting. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris. Mr. Bowie said he has a letter dated July 9, from Mr. J. S. Hodge, Chief Engineer for VDoT, saying that the date has officially been extended to August 15 for comments on the Route 29 North project. Mr. Bowie noted an invitation to the retirement dinner for Mr. Thomas Maxwell, retiring from the Police Department. Mr. Bowie said he received a request from a Board member to cancel the August 15 meeting. Mr. Bowie said four items are already scheduled for that meeting which the Clerk says could possibly be moved to the first meeting in September. However, cancelling the meeting on July 4 has resulted in heavy scheduling. Mr. Perkins said he could not be present on August 15. No other Board members wished to cancel. Mr. Bowie said he would contact Mrs. Patricia Cooke by phone or letter regarding the Beautification Committee as discussed earlier in the meeting. There was no objection by Board members. Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn. At 4:43 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. CHAIRMAN