Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-01-10~anuary 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) 4]_ (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 10, 1990, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County )ffice Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, 7. R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Humphris, Messrs. Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 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. Way and seconded by Mr. Bain accepting the items on the consent agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Item 4.1. Letter dated January 2, 1990, from Mr. Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy Highway Commissioner, approving additions to the Secondary System of Highways - Route 1030 (Lonicera Way) in North Pines Subdivision; and Route 1650 (Candlewyck Drive), Route 1651 (Carriage Lane), Route 1652 (Cobblestone Lane) and Route 1653 (Chippendale Court) in Candlewyck Subdivision, was received as information as follows: "As requested in your resolutions dated November 29, 1989, the follow- ing additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective January 2, 1990. ADDITIONS North Pines LENGTH Route 1030 (LoniCera Way) - From 0.39 mile West Route 606 to West cul-de-sac. 0.52 Mi. Candlewyck Route 1650 (Candlewyck Drive) to West cul-de-sac. From Route 677 0.25 Mi. Route 1651 (Carriage Lane) Southeast cul-de-sac. From Route 1650 to 0.10 Mi. Route 1652 (Cobblestone Lane) - From Route 677 to Northwest cul-de-sac. 0.23 Mi. Route 1653 (Chippendale Court ) to Northeast cul-de-sac. From Route 1652 0.. 06 Mi." Item 4.2. Letter dated January 2, 1990, from Mr. Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy Highway Commissioner, approving additions to the Secondary System of Highways - Route 1427 (Hillsdale Drive) and Route 1695 (Mall Drive), was received as information as follows: anuary 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 2) "As requested in your resolution dated September 6, 1989, the follow- ing additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective January 2, 1990. ADDITIONS LENGTH Route 1427 (Hillsdale Drive) 0.33 mile West Route 631. From Route 631 to 0.33 Mi. Route 1695 (Mall Drive) - From Route 1427 to 0.07 mile North Route 1427. 0.07 Mi." 42 Item 4.3. Letter dated December 21, 1989, from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was received as information as follows: "The Commonwealth Transportation Board at their September meeting approved the renumbering of Route 6 in Nelson and Albemarle Counties to Route 151 and the renumbering of Route 151 in Nelson County to Route 6. This was in accordance with a request of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors which was supported by the Albemarle County Board by resolution dated July 19, 1989. The Albemarle Board in their resolution requested the scenic byway designation be retained on the new section of Route 151 as had existed on the old section of Route 6. The Transportation Board has concurred in this request. The Wintergreen Resort has requested the Department to defer posting this revised numbering until the spring of 1990. Brochures distribut- ed by the resort indicate the old route numbers and cannot be feasibly retracted during this season. The Department has agreed to defer this renumbering until March 1 at which time the new signs will be in- stalled. At the time the new numbering is installed, signs indicating the old numbering system will be placed. These signs will be left in place for a transition period of one year. I request you advise the Board of action taken by the Department on this matter." Item 4.4. Copy of minutes of the Planning Co~nission for December 5 and December 19, 1989, received as information. Item 4.5. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Comprehensive Annual Finan- cial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1989, as prepared by Mr. William Sessoms, Administrative Supervisor (copy on file in Clerk's office), was received as information. Item 4.6. County Executive's Financial Report for November, 1989, was received as information as follows: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET REPORT FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1989 TO NOVEMBER 30, 1989 GENERAL FUND REVENUES 1989/90 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES 47,205,381 14,720,883 32,484,498 - 31.18% 4,030,235 1,387,745 2,642,490 - 34.43% 182,370 10,983 171,387 - 6.02% 886,595 886,595 0 - 100.00% COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS TOTAL 52,304,581 17,006,206 35,298,375 32.51% January 10, 199.0 (Regular (Page 3) EXPENDITURES Day Meeting) 43 89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD YTD YTD GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSFERS NONDEPARTMENTAL TOTAL SCHOOL FUND REVENUES 3,281,497 1,190,246 4,909,111 1,878,248 3 291,121 27~003,594 1~846,106 1.424,255 3~522,797 3.957,606 1,407,643 1,873,854 + 42.90% 492,709 697,537 + 41.40% 2,534,776 2,374,335 + 51.63% 808,614 1,069,634 + 43.05% 1,466,818 1,824,303 + 44.57% 11,107,869 15,895,725 + 41.13% 843,885 1,002,221 + 45.71% 598,733 825,522 + 42.04% 327,220 3,195,577 + 9.29% 1,128 3,956,478 + 0.03% 52,304,581 19,589,395 32,715,186 + 37.45% 1989/90 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS-IN TOTAL EXPENDITURES 504,313 229,621 274,692 - 45.53% 17,793,385 6,213,593 11,579,792 - 34.92% 357,600 0 357,600 0.00% 27,331,258 11,101,633 16,229,625 - 40.62% 45,986,556 17,544,847 28,441,709 38.15% 89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD YTD YTD INSTRUCTION ADMIN., ATTENDANCE, & HEALTH PUPIL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES OPERATION & MAINT FACILITIES TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES 35,926,619 11,020,699 24,905,920 + 30.68% 1,632,075 809,591 822,484 + 49.61% 4,071,242 2,000,746 2,070,496 + 49.14% 3,883,929 1,571,534 2,312,395 + 40.46% 472,691 373,663 99,028 + 79.05% 45,986,556 15,776,233 30,210,323 + 34.31% 1989/90 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH NONREVENUE RECEIPTS FUND BALANCE TRANSFERS-IN TOTAL EXPENDITURES 240,000 114,065 125,935 47.53% 527,040 0 527,040 0.00% 12,069,583 2,343,038 9,726,545 19.41% 2,708,670 2,708,670 0 - 100.00% 1,421,070 0 1,421,070 - 0.00% 16,966,363 5,165,773 11,800,590 - 30.45% 89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD YTD YTD GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS EDUCATION PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOTAL 236,594 185,883 50,711 + 78.57% 29,908 0 29,908 + 0.00% 569,795 20,644 549,151 + 3.62% 1,603,494 283,641 1,319,853 + 17.69% 12,404,622 11,112,873 1,291,749 + 89.59% 1,915,955 639,560 1,276,395 + 33.38% 205,995 106,224 99,771 + 51.57% 16,966,363 12,348,825 4,617,538 + 72.78% January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) OTHER FUNDS 1989/90 RECEIPTS REVENUES EST. REVENUE YTD METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 0 306 SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 0 23,089 BALANCE YTD MODERATE REHAB. GRANT 0 345,061 CDBG-AHIP 0 103,979 T J HEALTH EDUCATION 0 0 GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 0 0 FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 0 108,486 DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 0 53,481 FOOD SERVICES 1,470,530 356,591 CHAPTER I 510,628 58,402 CHAPTER II 51,893 3,833 EDUCATION 49,000 5,203 MISC. SCHOOL GRANTS 89,200 225 FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT 0 0 DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT 0 0 DRUG EDUCATION GRANT 0 0 ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH 0 0 SLIAG PROGRAM 0 3,933 CBIP SEVERE 419,823 780 E. D. PROGRAM 557,501 1,913 COMMUNITY EDUCATION 683,960 118,972 TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND 0 196,939 MCINTIRE TRUST FUND 10,000 2,503 JOINT SECURITY FUND 2,061,246 844,261 JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL 0 0 JOINT DISPATCH FUND 689,552 331,056 JOINT RECREATION FACILITY 191,730 8,597 STORM WATER CONTROL FUND 318,023 10,000 VISITOR CENTER FUND 67,735 28,223 DEBT SERVICE FUND 2,098,389 327,220 TOTAL 9,269,210 2,933,053 OTHER FUNDS EXPENDITURES 89/90 EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD COLLECTED YTD 6,336,157 - 31.64% BALANCE EXP/OBLIG YTD YTD METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 0 4,913 SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 0 13,257 MODERATE RERAB. GRANT 0 363,644 CDBG-AHIP 0 103,979 T J HEALTH EDUCATION 0 350 GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 0 43,380 FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 0 276,384 DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 0 37,764 FOOD SERVICES 1,470,530 432,613 CHAPTER I 510,628 147,029 CHAPTER II 51,893 17,878 MIGRANT EDUCATION 49,000 19,315 MISC. SCHOOL GRANTS 89,200 19,464 FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT 0 0 DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT 0 0 DRUG EDUCATION GRANT 0 0 ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH 0 0 SLIAG 0 7,003 CBIP SEVERE 419,823 127,729 E D PROGRAM 557,501 114,340 COMMUNITY EDUCATION 683,960 163,998 TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND 0 235,094 MCINTIRE TRUST FUND 10,000 0 JOINT SECURITY FUND 2,061,246 882,187 JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL 0 977,232 JOINT DISPATCH FUND 689,552 312,940 JOINT RECREATION FACILITY 191,730 40,178 STORM WATER CONTROL FUND 318,023 6,587 VISITOR CENTER FUND 67,735 28,223 DEBT SERVICE FUND 2,098,389 326,831 TOTAL 9,209,210 (4,913)- 0.00% (13,257)- 0.00Z (363,644)- 0.00% (103,979)- 0.00% (350)- 0.00% (43,380)- 0.00% (276,384)- 0.00% (37,764)- 0.00% 1,037,917 + 29.42% 363,599 + 28.79% 34,015 + 34.45% 29,685 + 39.42% 69,736 + 21.82% 0 + 0.00% 0 + O.OO% 0 + O.OO% 0 + O.0O% (7,003)- 0.00% 292,094 + 30.42% 443,161 + 20.51% 519,962 + 23.98% (235,094)- 0.00% lO,OOO + 0.00% 1,179,059 + 42.80% (977,232)- 0.00% 376,612 + 45.38% 151,552 + 20.96% 311,436 + 2.07% 39,512 + 41.67% 1,771,558 + 15.58% 4,566,898 + 50.73% 44 (306)+ 0.00% (23,089)+ 0.00% (345,061)+ 0.00% (103,979)+ 0.00% 0 + O.0O% 0 0.00% (108,486)+ 0.00% (53,481)+ 0.00% 1,113,939 24.25% 452,226 11.44% 48,060 - 7.39% 43,797 - 10.62% 88,975 - 0.25% 0 - 0.00% 0 - 0.00% 0 - 0.00% 0 - 0.00% (3,933)+ 0.00% 419,043 0.19% 555,588 0.34% 564,988 17.39% (196,939)+ 0.00% 7,497 25.03% 1,216,985 40.96% 0 - 0.00% 358,496 - 48.01% 183,133 - 4.48% 308,023 - 3.14% 39,512 - 41.67% 1,771,169 - 15.59% January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) Item 4.7. Memorandum dated January 3, 1990, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, re: U. S. Department of Interior proposal to maintain concurrent Law Enforcement Jurisdiction within Albemarle County, with an attached memorandum, dated December 21, 1989, from Police Chief John F. Miller, on the same subject, received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: May 17, June 21(N), August 9, October 18(N) and November 15(N), 1989. Mr. Bain had read the minutes for May 17, 1989, Pages 1 through 10, and found them to be in order. Mr. Way had read the minutes for June 21 (N), 1989, Pages 10 to the End; and the minutes for November 15 (N), 1989, Pages 9 to the End and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Request to abandon a portion of Route 629 to public use. (Mr. Bain said that he would abstain and left the meeting at 9:06 A.M.) Mr. St. John noted that the original petition signed by Mr. Kirk Hughes and dated October 13, 1989, was filed in behalf of Mr. Edward H. Ripper to abandon a portion of this road. Under Virginia Code Section 33.1.151, this request triggered a staff report by the County Planning staff concerning the status of the road and the benefit to the public, if any. Mr. St. John said this matter was brought back to the Board in November, and at the applicant's request, was deferred until this meeting until a separate section of this road could be studied. Mr. St. John pointed out that there is a "Point A" and a "Point B" on the plat presented to the Board. At present, Virginia Department of Highway maintenance ends at "Point A". Mr. Ripper requests that the road be abandoned down to "Point B". Mr. St. John said Mr. Ripper had placed a gate across the road at "Point A" along with a sign indicating it was private property and no trespassing would be allowed. Mr. St. John said this road historically was known as the Old Brown's Gap Road. Mr. St. John pointed out that the staff report recommends against aban- doning any portion of the road and that it be kept as a public road. In the County Attorney's opinion, which he has stated three times in public meetings and in two letters, the entire road all the way to the boundary of the Shenandoah National Park remains a public road, although VDoT does not main- tain it beyond "Point A". The public has a right to access to the Shenandoah National Park over that road. That is and has always been the County Attor- ney's opinion. He further stated that the gate Mr. Ripper installed at "Point A" is an illegal infringement on the right of the public to access the Park. Mr. St. John said the Board's options are to defer consideration of the matter until further research is done; to set a public hearing in accordance with the statute; to deny the petition; or simply to dismiss it from the agenda. In that case, if further research shows additional evidence in favor of abandonment, the applicant could file a new petition and begin the process again. Mr. St. John feels that sufficient time has been given since the petition was filed in October to research the matter. The County Attorney's research shows that this is still a public road; therefore, he recommends dismissal without prejudice. Mr. St. John said that unless the Board directs him otherwise, he will follow its previous instruction to file suit against Mr. Ripper to prevent him from blocking this road. Mr. Bowie said he had not planned to allow public input. However, since Mrs. Ripper drove down from Arlington, Virginia for this meeting, he would January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) allow her to make a presentation. Mrs. Ripper declined, and Mr. Fred Payne, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Ripper, came forward to speak. He explained that Mr. Ripper could not be present. Mr. Payne responded to Mr. St. John's statement that the matter has been researched since October by saying that there is one piece of information that is still missing, and locating it is out of his control. He assured the Board that everything within his control has been completed. The missing research is from the Department of Trans- portation. He said Mr. Roosevelt had made a superficial search of VDoT records and found no information that was definitive. Locating definitive information would require additional time, and the research is taking place at this time by VDoT. Mr. Payne said he has no control over the timing of that research, and cannot say what the research might reveal. His view is that it is extremely unlikely that anything definitive against Mr. Ripper's position will be discovered. He further stated that if such information is discovered, he will unqualifiably recommend to Mr. Ripper that he remove the gate. Until then, it is Mr. Payne's opinion that Mr. Ripper has the right to put a gate on that road. Mr. Payne said he believes it is a well-founded and correct opinion that there is no right in the public above the "End of State Mainten- ance'' sign. The one missing piece of the puzzle is the research from VDoT. Mr. Payne said it is clear to him because of the County Attorney's position, that the Board is not going to resolve the dispute, and the only entity who can is the courts. Mr. Payne said he is not encouraging litigation, but since it appears that the parties are at loggerheads, the only avenue for resolution is through litigation. If the Board agrees, then he suggests that the County Attorney commence the litigation. He said he intends to defend Mr. Ripper's position and ask the court for an adjudication that there is no public right on this road. Mr. Payne said that on December 13, he did not appear at the Board meeting because he was scheduled to be in court in another County. He wanted the Board to know that the delays are not because his client is trying to drag the issue out. They have been unavoidable delays. He said if the Board chooses to dismiss without prejudice, he would have no objection as long as it is truly without prejudice. If, however, the Board feels it is not appropri- ate to wait for the information from VDoT, then the matter can be brought to court as soon as the County Attorney begins the proceedings. He noted that the gate is still on the site and is still locked. Mr. St.' John said he does not feel it is necessary to wait for additional information from VDoT. He said VDoT has no power to abandon a public road; that power rests with the Board of Supervisors. Therefore, the Board's minute books, and not VDoT records in Richmond, contain the records of abandonment. The minutes of the Board are available to the public and could have been researched since October. He further stated that Mr. Roosevelt has already reported to the Board his findings in the records of VDoT in Richmond to the best of his knowledge. Mr. St. John said the records could be searched in Richmond for years. Meanwhile there is a gate across a public road. He agreed that the two parties are at odds, and the Board could not resolve such legal arguments on the status of this road. He agreed that a judicial deci- sion on the legality of the gate is necessary. Mr. Roosevelt said some action was taken in 1936 by VDoT to drop Route 629 from State maintenance, but his original research turned up no verifica- tion in the actual minutes of the Highway Commission or the forms filed at that time. Upon Mr. Payne's request, Mr. Roosevelt has requested additional research in Richmond. He said the information is on microfilm, and the researchers told him this morning they are hopeful of finding something soon. Mr. Roosevelt said he feels that any action taken by the State Highway Commis- sion concerning this road would be pertinent to this case and might have a bearing upon the status of this road from the end of State maintenance to the Park boundary, as well as the status of the road within the Park itself. Mr. Roosevelt said he hopes this information may be available by the next day meeting. His recommendation is to defer all action until the Board's day meeting next month, or dismiss it from the docket and let the petitioner start the process again when the information is available. Mr. Perkins said the County Attorney has stated that VDoT does not have the power to abandon the right of way, but only to discontinue maintenance. Mr. Roosevelt said that is a legal point that he is not capable of answering. He said he hopes to be able to tell the Board what Action was taken, and he will leave it to the attorneys and the courts to decide whether that action was legal and what it means. Ianuary 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) Mr. Sandy Rives from the Shenandoah National Park, said the Parks Service has received many calls from the public requesting that the issue be resolved and that the access remain open. Mr. St. John said this is the first time he has heard about the need for more research in Richmond~ In view of that, he concurs that one month's delay would be worth saving the time and hard feelings involved. Therefore, he recommends deferral for one month based on Mr. Roosevelt's request. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Way to defer action to February 14, 1990. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Bain. (Mr. Bain returned to the meeting at 9:35 A.M., and Mr. St. John left the meeting at the same time.) Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Staff Report - Revisions to Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Requirements. Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning, said the current %rOoT Subdivision Street Requirements were adopted in 1980. Revised requirements have been adopted and became effective January 1, 1990. However, between January 1 and March 31, 1990, applicants will have a choice of submitting plans under the current standards or the revised standards. After March 31, 1990, only the new standards will apply. Mr. Keeler said the revised requirements primarily reflect policy statements clarifying implementation: of the standards. Mr. Keeler said the new design standards would have the net effect of increasing travel speeds within subdivisions and thereby reducing traffic safety. Within areas of rolling and mountainous terrains, subdivision design flexibility will be reduced while roadway construction costs will increase. For Albemarle County, requests and justifications for private roads will increase for smaller developments. Overall, the new design standards will mean flatter and straighter roads. Consequently, there will be more grading and construction costs. (Mr. St. John returned at 9:39 A.M.) Mr. Keeler said there are some benefits that offset the costs of grading and construction. For example, in certain cases the actual travel way is reduced in width. For comparison purposes, when these new standards were applied to streets in the Mill Creek Subdivision, the results were design changes to all roads studied causing flatter and straighter roads. The effect on the overall subdivision design would have been dramatic had these standards been used. In addition to safety and cost concerns, Mr. Keeler noted other antici- pated results from new design standards. These include reduced subdivision design flexibility, reduced dwelling unit yield in developments where public roads are required, and increased demand for private road usage in smaller developments. He also said there will be increased ability to justify private road usage due to increased horizontal and vertical curvature and intersection sight distance requirements for public roads. During the most recent review of private road provisions of the Subdivi- sion Ordinance, the Planning Commission resolved to impanel a committee to review all issues relative to private roads. This review will be accomplished in early 1990. The implications of VDoT's new standards as to requests for County private roads are to be carefully considered by the committee. Mr. Keeler said the same categories are used in the old and new stan- dards; that is level, rolling, and mountainous. Under the old regulations, those three standards were applied on a statewide basis with level applicable to the Tidewater area, rolling applicable to the Piedmont section, and moun- tainous to areas like Wise County. He said there have only been two cases January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) 48 within the last two years where mountainous standards have been applied in Albemarle County. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the new standards will incorpo- rate American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (ASHTO) standards. The change in the new book would refer the Resident Engineer to the ASHTO standards and make all three categories available within Albemarle County. That is a significant change in the new standards. Mr. Keeler said another significant change is that the new book will incorporate provisions for phased development of roads. The provisions are very similar to an agreement the County developed along with Mr. Roosevelt and the developer from Mill Creek. Basically, this would only apply to four-lane divided roadways. In short, it would allow the developer to build two lanes to serve his development. At a later date, two additional lanes would be constructed to accon~nodate through traffic for public purposes. Under the old standards, the road would not go into the State system until it was completely constructed. Under this phasing provision, the Highway Department would take the first two lanes into the system and maintain them. At a later date, the other improvements would be added. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has revised its traffic generation handbook since 1980. Previously, a traffic generation standard of seven trips per dwelling unit per day was used. The new book incorporates a new standard of ten trips per day. The effect on 100 dwellings would be 1000 vehicle trips instead of 700. That, in turn, means a higher design category which increases the design standards for the developer. Mr. Keeler said the sidewalk provisions have been amended to increase the length of sidewalks available for State maintenance. Staff still has concern regarding the philosophy of sidewalks being available for maintenance from a certain distance of a pedestrian attractor, such as a public school. For example, in the new standards, the distance increases from 500 feet to 1000 feet from the zoning line of a business concentration. Mr. Keeler said that change is of little value unless the increase brings the sidewalk to the place where the pedestrian traffic is being generated. If a major subdivision is 1200 feet away, there would still be 200 feet without sidewalk. The philoso- phy is not from traffic generator to attractor; it is a simple distance figure. The last change Mr. Keeler mentioned is that the new standards would reduce the radius for cul-de-sacs in residential streets to 30 feet from 55 feet. He said staff would like to review that to ensure that 30 feet is adequate to accommodate school buses, trash trucks, and fire trucks. Mr. Keeler said the County can always adopt more restrictive provisions in its Subdivision Ordinance if a 30-foot radius is determined to be inadequate. That would then become a standard for the Highway Department within Albemarle County. Mr. Keeler concluded by stating that staff's primary concern is in regard to increased design speeds on subdivision roads. In some cases the design speed is up to 50 miles per hour, which staff feels is inappropriate for a subdivision. Mr. Cilimberg said staff feels that there will be a number of requests for waivers of standards for environmental degradation based on the new VDoT standards. Mr. Bowie asked the purpose of the committee the Planning Commission is establishing. Mr. Keeler said the primary purpose is to make a complete reassessment of the private roads provisions in theCounty's Subdivision Ordinance and philosophy. He said the committee would alsoevaluate amend- ments proposed by citizens. Mr. Keeler feels the committee' should also review the new requirements to determine, the effect on the County's ordinance in terms of requests for private roads. He said it will be much easier to justify private roads under the new standards. Under the old provisions, the design speed for rural private roads would have been 15 to 20 miles per hour. Under the new provisions, the design speed would be 30 miles per hour, using the rolling terrain category. That has the effect ~of increasing the maximum degree of curvature from 80 to 140 feet up to 260 feet. It doubles the minimum stopping sight distance and the minimum sight distance at intersec- tions. January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) Mr. Bain asked what the philosophy of the State is in establishing these standards. He wonders if the idea is to avoid maintaining subdivision roads throughout the State. He feels there will be more requests for private roads as a result of these new standards, and the State will not have to maintain them. Mr. Roosevelt responded that VDoT's Subdivision Street Requirements have been adopted and approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. He said the process followed by that Board is the same as this Board's process in which staff provides input from various sources in the form of recommenda- tions. Mr. Roosevelt said recox~endations are made to the Transportation Board concerning street requirements, one of which is from the Resident Engineers. Just as on County issues, there may not be total agreement among staff, but staff came up with a recommendation for that Board. Mr. Roosevelt said it is unfortunate that differences of opinion on this matter within VDoT have become a matter of public information. He said his opinion, along with a number of others, as well as public opinion, was weighed. The result was a decision which differed from Mr. Roosevelt's opinion. Mr. Roosevelt said a primary factor influencing design speed is liability. VDoT adopted standards for the improvement of the existing system based on terrain and roadway classification. Mr. Roosevelt said the standards for subdivision streets should be equal to those standards adopted for the improvement of the existing system. If lower design speeds are allowed in subdivisions than for the improvement of the highway system, there is the problem of liability. The best choice is to have design speeds for subdivi- sion streets similar to those in the secondary system, according to VDoT's legal advisers. Mrs. Humphris asked what Mr. Roosevelt meant by liability in this con- text. Mr. Roosevelt said prior to 1982 the State used sovereign immunity as its defense in instances where accident or damage resulted from VDoT's actions. In 1982, the State became liable for mistakes, and employees were personally liable for decisions which caused damaged if it could be shown that the decision was improper. To ensure that decisions are proper, VDoT has been advised by the Attorney General's office to adopt nationally recognized standards in as many cases as possible. Working to those standards makes VDoT's liability defensible. A reduction of those standards causes the State to become liable, or its employees to be held personally liable. Mr. Roosevelt explained that to the best of his understanding, this is a legal definition from an engineer. Mrs. Humphris said she understood that one of the major reasons for the revision of this document was for safety purposes. In order to increase safety it is necessary to increase traffic speeds to as much as 50 miles per hour within a subdivision by straightening the roads. Now she is hearing that if those increases in traffic speed are not made, liability will be incurred. Mr. Roosevelt said he is giving his personal opinion that people drive at the speed with which they are comfortable. If the road is straight and people feel they can drive 50 miles per hour, they will 'go that speed. He supports making it uncomfortable for the driver to go faster in order to reduce speed. Unfortunately, the people who made the final decision on these standards did not necessarily agree with Mr. Roosevelt's position. They feel that people are going to drive at a certain rate of speed regardless of the design of the road. Therefore, the road needs to be designed for the speeds people want to drive. Mr. Roosevelt pointed out that 50 mile-per-hour speed limits are applicable only to major access subdivision streets and not to cul-de-sacs. Mrs. Humphris felt that VDoT must have heard the same types of arguments around the State at their public hearings opposing this change. In spite of that, because of the liability issue VDoT felt justified in making these changes. Mr. ROosevelt said that was his understanding. He pointed out that Albemarle County was the only locality that tried to perform a detailed study of the subdivision street requirements while they were in draft form. At the five or six public hearings held by VDoT, only two localities had substantial input. He said there was very little input on a statewide basis. Mr. Bain asked if the State will accept roads into its system if roads are built according to Albemarle County's design standards instead of the State's standards. Mr. Roosevelt said if the County's standards are below the State's, VDOT will not accept the roads. Ianuary 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) 5O Mr. Bowerman asked how speed limits are set in subdivisions. Mr. Roosevelt said the State Code allows speed limits in subdivisions to be set based on a review by the traffic engineer. He does not have to monitor the speeds within the subdivision. Speed limits within subdivisions are the only instances where limits can be set without a radar study of the speed of traffic. Mr. Bowerman said 01d Brook Road has a design speed of 50 miles per hour. It is posted at 25 miles per hour, and no one drives that speed because the road is so broad, straight, and flat. That is what these standards will do to collector streets in subdivisions where there are residences on either side with children. Mr. Bain said if an accident happens because the design speed is too high, won't VDoT be sued because of the maximum design speed? He thinks the State faces just as much liability for high design speed creating faster traffic as they would under the situation Mr. Roosevelt described earlier. He feels the State's argument is illogical. Mr. Bowie said the Board was not asked to take any action on this item, but he senses the Board would like to do something. Mr. Bain suggested that the Secondary Roads Engineer be invited to discuss this with the Board and staff to see if anything can be done to change these standards. He feels this will greatly impact the entire development situation in Albemarle County. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that these standards have already been adopted and are in effect. Any change would have to go back through the State Trans- portation Commission unless the Secondary Roads Engineer has some authority of which staff is not aware. Mr. Roosevelt said that Waivers to these standards could be approved by staff, but staff will not approve anything that causes them to incur personal liability. If there is going to be a change in subdi- vision street requirements, Mr. Roosevelt feels it will be by a vote of the Transportation Board. Mrs. Humphris said she would like the Board to pursue any avenue avail- able to be heard again by the powers in Richmond. It could be that the lack of interest at public hearings had a bearing on these decisions. She feels theSe standards will mean the return of large subdivisions laid out in grids, bulldozing everything flat and building straight roads. That would be return- ing to the "dark ages" in Mrs. Humphris' opinion. If staff can find someone to listen, she feels the effort should be made again. Mr. Bowie asked that staff present at the February 14 meeting possible options to pursue for having these standards reconsidered. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the County will be more prone to accept private road applications, which is directly counter to County policy, because these standards are illogical. Mr. Keeler said it may be helpful to the Board if staff prepares a chart comparing the old standards to the new ones. 'The issues of grading and construction costs are fairly uniform. The actual increase in road design speeds generally for subdivisions is not likely to be more/~a~iles per hour. The 50 mile-per-hour limit is fairly extreme. Mr. Way said he felt that kind of comparison would be very helpful. Agenda Item No. 6c. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Roosevelt offered to meet with new Board members or to discuss any questions or problems Board members may have. He handed out current Albemarle County maps to all Board members. Mr. Bowie noted that over the years he has had occasion to call Mr. Roosevelt many times, and has never had anything but cooperation from Mr. Roosevelt and his staff. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 10:18 A.M.) The Board recessed at 10:19 A.M. and reconvened at 10:31 A.M. January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) Agenda Item No. 7. Blue Ridge Hospital Project: Staff Comments on Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Cilimberg said an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was received from the Council on the Environment. This EIS is being coordinated for the Department of Forestry's headquarters building at the Blue Ridge Hospital site on Route 20 at Route 53. The Council on the Environment requested a review and comments to be returned by January 12. Mr. Cilimberg said staff was concerned that Mr. Keeler's comments to the architect for the Forestry Department during the site review process were not forwarded in total to the Council on the Environment. He pointed out that staff's review of the site was simply to compare Site A to Site B in terms of the County's site plan ordinance. Staff had already pointed out that the proposal was not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and would have required an amendment if the applicant had been a private developer. Staff in no way was endorsing a particular site. Another point Mr. Cilimberg made is that while a number of sites were apparently investigated, the Department of Forestry already owns a very appropriate site on Fontaine Avenue containing over 30 acres with water and sewer service available. He noted that utilities at the Blue Ridge Hospital site can be limited to existing structures by action of the Board of Supervi- sors. Staff noted that the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation is pursuing a research park development on Route 29 North. This location might be another alternative more closely in compliance with the County's Comprehen- sive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg then addressed areas of concern regarding the impact of this development upon the environment. With the proposed development clearly visible from 1-64 and Route 20, both of which are significant approaches to Monticello and Ash Lawn, staff feels the development would not have a positive impact as indicated in the EIS. Mr. Cilimberg added that Mr. Jeff O'Dell, the Architectural Historian for the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, forwarded information in a memo dated November 20, 1989, indicating that the dairy at the Blue Ridge Hospital site is the only complex of its size and integrity in the County. The historic connection between the Sanatorium and the dairy farm is well documented, and the Sanitorium complex is eligible for listing on the National Register. Development at the Blue Ridge Hospital site would require demolition of a complex that is of historic value. Regarding the issue of land use, the EIS report lists occupancy as having a positive impact on future land use. However, as has been stated this proposed development is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for land use, and neither is it consistent with the process established for Area B studies in the Memorandum of Understanding between the City, County and the University of Virginia. Mr. Cilimberg said that while the proposed project may necessitate desirable improvements at Route 20, it will result in increased traffic which staff feels is not a positive effect for the area's highway patterns and safety. The report further indicates that the development will have a positive impact regarding the disruption of the established community. Staff disagrees and feels that the visual and traffic impact on the approaches to a nationally significant historic site such as Monticello cannot be considered positive. Similarly, the report indicates a positive impact by this development in the category of Aesthetics. Staff cannot agree considering the visual effect the development will have on the Monticello/Ash Lawn approach and the desig- nated rural area in which the site is located. Mr. Bowie said he had spoken with Mr. Buddleman, the Executive Director of the Council on the Environment, and made him aware of this report. In Mr. Bowie's opinion the EIS report is neither complete nor accurate, both of which State law requires. He expressed that feeling to Mr. Buddleman, particularly with regard to a quote by Mr. Lindstrom which was taken completely out of January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) 52 context. Mr. Bowie reported that Tuesday night in Richmond at 7:00 A.M., the Council on the Environment will be having a meeting. Mr. Buddleman agreed that Board members would be allowed to come and speak regarding this issue at that time, even though it is not a public hearing per se. Mr. Bowie said that the Board's comments on the EIS report need to be forwarded to Mr. Buddleman by Friday. He said that staff actually needs about a three-week delay in order to point out the errors and statements taken out of context. Mr. Bowie then said that during Mr. Cilimberg's report, a letter was hand-delivered to him from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation dated January 10, 1990, stating that the State is freezing the review process. The County will be notified by the Council on the EnVironment, and sufficient time will be allowed for comment by all interested parties when the freeze is lifted. Mr. Bowie feels that since land in Albemarle County and the County's Comprehensive Plan are involved, the Board should proceed with giving its position even though a freeze has been announced. Mr. Bain said a request for an extension for further comment should be included with the information forwarded on Friday. Mr. Bowie agreed. He reiterated that the Board should get its comments in the record and in writing by Friday and attend the meeting in Richmond on Tuesday. Mr. Bowerman noted that the EIS report indicated that consultations were held with a number of different organizations, including the County, the University of Virginia and several others, resulting in Master Site Plan B. He clarified that as a representative of the Planning and Coordination Council's Technical Committee, in no way was the requirement met for joint planning in the agreement between the City, County and University. Several references are made that joint planning has occurred, although Mr. Bowerman said he has been involved in no meetings whatsoever regarding this Area B study. Mr. Bowie said that specific point should be included in the written response for Friday and in the comments to be made Tuesday night. Mr. Bain suggested that a staff member also attend the Richmond meeting to answer questions. Mrs. Humphris said it should be questioned why so many State agencies have to be housed together at one site. Mrs. Humphris also pointed out that if the site is going to be a major headquarters for the State Police, she questions the report's statement that there will be no aircraft noise. She understands that the State Police are using helicopters, and she would like to have that question raised. She is also concerned about the possible need for satellite antennae. Mr. Way added that the more information given in writing, the better. His experience has been that some committees are not extremely attentive to what is being said, and people tend to wander around the room while a speaker is addressing them. There was no further discussion on this item. Agenda Item No. 8. Staff briefing on Rivanna River Greenbelt Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said a joint City/County committee has been formulating this plan over the last several months. The completed report was presented to the City Planning Commission last night by City staff. The recommendation to the City Council is to proceed with the plan, particularly with funding the high priority items. Mr. Cilimberg then noted that Pages 29 through 31 of the report list the specific action projects with an "H" by the high priority items. He said these items were jointly agreed upon by City and County representatives as the most logical to pursue initially. Mr. Cilimberg said the first priority item on the list is to acquire a strip of land east of the Rivanna River from Free Bridge to Rivanna Park, between the River and Elk Drive. The idea is to acquire land so that the public agencies have control and can prevent any further development on this marginal piece of property and allow for road side overlooks or picnic areas. This is to be a joint venture between the City and County. January i0, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) 53 (Page 13) The three priority items requiring City action are to obtain a trail easement from Pen Park to Riverview Park on the west side of the Rivanna River; to construct the first trail segment from Riverview Park to Free Bridge; and to construct the second trail segment from Free Bridge to Pen Park. Those three items are being recommended by the City Planning Commission to the City Council for funding. One other priority item is the Free Bridge replacement design work by VDoT. Mr. Cilimberg said that other components of the overall plan include boat ramps, bridge crossings, scenic overlooks, etc. Mr. Bowie asked what the mechanism is for proceeding with the high priority items should the Board agree to the recommendations. Mr. Cilimberg said the items the Board is willing to undertake would be incorporated into the Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Agnor said in the development of the Rivanna Park plan, there was some money budgeted to acquire the strip of land of the River, and efforts to acquire it are already underway. The City is concerned with acquiring easements for trails on the west side. Regarding the overall Greenbelt plans, Mr. Cilimberg said the County will developing a Greenbelt Linear Park north of Charlottesville coming around the Rivanna River to Ivy Creek and south from the Woolen Mills area out to Milton. An intern is working at staff level on the components necessary for that plan and reviewing the work of the University of Virginia landscape architecture class. Staff will present to the Board a concept of what this type of park should incorporate, easements or acquisitions necessary, and costs involved. Mr. Cilimberg said staff's expertise is limited to that information. An engineering firm would then need to be involved for further specifics. Mr. Cilimberg noted that this information is part of the Open Space Plan called for in the Comprehensive Plan and currently being prepared for Planning Commission review. Agenda Item No. 8a. Discussion: Solid Waste Task Force Recommendations. Mr. Bain, a member of the Solid Waste Task Force, said the list of recommendations was distributed to the Board on December 19, 1989. The Task Force would like to see these recommendations jointly discussed by the City and the County. He would like the Board to authorize the Chairman and staff members to meet with similar representatives from the City to determine the next step and find some preliminary resolution of issues. Mr. Bain offered a motion that this action be taken at the earliest possible convenience of the Chairman and staff. Mr. Bowie asked if the motion included accepting the recommendations in principle. Mr. Bain said his motion does include accepting the general nature of the recommendations (set out on Page 2 of the minutes of December 19, 1989). Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman said he has reservations about the mandatory portion of the program, especially in terms of citizens separating trash at the landfill. He is in favor of an economic incentive rather than a mandatory incentive. Mr. Bowie clarified that the motion is to proceed with the City to do something, but with the understanding that individual recommendations may be modified. Mr. Bain said that is correct. There are many issues that will need to be addressed before spending any money, but this is the next step in moving forward. Mr. Perkins asked to what extent the University was involved in the Solid Waste Task Force. Mr. Bain said there were two members on the Task Force who had considerable input into the recommendations. For example, one subject discussed by the University representatives was the possible expansion of the authority of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Since the University does not participate in that Authority, there would need to be some means of including the University. There was no further discussion of this matter. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) Agenda Item No. 9. Public hearing on a reqUest to consider extending the Albemarle County Service Authority service areas to include Tax Map 57, Parcel 29 (part of), Highlands at MechumRiver, for water and sewer service. Prop- erty located on the south side of Route 240, approximately one mile west of its intersection with Route 250, in the White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 26, 1989, and January 2, 1990.) Mr. Cilimberg said the Board set this public hearing at its December 13, 1989, meeting to consider expanding the service area boundaries to incorporate the area now zoned R-4, Residential, in Crozet for the Highlands development for water and sewer service. Currently the area is designated for water service to existing structures only. The Chairman opened the public hearing at this time. There being no members of the public present to speak regarding this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Planning Con~nission made a recommendation regarding this request. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission does not consider service area requests. The procedure is that these requests come directly to the Board of Supervisors. Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins to amend the service area bounda- ries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include Tax Map 57, Parcel 29, for water and sewer service. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Secondary Employment Assignments - Police Personnel. (Deferred from December 13, 1989.) Mr. Agnor said the County has had a reimbursable overtime program in the Police Department. The Board was asked last fall to participate in the development of the rates being charged for the use of police officer services in. private businesses so that the Board would be aware of those charges. In that discussion, there was concern expressed regarding overtaxing the police department for officers working privately during off-duty hours. Specific- ally, there is concern over the conflict generated by officers enforcing the rules of a private organization and the sworn duty of a police officer to uphold the law. Mr. Agnor said this is not a request that a policy be adopted by the Board, but it is a matter of informing the Board of the Police Department's action to formulate a policy limiting off-duty services. Mr. Agnor said in cases where officers are volunteering to work for private businesses during off-duty hours, Chief John Miller will determine whether there is a need for these officers for Police Department business. Mr. Agnor said the current policy is that officers are not assigned to off-duty work, with the exception of large events such as Foxfield, or for traffic control at the County Fair. He said the assignment of officers to work on private property will cease in the future. Only officers who volunteer to work would be used at the Foxfield event; the Department will not assign them to that duty. Mr. Agnor said some officers have complained about being assigned to maintain crowd control at events such as Foxfield. Another aspect of the policy is that when officers participate in off-duty work, training will be available in terms of the potential conflict in enforcing private regulations and enforcing the law. He concluded by saying that the development of a written Police Department policy originated with the Commonwealth's Attorney, the County Attorney, the Sheriff, and the Police Department. Mr. Agnor said there are requests for off-duty support from the Sheriff's Department as well. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 11:18 A.M.) Mr. Agnor said obviously the Foxfield sponsors are concerned about any change in policy. He said those in charge were given a copy of his memo to the Board dated November 27, 1989. The County proposes to implement this policy on a gradual basis so that the services of private security people can January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) be acquired. The intent is not to withdraw the County police officers totally at one event. By the Spring event of 1990, and by the last event of this year, Foxfield could maintain crowd control with private security personnel. Mr. Agnor said there was some concern that this would diminish the opportunity for police officers to earn extra income in off-duty work. This policy is not intended to diminish extra work on a volunteer basis. The Police Department will not be assigning officers in the future. Mr. Way asked what police officers wear when they are working for private business. Mr. Agnor said they wear police uniforms. Mr. Agnor explained that police officers are hired by businesses not only because of their training in law enforcement, but also because of the visibility of the uniform. Mr. Way said the advantages probably outweigh the negatives, but he is concerned about officers in uniform who may allow laws to be broken in their presence. Mr. Bowie said he thought the intent was that officers who volunteer to work for private businesses where this type of conflict exists would not be in uniform. Mr. Agnor said officers would not be assigned to an area where that type of conflict is occurring. Mrs. Humphris asked what liability is incurred when police officers are working off-duty. Mr. Agnor said the County Attorney has researched that as part of this study. Mr. St. John said when police officers are working private duty, they are working for an employer. They are not enforcing the law, but are throwing people out when the owner says someone is no longer welcomed to be there. An officer working in that capacity should not be wearing the uniform of the County Police Department. He should be wearing the private uniform of a security guard or wearing no uniform.. If he is on private premises for an event such as Foxfield, there is a need for uniformed police officers. However, they should be present in the capacity of enforcing the public laws and keeping order and preventing any violations of the law, albeit on private property. Mr. St. John said that laws apply on private property as well as on public property. Police officers should not be in the position of carrying out the employer's instructions and at the same time acting as a public servant. The separation of these two functions is the present concern, and that is what the policy being implemented is trying to address. Mr. St. John pointed out that this policy will apply only to the Police Department and not to the Sheriff's Office, because the Sheriff is a Constitutional Officer independent of the Board. He has been brought into the discussions because he will have to make the same kind of policy decision for his men that is being made for the Police Department. Mr. Agnor said he wanted the Board to be aware that such a policy is being developed. Mr. Bowie said in the County Executive form of government, overseeing what the Police Department does and how they do it is a function of the County Executive and not the Board of Supervisors. He said he appreciates the County Executive bringing this item to the Board as a matter of infor- mation. Agenda Item No. 14. Status Report: Proffered Zoning. Mr. Agnor said the Board had been given a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would implement the General Assembly's legislation to accept proffered cash contributions and real property dedication. He said staff realized that before any reasonable fiscal impact figures can be devel- oped, a better understanding of the magnitude of long range capital needs is required. Mr. Agnor said this assessment will be provided in the Public Facilities Plan and the Open Space Plan which are elements of the Comprehen- sive Plan to be completed this Spring. Until those are completed, staff recommends that the Board consider adopting a zoning text amendment to allow the acceptance of cash proffers and/or real property with a rezoning applica- tion, even though cost factors cannot be determined at this time. There is no reason to postpone the adoption of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bain then offered a motion to adopt the following resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way. January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Sections 33.3 and 33.3.1 in order to effect the acceptance of cash proffers and real property dedication; and FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold public hearing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, and does request that the Planning Commission send its recommendation to this Board at the earliest possible date. Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion: Earlysville Forest Dry Hydrant. This item was deferred to February 14, 1990, at the request of the appli- cant. Agenda Item No. 16. Burning Laws, re: Construction Materials. Mr. Bowie said that a citizen had complained at a previous Board meeting about burning taking place near his apartment at Old Salem. The item is on the agenda for discussion today. Mr. St. John said he had submitted a letter dated January 4, 1990, to Mr. Agnor on this subject. The State Air Pollution Control Board regulations which have been adopted verbatim as part of the County's ordinance, place the authority for enforcement with both the State and the County. Both have a concurrent duty to enforce these regulations. Mr. Ward Butler is the Regional Agent of the State Air Pollution Control Board. The County Fire Official, Mr. Jesse Hurt, and the Fire Prevention Officer, Mr. Robert Jenkins, also have full power to enforce these regulations. Under those regulations, burning of brush and stumps produced by a clearing or grading operation in the course of development requires a permit from the State Air Pollution Control Board. This particular burning took place pursuant to a permit issued by that Board, The regulations also say that any time a burn results in a smoke or ash nuisance, the enforcing agent has full power to suppress the nuisance. The regulations, however, do not define "nuisance". What has happened is that the citizen reported a nuisance, and it was suppressed, but the damage had already been done. Mr. St. John said the process of enforcement worked, and it is not necessary to institute any new procedures or regulations. Mrs. Humphris said this situation disturbs her because it should have been obvious from looking at the number of trees and stumps to be burned on site that nothing other than a smoke and ash nuisance would result. The issuance of a permit is questionable for such a volume of burning. Mr. St. John said any breakdown in the system occurred at that level. The permit is issued by the State Air Pollution Control Board. Mrs. Humphris asked what are the criteria used to determine issuance of a permit. Mr. St. John said the criteria are set out in the regulations. The character of the location is addressed; not the amount of material to be burned. There are three types of locations. There can beno permit issued for a burn in the "urban area" as defined by the State Air Pollution Control Board and not by the definition in the County's Comprehensive Plan. The second type of location is called "highly developed". It is up to the judgement of the Agent as to whether a permit is issued in a "highly developed" area that is not an "urban area". The third area is ~"rural", and permits are automatically issued for those. Mrs. Humphris said she questions the rationale for issuing a permit in this instance, given that this site is directly across from Old Salem Apart- ments, adjacent to Canterbury Hills Subdivision, and across the road from Hessian Hills Apartments. This is one of the most densely populated areas in Albemarle County. Mrs. Humphris said this particular burning lasted for days. Whatever can be done to prevent that from happening again should be done now. January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) Mr. St. John said he would contact Mr. Butler and inform him of the Board's concern regarding this specific incident. Mrs. Humphris said she would appreciate that because burning of this sort is environmentally unsound and dangerous to health. Mr. Way said if Mr. Butler is willing to consult with the County Fire Official before issuing a burning permit, perhaps this type of situation could be avoided in the future. The local Fire Official would have knowledge of the local terrain and density and the potential impacts of large burning requests. Mr. St. John said he would contact Mr. Butler to that effect. Mr. Perkins said there are atmospheric conditions relating to burning for forestry and agricultural sites in which burnings are not allowed at all. Mr. Perkins said a burning that lasts for three days has to be a violation of the State's laws because there is no way to determine what the atmospheric conditions will be over a period of several days. He pointed out that more of these large burnings will be attempted as the landfill fees increase. Mr. St. John said the County has control over leaf burning, but very little control over this type of burning because it is in the hands of the State Air Pollution Control Board. Agenda Item No. 10. Recess for Lunch. Mr. Bowie said the Board is invited to a luncheon at The Omni for the 'kick-off" of the new Radio Station "Lite 102". At 11:50 A.M., the Board recessed for lunch. The Board reconvened in session at 1:23 P.M. The Board reconvened at 1:23 P.M. Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Lewis Mountain qeighborhood Study. University Heights (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 1:28 P.M.) Mr. Cilimberg said the Lewis Mountain - University Heights Neighborhood ;tudy is the second study of this type the Board has received. The first was ~he JPA/Fontaine Avenue "Area B" Study under the City/County/University PACC ~greement. He said this study has no major recox~endations which are differ- ~nt from those contained in the Comprehensive Plan, with the exception that ;ome property indicated in the Comprehensive Plan as being under the control ~f the University of Virginia, is not. Because these properties have been ~ound to be privately owned, staff wants to be sure they are addressed for .and use designation. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 19, 1989, agreed to !orward the Lewis Mountain Study to the Board in general agreement with the · ecommendations for Comprehensive Plan amendments with one comment. The 'lanning Commission felt that a specific statement should be included in the :omprehensive Plan's land use plan recommendations indicating that further [evelopment along Old Ivy Road may be limited due to the present substandard ~ondition of the road. Mr. Cilimberg said this area is designated for high .ensity use in the current Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said the Lewis Mountain Study has been reviewed by the PACC 'echnical and Policy committees and has been recommended to the City, County nd University for adoption. Staff is presenting this Study to the Board oday so that questions or comments from Board members can be addressed before he first public hearing is held. Mr. Bain asked if the Old Ivy Road area is currently shown for office ervice designation in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes". Mr. Cilimberg said Old Ivy Road is in the Six Year Secondary Road Plan or improvements at the intersection with Route 250 and along Old Ivy Road. here has been and continues to be a problem of how to improve the section of Id Ivy Road at the railroad underpass. One idea being considered by VDoT is ~inging Old Ivy Road around to Ivy Road as a "T" intersection. January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) 58 (Page 18) Mr. Bain asked why this area has medium density residential zoning. Mr. Cilimberg said there are several small multi-family units adjacent to Univer- sity Heights Apartments. It seemed consistent to use that designation to recognize existing uses as well as making a transition from office service at the Children's Rehabilitation Center to medium density to high density and commercial uses along Route 250. He said the idea was to keep low density zoning up toward Observatory mountain to preserve the natural vegetation of the area. There was no further discussion by the Board regarding this Study. Agenda Item No. 11. Presentation: Charlottesville/Albemarle Task Force on Children & Youth. Mr. Thomas DeMaio, committee member from the City of Charlottesville, presented the findings and recommendations of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Children and Youth Task Force. The committee was charged in the summer of 1988 with addressing the growing and changing needs of children and youth and their families. Mr. DeMaio said that two problems were identified in the community as a result of a 1986 Forum on Children and Youth. One is the diminishing resources from Federal and State governments for children and youth services; the other is the rapidly changing structure of the family. Coupled with these problems was the widespread belief among service providers and community leaders that the community is not meeting the needs of today's families. Thus, it became clear that a cohesive and coordinated system of children and youth services requires that local governments evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of current programs and services. Mr. DeMaio said a steering committee was asked to study and evaluate the recommendations coming from the forum and to suggest a plan of action for implementing those recommendations. That committee, made up of agency profes- sionals and community leaders from the City and the County, carefully studied the information generated from the forum and recommended that a Task Force be appointed to address the growing and changing needs of children and youth and their families. Subsequently, the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle approved the recommendation and jointly appointed a 12-member task force. The final report was developed by the Task Force, but it was facili- tated by the work of a large number of citizens in the City and County. There were six subcommittees formed, and each subcommittee had about 10 members. Each one looked at specific issues and reported to the Task Force. These subcommittees drew on studies, recommendations, and information available in the community to draw informed conclusions and to formulate meaningful, appropriate, reasonable, and cost-effective recommendations. Mr. DeMaio explained that the Task Force identified and evaluated commu- nity children and youth programs, the degree of coordination or duplication of these services, and also the need for services currently not available in the community. The Task Force felt that a starting place for a more coordinated and comprehensive approach to the long-term needs and problems of children and youth was necessary. The Task Force identified four major areas for recommen- dations. The first area is central coordination and leadership. Although good efforts have been made to identify and meet the needs of children, there is no existing, identifiable leadership in the area of planning for children and youth in the City or the County. The first step is the establishment of a Charlottesville/Albemarle Children and Youth (CACY) Commission to make recommendations to the Board regarding programs and policies. The second step in implementing a coordinat- ed program is the creation of an Interagency Council. Such a council would serve as the research arm for the Commission and be composed of service providers, including schools and parks and recreation departments. This council would pool community information to address problems on an on-going basis. January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) 59 The second component is the recognition that an effective comprehensive program must include greater community involvement and neighborhood based services. Many more segments of the community, including youth, parents, neighborhood associations, police, business and volunteer organizations, parks and recreation departments, and particularly public schools, must participate in planning and programs. One way to encourage wider participation by the community is to establish multi-service sites in the City and County. For instance, there should be teen sites in various locations in the County so that neighborhoods can plan services and work together. The third component is the recognition that families within the community need more support. The Task Force is recommendinglparent education, health services, communication with the school system, and various ways to support families. The last component is the need for a prevention-oriented approach to planning services for children and youth. The tendency is to respond to problems when they become severe. Mr. DeMaio said with this framework, the Task Force believes that the service system in the community can be improved, and the resources that exist can become more effective and efficient. To that end, numerous recommenda- tions have been made by the Task Force. At this point, Mr. DeMaio turned the presentation over to Ms. Joyce Allen, Co-Chairman of the Task Force. Ms. Allen said it has become clear that families are not going to return to the extended family, neighborhood-based structure that is thought of as the traditional family. Rather than going back, it is necessary to deal with the problems resulting from the new family structures. The Task Force took a look at the community and the way in which the needs of children and families are the same, in spite of the fact that the way those needs are met have changed dramatically in the community. Children still need safe, stimulating, and nurturing environments. Parents still need sources of advice, support, encouragement and relief from their parenting responsibilities. The Task Force has proposed recommended actions so that the community as a whole takes care of children and families. Ms. Allen said the Task Force identified seven issue areas with recommendations in each area. None of the recommendations made by the Task Force are beyond the scope of the community to implement. However, it will take a level of leadership and commitment to begin the effort. The first component of the framework for action is central coordination and leadership. The Task Force recognizes that political process and economic changes impact on the lives of children, yet children cannot lobby for their own needs in the community. Therefore, advocates for children need to assure that these needs are met. Political and financial actions need to be taken to demonstrate a commitment to children. The first and most important recommen- dation of the Task Force for Children and Youth is the establishment of a City/County planning body, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Children and Youth Commission (CACY). This body would oversee and make recommendations about children and youth services. Ms. Allen pointed out that each recommendation is outlined in full in the report with justifications, results, strategies for implementation, and the resources required to implement them. The second recommendation under central coOrdination and leadership is the establishment of an Interagency Council which would be a resource arm for CACY. It would be composed of leaders of the public agencies and service programs in the City and County. The third leadership proposal is in the area of child care. It is the establishment of a Child Care Coordinating Council. This is becoming more predominant as the most pressing need for families. Federal and State pro- grams and policies are providing funding sources for child care. Therefore, the subcommittee which studied this area recommends that a body be established to coordinate funding, licensing regulations, and program recommendations. This Council would be a subcommittee of the CACY and would serve as a standing subcommittee for advice on child care policies. January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) 6O Under the framework component of greater community involvement mentioned by Mr. DeMaio, Ms. Allen said a new sense of neighborhood and support for families needs to be created. The primary recommendation under this framework is the establishment of multi-service sites. These would be neighborhood based, perhaps set up in schools, churches, public housing sites, or places that would be accessible to parents and children. Along with the teen sites would be the establishment of an organized recreation system which would match community expertise, resources and programs with youth recreational needs in the community. Also, within the community involvement framework, a recommen- dation is made under Parent Education to improve the accessibility, recruit- ment and quality of programs, especially for low-income families. Also under Parent Education, the recommendation is made that the media become more involved as an advocate and informant regarding community services for chil- dren and families. Under Schools and Community Service Coordination, several recommendations are made to utilize schools for health department services, on-site day care services, peer counseling programs, and support groups for youths. Also under Schools and Community Service Coordination, the Informa- tion and Referral Center is asked to conduct in-service training sessions regarding community resources and agencies. The Task Force suggested, under Family Activities, that various organizations in the community such as the Chamber of Commerce coordinate a program where employers discuss the effect of certain employee benefits, such as health insurance, on families. The framework component of more support to families involves several recommendations, with the largest focus on child care. Ms. Allen said it is important to recognize that some families cannot provide appropriate child care without community help. Under Child Care, there are five recommendations to support families. They include public scholarships and subsidies for child care, continuing public and private support for after-school care, study the feasibility of a joint day care center for young children of high school parents, invest in training and referral follow-up services for child care providers, and provide child care support for moderate income families. Ms. Allen said a recommendation was made under the heading of Family Activities that activities be provided at community parks for families as a regular and on-going program. Under the framework component of emphasis on prevention, two specific recommendations are made. Under Youth Treatment Services, the recommendation is to provide prevention-oriented treatment services and encourage self- referral. The other specific recommendation is the establishment of multi- service sites accessible to all children and youth is a prevention-oriented recommendation. Ms. Allen pointed out that the goal of all of these recommendations is actually prevention of crises among children and youth. She said everyone knows that it pays to invest in the future in the areas of business invest- ments or automobile maintenance, for example. She asked the Board to consider making an investment in the future of the children of this community by implementing these recommendations. At this point, Ms. Debra S. Abbott addressed the Board. She said the Task Force is attempting to begin a process that will change the way children and youth are thought of and responded to by institutions. Recently, there has been a Task Force in the City regarding illegal drugs and an attempt by the City to look at creative ways of dealing with community problems through the Charlottesville Housing Redevelopment Authority. She said she would outline some common areas that were part of the thinking of the Children and Youth Task Force as well as the illegal drugs task force and the housing grant proposal in an attempt to make it easier for the Board to understand some of the problems of the entire cox~unity. Ms. Abbott said all three proposals address the need for an alcohol and drug-free site where teens can gather. The Task Force Report asked for scattered sites throughout the community. Both reports call for a revision of the Parks and Recreation program which would use community expertise and resources, include tutorial programs, and expand summer and after-school activities. The need to include volunteers and match programs with specific youth needs was stressed. The need for on-site prevention-oriented treatment services was a common theme as well. Both task forces stated a need to examine the current drug education programs and expand counseling efforts, either through additional staff or through further training of existing staff. January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) Ms. Abbott said it goes without saying that the problems the community is faced with are complicated and costly to solve. It is the Task Force's hope that this Report begins the movement necessary to tackle these challenges and build partnerships between the County and City local governments. Mrs. Frances Witt, a resident of Albemarle County and member of the Task Force, came forward to speak. Mrs. Witt said she is a life-long resident of this County. She has been a citizen, a parent and a teacher in this area and · s concerned about the children and youth. Mrs. Witt asked the Board to pay close attention to the Task Force Report. Even though this is an affluent area, there are problems that are not addressed by the public agencies in existence. She said there are problems in this County that many people do not know about or would rather not hear about. As a teacher, she is aware of problems in which students are not being reached by the good work of some of the public agencies. There are teenagers living in their vehicles for days at a time because they have no other place to stay. She said vandalism at the Crozet Park has spread from the teenage groups of four or five years ago to elementary school children. In December, four children were taken to court for vandalism. Three were elementary school children. Mrs. Witt said these children are dealing with lack of proper child care after school. So they go to the park and vandalize to vent their frustration. She said this is happen- ing more and more in the County to public property, which all citizens eventu- ally will pay for. Mrs. Witt said she is concerned about the children who are not being reached by any agency. The con~nunities help in many areas, but there is the attitude that the problem is not "in my back yard" so there is a lack of concern. Mrs. Witt said her point is that problems with children and youth are relevant to everyone. It is time that the communities become more involved in support, in finding methods of prevention of problems, in support for parents, and most of all in caring. She said if the County sees the Board's leadership in supporting the Task Force recommendations, it will be a big step for children and youth. Mrs. Witt does not believe that Albemarle County will make a difference in the behalf of children without the Board's leadership. Mr. Bowie said one of the things the Board specifically asked the Task Force to determine is whether there is duplication of services among agencies and how services can better be provided. He said he did not find that information in the Report. Mr. DeMaio said some descriptions of what services are being provided and where they are provided is included in the Appendix. He said it was an overwhelming task to review each agency to see how they interrelate with other agencies. The subcommittees were asked to look into that. They found that there was no particular duplication. The agencies reported that they were working to the maximum extent. Mr. DeMaio said the Task Force tried to organize what is being done and highlight the biggest areas of needs and define ways to meet the needs most effectively. He said a specific section regarding duplication is not included. Mr. Bain said he hopes this is an initial step in bringing forward what should be done to organize the efforts in the community for children and youth. He said the main recommendation is the first step in eliminating duplication. The CACY would be a priority-setting commission for all other agencies across the City and County. He feels this is an extremely critical need in the community. Mr. Way asked the next step in implementing these recommendations. He noted that the missing part, and the Task Force was not charged with this, is the cost of implementation. He agreed that the effort was tremendous, and he does not want to set the Report aside with no follow-up. However, the Report is so comprehensive that he feels another group making specific recommenda- tions involving costs is necessary. Mr. Bain said the first recommendation is that an interjurisdictional council be formed to make those types of recommendations. Mr. Bowie said he is not sure another committee is the answer. For example, several organizations are probably getting County funds currently to supposedly provide some of the services mentioned in 'this report. Before another commission is formed, he feels that service agencies have to be reviewed for efficiency and duplication. Mr. Bowie said there is a great deal of money already being spent for some of these services without a good under- standing of what services are being provided by what agencies. January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2~) 62 Mr. DeMaio said the Task Force is trying to set up a community-wide forum on February 8 at Charlottesville High School where those who participated in drafting the report, service providers from the community, and interested citizens can participate in formulating some action steps from the report. Another step is that agencies specifically addressed in the recommendations can act on those recommendations. Those groups should be coming before the Board with action plans. Mr. DeMaio said the committee formulated a way to use existing monies from the former Charlottesville Youth Commission to partially fund the establishment of the Commission. He thinks the establish- ment of the Commission is a key step because they will then organize the implementation of other recommendations. Mr. DeMaio said the Task Force would like to have a joint session with City Council and the Board of Supervisors to discuss some of these issues and to make concrete plans. As an alternative, separate work sessions could possibly be arranged. Mr. Agnor said this situation is similar to the Task Force on Solid Waste Management. After the recommendations were received, a small committee of the two governing bodies was put together to determine the next step. Perhaps a leadership group from the City Council and the Board of Supervisors should plan the procedure to follow for implementation of recommendations. Mr. Way suggested that two members of the Board meet with Ms. Roxanne White, Administrative Assistant to the County Executive, and the two Co-Chairs of the Task Force. Mr. Perkins asked if the City Council should be contacted first. Mr. Way said some action should be taken by the County before deciding what can be done jointly with the City. Motion was offered by Mr. Way to nominate Mr. Bain and Mr. Way as Board representatives to meet with the Task Force and formulate recommendations on how to proceed. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 19a. Appointments: Albemarle County School Board: Representatives from the Charlottesville District, Jack Jouett District and Samuel Miller District. Mr. Bowerman said it has not been an easy task to select a nominee for the Charlottesville appointee from among those applying for this position. He said he has chosen an individual who has exhibited a proven record of business success, community involvement, and active involvement in the public school system. His nominee will be accessible to parents, teacher organizations and the general public during the next four years. His nominee has two basic priorities. The first priority is to ensure that quality education is provid- ed to all County school children, and secondly, that this education is provid- ed in the most efficient manner possible. He then nominated Ms. Patricia L. Moore as the Charlottesville District representative on the School Board, for a term ending December 31, 1993. The nomination was seconded by Mr. Way. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Mrs. Humphris said she is in the enviable position of having a number of qualified applicants from which to choose. She said it was a pleasure getting to know the applicants, and she is pleased to know the level of interest of those applicants not selected who will be available to give input to school matters. The nominee from JaCk Jouett District is Richard A. Bagby, a retired Marine Lieutenant Colonel currently Data Processing Manager for the Medical Center at the University of Virginia. Mrs. Humphris believes that Mr. Bagby will meet the role that she envisions for the Jack Jouett representative. This person will be an advocate for the children first of all, will keep in close contact with members of the community, and make every effort to have the kind of school system which the community desires. Mrs. Humphris nominated January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2~) 63 Mr. Bagby as the Jack Jouett representative on the School Board, for a term expiring on December 31, 1993. Mr. Bowerman seconded the nomination. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Bain placed in nomination the name of the current School Board representative from the Samuel Miller District, Mr. Clifford W. Haury, for a term expiring on December 31, 1993. The nomination was seconded by Mr. Way. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Bowerman nominated Maria A. Bell from the Charlottesville District to replace Millicent Bowerman as a member of the Social Services Board, for a term expiring December 31, 1991. Mr. Perkins seconded the nomination. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Bowie said the Board's Beautification Committee was charged with ensuring that the County Office Building, both inside and outside, is as pleasing as possible. Former Supervisor Patricia H. Cooke has offered to still serve on this committee. Mrs. Humphris nominated Mrs. Cooke as Chairman of the Beautification Committee, and Mr. Way seconded the nomination. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Bowie said it became necessary to reassign Board members to commit- tees as a result of two newly elected members joining the Board. Last week the Chairman was requested to contact each Supervisor member to discuss reas- signments. In the process of assigning committees, Mr. Bowie said he discov- ered seven committees which can be eliminated. He will announce those commit- tees next week. Mr. Bowie then read the committee assignments as follows: Mr. Bain: Solid Waste Management Task Force Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (term to expire December 31, 1993) Metropolitan Planning Organization, Policy Committee Joint Transportation (formerly City/County/UVA Highway Commission Subcommittee) Mr. Bowerman: Personnel Advisory Committee Charlottesville/Albemarle/UVA Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (term to expire on December 31, 1993) Joint Transportation Jail Board (term to expire on December 31, 1991) Mr. Bowie: Audit Committee Building Committee Charlottesville/Albemarle/UVA Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) Piedmont Job Training Policy Board Joint Transportation January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2~) Mrs. Humphris: Metropolitan Planning Organization, Policy Committee Charlottesville/Albemarle Clean Community Commission Hazardous Materials - Local Emergency Planning Committee Mr. Perkins: Personnel Advisory Committee Audit Committee Building Committee Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee Mr. Way: Charlottesville/Albemarle Clean Community Commission JAUNT Board (term to expire on September 30, 1993) Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Perkins that the committee assignments be made as read for the year 1990, except for those that have set terms. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Bowie said there are a number of applicants for the vacancy on the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board and for the at-large seat on the Planning Commission. He said the Board needs to determine a process for handling and interviewing these applicants. He suggested that the matter be discussed in Executive Session. (The Board recessed at 2:37 P.M. and reconvened at 2:50 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 17. Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA), Request for funding for Project Discovery. Mr. Agnor said that MACAA is requesting an interim appropriation in this fiscal year of $3000 to offset a $6000 shortfall in State funds for Project Discovery. An appropriation of $3000 is also being requested from Nelson County. Mr. Agnor said the shortfall is partially a result of the expansion of the project when an increase in State funds was anticipated. That increase did not occur. Project Discovery is a program to reduce the number of high school drop-outs. The program was first funded by Albemarle County in 1988-89. Last spring an increase was requested but was not recommended by the Program Review Committee because data on the benefits and success of the program was incomplete. Mr. Agnor said the recommendation is that funding not be approved for the interim budget year for three reasons. First, the infor- mation on the quality and benefit of the program is currently being reviewed and was not a part of the review for this current year. Secondly, when agencies determine budget shortfalls, they are encouraged to look within their budgets to cover unanticipated shortfalls. Finally, staff is advising agen- cies that it is impossible for the County to fund all shortfalls in State funding. Mr. Way asked what is meant by the statement that the request is made because the program was expanded to Western Albemarle High School, but that for it to continue it will have to be removed from Albemarle High School. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Ackerman would have to answer that question. Mrs. Humphris asked what the "unemployment insurance" figure in the budget represented. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Ackerman would know the answer to that as well. At this time Mr. Ken Ackerman, Executive Director of MACAA, came forward to speak. Mr. Ackerman said MACAA has a variety of programs dealing with anti-poverty in Albemarle and surrounding jurisdictions. Last year, County staff did not recommend an increase in the MACAA budget during the review process because Project Discovery was a new program. Mr. Ackerman said there is data available now from the Virginia Department of Education documenting the unqualified success of Project Discovery. He said at budget time last year, the program had been serving Albemarle High School for just over one year and Western Albemarle High School for less than two months. Mr. Ackerman said of the 1356 students involved in Project Discovery, only four of them January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2~) dropped out of school. Of the seniors in that group, 70 percent went on to college. Mr. Ackerman said this statistic is from'a group of students who traditionally would not enroll in college because their parents did not go to college. He reiterated the success of the program and suggested an alterna- tive solution to this interim request. Mr. Ackerman said MACAA is $6000 short in their budget. The same request is being made to Nelson and Albemarle, two of the three jurisdictions served and who are not funding the program in a proportionate share. Mr. Ackerman said the City of Charlottesville contrib- utes over $13,000 for Project Discovery. Albemarle County has about $3000, and Nelson County contributes nothing. Last year $2000 was approved in the budget for a summer youth employment program. In the middle of the summer, supplemental funds were received for that program from the Department of Labor sufficient to cover the costs of the entire program with a $500 balance at the end of the summer. Therefore, Mr. Ackerman asked the Board for authorization to transfer that $2000 from the summer youth appropriation to a Project Discovery appropriation. Mr. Ackerman explained that the MACAA Board proposed this idea just this morning in an attempt to fund the Project Discovery. The remaining $1000 needed is the exact amount requested in MACAA's original budget request which was not recommended because of lack of data. Mr. Ackerman said the Board has received the data and asked the Board to authorize the transfer and the approval of $1000. Mr. Ackerman said he met with Nelson County officials yesterday, and they are looking for a way to fund their portion. Mr. Ackerman then introduced Mr. Mike Spivey, Youth Coordinator for Albemarle High School. Mr. Spivey said he is pleased to introduce a senior from Albemarle High School this year who is an active participant in Project Discovery. At this time Jay Cobbs came forward to address the Board. Mr. Cobbs said Project Discovery has helped him realize that he can go to college. At one time he doubted that he could. As a part of Project Discov- ery he visited various colleges around the State and came to understand that there is a way to get financial aid and go to college. He said that Mr. Spivey helped him learn how to write college applications and encouraged him to go on with his education. Mr. Ackerman then answered Mr. Way's earlier inquiry regarding removing the program from Albemarle High School. He said there is no thought of removing the program from Albemarle, and he is not sure where that came from. In fact, if anything has to be withdrawn it would be from Western Albemarle. In response to Mrs. Humphris' question regarding a budget item for unemployment insurance, Mr. Ackerman said it is a typographical error in aligning the columns. The title, "Health Insurance" should have appeared by the figure Mrs. Humphris is questioning. Mr. Bowie said he supports Project Discovery. However, the issue is the process by which funding is accomplished in this County. With the exception of the Discovery Museum interim request, the Board has not funded outside the budget cycle this year. He said the Board has suggested that agencies find money within their existing budgets and transfer, those funds. Mr. Bowie said with the $2000 not used for the summer youth fund and $500 left in that fund from State contributions, he feels MACAA can find the other $500 within their budget. He supports the request to transfer the $2000 to Project Discovery because he believes in the program. Mrs. Humphris asked if the banquet that is shown in the request has been held. Mr. Ackerman said the banquet has not been held, and it is a require- ment in order to receive State funding. The regional banquet is for the purpose of acknowledging the accomplishments of students and for bringing parents and students together. He said the amount has been cut back for the banquet, but it cannot be cancelled completely. Mr. Ackerman said about 200 people attend, and the food is the major expense along with renting the facilities. Mrs. Humphris said she understands the purpose of the banquet, but when the decision is weighed against using $3000 allotted for a banquet, it would seem that the banquet costs should be trimmed. Mr. Way immediately offered a motion adopting the following resolution approving the transfer of $2000 in the MACAA budget for Project Discovery and appropriating an additional $1000 for a total of $3000. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Perkins and Way. NAYS: Mr. Bowie and Mrs. Humphris. FISCAL YEAR: FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: 89/90 GENERAL ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR MACAA FOR PROJECT DISCOVERY EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100089000566300 1100095000999990 MACAA-PROJECT DISCOVERY GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY TOTAL $1,000.00 (1,000.00) $o.oo Agenda Item No. 18. Work Session: 1989-95 CIP. Mr. Bowie asked the status of Item No. 5, Libraries, Leased Facilities. Mr. Agnor said $600,000 had been deleted from the six-month appropriation column with the understanding that more information would be submitted regard- ing plans for leasing facilities. Mr. Agnor said the Board could put the $600,000 request in the 1990-91 column to keep track of it, but it would be subject to appropriation at a later time. There was no objection from the Board to Mr. Agnor's suggestion for the Library. Mr. Agnor then noted a correction under Item No. 2, Education. Item No. 5, Murray Elementary School, was shown as being deleted for this six-month portion of the CIP. Actually, Item No. 4, Rose Hill Alternative Education, should have been deleted instead. Murray Elementary School was not deleted. Mr. Bowie pointed out that under Administration and Courts, the Joint Security Complex 1991-92 column should have $650,000. The second year of the project had been left off and should be included. Mr. Bowie said decisions have to be made regarding the urban area elemen- tary school, moving the alternative education program to Rose Hill School, and renovations at Albemarle High School. Mr. Bowerman asked if any Board member felt that a new urban area school is not necessary. Mr. Bowie said a school is needed somewhere in the urban area. He is disappointed that no analysis was supplied regarding the possi- bility of having 700 pupil schools. According to the Department of Education, out of 133 school divisions, 120 have schools with enrollment of 600 or more. He said another report indicated that most of those schools have 700 to 750 students. He would like to know what impact there would be if schools en- rolled more than 600 students. Regardless of that, he feels the urban area school makes sense as a first step. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 3:12 P.M. and returned at 3:19 P.M.) Mr. Bowerman said even if the student capacity at Greer Elementary School and Hollymead Elementary School is increased beyond 600 students over the next few years and Woodbrook Elementary School is expanded to its greatest capacity, there still would be a need for the urban area school. He pointed out that when classrooms are added, the core facilities including the gym and cafeteria must be expanded as well. Those expansions mean additional costs which will not be much different than building a new facility. He said justification for a new facility is well-documented in the School Long Range Planning Report. Mr. Bain said he concurs with Mr. Bowerman's statements. With the enrollment projections and knowing that the urban area is continuing to grow, it is clear that an urban area elementary school is needed. He is not commit- ted to a specific location, but he feels there is a better value for the money spent by building a new structure. Mr. Bain said he is not ready to make a decision today on a specific location, however. January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page Z7) Mrs. Humphris said one thing to keep in mind is that the School Long Range Plan does not take into consideration any of the newly proposed growth plans by the University of Virginia. Based on the facts available, the Board can hardly get a new urban area elementary school built quickly enough. She believes that an attempt to add on to existing elementary schools would result in a great deal of disruption and would not be a wise investment of County She feels that enrollment capacities over 650 are not in the best interest of students. Mrs. Humphris said the urban elementary school is needed quickly. She agreed with Mr. Bain that she is not committed to a specific location either. She feels that more study has to be done to deter- mine the appropriate site. Mr. Perkins said the issue is not whether an urban school is needed or not. The issue is when the school is needed. The question is whether it is better for the County to build a new school now or to bring a school like Red Hill up to a 600 pupil school and possibly do some redistricting. Mr. Perkins said busing students might be a better solution than building a school in the urban ring right now. Mr. Bowie said the consensus of the Board seems to be that an urban area elementary school is needed without being site specific. He said he would still like an answer to his question of what the impact would be if the student capacity is increased in existing schools. He said some existing schools do not have as many as 600 students presently and could be expanded. Mr. Bowie said the total shown in the CIP for the urban area school is $6,816,000. Included in that figure is $400,000 for land acquisition. If the Whitewood Road site is recommended for this new school, Mr. Bowie wondered why there was an amount included for land acquisition. Mr. Cliff Haury, a School Board member in the audience, indicated that when the Long Range Planning Committee considered the site for the urban school, he asked that land acquisition money be included in the CIP because the exact site was questionable. He said the committee just wanted to be safe · n case the site proposed was not chosen. Mr. Bowie said he was confused because there had been so much discussion to the effect that anOther location for the urban school would cost much more money. Therefore, if the urban area school is built on property owned by the County, the figure in the CIP would automatically reduced by $400,000. Mr. Haury said that is correct. Mr. Bowie asked if it is the consensus of the.Board to proceed with the new urban area elementary school in the time frame indicated in the CIP. Mr. Bain said that means that the $135,000 previously deleted would need to be restored to the CIP for July through December, 1989. There was no objection from Board members. Mr. Bowie said the next item to be resolved is the Rose Hill alternative education question. Currently, over $1.5 million is shown in the CIP for that project. This amount is to make this school suitable to house the alternative education program currently at Murray School. Mr. Bowie asked how much of that work actually has to be done. He pointed out that very little had to be to have the alternative education program placed at Murray School. He feels that this is a lot of money to renovate a school to accommodate 70 students. Mr. David Papenfuse, Superintendent for Business Administration and Finance, said the cost reflects renovations necessary for any use of the building. This cost includes mechanical renovations and renovations to the interior such as new ceilings and lighting. Mr. Bain asked the figure for asbestos removal. Mr. Papenfuse said asbestos removal is $400,000 because asbestos is in the plaster. He said the renovations cover 29,000 square feet at $30.00 per square foot. Mr. Bowie said if the walls are not renovated, his understanding is that the asbestos would not have to be removed. The removal of asbestos is necessitated by disturbing the walls in the renovation process. Mr. Papenfuse said that is correct. However, if any mechanical renovations are done, such as heating and installing air conditioning system duct work, that means the asbestos will be disturbed. Mr. Bowie said the point is that 300 young children are in that school now, and the proposal is to put 77 alternative education students in there. It is a lot of money to renovate the entire school for 77 when it already accommodates 300. Mr. Papenfuse said January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) 68 this cost would bring Rose Hill up to current standards for any use. Mr. Agnor said renovations such as these would mean the building would be used for a long period of time. Mrs. Humphris asked what work would be done for the $60,000 shown as site work. Mr. Papenfuse said there is a problem with the traffic flow in the parking area. Whatever use is made of the building, the traffic is very constricted. Mrs. Humphris asked if this work is necessary because students will now be driving cars to school. Mr. Papenfuse said there is inadequate parking for any use of the school. He said most of the alternative education students are now picked up at the high schools and transported by bus to Murray. Mr. Bowie said he feels this item can be left in the CIP, but it should be deferred a year. He does not think the renovation for 70 students is worth the money. Mrs. Humphris said she feels the rural site at Murray, which the students like so much, is important for that type of program. A site such as Rose Hill would not allow that. She said she does not have an alternative solution, but she wants to be sure that spending $1.6 million to refurbish a school is being done for the best purpose. Mr. Bowerman asked when Murray has to be vacated. Mr. Cilimberg said it is to be open for elementary use in the fall of 1991. Mr. Bowie said he objects to spending $1.6 million for renovations. He feels the renovation project can be left in the CIP but moved ahead a year or two. By then, Cale Elementary School construction and the alternative education program move from Murray to Rose Hill would be complete before the $1-.6 renovation is begun. Mr. Bowerman asked what the minimum renovations would be to move the alternative education program into Rose Hill and what was done to Murray before the alternative education program was located there. Mr. Papenfuse said the bathroom facilities were upgraded for high school students at Murray. He said the total expenditure was about $50,000. Mr. Agnor said the idea was to have the Rose Hill students moved to Cale in 1990, and Rose Hill would be renovated while it is empty to accommodate the transfer of the alternative education program in the fall of 1991. Mr. Agnor asbestos removal could not be done with students in the school. Mr. Bowie said if the bathrooms are upgraded, then asbestos removal does not have to be done. Mr. Bain said if the program stays at Rose Hill on a long term basis, the alternative education students would have to be relocated at some point in the future to have the asbestos removed from the school. Mr. Way reminded the Board of Mr. Perkins' suggestion at an earlier meeting to use the old Crozet Elementary School for the alternative education program. Mr. Bowie said other possibilities have been summarily dismissed because once something is shown in the CIP, it is a foregone conclusion that it will automatically happen. He said that is why he would make a motion if he could to move this item forward in the CIP for two years. Mrs. Humphris then made a motion that the Rose Hill Elementary School renovations be moved forward to the 1991-92 column of the CIP and that an amount be shown in 1990-91 for cosmetic necessities such as plumbing, light- ing, bathroom upgrades, etc. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Mr. Papenfuse asked the Board to consider the roof replacement need at Rose Hill at a cost of $200,000. He said the roof is leaking and there is fiber in the felt. The roof must be removed and replaced. Mr. Bowie said the intent of the motion is that minimal cosmetic and safety improvements be made, but a figure is necessary for the budget. Aside from absolutely necessary renovations, the remaining project will be moved forward two years. Mr. Bowerman said he thought the motion was to move it forward for one year. Mrs. Humphris clarified that her motion is to defer the $70,000 amount to 1990-91 and the approximately $1.5 million to 1991-92 for Rose Hill. Mr. Agnor said the $70,000 will be adjusted once the cost is determined for the actual cosmetic changes. He said he would bring that figure to the Board once it is determined. January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page Mr. Bowerman said the question was raised at some point regarding the City participating in the alternative education program. He asked Mr. Andy Overstreet, Superintendent of Schools, the possibility of that happening and would the program involve more than 80 to 100 children in two years. Mr. Overstreet said it is a possibility. That would probably be a good reason to delay the major renovation project. He said the main concern is having the safety upgrades accomplished. Mr. Overstreet said those renovations would have to be done this summer. Mr. Bowie suggested that the vote be taken on the motion, realizing that the County Executive must come back with a financial plan for the immediate renovations. Some appropriation may be necessary before June of 1990, some for next year, and the balance deferred until 1991-92. He said that is the intent of the motion. There was no objection or further discussion at this point. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Perkins said he has no objection to the alternative education pro- gram, but he feels that any special education program should be thought out carefully before it is expanded. Every student placed in the alternative education program is being taken from the remaining high schools. He is concerned that instead of having two high schools, there are now three high schools. This may dilute regular high schools to the point of losing the ~ose of those schools. He feels that programs for alternative education could be developed within the high schools. Mr. Bain said there is already a joint program at the Charlottesville/ Albemarle Technical Education Center, and he feels that it is a good idea to take some time on this decision. Mr. Bowie said the Board is concerned that many options exist for alter- native education, and the Board is not willing to put more money than is absolutely essential to make Rose Hill usable at this time. Mr. Bowie said the Albemarle High School Phase I expansion and renovation °ect is shown in the CIP for $5,319,000. The decision has to be made as to whether that project is going to be done for that amount of money. He said Board members have stated that part of the problem at this school would be solved with redistricting. Mr. Bain said that some redistricting has already been planned to begin next year involving about 50 students per year. Mr. Bowerman said the School Long Range Planning Committee spent time considering this project. He said principals from Western Albemarle High and Albemarle High discussed their facilities with the committee and with the consultants. After the redistricting begins, it is not a question of capacity at Albemarle High, it is a question of parity. There are obvious deficiencies at Albemarle High School which were apparent when the Board visited that school prior to this discussion. Mr. Bowerman said the building needs a new classroom wing. The vocational education wing cannot be renovated for what is needed. The proposed project means tearing out capacity to provide capacity, and that presents a real problem. However, Mr. Bowerman can see no other way to make the school more efficient and to get it up to the standards of Western Albemarle. He feels that parity is a must and has been accomplished for middle schools and elementary schools. Mr. Bowie said when the school is designed poorly in the first place and has had so many renovations already, it is difficult to fix it. He said the poor circulation of traffic is unbelievable. There are narrow halls packed with students, and wide halls that do not go anywhere, and all the students end up in a 10-foot circle at the entrance. However, spending another $5 million to fix a wing which will have to be redone in another few years is not the solution. January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) 70 Mrs. Humphris said it should not be overlooked that the renovation estimates do not include any asbestos removal costs. Mr. A1Reaser, Director of Building Services, said all floor tile and mastic at Albemarle has asbestos and would need to be removed. When the walls are renovated, any pipes in the walls having asbestos will have to be removed. Mr. Bain said if an area is not disturbed in the renovation, will asbestos have to be removed. Mr. Reaser said to obtain the building permit in any disturbed areas, asbestos must be removed first. Mr. Reaser said he did not think that this project would cost as much as Rose Hill, for example, because there is no asbestos in the plaster. To give an example, the asbestos removal in floor tile in the renovated areas of the hallway and entrance at Yancey was about $60,000. Mr. Reaser said the piping in reachable places at Albemarle High has already been removed. He did not think it would exceed $200,000 to remove asbestos from all of Albemarle High School. Mr. Bain said Albemarle High School has been there a long time and will be usable for a long time if these renovations are made. In his opinion, this project is critical to provide another 25 years of possible service in an area where the number of students is increasing. Mr. Bowie said if the school is to remain open, some renovation has to be done. Mrs. Humphris said the school is also heavily used by the community. With upgrading of the auditorium, it could be used even more. She said she does not think the Board really has a choice but to make these renovations. She also feels that it is impossible to pick and choose among the renovation items. Mr. Bowie suggested that the first $100,000 for planning and engineering, which will determine the design of the renovations and how much asbestos has to be removed, be appropriated at this time. That will allow the project to proceed, while more information is obtained on exactly what renovations will have to be made. Mr. Bowerman said the project is specifically outlined in the consultant's report regarding parking improvements, elevators, etc. Mr. Bowie said his suggestion would give six months for planning to be done and six months for the Board to ask questions and consider the entire project. The consensus of the Board was to leave the $100,000 currently shown for this appropriation. Mr. Bowie said an amount is included for the new urban area elementary school with no location designated. If the school is going to be built, the location has to be determined soon. Mr. Tucker suggested that staff make an initial review of the sites which have been presented. He said it would be helpful if the Board comes to a consensus on exactly which sites should be considered by staff. At that point the normal review process by way of the Planning Commission would be followed, and then would come the final decision by the Board. Mr. Bain asked how soon this entire review could be done and the decision come back to the Board. Mr. Tucker said guidance from the Board at this point is encouraged in order to meet the timing of this project. Mr. Bain said the Board needs to decide whether to use the Whitewood Road site, because if it is not chosen, that means site acquisition costs. Mr. Bowerman said he is not willing to fund the urban school at the Whitewood Road location. Mr. Bowie said he agreed. Mrs. Humphris said she is not willing either. Mr. Way said he is willing to fund the school at the Whitewood Road location. Mr. Bain said he wants the Whitewood Road site for greenspace, which he feels is a critical need. However, he is not ruling Whitewood Road out today. Mr. Bowerman said that site is designated as a park site in the Compre- hensive Plan. He said he does not know how the Planning Commission could recommend that site for a school without changing the Comprehensive Plan. To him, it is not a question of a school or a park; it is a question of both. Both are needed, and both are needed in the urban area. The enrollment January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 71 capacity Obviously dictates the need for a school, and everyone agrees that one will have to be built. There are alternative sites that can be consid- ered. The Whitewood Road area is the most urbanized area in the County of Albemarle. There are still greenspaces which are privately owned and which will be developed. There will be no trees or greenspace left in the entire area except for the Whitewood Road space. He said that is a necessary amenity for a densely populated urban area. Building a school and adding ball fields eliminates that amenity. He said that site is irreplaceable and must be maintained as a park. There is a logical site at Albemarle High School, although it will have site costs associated with it. Any site chosen will have site development costs. The School Board already owns both sites. Mr. Bowerman added that the School Board should not end up owning both sites after this decision is made. However, the new school could be located at the existing educational complex at Albemarle High School, thus providing many economies of scale. There would be shared ball fields, facilities, buses, etc. He said that location makes sense to him, and that is his position. Mr. Way said he does not think all the trees have to be cut down in order to have a school at Whitewood Road. He said the School Board could transfer that property to the Board of Supervisors to use as a park. Also, a school offers tremendous recreational facilities for a community, and more people will use the gymnasium of a school than will use jogging trails. Lastly, Mr. Way said he feels the land at Albemarle High School can be developed as passive recreation area much easier than the Whitewood Road site. He said there can be a passive recreation area at Albemarle High, some green space at Whitewood Road, and additional recreation facilities through the school amenities. Mr. Bowerman responded that the school site and ball fields will use up the majority of the acreage. A road and a detention basin would have to be built there. Mr. Bowerman said that takes the entire site, and no greenspace will be left. He said there is no greenspace in the area which people can reach on foot. He said it is important to have this space available, whether people walk or jog in it or not. It is irreplaceable. He said there are school facilities less than one-half mile away. If the park facility is moved to Albemarle High School, it will not be located where the people are. Mr. Bain said he objects to building the school behind Albemarle High School because the land lies in the watershed. Mr. Way said he cannot support a school behind Albemarle. Mr. Perkins said protecting the watershed is a concern of his as well. However, he said there are additional recreational fields being proposed for that area. If recreational fields can go in the watershed, then a school could be considered. He would rather see a school there than ball fields, because that would be more of a necessity and a reason for taking an unorthodox action. Mr. Perkins said he feels that redistricting should be considered first. He said students may have to be moved around every year in order to fit the school capacities, rather than build new schools. He said he would support Mr. Bowerman's position on this, although he appreciates Mr. Way's comments. Mr. Perkins said 50 years from now some- body will appreciate that the Whitewood Road site was not developed and was kept as greenspace. Mrs. Humphris said she would like to think that the Albemarle High School site is viable, but she cannot agree that it is for many reasons. She said there are slope problems, it lies in the watershed, and there would have to be a road built across an earthen dam to access it. She thinks that some of the other sites in the Rio Road area can be looked at as possibilities. She said this investment would be for the quality of life for the people in this community over the years. She said a city or county is known by its parks, not by its paved areas. It is the Board's responsibility to have vision, even if it means spending money now to provide for the future. The Whitewood Road site should be kept as greenspace, but consideration should be given to some site other than Albemarle because of the difficulties associated with that site. Mr. Perkins suggested that the decision first be made regarding the Whitewood Road site as a viable possibility before considering another site. He said if Whitewood Road is ruled out, then another site has to be found. Albemarle High may be considered, but it is not the only possibility. January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) 72 Motion was then offered by Mr. Way that the Whitewood Road site be considered by staff as a site for the new urban area elementary school. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion was defeated by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain and Mr. Way. NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Albemarle High School site be examined by staff, in addition to sites on the east and west of Route 29 North on Rio Road as alternative sites for the new urban area elemen- tary school. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: Mr. Bain. Mr. Bowie asked when the results would come back to the Board. Mr. Cilimberg said a final site could be discussed by the Planning Commission as soon as staff completed a study of other sites. Mr. Bowie said the Board just decided to review three specific sites, and the report showing pros and cons on these sites should come back to the Board before the Planning Commission makes any review. Mr. Agnor said the next step in the CIP process is to discuss revenues next week. Agenda Item No. 20. Executive Session: Personnel. Mr. Bowie said there is a need for an executive session for the purpose of discussing specific, identifiable personnel. At 4:27 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain to adjourn into Executive Session in accordance with Virginia Code Section 2.1-344.A.1. to discuss identifiable personnel. Mr. St. John said he also needed to discuss potential legal litigation regarding Great Eastern Management Company against the County of Albemarle. Mr. Bain then added to his motion Virginia Code Section 2.1-344.A.7., and Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 5:04 P.M. Mr. Bain immediately made a motion which was seconded by Mrs. Humphris certifying the Executive Session as follows. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. 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 January 10, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) 73 executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. VOTE: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. [For each nay vote, the substance of the departure from the require- ments of the Act should be described.] ABSENT DURING VOTE: None. ABSENT DURING MEETING: None. Agenda Item No. 21. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. There were no members of the public present to speak. Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn to January 17, 1990, at 8:00 A.M. At 5:05 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Way to adjourn to January 17, 1990, at 8:00 A.M., for a meeting with the School Board. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. CHAIRMAN