Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-02-14February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) 145 A-regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 14, 1990, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arrived 9:06 a.m.), Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived 9:08 a.m.), Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. 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 9:07 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. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve Item 4.3 on the Consent Agenda and to accept the other items 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. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for January 30, 1990, received as information. Item 4.2. Letter dated February 6, 1990, from Mr. D. E. Ogle, Assistant Highway District Engineer, re: notification of public hearing to consider the proposed location and design of the Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road/Stagecoach Road) project, received as information. Item 4.3. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Common- wealth's Attorney, Sheriff's Office and the Regional Jail to the State Compen- sation Board for the month of January, 1990, approved as presented by the above recorded vote. Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: April 26, May 3(N), June 7(A), June 14, July 5(A), July 19, August 2, September 6(A), September 6(N), Octo- ber 18(N) and December 6(A), 1989. Mr. Perkins read the minutes of September 6(N), 1989 (Pages 13, Item 10 - End), and found them to be satisfactory. Mr. Way read the minutes of April 26(A), June 7(A), June 14 (pages 21- Item 20 Page 40) and August 2, 1989, and found them all to be satisfactory. Mr. Bowie read the minutes of May 3(A), 1989, and found them to be satisfactory. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) 146 Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Request to abandon portion of Route 629. (Mr. Bain said he would abstain from discussion on this matter and left the room at 9:11 a.m.) Mr. St. John said at the January 10 meeting, this item was deferred to provide the applicant an opportunity to research Virginia Department of Transportation records to see if there was any information to prove the abandonment of that strip of road between the end of state maintenance and the Shenandoah National Park boundary. He had received a letter from Mr. Da~ Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, stating that the Highway Department had found no additional information. Mr. St. John said the matter stands before the Board in the same posture it was in at previous meetings. Research of minutes of the Board of Supervisors indicate no record of abandonment of that road. Mr. Fred Payne, attorney for the applicant, Mr. Edward Ripper, said he does not agree with Mro St. John's characterization of the report from the Highway Department. He disagrees with the position that this is a public road and is prepared to go to court to have the issue resolved. As suggested by Mr. Roosevelt, the applicant is open to negotiations to settle the matter. The applicant is also open to any suggestions from Board members. Mr. Bowie asked if the gate is still in place. Mr. Payne replied yes. Mr. Bowie said when the request to abandon a portion of Route 629 was first presented, no public hearing was set. Instead the Board instructed the County Attorney to take the necessary steps to have the gate removed. Since there was a possibility that there had been an abandonment of this portion of road, the Board deferred taking action to allow research for additional infor- mation. A report has been received from the Highway Department that it has nothing in its records to indicate this abandonment. The Board now has two options, i.e., set a public hearing to abandon a portion of Route 629, or instruct the County Attorney to proceed with filing suit to remove the gate placed by Mr. Ripper across Route 629. Mrs. Humphris said a memorandum dated November 8, 1989, from Mr. Cilimberg, to Mr. Agnor states: "Unless Mr. Ripper can present evidence that public use of any portion of the roadway has been abandoned, staff opinion is that the existing gate and trespass signs may be illegally placed." That still seems to be the opinion of staff. Mrs. Humphris then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to authorize the County Attorney to file suit to remove the gate placed by Mr. Ripper across Route 629. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Bain. Mr. St. John said it would be clearer for the records if the Board took action to dispose of this matter by denying the request to set a public hearing to abandon a portion of Route 629. The action just taken by the Board was to reaffirm a previous action which directed him to file suit against Mr. Ripper. He thinks the Board should now deny the request for a public hearing. Mr. Perkins said this request has been discussed considerably in the past couple of months and maybe there is a need for a public hearing to hear all of the information collectively. Mr. Payne has indicated that there may be more information that could be provided by either Shenandoah National Park or the Highway Department. Mr. St. John said that has all been done. Representa- tives of the Park and the Highway Department have stated their positions in previous meetings. Mr. Payne has stated that he does not agree with the County Attorney, but he did not choose to say on what evidence he thinks this road has been abandoned, nor did he tell the Board he had new information. Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Way, to deny the request to set a public hearing to abandon a portion of Route 629. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Bain (Mr. Bain returned to the meeting at 9:20 A.M. Mr. St. John left the meeting at 9:20 A.M.) 147 Agenda Item No. 6b. Work Session: Six Year Secondary Road Plan. Mr. Cilimberg presented the following memorandum dated February 8, 1990: "Attached please find the County's priority list for secondary road improvements as recommended by the Albemarle County Planning Commis- sion. The following summarizes the recommendations reflected by the priority list: All projects in the current Six Year Road plan should be carried forward to this proposed Plan; e Based on the additional secondary road funds available for 1994-95 and 1995-96 ($5,152,000), the following would be included in the proposed Six Year Plan: Improvement of Route 649 (Airport Road) improve to four lanes; Replacement of railroad bridge on Route 649 (Proffit Road) at Proffit; Replacement of bridge over the North Fork Rivanna River on Route 743 at Advance Mills; Replacement of railroad bridge on Route 677. With the assumption of continued availability of revenue sharing funds, and the County's continued use of those funds (up to $1,O00,O00/year) the following projects would also be included in the proposed Six Year Plan: - Additional funding for the entire length of Route 601 (Old Ivy Road); - Improvements to Route 656 (Georgetown Road); - Improvements to Route 691 (Jarman's Gap Road) in the community of Crozet. Staff recommendation to the Commission was to prioritize improvements to Old Ivy, Georgetown and Jarman's Gap Road higher than the three bridge improvement projects. The recommendations for the unpaved road projects are based on a criteria-based rating system which reflects the Board's stated policy to prioritize paving projects based on location within designated growth areas, traffic count, and, the availability of right-of-way. Under this recommendation the following roads would be added to the Six Year Plan: Route 711 Route 643 Route 637 Action taken by the Board of Supervisors in 1988 indicated that projects with available right-of-way as of November, 1988 should be included in the plan. Following that action, the following projects would be included in this year's Secondary Road Plan: - Route 637 Route 759 Route 688 (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 9:31 a.m.) Routes 711, 643 and 606 would be prioritized as the three lowest priority unpaved road February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) projects. It was the Commission's decision to indicate the priority of the unpaved road projects based on the Board's newly adopted policy, which better reflects project needs. One additional note concerning unpaved road projects is that these projects are now included in the priority list. VDOT is requiring that unpaved road projects be prioritized with all other road pro- jects. The minimum amount of required funding will still be allocated to the unpaved road projects as they are prioritized on this list. Ail unpaved road projects in the current financial plan will be carried forward to this year's financial plan. This change does not alter the recommendation as noted on the previous priority list. The Hatton Ferry, Plant-Mix, and County-wide projects (signs, pipes, engineering, etc.) are now prioritized at the top of the list. Ail three projects receive yearly funding through the entire length of the Plan. Therefore, their ranking should ensure that annual funding. Funding for plant mix projects is being increased from $125,000 per year to $200,000 per year for the full six years of the Plan. VDOT has recommended this change. The additional funding better reflects the true cost of plant mix projects over the past two years. Following is a letter from Dan Roosevelt, VDOT Resident Engineer, which outlines the Department's comments and recommendations concern- ing the Six Year Secondary Road Plan." 148 The following letter dated September 26, 1989, was received from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer: "The Code of Virginia requires that the Department update the secon- dary road improvement plan for each county at least once every two years. The current plan was adopted beginning with the 88-89 fiscal year. We must, therefore, update this plan prior to the 90-91 fiscal year. Because the budgets for the next fiscal year come from the first year of the six year plan, approval of the six year plan prior to budget approval is necessary. I, therefore, request early consid- eration of the six year plan revision and approval of this plan by the County Board of Supervisors by December of this year if possible. Listed below are the funds anticipated to be available during the next six fiscal years for road improvements in Albemarle County. This listing is divided between regular funds and those funds which must be used for the upgrading of unpaved roads. YEAR REGULAR FUNDS UNPAVED ROAD FUNDS TOTAL 1990-91 $2,598,415 $793,006 $3,391,421 1991-92 $2,565,838 $780,697 $3,346,535 1992-93 $2,529,622 $769,731 $3,299,353 1993-94 $2,514,420 $765,287 $3,279,707 1994-95 $2,640,316 $802,821 $3,443,137 1995-96 $2,774,035 $842,547 $3,616,582 To assist you in the development of the updated six year plan you will find five attachments. Basic information about each attachment is as follows. Attachment #1 is the Department's current financial plan updated through August 1989. This financial plan uses actual allocations for the first two years of the plan and the anticipated allocations for fiscal years 90-91 through 93-94 as listed above. The estimates of cost and proposed advertisement dates are correct as of August 1989. Attachment #2 is a list of all the paved roads in the County listed in traffic count order. Most of these traffic counts were taken in 1986. Those taken since 1986 are indicated in the right hand column by the year of the count. ~ February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) 149 Attachment #3 is a list of unpaved roads in order by traffic count. Ail unpaved road sections were counted in 1988. Attachment #4 is a list of unpaved roads along which right of way was dedicated prior to November 1, 1988. This listing indicates the estimated cost for each section. Action taken by the Board of Super- visors in 1988 indicated these routes would be included in the upcom- ing revision of the six year plan. Attachment #5 is the bridge replacement and rehabilitation selection list for secondary bridges in the Charlottesville Residency. This list includes bridges for both Albemarle and Greene Counties. Those bridges with a sufficiency rating of less than 20 should be included in the County's updated six year plan. This attachment is in two sections for Federal Aid and non-Federal Aid routes. You will note from reviewing the financial plan (Attachment #1) that $1,906,984 of estimated cost for regular projects carries over beyond 1993-94. Some $586,000 of estimated cost for unpaved road improve- ments also carries over beyond the 1993-94 fiscal year. There are available for the additional two years of this plan the following funds: REGULAR $5,414,351 UNPAVED ROADS 1~645~368 TOTAL $7,059,719 When the carry-over funds are subtracted from the additional funds available, the funding left to be distributed is as follows: REGULAR $4,093,367 UNPAVED ROADS 1,059~368 TOTAL $5,152,735 The County alYeady has a priority list of projects which amounts to more than fifty items. Only about thirty of these items have been financed in the Department's financial plan. I am sure the County will wish to consider this current priority list for funding with the additional funds available. In addition to the items on the County's current priority iist, I request that you consider the following: Additional funding for operation of the Hatton Ferry will be needed. $10,000 in each additional fiscal year should be sufficient. County wide items for installation of entrance pipes, new signs, seeding and fertilizing of completed projects and rural additions will take approximately $180,000 each additional year. In the current, plan $125,000 each year has been designated for plant mix applications on surface treated roads. Over the past two years, this figure has more closely approached $200,000 each year. I recommend that the revised plan indicate $200,000 each year for not only the two additional years, but for the first four years of the revised plan. I recommend that all of the unpaved roads having right of way dedication prior to November I, 1988, be included in the new plan. Some of these may show financing beyond the sixth year of the plan. I recommend that these projects be added to the end of the list of unpaved roads in the current plan and that their priority be based upon traffic count. Listed below are the six bridges shoWn in the bridge replacement and rehabilitation list as having a sufficiency rating at leSs than 20. The bridges on Routes 620, 671 and 660 are already in the plan. Cost estimates to reconstruct these six additional bridges are shown. I recommend that all six be added to the plan. Their priority should be based upon their sufficiency rating. February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) ROUTE CROSSING COST 743 North Fork Rivanna River $ 950,000 677 CSX Railroad $ 600,000 667 Piney Creek $ 250,000 627 Ballingers Creek $ 300,000 600 Mechunk Creek $ 500,000 649 Southern Railroad $ 550~000 TOTAL $3,150,000 I am by copy of this letter advising the Board of Supervisors members through their Clerk of my request for an updated six year plan. I recommend an early review and meeting concerning the process to revise the plan." Mr. Cilimberg said it was anticipated that the County would be able to fund through project priority #33 within this Six Year Plan. There still would be a balance remaining for funding of the railroad bridge on Route 677 and replacement of the bridge on Route 743. Everything beyond priority #33, the staff has not identified available funding, including revenue sharing funds, for the next six years for construction. Included on the priority list are projectsthe County would fully fund. Examples are project #20 - Peyton Drive and project #23 - Berkmar Drive. The staff Wanted to have an all inclusive comprehensive list of road project priorities. Mr. Bowerman asked if funds have been allocated for Peyton Drive and Berkmar Drive. Mr. Cilimberg replied yes, funds were allocated in the prior CIP. Mr. Bowie commented that the Board made considerable efforts to get people to dedicate rights-of-way for gravel road improvements, yet a number of roads which have been on the list for years are not included for funding. Mr. Way asked if all of the unpaved roads on the list are in the urban area. Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, replied no. Mr. Cilimberg said by moving Routes 711, 643 and 606 to the bottom of the priority list, it could provide funding for Routes 708 and 679 within six years. Mr. Benish said this list includes projects that show a need, although some of the projects do not have right-of-way or they would otherwise be prioritized high. Mr. Roosevelt said he agrees with the priority list recommended by the Planning Commission, with the exception of the gravel roads. He believes that morally a promise was made in 1988 that where right~of-way had been dedicated prior to November, 1988, the road would be put into the next Six Year Plan and would be the next route added to the Plan. He feels that these people worked hard to get the right-of-way prior to the first of November, 1988, with the idea that their roads would be the next priorities on the list, after the projects that are already in the plan. He recommends that Routes 711, 643 and 606 be dropped to the bOttom of the plan, behind the eight routes where right-of-way is available. He also recommends that the Board prioritize the routes with right-of-way by traffic count, thus putting the routes with the highest traffic counts first. Mr. Bowerman asked the rationale for putting the replacement of the bridge at Advance Mills before the replacement of the bridge at Old Ballard Road. Mr. Roosevelt said the bridge projects are basely solely on a suffici- ency rating. Although the bridge on Old Ballard Road has a lower sufficiency rating, it had some major maintenance work done to it by the railroad. The bridge on Route 677 is the responsibility of the railroad. This bridge is in the process of being rerated and he has been told that the sufficiency rating will rise to make it a higher sufficiency rating than the bridge at Advance Mills. Mr. Bowerman asked the counts on Routes 743 and 677. Mr. Roosevelt responded that the count on Route 677 is 472 and the count on Route 743 is 256. Mr. Roosevelt said the bridge on 649 has a count of 971. The bridge on February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) 15 Route 649 is also the responsibility of the railroad. For the Board's informa- tion, the Department of Transportation has an agreement with railroads operat- ing in Virginia, where they currently maintain the bridges, that the Department of Transportation can replace those bridges at any time and the railroad will participate up to ten percent of the cost of that replacement, but once the bridge is replaced it changes to the responsibility of the Department of Transportation. The railroad has no plans to upgrade any of the bridges. Mr. Bowie asked if projects #60 (Route 712) and #61 (Route 760) had dedicated right-of-way. Mr. Roosevelt replied no, in 1988 those projects were put in the plan because they are in the growth areas. At that time, all of the roads that had right-of-way available were listed in the plan and since there were some monies left over in the six years, the Board went to the list of routes in the growth area. Mr. Bowie asked if the roads will be paved if the right-of-way is not dedicated. Mr. Roosevelt said ifthe Department cannot get the right-of-way through donation, he will ask the Board for advice as to how it wants to proceed. Mr. Perkins said he agrees with Mr. Roosevelt in that the roads with dedicated right-of-way should have the highest priority and that the Board has a moral obligation to those people. Mrs. Humphris asked about the plans for major reconstruction of George- town Road (project #36). Mr. Roosevelt said, with a traffic count of 9000 vtpd, a four lane roadway is planned. Mrs. Humphris said since a lot of the traffic on Georgetown Road is avoiding Route 29 North, if there is some relief for Route 29 traffic in the future, then it would not be necessary to build a four-lane roadway through a residential neighborhoOd. Mr. Roosevelt said it is questionable that improvements on Route 29 will substantially reduce the traffic count on Georgetown Road. There is some traffic that uses Georgetown Road in order to get around Route 29 traffic, but it has been his experience that when Route 29 is congested, Georgetown Road is also congested. Even after improvements on Route 29, he still expects Georgetown to be a major traffic artery of the secondary system. If this project is delayed or not constructed until 1996, there should be some idea by that time as to what effect improvements on Route 29 have on Georgetown Road and other secondary roads in the area. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 9:53 a.mo) Mrs. Humphris said she has concerns about encouraging Georgetown as a major traffic road in an entirely residential neighborhood where the homes are built close to the road, and which has a popular pedestrian path. She does not understand why the Board would not want try to preserve the neighborhood by making it difficult for people to use the road. Mr. Bowie said that issue has been discussed at length in the past. The road has already become a major thoroughfare, it is not safe and some improvements must be made. Mrs. Humphris said when a road is widened it immediately fills with automobiles. She cannot understand the logic of inviting more traffic to come into a residential neighborhood. She does not feel it is fair to the people who live there. It reduces the quality of life and she thinks the Board should encourage traffic to go elsewhere even if it is on Route 29. Mr. Bowerman said the traffic is also going onto Bennington Road. He agrees that improvements do bring about additional traffic, but the traffic wants to be there and people are using residential streets other than Georgetown, in preference to using Georgetown because the Georgetown/Barracks Road intersection is so bad. Mr. Bain said when the Board previously discussed this project, it did not discuss the specifics of the improvements. The Board did discuss improve- ments at the intersection and wanted to wait to see what other improvements VDoT thought might be helpful. There is no funding in the next six years for the project, but the Board will have to look at all of the improvements on Route 29 before making a decision about Georgetown. He thinks the project should remain as in the plan without making an specific recommendation. Mrs. Humphris said she will continue to call the Board's attention to the project° Mr. Benish said it was a mistake that funding for the Georgetown Road project was omitted. Included in this six year plan should be funding for the project. Mr. Roosevelt said he attempted to forecast funding assuming maximum revenue sharing of $1,000,000, a year over each of the six years. Based on February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) 152 that assumption, there would be some preliminary engineering money for George- town Road in 1994-95, money for acqhisition of right-of-way and part of the construction in 1995-96, and the remainder of the construction money would be in 1996-97. He has tentatively set an advertis~nent date of July 1996 for the Georgetown Road project. That date is based strictly on financing. Mr. Agnor asked if there are any other projects in the proposed plan that need funding changes. Mr. Roosevelt said he~ ~ thinks there will be funding available for project #37 (Route 69t). He thinks there may be some prelimi- nary engineering money in 1994-95, money for acquisition of right-of-way in 1995-96 and construction funds in 1996-97 or 1997-98. Project #36 (Route 601) is also in the same situation. There is no funding available in the next six years for any major road project between priority #37 and project #58 which is the beginning of the unpaved road projects. Mr. Bowie commented that there are several people present who would like to have an opportunity to speak. Mr. Perkins said it was his understanding that the Board had decided to eliminate project #34 (Avon Street Connector) because it was felt there was no need for it. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board has removed the balance of funding for the project from the CIP~ The project had a prior allocation of $77,000 which is shown. Mr. Roosevelt commented that this project is not in the State's financial plan at all because it does not qualify for secondary road funds. Mr. Perkins said rather than listing the unpaved roads beginning at #58, he feels they should be in a separate list beginning with #1. (Mr. St. John returned at 10:02 a.m.) Mr. Benish said the Highway Department has requested all projects be prioritized in one list and ranked relative to all other projects in the plan. The Department will not accept unpaved road projects as a separate list of projects. Mr. Way said that is for the benefit of the Highway Department, but for the benefit of the Board and the people, there should be a separate list of unpaved road projects. The consensus of the Board was to have a separate list of unpaved road projects. Regarding project #71 (Route 667), Mr. Perkins said he had people contact him stating that right-of-way for that road was obtained in July, 1977, and they are concerned about how long it takes to get a road paved. If the roads with higher traffic counts are being put ahead of roads with right-of-way available, that cannot continue. He feels that when people dedicate right-of- way, the Board has a moral obligation to try to get the road paved as soon as funds are available. Mr. Roosevelt said right-of-way was not available in July, 1977. The right-of-way became available sometime between March and November, 1988. Mr. Perkins said some unpaved gravel roads are so bad that vehicles cannot pass each other and there are school buses using these roads. It is at the point where one vehicle has to back up to allow another to get through. He thinks the Board needs to look at some of these roads and at least bring them up to a standard where the road is passable. Mr. Bain said school buses are also traveling on roads that are not public roads and which have not been maintained. He thinks that is a situation the staff should investigate to find out how many of those roads are being used. Mr. Bowie said he agrees with Mr. Bain. Mr. Bain asked about the increase in funds for the last two years of this six year plan. Mr. Roosevelt said he does not have an answer. The alloca- tions come to him from the Secondary Roads Division, which ultimately comes from the Department of Budget, an agency separate from the Department of Transportation. That department's sole job is to predict tax revenues from different state sources. Someone has assumed that in 1994 revenues from the various tax sources are going to rise. Allocations for all systems show the same rise in fiscal year 1994-95. Mr. Bain asked the percentage of funds allocated to unpaved roads. Mr. Roosevelt said the amount varies for each county based on the number of miles of gravel roads. The amount of funds is a percentage of the total funds available for construction. Because 30 to 40 percent of the roads in Albe- marle County are gravel, the County gets a large percentage of gravel road February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) funds. Recent experience shows that the money the County actually receives each year has slightly exceeded the funds shown in the plan. Mr. Bain asked if there is any other source of funds to cover railroad crossings. Mr. Roosevelt replied no. If the Board wants to improve railroad crossings, then it must use secondary funds. The Department has federal funds it can draw on to improve railroad crossings, but they have been figured in the overall state-wide total funds available for secondary improvements. He will recommend that when improvements are done where railroads exist, that railroad crossing upgrades be included in the projects. Mrs. Lynn Tillack, a resident of Route 682, asked what the plans are for the road. Mr. Cilimberg said Route 682 is the highest priority of the unpaved roads, although it is not designated as having obtained right-of-way. Mrs. Tillack said she has been working with Mr. Roosevelt for thirteen years to get right-of-way obtained on the road. When she started this project the road was staked and right-of-way and deeds registered for much of the road. The last staking of the road takes a completely different route. The road has had 40 feet of right-of-way designated for several years and much of it had 50 feet dedicated. If the Board is considering that as a major criteria, then it must also look at the fact that the Highway Department has been changing its "game plan" over these long periods of time. Safety is a paramount issue to be considered for this road. She urges the Board to take these comments into consideration. Mr. Bowie asked the staff to provide a report at the public hearing concerning the status of right-of-way and safety on Route 682. Regarding Route 679, Mr. Jack Taggert said it was his understanding from the conversation that this is the lowest priority project of the unpaved roads in the plan. The residents of Route 679 submitted plans and dedicated right- of-way in August, 1988. His concern is how the road is prioritized. The road is almost unpassable, it is only nine-tenths of a mile long and it deadends at Grassmere Farm, which is a private road from that point. Since January, 1989, there have been four accidents on the road and prior to that there were ten accidents. The drainage improvements which were done earlier on are now inoperative because to maintain the road, the ditches have been filled. Last night he appeared before the Planning Commission at which time a new subdivi- sion request was received, and the traffic from that subdivision would feed onto Route 679. When Grassmere Farm was approved, its lot size was limited because the Highway Department stated that the road could not handle any more traffic than what Grassmere would provide. Two members of the Planning Commission voted against the subdivision because they felt the road was unsafe. The residents of Route 679 ask the Board to consider carefully how the road is prioritized and to put the road near the top of the list. He also thinks it would be inappropriate to construct the road for a 40 mph speed considering its length. Approximately ten residents who live on the road stood to show their support. Mr. Bowerman said there are other projects on the list he would like to discuss. Mr. Bain said he also has some more questions. Mr. Bowie suggested the Board schedule a separate work session if it needs to discuss the plan further. Mr. Roosevelt said this plan needs action by the Board and should be sent into the Department of Transportation by the first of March. He will be available for a work session on the plan. He suggested that the Board set the public hearing for March 7. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to set a public hearing for March 7, 1990, on the 1990/91-1995/96 Six Year Secondary Road Plan. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to schedule a work session on the 1990/91-1995/96 Six Year Secondary Road Plan on February 21, at 3:30 P.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: Revisions to VDoT Subdivision Street Requirements. Mr. Cilimberg presented the following memorandum dated February 7, 1990: "During its meeting of January 10, 1990, the Board bf Supervisors requested that staff recommend as to appropriate method to appeal and have reconsidered new VDoT design requirements. As was stated in the original staff report, a local development interest group and various County staff met and commented on VDoT proposals for one and one-half years during formulation of the manual. It is not anticipated that, given more than two years effort including opportunities for input from localities, VDoT would be receptive to substantial changes to the new manual which was adopted in October, 1989. In a brief conversation with Gerald Fisher, Secondary Roads Engineer, he indicated that the new regulations have been designed to meet AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official) standards. He felt strongly that changes in the manual will be unlikely for some time (the last manual remained unchanged for about ten years). His recommendation would be to give the standards a chance through application over some period of time before recommend- ing changes. Should the Board choose to pursue immediate substantive change to the new Standards, the following options are offered: The County Engineer review the revised standards consistency with AASHTO policy guidelines and report to the Board as to appropri- ateness to the context of Albemarle County; The Board elicite,, the support of VACO (VDoT standards do not apply within towns with a population of 3,500 or more or indepen- dent cities). Other counties could be contacted directly regard- ing implications on the new standards; VACO commented on the new manual as shown in Attachment A; and o It would seem (for varying interests) that development interests, citizen advocacy groups, and subdivision residents could be allied to object. OTHER STEPS As important as specific Standards for design, are administrative policies, interpretations, definitions and opportunities for varia- tion. These aspects have not been established under the new manual and those opportunities appear open. VDoT will conduct an informa- tional seminar on February 12, 1990, which will be attended by staff. A subsequent report will be provided to the Board. It may also be worthwhile to review the application of the new standards over the next year to see what substantive effect the revised manual has locally before pursuing changes. SUMMARY It appears ths VDoT has followed appropriate procedure in development and adoption of its Subdivision Street Requirements manual. It is not anticipated that VDoT would be receptive to wholesale change such as design speed or other Standards. However, issues of administrative policies, interpretations, definitions, and opportunities for varia- tion have not clearly been established and offer opportunity of mutual resolution. A review of the applied standards after one year would be desirable to doct~nent effect and desired changes." February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) 15 The following memorandum dated February 14, 1990, was received from Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning: "SUMMARY Generally, Virginia Department of Transportation design speeds have increased which, in staff opinion, will result in increased travel speed regardless of posted speed limit. This may also result in increased demand for County police traffic monitoring within subdivi- sions. Due to dramatic increase in design requirements for smaller developments compared with County subdivision regulation, a substan- tial increase in private road development is likely. While design speed and associated standards have received emphasis to date, other design and policy changes should receive consideration and will be subject of an additional future memorandum. Most other changes are viewed as positive measures by staff. At the Board of Supervisors' meeting of January 10, 1990, the Planning staff presented an initial report on Virginia Department of Transpor- tation's new Subdivision Street Requirements manual which becomes mandatory as to road plans submitted to Virginia Department of Trans- portation after March 31, 1990. The. purpose of this memorandum is to recap the initial report and to provide additional comment in regard to design speed. The initial report focused on the primary issue of concern to local development interests and County staff as identified in group meetings with Virginia Department of Transportation. The primary concern is increased design speed requirements for subdivision roads, on which the Board concurred with staff, would result in: Comfortable (actual) driving speed within residential develop- ments above the desired and safe driving speed which is viewed as contrary to public safety; Increase development costs while not serving the public interest as outlined in #1 above; o Reduced subdivision design flexibility and dwelling unit yield in developments where public roads are required and thereby reduced residential holding capacities in designated growth areas con- trary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan; Increased demand for private road usage while private roads are intended as the exception to public roads; and Increased ability to justify private road usage due to environ- mental concerns within the rural areas of the County. The most serious concern expressed by the Board was in terms of increased driving speed within residential developments. VDoT has apparently sought to design roadways for driving speeds in excess of posted speed to protect against issues of liability. Staff maintains that as a practical matter, actual driving speed is more related to physical design than to vehicle operator compliancef This position is reflected in Section 4.12.1 of the Zoning Ordinance: 'It is intended that the purposes of this ordinance be served through physical design measures as opposed to directional or policing measures such as signage, one-way circulation, and other such devices which rely on vehicle operator compliance for effectiveness.' Simply stated, if subdivision roads are designed to accommodate travel speeds of 30, 40 and 50 miles per hour, the actual speeds will approach those limits regardless of posted speed limits. February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) ADDITIONAL COMMENT: DESIGN SPEED As requested in the Board of Supervisors' January meeting, staff has prepared comparative tables of the old/new design requirements related to design speed. The first table compares standards for local roads such as Carrsbrook Drive and Old Brook Road, and the other table compares standards for cul-de-sac, loop, and other tertiary streets of fixed traffic generation. Unless the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation changes its administrative policy related to terrain classifi- cation, most new roads in Albemarle County would be reviewed under the 'rolling' terrain standards. Local (through) Roads: For the lowest projected traffic (251 to 400 vehicle trips per day) design speed would be reduced from 35 to 30 miles per hour. For all other traffic categories, design speeds increase from 35 to 40 miles per hour. Tertiary (fixed traffic) Roads: Design speed would double for the lowest generation category but would be reduced for the higher range. Most rural PRIVATE ROADS would be compared to the 250 vehicle trips per day and less category. Since standards for that category are to be doubled, more private roads will be justified based on volume of grading. Note that vertical/ horizontal curvature increase from 80 'to 260 feet. Maximum Percent of Grade: Maximum grade has been increased and would be more liberal in certain cases. However, it should be noted that the old standards allowed a 50 percent increase in grade for a distance of up to 300 feet for fixed generation roadways. Therefore, in the case of the varied topography of Albemarle County, the new grade standards may prove more restrictive. Mr~ Way said one of the concerns has been the new 50 mph speed limit for subdivisions, but according to Mr. Fisher the 50 mph speed limit would only apply if there was a through street in the subdivision, and for those streets that are cul-de-saced the speed limit would be 30 to 35 mph. Mr. Bowie said also according to Mr. Fisher, the Board has been reading the wrong charts. The applicable chart is Tertiary Subdivision Streets. Mr. Bain said he is willing to wait for a year to see what happens when the new standards are applied, but he is not willing to grant more private roads, nor is he willing to change the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Humphris said she had an opportunity to speak to Mr. Fisher and she received the same comments as Mr. Way and Mr. Bowie. She attended a Virginia Association of Counties workshop on roads at which Mr. Fisher was the modera- tor. No one else who attended the workshop was familiar with the new street requirements. She thinks that at this time Albemarle County might be fighting a "lone battle", and that the County should wait to see if other counties experience the same problems. Mr. Bowie said he agrees with Mr. Bain. He does not know if the new standards will actually affect the County. Mr. Fisher has offered to meet with the Board to explain the new standards. Mr. Bain said he does not think the Board has any alternative at the present other than to wait and observe and attempt to work within the classifications. Mr, Bowie suggested the staff monitor projects where the new Subdivision Street Requirements are applied and inform the Board if any problems arise. Mr. Roosevelt said the 50 mph design speed is for level terrain. As far as the Highway Department is concerned, there is no level terrain in Albemarle County, therefore, the Department will not be using the level terrain. The highest design speed the County will have is 40 mph. He has received guidance that for any closed-in subdivision, provided that none of the roads within that subdivision carry more than 1000 cars per day, the Department will use the Tertiary SubdiviSion Street requirements which have a design speed of 30 mph. For example, if there is a 100 lot subdivision which generates 1000 cars vtp'd, runs into several cul-de-sacs, all the roads, including the major road February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) into that subdivision, will be designed using the Tertiary Standards at 30 mph. He thinks that standard will cover the vast majority of subdivisions in Albemarle County. He also does not think the new standards will have a big affect in the County. There was no further discussion at this time. Agenda Item No. 6d. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Bain said on Route 637, from Ivy to Interstate-64, some material was put on the road and citizens have complained it has created more of a problem than the previous problem. The substance being used has created a sliding effect because it is so loose and he asked if there is a reason plant mix is not being used. Mr. Roosevelt said he is unfamiliar on what is being used and will look into it. Mr. Perkins asked for an update concerning rural additions. The next road on the list under rural addition is a road off of Route 250 West, by the Masonic Lodge, near the proposed Blue Ridge Shopping Center. Mr. Richard Moring, County Engineer, said the staff is having to research deeds and get an accurate location of the road and right-of-way. Mr. Roosevelt brought to the Board's attention Item 4.2 on the Consent Agenda. The Highway Department will hold a pre-hearing on March 7 and a public hearing on March 8 to consider the proposed location and design of the Route 631 South project. He asked that someone from County staff attend the public hearing on March 8 because he would be requesting a position in writing from the Board on the project at the March 14 meeting. Mr. Roosevelt introduced his new assistant, Mrs. Angela Tucker. The Highway Department staff recently reorganized and added a second resident engineer assistant position to the Charlottesville residency to be responsible for maintenance, site plan and subdivision programs. In the future Mr. Jeff Echols, his assistant for the past six years, will be responsible for the preliminary engineering and construction program of the Department. (At 10:41 a.m., the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened at 10:51 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 7. Request to accept Earlysville Forest Dry Hydrant System. Mr. Cilimberg presented the following memorandum dated January 4, 1990: "Historically, for larger residential developments remote from public water service, the County has required installation of a dry hydrant system for fire protection. In other areas, volunteer fire companies have installed and maintained hydrants in farm ponds and the like. These dry hydrant systems are of direct benefit to property owners in the area and to date, the County has not been involved in maintenance or ownership. A request has been submitted for the County to accept dedication of a dry hydrant system in Earlysville Forest PUD. As opposed to other systems of which I am aware, an electrical pump is involved. Robert Jenkins, Fire Prevention Officer, has stated that this pump should be operated at least on a monthly basis and should receive thorough examination including flow testing on an annual basis. The following comments are offered: While the hydrant system would be of benefit to other property owners in the general area, it was a specific requirement of the Earlysville Forest PUD and would not have been installed other- wise. Arguably, since the system would be employed to protect other properties, an inequity exists for Earlysville Forest residents, however, not every inequity can be addressed by February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) government. Certainly there are property owners who are served by the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company who do not make dona- tions to support that service. Acceptance, repair and maintenance, and replacement expenditures would be an expense to County taxpayers not served by this system and could likewise be viewed as an inequity. Such action could arguably lead to requests for acceptance by the County in any case where inequities exist (i.e. private roads, open space buffers required to protect adjoining properties, central water and sewer systems, etc). It is recommended that the Board not accept dedication of the Earlysville Forest hydrant system. Should the Earlysville Forest Homeowners' Association be unable to contract for maintenance services with private enterprise, perhaps a contractual arrange- ment with the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company could prove satisfactory." (See letter dated September 19, 1989, from Mr. George H. Gilliam, addressed to Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and letter dated November 27, 1989, from Mr. George R. St. John, addressed to Mr. George H. Gilliam. Both letters are on file in the Clerk's office.) Mr. St. John said there is no question of legal obligation on the part of the County to accept dedication of this fire hydrant. There is no document that requires the County to accept this dedication. When a subdivision plat is approved showing facilities as being dedicated to public use, approval of the plat and recordation constitutes dedication and acceptance by the Board. In all other cases where something is to be dedicated to the County it requires an offer of dedication and an affirmative acceptance by the Board, which is why procedurally this is before the Board. Included in the documents presented to the Board is a Bill of Sale from Craig Builders to the Earlysville Home- owners' Association for the fire hydrant. The County is not party to the document. The Bill of Sale states that "upon request from the County, Earlys- ville Homeowners' Association will dedicate this hydrant". The County has made no request, nor has it made it an obligation. The reason maintenance of this fire hydrant was not included in the Homeowners' Agreement is because the Agreement was drafted, approved and put to record when the first phase of Earlysvilie Forest was approved. The fire hydrant was not required until a later phase of the development and no new Agreement was filed. The fact that a facility is a requirement of the development and maintenance is not men- tioned does not automatically mean the duty falls back on the County, in his opinion. Mr. George Gilliam, representing the applicant, said in 1981 when Earlys- ville Forest was approved, it was done so in stages. There were nine sections approved over a period of nine years. When the first section was approved, a Homeowners' Agreement was drafted and approved that provided for the home- owners to maintain certain common areas. At that time, the question of a fire hydrant was never contemplated. Eight sections were approved without any requirements for the installation of a fire hydrant. In 1986 during approval of the last section of Earlysville Forest, the Fire Official requested installa- tion of a fire hydrant. The condition stated "Fire Officer approval of new hydrant at Lake 1 in functional mode prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for Section 9"° The sole obligation of the developer was installa- tion of the hydrant in working mode. In any case, once this was done, the developer's responsibilities to the hydrant was discharged. Presently, the Homeowners' Association has the legal obligation for the fire hydrant, but they are not responsible for maintaining the hydrant. He does not think that whatever action is taken by the Board today would set a precedent. If nobody assumes responsibility for maintenance of the hydrant, there is the potential of a public safety hazard. It seems to him that if the public has an interest · n seeing that this hydrant is maintained, then the Board needs to speak to that issue. Mr. Bowie commented that he has received no calls from the Homeowners' Association on this issue. February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) 15 Mr. Agnor said the Earlysville Fire Department commented that it would maintain the hydrant, but would not assume liability for it if it was not operational. Motion was offered by Mr. Barn, seconded by Mr. Way, to reject the applicant's request to accept dedication of the hydrant system. 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. 8. Southside Transfer Station site plan review, and request for authorization to execute purchase option. Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report: "Proposal: Proposal to construct a refuse transfer station on seven acres. Property, described as Tax Map 121, Parcel 82A2, is located on Route 715 approximately 900 feet south of Route 712 near the intersec- tion with Route 20 at Keene. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, in the Scotts- ville Magisterial District. Character of the Area: The site is densely wooded with deciduous trees and is currently undeveloped. Adjacent properties are also wooded and one residence is visible approximately 500 feet to the south. Staff Comment: The main issue in the review of the plan was the visibility of the site from the adjacent residence to the south (the Wain property on parcel 94B). In addition to a 150 foot undisturbed wooded buffer, substantial landscaping is proposed with a berm to screen the transfer station from the residence, After reviewing the landscape plan and the supplementary cross- sections, staff opinion is the transfer station will be adequately screened from the adjacent residence. Staff met Mr. Wain at the site and he stated he was satisfied with the plan. It does not appear that the site will be visible from Route 20. However, should screening prove to be inadequate from either the Wain property or Route 20, additional plantings could be provided at a future date. Staff recommends approval of this preliminary site plan with the following conditions: The final site plan will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; Department of Engineering approval of retaining wall design; Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff control permit; Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of- way improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit. 2. Administrative approval of the final site plan. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: The Board of Supervisors has endorsed the use of transfer stations as an appropriate solid waste collectiOn method. This Southside Transfer Station is intended to replace the collection function served by the Keene Landfill once it is closed. EnvironmentalConditiOns (topography.~ soils~ watershed impOundment): The site is located within the water supply watershed of the Totier Creek Reservoir." February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) 160 Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meetingon February 13, 1990, unanimously approved the site plan subject to the conditions recommended by the staff and an additional condition as follows: "The site plan will. include a sump at the location ofthe compactor with piping to an underground - holding tank, and to be operational when the Southside Transfer Station is placed in operation." The holding tank will be emptied periodically and the contents will be transferred to the Moores Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant for deposit and treatment. Mr. Richard Moring, the County Engineer, described the layout of the site, including the type of containers, landscaping and various components of the site plan. He also discussed the inner workings of the transfer station. According to the Highway Department, the entrance and sight distance from both directions are adequate. The building is planned to have an A-frame roof with wood siding and a neutral color. Mr. Moring commented that the facility actually sits in a hillside. A major concern in the design was to make the site as invisible as possible from the adjacent property owner. The staff has worked with the adjacent landowner to settle the concerns about placement of this facility. Mr. Way asked the distance of the transfer station from Route 20. Mr. Cilimberg replied the closest point is 200 feet from the northeast corner to Route 20 right-of-way. Mr. Way asked what type of lighting will be on the site. Mr. Moring said a pole will be put in each one of the planted areas and one at the corner of the site. The maximum illumination from the type of light proposed is one-half lumen. The lights meet the requirements for the Zoning Ordinance for lights shining on adjacent property. Mr. Way said he is concerned that the lights not be so bright as to be obtrusive to adjacent property, but he is also concerned that there be adequate lighting after hours. Mr. Moring said there also will be some floodlights on the attendant's building for maintenance'purposes. Mrs. Humphris asked if it is possible to~ have the area well lit with lights that are directed downward onto the site. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 11:29 a.m.) Mr. Moring said he has not pursued that. Mr. Bowie said he agrees that the lights should not be illumi- nating the neighborhood, just lighting the site. Mr. Moring said the Virginia Department of Waste Management has stated that the County does not need a permit for this proposed facility. The Department's definition of a transfer station is a station which allows transfer from collection to hauling vehicles. The County will not allow commercial and haulage vehicles on the site. Mr. Perkins asked if all of the on-site equipment is electrical. Mr. Mpring replied yes. Additionally, the Solid Waste Task Force recommended that there should be curb side collection at every residence in the County. Mr. Moring said the Board needs to take action to exercise the option on t~e property. The option expires February 27. The County has located a site on the property for a septic tank and drilled a well on the property. Mr. Agnor said he would recommend that the Board proceed to exercise the option on the property. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to authorize the County Executive to exercise an option to purchase property described as Tax Map 121, Parcel 82A2, located on Route 715, approximately 900 feet south of Route 712 near the intersection with Route 20 at Keene for the Keene Transfer S~ation. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: y ES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. S: None. THIS DEED made this 9th day of February, 1990, by and between CALVIN L. WOLFORD and ANNE M. WOLFORD, husband and wife, Grantors, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee; February 14, 1990 (Regular DaY Meeting) (Page 17) 16 WITNES SETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($16,000.00), cash in hand paid, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Calvin L. Wolford and Anne M, Wolford do hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY with General Warranty and English Covenants of Title unto the County of Albemarle, Virginia, the following described real property, to-wit: Ail that certain lot or parcel of land situate in Albemarle County, Virginia, near Keene, fronting on the southeast side of State Route 715, consisting of 7.00 acres by survey, as shown on a plat made by Wm. Morris Foster, C.L.S., prepared in October 1978, recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County at Deed Book 658, page 192. Said propertyis the same property in all respects conveyed to the Grantors herein by deed of Stanley J. Lowe, Jr. dated October 19, 1978 and recorded in said Clerk s office in Deed Book 658, page 191. This conveyance is made subject to any easements, rights-of-way, or other restrictions of record, in so far as they may affect the property. Pursuant to resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, on February 14, 1990, by the signature of the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, Frederick R. Bowie, the County of Albemarle hereby accepts the property conveyed herein. Agenda Item No. 9. Request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for Tax Map 59, Parcel 12F, in Oak Knoll Subdivision, for water service. Mr. Cilimberg presented the following memorandum dated February 8, 1990: "Mr Richard P. Cogan is requesting that the Board of Supervisors amend the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) service area to include the above referenced 6.638 acre lot for water service. This property is situated outside of a designated growth area and, therefore, should not be available to public water or sewer service. However, under circumstance of demonstrated inadequacy or failure of on-site improve- ments, public utilities have been made available. The applicant has cited well yield difficulties of an adjoining property. However, no comment is offered as to the adequacy of other lots within the subdi- vision. Property adjoining to the west, consisting of fourteen lots, is served by public water. The applicant states that a sum of $1,428.32 was paid to the ACSA in 1988 to install a tee and gate valve appurtenances to accommodate future possible connection to the public water line. While the applicant acknowledges awareness of the fact that subsequent Board approval would be necessary to connect to the water line, it does appear that the County Attorney's office should advise as to any legal aspects of this expenditure. Should the Board of Supervisors choose to approve the applicant's request, staff would recommend that: The provision of public water be limited to one dwelling unit, exclusive of guest cottage; No diminishment in acreage or subdivision of the property, including family division, be allowed." The following letter dated February 2, 1990, from Mr. Richard P. Cogan, addressed to Ms. Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, was received: February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) "I am writing on behalf of my son, Thomas Cogan, who owns the above parcel of 6.638 acres located on the south side of Route 250 West, about one mile east of Ivy. I wish to petition the Board of Super- visors for permission to connect to the Albemarle County Service Authority's water line, located on the south side of Route 250, for the purpose of serving a single family dwelling which is going to be constructed on this parcel. In January, 1988, the residents of Kearsarge requested that public water, from the West Leigh area, be extended to their subdivision. This involved the installation of a new water line from the entrance road to West Leigh, on the north side of Route 250, to State Route 677 and thence to Kearsarge. I requested that the Service Authority install a Tee in front of the captioned parcel for future use. I paid the Service Authority $1428.32 for the installation of this Tee. Please refer to the enclosed copies of my correspondence with the Service Authority. At that time, as now, I was aware that I would have to have permission from the Board of Supervisors before I could connect with this water line. It is very questionable if a private well could be installed on this property. The neighboring property owner, Mrs. Estelle Worthington, has had difficulty with her well, which is 400 feet deep and yields only about one half gallon per minute. In view of the fact that the public line is readily available and that this project does not involve any subdivision of any property, I hope that the Board will look favorably upon this request." 16 Mr. Richard Cogan, the applicant, said this property cannot be subdivided further. This lot is part of a five-lot subdivision. Wells were drilled on the other four lots, but with each well going northward toward this lot the yield became less and less. The adjoining lot has had a problem with drilling a well. Mrs. Humphris said this lot is outside of the designated growth area, had no demonstrated inadequacy, has no failure of on-site improvements, and there is no proof of well difficulty on the adjoining property. She sees no reason to establish a precedent by considering extension of water service to this property. Mrs. Humphris then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to deny the request to consider Tax Map 59, Parcel 12F for water service. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way. NAYS: Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 10. Jordan Development Corporation requests Real Estate Tax Exemption for "The Meadowlands". Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated February 8, 1990: "Please find the following letter from Nicholas Munger, attorney for the Jordan Development Corporation, advising of the formation of a new borrower corporation called the Meadows Housing Corporation, which will be the entity to finance a 30-unit low-moderate income elderly and handicapped housing development in 1990, adjacent to the existing 27-unit Meadows complex near Crozet. The new project will be entitled 'Meadowlands' The purpose of the letter is to request Board of Supervisors' support for real estate tax exemption for a 3.10003 acre tract on which the Meadowlands will be constructed. The project is seeking HUD funds,and has received a preliminary HUD allocation. One of the requirements of the funding is that the applicant seek exemption from State and/or local taxes. February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) 163 Property tax exemption is available by 'classification' or by 'desig- nation' The 'classification' covers religious, charitable, educa- tional, and others, which includes fire departments, rescue squads, private cemeteries, etc. There are about 350 properties in Albemarle in this category, 260 of which are the religious classification. The Meadowlands does not qualify by 'classification' Exemption from property taxes by 'designation' is a General Assembly legislative process which requires a resolution by the governing body of the locality where the property is located, that supports or refuses to support the exemption. A public hearing is required to consider the resolution, and a number of questions listed in the State Code are required to be considered at the hearing. There are four properties in this category, i.e., the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Inc., the posts of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Nature Conservancy, and the Senior Center. The existing Meadows facility is not exempt. No request has been received to exempt that property, and, it is my understanding, there are no plans by Jordan Development Corporation to request exemption. This request for Meadowlands is to comply with a HUD funding require- ment. The decision needed at this time is whether or not there is sufficient support for the request to direct the staff to proceed with a public hearing process. This request is not timed to the current session of the General Assembly." Mr. Nicholas E. Munger, Attorney for Jordan Development Corporation, presented the following letter dated January 29, 1990: "Pursuant to my previous conversations with Supervisors Walter Perkins and Edward Bain, I am writing to request that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors assist and support the Jordan Development Corporation in obtaining a real estate tax exemption for 'The Meadow- lands' a 30-unit low-and-moderate income elderly and handicapped housing development to be constructed in 1990 adjacent to The Meadows near Crozet. As you know, the Jordan Development Corporation (JDC) recently received notification from HUD of its Selection for a Section 202 Fund Reservation, a copy of which is attached hereto. Pursuant to this selection, JDC, as Sponsor, has created a new single purpose Borrower corporation called The Meadows Housing Corporation. This Virginia non-stock corporation has received its charter from the State Corporation Commission and has filed with the IRS for recogni- tion as a tax-exempt charitable organization. To bring this new 30-unit 202 project into being, Jordan Development will deed to The Meadows Housing Corporation a 3.10003 acre portion of the property (TM 56, PAR 14C) which JDC acquired from Albemarle County back in 1978 when we built the existing twenty-seven units known as The Meadows. I enclose for your information a copy of the subdivision plat showing the 3.10003 acre 'Parcel A-i' on which The Meadows Housing Corporation will construct the new 30-unit building. One of the requirements of the Section 202 Fund Reservation, set forth in Paragraph (8) of the attached 202 Notification, is that 'an ttempt be made to obtain exemption from state and/or local real and/or personal property taxes .... ' Accordingly, Jordan Development Corporation hereby requests that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopt the necessary and appro- priate resolution in support of such exemption for Parcel A-i, con- taining 3.10003 acres as shown on the attached plat. I recognize that such exemption can only be granted by the Virginia legislature, but I believe the legislature requires an initial resolution from your Board to consider granting such an exemption. February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) 164 In support of this request, I would point out that this is a fairly comfnon practice in Virginia localities wishing to encourage housing for low-and-moderate income families, elderly or handicapped persons. The reduction in taxes will provide more income to the non-profit Borrower corporation, and thus a larger mortgage can be supported by the Fair Market Rents established by }{UD. Similar tax exemption legislation has been approved by Loudon County for a 91-unit elderly project; Stafford, Frederick and Montgomery Counties have tax-exempt low-income developments, and Henrico County has approved tax exemption for two moderate-income elderly housing developments. The compelling need to increase housing opportunities for low-and-mod- erate income elderly and handicapped persons in our County is well documented. Likewise, the leading role played by Jordan Development Corporation in helping Albemarle County meet this need is well-known by your Board. We are very proud of The Meadows, which has served this community for ten years as one of Virginia's finest examples of rural rental-assisted elderly housing. The renovation of the Old Scottsville School by JDC is now well underway, which project will soon provide thirty-four new units of rental-assisted housing for low-income elderly and handicapped persons in southern Albemarle. Both of these projects were the direct result of your active support of Jordan Development Corporation's efforts. In sponsoring the development of thirty new rental-assisted housing units under Section 202 of the Housing Act, Jordan Development seeks to further enhance and carry forward a 'partnership' with Albemarle County which began back in 1978 with the County's conveyance of 27 acres to JDC. Within this context of mutual assistance and on the basis of our joint recognition of a compelling need, Jordan Develop- ment Corporation now asks the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to once again act in furtherance of our common goals by adopting and sponsoring a resolution to exempt from real estate taxation the 3.10003 acre parcel on which we will soon begin construction of 'The Meadowlands' " Mr. Munger said the reason this matter was not before the current General Assembly was because the property did not legally exist as a separate piece of land. The owners are in the process of getting a release from the Farmers Home Administration. Mr. Bain asked if the whole process for the project would be affected if tax relief is denied. Mr. Munger said he does not know. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 11:46 a.m.) For the Board's information, Mr. Munger said Jordan Development received confirmation that the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) has agreed to be their tax credit limited partner. The project is proceeding and hopefully the units will be occupied by this time next year. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bain, to set a public hearing for March 14 to consider supporting "The Meadowlands" for real estate tax exemption. 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. 11. Presentation by American Heart Association. Ms. Corinne Courtney, Chairman Emergency Cardiac Care Committee, said February 24 is CPR "Heartsaver Saturday" and she asked the Board's support in getting the community involved. The purpose of this day is to train individu- als to recognize heart disease risk factors, to recognize signs and symptoms of a heart attack, and to learn and practice CPR. The event will be held in the Omni Hotel Downtown. One out oftwo deaths are heart related. A couple of years ago, Time Magazine called Charlottesville "the Seattle of the East Coast", which meant it was one of the safest places to live. Charlottesville February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) 165 has since lost that distinction, but the Heart Association is attempting to gain that back. There are a lot of volunteers working towards this goal. Agenda Item No. 12a. Appropriation: Child Care Training Program. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated January 26, 1990, from Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet, Division Superintendent: "An application from Murray High School for funds from the Federal Job Training Partnership Act for a vocational program has been approved. The program would enable students to develo~% employment skills in child care services, parenting skills and to earn up to six credits of vocational training to apply toward graduation requirements. The course will combine classroom instruction, an internship, and the opportunity for actual employment experiences. Participants of the Focus on Youth program must be current or former Albemarle County students under 21 years of ago who meet the JTPA eligibility criteria and make a commitment to succeed in the program. Internship experience would be provided through a day care center for teen mothers participating in the program. The day care center would address the child care dizemma of these teen parents who do not have the means to pay for child care in the private sector. The child care center would be under the supervision of the instructor and an instructional assistant. A third component of the program woutd make work study opportunities available to assist participants to secure employment in a child care center. The $29,700 grant would enable the program to operate to the end of June 1990. The application to JTPA requested the grant be approved only if the agency has an interest in continuing to fund the program for 1990-91. Indications are the agency would fund the program if JTPA funds continue to be available. The School Board requests the Board of Supervisors to accept the $29,700 grant under the Job Training Partnership Act for the Child Care Training Program at Murray High School and appropriate funds to a separate account for this program." Mr. Way said he has a lot of questions about the program. He does not intend to vote for the program. It is very rare that a member of the Board of Supervisors has an opportunity to vote on anything specific in the school system. The memorandum states that this program will continue and be a continuing expense for the County every year from now on. Further it means that the County is going into the business of taking care of our children's children in the public schools. That is what he sees this request as being about and he will not vote for it. Mr. Bowie said he has asked Mr. John English from the School Division to be present to respond to questions. Board members had a lot of objections to picking up children at age four to go to school and this would mean picking them up in infancy to enter the school system. Mr. Way said he knows that one of the recommendations of the Children and Youth Task Force is that the County provide child care for the children in the school system. He is opposed to it and again has no intention of voting for it. Mr. Perkins said he has concerns that this program is proposed for Murray High School whereas there already is a program at Western Albemarle and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Technical Education Center (CA-TEC). Mr. Perkins asked if these funds could be used at one of these Other facilities. Mr. English said JTPA has very restrictive funding and it can only be used to servelow income students who have specific needs. Using the funds at one of those other facilities is not a choice in terms of JTPA guidelines. Mr. Bain asked if that means the Schools do not have the low income people who would meet JTPA requirements at the other facilities. Mr. English said most of students involved in the program at Western and CA-TEC do not meet the low income requirements of JTPA. This program would serve children who are currently not in school because they do not have affordable child care and because they have to take care of the child. February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) 166 Mrs. Humphris said she feels this would encourage pregnant teenage children to apply to attend Murray because it would provide child care train- ing for them and at the same time, provide day care for their babies. Mr. English said this would provide the teenager an opportunity to complete her high school education. This program is for teenage mothers, teenagers who already have children. The Schools already provide support for pregnant teenagers and teenage mothers through home-bound instruction which is costly and not effective because the mothers do not then finish their high school education. Mrs. Humphris asked if Murray was established to handle this type pro- gram. Mr. English said Murray was established as an alternative high school setting to serve children for a variety of reasons. The~ children attending Murray were either not attending the regular high school at all or not attend- ing often enough. The need for a school like Murray is considerable. This program is in keeping with the mission of Murray High School. Mrs. Humphris said this is not the way she perceived Murray. She has a lot of conflicting feelings about the purposes for which Murray was established. Mr. Bowie asked if a student from a low income family had a child and then dropped out of the regular high school, if that student could not go to one of the regular schools that already had a child care program in effect. Why Murray? Mr. English said the programs at Western and CA-TEC are for only part-week, part-day. They are not intended to be child care centers and were never set (ut to be that. Those schools were intended to be training centers for child care workers. There is also the need for time to ~o some teaching. At the other facilities, the schools did not want the programs to be for a full week. This program is supposed to be full-week, full-day. Mr. Bain m ~ed how many children were involved when this application was made. Mr. English replied twelve. These children are not currently at Murray, but at home taking care of their babies. This would be an opportunity for the students to reenter high school, finish their high school education and become employed. Mr. Bain asked what will happen if JTPA funds do not continue to be available. Does the school system intend to pick up the program? Mr. English said the. school system does not have funds in its budget to continue the program if JTPA funding does not continue. There are funds in the budget for home-bound instruction. Home-bound instruction is for only a couple of hours a week and the teenager can complete at best one or two courses a year, which obviously does not lead to finishing high school. Mr. Perkins asked how much of the $3,400 for materials would be wasted when the alternative education is moved from Murray. Mr. English replied all of the materials can be moved with the program. Nothing would be installed permanent at the school. The materials are classroom equipment. Mr. Bain said he understands Mr. Way's statements. He has some of the same questions about the existing programs. If there are funds from the federal government to make this happen, then it could be a way to pull child- ren back into school. He does not know how far the County should go in a program like this, but he thinks it is worth an effort. If there is a need for this program, then the County should try to address it in the school system and pull those students who already have children back into the system. He is not sure this is encouraging students to have children, but once the children are here, then an effort should be made so as not to continue the cycle. Maybe the program at CA-TEC can be converted to this type of program. Mr. Way said he thinks this will pass on to the next generation a message that it is fine to have these children and let the County take care of them. He thinks the message is wrong. Mr. Way then offered motion to deny the request. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Mr. Agnor said the Board could discuss the grant further at the joint meeting with the School Board later this afternoon. Mr. Way said he has no problem with deferring action. Mr. Bain said he hears Mr. Way's comments, but this program is only for low income people. He see this as an effort, although it may be a token February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting} (Page 23} 167 effort to attempt to get these teenagers an education so the next generation does not "fall through the cracks" in the same way. Mr. Bowerman said he is not prepared to support the program because he thinks it is a backdoor way to set policy and he is not prepared to set County policy at this time without a full discussion of the issue. This program would in effect be doing that because in the absence of federal funding, he thinks a request will be made for County funding and he is not prepared at this time to undertake that. Mr. Way said this type of program has been requested through the Children and Youth Tmsk Force as one of the established needs of the County. He is also opposed to that recommendation. He has no objection to withdrawing his motion and discussing the issue with the School Board. As seconder, Mr. Bowerman said he also accepts withdrawal of the motion. Agenda Item No. llb. Transfer of Funds for new microphones in Meeting Room 7. Mr. Bowie stated this request has been withdrawn from the agenda. Agenda Item No. llc. Appropriation: Public Safety Funding Reserve. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated February 9, 1990: "The FY 89-90 Budget established a $250,000 funding reserve for public safety needs which were to be determined during this fiscal year. We had hoped to have both the Police Department and Jefferson Country Firefighters and Rescue Association's (JCFRA) needs assessment avail- able for recommendation to you simultaneously but have only received and analyzed the Police Department needs at this time. JCFRA's needs analysis should be completed soon. After completing a workload allocation and equipment needs study and developing a sector/beat system for distribution of police services, staff is requesting additional personnel, equipment and tra?n~ing as follows for the remainder of FY 89-90: PERSONNEL Three (3) Police Officers One Management Analyst EQUIPMENT $ 32,280 9,300 $ 41,580 Equipment for above Personnel Installation costs for communications system (38 radios and repeater) awarded through state grant Sixteen (16) additional radios not funded by grant 74,880 11,300 18~000 $ 104~180 TOTAL $ 145,760 Staff recommends your approval of this request for transfer of $145,760 from the public safety reserve for law enforcement needs. The remaining $104,240 of this reserve fund will be available for allocation once JCFRA's needs have been analyzed. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve the transfer of $145,760 from the public safety reserve for law enforcement n( ds by adopting the following resolution. Mr. Perkins asked what effect this will have on the anticipated revenue shortfall and if these funds could be use( to help offset that shortfall. Mr. Agnor said the ftmds could be shifted for a need other than public safety, but these funds were reserved specifically for this purpose. He would not recommend using these funds because this money February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) 168 would have been allocated last Fall if the new police chief position had been filled sooner. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. FISCAL YEAR: 1989-90 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100031010110000 1100031010210000 1100031010221000 1100031010231000 1100031010232000 1100031010241000 1100031010310000 1100031010370000 1100031010600900 1100031010601100 1100031010601000 1100031010800100 1100031010800300 1100031010800500 1100031010800200 1100031010800700 1100095000999990 SALARIES FICA VSRS HEALTH INSURANCE DENTAL INSURANCE GROUP LIFE INSURANCE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LAUNDRY/DRY CLEANING VEHICLE EQUIPMENT/OPERATOR UNIFORMS POLICE SUPPLIES MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT RADIOS VEHICLES FURNITURE DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT TOTAL $33,623.00 2,291.00 3,315.00 1,200.00 80.00 306.00 600.00 165.00 3,765.00 3,450.00 1,500.00 6,195.00 41,300.00 44,370.00 1,300.00 2,300.00 (145,760.00) $0.00 Agenda Item No. 13. Set public hearing to amend Section 12.1 of the Albemarle County Code entitled "Adoption of State Law" under the Motor Vehi- cles section. Mr. Bowie said this item is to set a public hearing to bring the Code of Albemarle in compliance with the latest edition of the Code of Virginia. The change involves changing the references in Section 12.1 of the County Code from section 46.1 to section 46.2 in the State Code. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to set a public hearing for March 14 to amend Section 12.1 of the Albemarle County Code entitled "Adoption of State Law" under the Motor Vehicles section. 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. 14. Report: Albemarle Police Sector/Beat System. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 12:11 p.m.) Chief of Police John F. Miller said during an assessment of his agency, he reviewed the existing beat system that was in place. In 1989 he found that the Police Department had received a little more than 26,000 calls for service. (Mr. St. John returned at 12:13 p.m.) He found that the same deployment strategy was being utilized that had been in existence since the Police Department was formed. In August 1989, he requested the assistance of the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) in conducting a workload/allocation study for the Police Department. A formal reporting system was not in place, so data was tallied by tax map grid, call, type, date of offense, and time of day. This informa- tion was sent to DCJS for analysis. DCJS provided an analysis of workload distribution by area (using tax map grids), time of day and day of week. Based on this~information, DCJS made recommendations for a ~beat/sector system. This recommendation was reviewed by the'Chief, Command Staffand first line supervisors. Boundaries were devel- oped to ensure a timely response to all emergency calls, and a relatively February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) 169 equal distribution of workload. The boundaries were revised to more closely follow the natural terrain and geographic boundaries. The sector/beat plan will be reviewed annually and based on results of workload allocation studies, will be revised and redefined as needed. The system will also serve as a foundation for the Department's reporting system. Beat integrity will be maintained by prioritizing calls, and "stacking" non-emergency or low priority calls until the beat officer clears. This will eliminate pulling officers from adjoining beats, and will improve response time to emergency or high priority calls. The beat system is a first step in the Department's community policing approach. The same officer will be assigned to a beat so the officer may become familiar with the community, and thus more responsive to the community's needs. Chief Miller said this type of system gives management and supervisors the capability of knowing what is going on in the streets. This system also is an attempt to lay the foundation for the police department. Initially there will not be officers in every beat, but that is the ultimate goal. This is a minimum system and will be improved. Additionally, they will be review- ing the 26,000 calls received to see if there are some problems that can be solved to possibly eliminate some of the calls. For example in 1989, police responded to 2067 alarm calls of which 2000 were false alarms. He is in the process of redrafting the alarm ordinance to present to the Board for review. Mr. Bowie commented that this was a good report. Agenda Item No. 15. Executive Session: Personnel and Property Matters. Mr. Bowie said an executive session is needed for the following: person- nel matters - Virginia Code Section 2.1-344.A.1 for interviews and discussion of appointments; property matters Virginia Code Section 2.1-344.A.3 for sale and acquisition of public property; and legal matters - Virginia Code Section 2.1-344.A.7 to discuss the nativity scene case, Ripper case, the case of Stanford vs. the Board of Zoning Appeals, and the pending case of Clarke vs. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. At 12:25 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs Humphris, to go into executive session for personnel, property and legal matters as defined and discussed by the Chairman. 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 1:48 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 15a. Certify Executive Session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following certification of executive session. 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 February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) 170 knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: None. ABSENT DURING MEETING: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr, Perkins, to authorize the County Attorney to request a rehearing en banc on the Smith v. County of Albemarle - Nativity Scene case. Mr. Bain said he would oppose the motion for the reasons he stated at previous meetings. 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: Mr. Bain. Agenda Item No. 14a. Legislative Update. Mr. Bowie said he is pleased to announce that there was a "clean sweep" on all the "vesting bills". H.B. 721 was modified to what the County could be satisfied with. All other "vesting bills" are either dead or were carried over. He thanked staff, Mr. Way, Mr. Lindstrom and everyone who went to Richmond to appear before the Committee. At the request of the Board, he has written a letter concerning the return of lottery proceeds to the locality and the Board's position on binding arbitration. Mr. Bain said it is his understanding that the legislation before the Grayson Commission has been carried over. He has asked Mrs. Roxanne White to provide information to the Board about the Senate bill concerning equal taxing power legislation. (Mr. Bowie said he had a meeting to go to at the Omni Hotel and left the meeting at 1:52 p.m. At this time, Mr. Perkins took over the Chair.) Mr. Agnor suggested that Agenda Item Nos. 16a, 16b and 16c be presented together. Agenda Item No. 16a. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact certain sections in Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, to accomplish prorating of personal property taxes. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 30 and February 6, 1990) Agenda Item No. 16b. An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Section 12-30 in the Motor Vehicles section of the Code of Albemarle entitled "Duration" to accomplish the prorating of license fees for 1990. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 30 and February 6, 1990) Agenda Item No. 16c, An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact certain sections in Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, to accomplish the prorating of license fees on a permanent basis. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 30 and February 6, 1990) Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated December 6, 1990, received from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance: "The following are County code sections which need to be amended or enacted to implement proration of tangible personal property, split billing of personal property, and to change the county license dead- line from April 15 to January 31. Also, included are several code sections which need to be updated due to changes in the State Code. The following is a brief summary of the requested changes. February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) 171 Section 8-1.2. Erroneous Assessments. The Virginia Code sec- tions have been changed or renumbered so I have deleted our references to specific code sections. Taxpayers now have five years instead of three to apply for correction of erroneous assessments. Section 8-1.4. Dates. This section establishes the payment dates for all categories of property taxation and implements the split billing of tangible personal property. Section 8-1.7. Tax Valuation. This is a new section which established January 1 as the assessment date and valuation date. This is needed to clarify that even vehicles taxed for a portion of the year will be taxed based on their value as of January 1. This section also provides that bills for less than five dollars will not be issued. Section 8-1.8. Proration. This is the primary section imposing taxation based on proration. Section 12-22. Exempted Vehicles. This section is amended due to recodification of the State Code. All code references have been changed. Section 12-24. License payment. Establishes procedure for issuance of license and provides that a new resident must obtain a license within 30 days. Section 12-26. License Prorating. This section provides that County licenses will be prorated on a monthly basis versus the one-half or one-third currently used. Section 12-27. Refunds. This section is amended to clarify that the original license must be returned in order to receive a refund and Changes the refund dates based on the revised license year. Section 12-30. License year. Established the new county vehicle license year as January 1 through December 31. Section 12-32. License Transfers. Revised procedures for transfer of license to clearly state that the original license or proof of destruction must be presented in order to transfer license. These, code changes have been reviewed by the County Attorney's office." At this time the public hearing was opened on Item No. 16a. There being no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed. There being no Board discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the following ordinance to amend and reenact certain sections of Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, to accomplish the prorating of personal property taxes. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Chapter 8, FINANCE AND TAXA- TION, Article I, General BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Article I, General, Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, of the Code of Albemarle, is hereDy amended and reenacted in certain sections as follows: February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) 172 Sec. 8-1.2. Erroneous assessments. (a) The director of finance of the county, after diligent investigation and upon being satisfied that he has erroneously as- sessed a taxpayer with any local levies shall, if the levies have not been paid, exonerate the taxpayer from payment of so much thereof as is erroneous, and if such levies have been paid, shall refund to the taxpayerthe amount erroneously paid together with any penalties and interest paid thereon. (b) When the director of finance who made the erroneous assess- ment has been succeeded by another person, such person shall have the same authority as the director making the original erroneous assess- ment; provided, that he makes diligent investigation to determine that the original assessment was erroneously made and certifies thereto to his local governing body, i (c) Any application by an aggrieved taxpayer for correction of a tax assessment must be made within five years from the last day of the tax year for which such assessment is made, (d) Reports itemizing such refunds shall be made to the board of supervisors on a quarterly basis. (Virginia Code Sections 58.1-3980 through 58.1-3993) -~Sec. 8-1.4. Penalty; interest.; date and manner of payment. (a) Taxes due and owing to the county for real estate shall be due and payable in one installment on or before the fifth day of December of the year such taxes are assessed. (b) Taxes due and owing to the county for tangible personal property, machinery and tools, mobile homes and public service corpo- rations shall be due and payable in two installments on or before the fifth day of June and the fifth day of December of the year such taxes are assessed. (c) Supplemental tax assessments for real estate, tangible personal property, machinery and tools, mobile homes and public service corporations shall be due and payable within thirty days of the billing date. (d) A penalty equal to ten percent of the amount past due shall apply on all taxes remaining unpaid after the due date. (e) Interest at the rate of ten percent per annum shall apply on all taxes and penalties commencing the first day of the month follow- ing the month in which such taxes are due and continuing until paid. (f) The provisions herein are in no way intended to alter any other provisions of state law or county ordinance, the subject of which is not specifically addressed herein. (Virginia Code Section 58.1-3516 and 58.1,3916) Sec. 8-1.7. Tax Valuation, etc.~ date for tangible personal property, machinery and tools. Tangible personal property, except as provided under section 8-1.8, shall be taxed as of 3anuary first of each year. The status of all persons, firms, corporations and other taxpayers liable to taxa- tion on any such property shall be fixed as of such date in each year and the value of such property shall be taken as of such date. February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) 173 The director of finance shall not make an assessment under the provisions of this section if the assessment would result in the issuance of a tax bill in an amount less than five dollars. (See Virginia Code Sections 58.1-3515 and 58.1-3912) Sec. 8-1.8. Proration of Tangible Personal Property. (a) The tangible personal property tax shall be levied upon motor vehicles which acquire a situs within the county after January first of any tax year for the remaining portion of the tax year; such tax shall be prorated on a monthly basis. (b) When any motor vehicle loses its situs in the County or changes ownership after January first of the tax year, any tax as- sessed on such vehicle shall be relieved, or refunded, if paid. Such relief or refund shall be prorated on a monthly basis. (c) Whenever a motor vehicle with a situs in the County is transferred to a new owner within the County, the new owner shall be subject to taxation on a prorated basis for the remaining portion of the tax year. The previous owner shall be eligible for relief or refund as provided by paragraph (b) of this section. (d) For the purposes of this section, a period of more than one-half of a month shall be counted as a full month and a period of less than one-half of a month shall not be counted. (e) The director of finance may apply any refunds under this section to any delinquent accounts owned by the taxpayer. In addi- tion, this refund may be applied as a credit toward the tax due on a newly acquired motor vehicle. (f) Each taxpayer owning tangible personal property with a situs within the County shall file a return on forms prescribed by the director of finance on or before January 31 of each year or within thirty days of the date of purchase or the establishment of a situs within the County. (g) Tangible personal property, which was legally assessed by another jurisdiction in the Commonwealth and on which the tax has been paid, are exempt from taxation under this section for the portion of the year such property was legally assessable for another jurisdiction in the Commonwealth. (Virginia Code Section 58.1-3516) FURTHER ORDAINED that in all other respects, Article I of Chapter 8 of the Code of Albemarle remains the same; and BE IT ALSO ORDAINED that this ordinance shall be effective with the 1991 tax year. The public hearing was next opened on Item No. 16b. There being no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed. There being no Board discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the following ordinance to amend and reenact Section 12-30 in the Motor Vehicles section of the Code of Albemarle entitled "Dura- tion'' to accomplish the prorating of license fees for 1990. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) 174 An Ordinance' to Amend and Reenact CHAPTER 12, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, Article V, County Vehicle Licenses, of the Code of Albemarle BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Sec. 12-30, Duration, Article V, County Vehicle Licens- es, Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Code of Albemarle, is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 12-30. Duration. The license year under the terms of this Article for the license fee year 1990 shall commence on the fifteenth'day of April and shall expire on the thirty-first day of December, 1990. Accordingly, license fees shall be prorated for the applicable eight and one-half months. Prorated license fees shall be rounded, to the nearest dollar. This ordinance shall expire on December 31, 1990. FURTHER ORDAINED that in all other respects Article V of Chapter 12 of the Code of Albemarle remains the same.~ The public hearing was opened on Item No. 16c. There being no one from the public present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bain asked if the County Attorney has reviewed these proposed changes to the Code. Mr. Agnor replied Mr. Jim Bowling had reviewed the changes. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt ~he following ordinance to amend and reenact certain sections in Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, to accomplish the prorating of license fees on a permanent basis, to be effective with the 1991 license year. Mr. Perkins asked how is it determined that the volunteer firemen and rescue squadsmen are really volunteers. Mr. Agnor said the fire companies turn in a list of their members and identification of the vehicles each year. Mr. Bain asked if this ordinance is essentially the same as what is done in the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Agnor responded yes. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact CHAPTER 12, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, Article V, County Vehicle Licenses BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Article V, County Vehicle Licenses, Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Code of Albemarle, is hereby amended and reenacted in certain sections as follows: Sec. 12-21. Fee imposed. There is hereby imposed by the board of supervisors a license fee upon every person owning a motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, regularly housed or stored in the county and used or intended to be regularly operated upon the streets or highways in the county, except as otherwise specifically provided in this article. Sec. 12-22. Exempted vehicles--Generally. (a) The provisions of this article shall not apply to any vehicle exempted by the provisions of sections 46.2-663 through 46.2-683 or section 46.2-755 of the Code of Virginia, nor shall the provisions of this article apply to any vehicle licensed pursuant to sections 46.2-750 through 46.2-751 of the Code of Virginia. February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page Bi) 175 (b) The provisions of this article shall not apply to any carrier operating under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the State Corporation Commission for buses operat- ed in special or chartered party service or to any carrier operating under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the State Corporation Commission or the Interstate Commerce Commission, or under a local franchise granted by any city or town pursuant to section 46.2-696 of the Code of Virginia. Sec. 12-23. Same--Volunteer firemen and rescue squadsmen. Any person listed on the active rolls of any volunteer fire company or rescue squad shall be exempt from the license fee provi- sions of this article as to any one vehicle registered to such person or to a member of his household. Sec. 12-24. Application for license~ payment of fee~ issuance of decal~ etc. (a) Every person owning a motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, regularly housed or stored in the county and used or intended to be regularly operated upon the streets or highways in the cotmty, shall make application for and procure a county motor vehicle license. The application for the license required by this article shall be made to the director of finance on forms providing for the name and address of the applicant and a description of the motor vehicle for which the license is to be issued. The license fee shall be paid to the direc- tor of finance. Upon the payment of the license fee, the director of finance shall issue to the applicant a license decal or other indicia of license for such motor vehicle. (b) The purchaser of a new vehicle or a new resident of the county is required to obtain a county license within thirty days of the purchase date or the date moved into the county. New residents with a valid local license issued by a Virginia locality will be given a prorated credit based on the expiration date of their current license. Sec. 12-26. Same--Prorating. The license fee prescribed by this article shall be prorated monthly commencing with the month in which such license fee first becomes due and payable. The license fee shall be collected from and include that month on the basis of one-twelfth of the annual license fee through each month remaining in the current license year. The prorated license fee shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. In no case, shall the amount of license fee collected be less than two dollars. Sec. 12-27. Same--Refunds. (a) Any person holding a current registration certificate and license under this article who disposes of the vehicle, trailer or semitrailer for which it was issued and does not purchase another vehicle, trailer or semitrailer may surrender the registration certif- icate and license decal or other indicia of license to the director of finance and request a refund for the unused portion of the fee paid. The request for refund shall be accompanied by the original license decal or other evidence satisfactory to the director of finance that the original license has been destroyed. The director of finance shall refund to the applicant one-half of the total cost of the license if the application for refund was made prior to the first day of July of the current license year or one-third of the total cost if the application for refund was made subsequent to June thirtieth and prior to October first of the current license year. No refund shall be paid when application is made after the thirtieth day of September of the current license year. The refund shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. An amount of less than two dollars shall not be refunded nor applied to any other fee, tax or amount due the County of Albemarle. February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) 176 (b) In cases where the applicant purchases the license prior to the licenseyear and surrenders the license prior to thecommencement of the license year for which the license was issued, the director of finance shall make full refund to the applicant upon payment of a two dollar fee. Sec. 12-28. Same--Disposition. Ail license fees collected pursuant to this article shall be deposited by the director of finance in the general fund of the county. Sec. 12-30. Duration. The license year under the terms of this article shall commence on the first day of January and shall expire on the thirty-first day of December of the calendar year. Licenses for a preceding year may be used without penalty during the month of january of a current license year. This section of this ordinanceshall be effective beginning January !, 1991. Sec. 12-31. Display of license decal~ etc, Decals or other stickers issued pursuant to this article shall be attached to the lower right-hand side of the windshield, or to such other location as the director of finance shall direct on vehicles not equipped with windshields. A decal may not be attached to any motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer for which it has not been assigned. Sec. 12-32. Transfer of license decal~ etc. Any owner who sells or transfers a registered motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, previously registered under the provisions of this article, may have the license assigned to another vehicle of like design and titled in such owner's name, upon application to the director of finance on forms prescribed by the director of finance. The license or evidence satisfactory to the director of finance that the license has been destroyed must be returned with the application for transfer. The fee for transfer shall be two dollars. Sec. 12-33. Duplicate license decal~ etc. In the event that any license issued under this article shall be lost, stolen, mutilated or otherwise become illegible, the owner of the vehicle, trailer or semitrailer shall make immediate application on forms prescribed by the director of finance and obtain a duplicate or substitute license. The fee for a duplicate license shall be two dollars. An owner shall be allowed to purchase one and only one duplicate license for a specific vehicle, trailer or semitrailer at two dollars. Additional duplicates must be purchased at the appropri- ate fee for a new license. FURTHER ORDAINED that in all other respects Article ¥ of Chapter 12 of the Code of Albemarle remains the same; and BE IT ALSO ORDAINED that this ordinance shall be effective with the 1991 license year. Agenda Item No. 17. Presentation: Handicapped Playground/Park Committee. Mr. Agnor said approximately one year ago a group of agency officials and interested residents began meeting due to a common interest in increasing integration of handicapped people in the City and COunty parks. The Handi- capped Playground/Park Committee is before the Board today to make it aware of its existence and activities. Present today from the Committee are Mr. Herman Key, Mrs. Melissa Perkins and Ms. Carey Janson. The Committee has made a similar presentation to Charlottesville City Council. February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) 177 Mr. Herman Key said he is a member of the committee as well as a City resident. The Committee is comprised of City and County Parks and Recreation officials as well as interested City and County residents. Goals of the Committee are: (1) make recommendations on how toiimprove accessibility of existing parks and playgrounds; (2) give guidance in the development of new parks and recreation facilities so they are accessSble; and (3) help establish a Five Senses Nature Trail which would be accessible to wheelchair citizens, as well as blind and deaf individuals. One of thereasons for addressingr these issues is that parents, children and adults With disabilities have not had full access or been able to participate at the~local parks and play- grounds. Mr. Way asked if the new Southern Park is handicapped accessible.~ Mr. Bob Crickenberger, from the County Parks Department, replied yes. Mrs. Melissa Oliver Perkins, a City resident and disabled parent, said she has two children, age six and one-half years old and age four years old. It needs to be taken into consideration that when her children go to the parks, she needs to go to supervise them. .When parks are developed, accessi- bility needs to be considered. It makes a big difference not only for the children, but also the parents. Ms. Carey Janson, a County resident, said she likes to be able to go to the parks and enjoy nature, but there are certain areas of the park that are not accessible to her. She likes the feeling of being able to go out on her own and not depend on somebody else. She thinks all of the County and City parks should be made accessible to handicapped persons. She thanked the Board for allowing them the time to appear and she asks that the comments be consi- dered. Mr. Crickenberger said this Committee has been a tremendous asset to the County Parks Department in making recommendations and in pointing out things the Department may have missed in designing the new Southern Regional Park. Mr. Perkins said he appreciated the comments. He thinks the Parks Departments needs to take a look at and correct situations brought to their attention. Agenda Item No. 18. Resolution: Request the Department of Game amd Inland Fisheries to assist in funding of boat access facility for the Southern Park. Mr. Agnor said this is an effort to acquire either $50~000 or 75 percent of the project costs, whichever is lower, for a boat access facility at the Southern Park. The staff is not optimistic about the County's chances of receiving the grant, but thinks it should be attemPted. This is not obligat- ing any additional County funds. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution to request the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries to assist in funding of a boat access facility for the Southern Park. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR SOUTHERN PARK BOAT ACCESS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries provides funds to assist political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia in developing new boat access facilities; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to develop a boat access at a recreational facility which is currently under construction and is referred to as the Southern Park; and February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) 178 WHEREAS, the funding available from the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries for boating access projects is limited to 75 percent of the total project costs or $50,000 whichever is lower; and WHEREAS, funding necessary in addition to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries share to complete the project will be provided by the County of Albemarle; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle that the County Executive is hereby authorized to cause such information or materials as may be necessary to be provided to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and to enter into such agreements as may be necessary to permit formulation, approval and funding of the Southern Park Boat Access Project; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the County of Albemarle hereby agrees to accept all maintenance responsibilities, and keep this facility reasonably open for public use for the expected useful life of the project. Agenda Item No. 19. Authorize County Executive to sign agreement accept- ing Recreational Access Funds for the Southern Regional Park. Mr. Agnor said the County has been awarded $350,000 of Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation Recreational Access Funds to be applied to the con- struction of the access road into the Southern Regional Park. The acceptance of these funds requires the signing of an agreement between the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation setting forth the responsibilities of the County and State in constructing the access road. He requests Board approval of the grant and authorization for the County Executive to sign the agreement. He would also add that Mr. Gerald Fisher, Secondary Roads Engi- neer, was involved in the review and approval process of this grant. It is intended also that Mr. Fisher be invited to the dedication ceremony of the Park. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to accept a $350,000 grant of Virginia Department of Transportation Recreational Access Funds to be applied to the construction of the access road to the Southern Regional Park and to authorize the County Executive to sign an agreement between the County and Virginia Department of Transportation setting forth the responsibilities of the County and State in constructing the access road. Mr. Way suggested that the Chairman write a letter to Mr. Fisher thanking him for his support in helping the County receive the grant. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PROJECT 0880-002-244, M501 Recreational Access SOUTHERN PARK THIS AGREEMENT, made this __ day of , 1990, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY, party of the first part and the VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANS- PORTATION, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the DEPARTMENT, party of the second part; and i WHEREAS, the COUNTY by appropriate resolution requested recrea- tional access funds to assist in providing adequate access to Southern Park, which is being developed on a 530-acre tract in the southern portion of Albemarle County as a regional public recreational faci- lity; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board, subject to certain contingencies, has allocated an amount not to exceed $350,000 from the Recreational Access Fund to assist in providing the requested access facility, such being designated as Project 0880-002-244, M501; and February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) 179 WHEREAS, the COUNTY desires to administer the construction of this project through its capabilities and/or those of its agents. NOW, THEREFORE, WITNESSETH, that for and in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: A. The COUNTY will: Design and prepare plans for Project 0880-002-244, M501, described as the construction of approximately 1.22 miles of new roadway from Route 631 southeastwardly to the focal point of the park. This design shall be in accordance with applicable geometric standards of the DEPARTMENT. The cost of such design and plan preparation shall be borne entirely from sources other than the Recreational Access Fund or any other funds administered by the DEPARTMENT. Assure that all items of work and materials be in compliance with applicable DEPARTMENT specifications. Administer the project's contract advertisement award and construction under the COUNTY's competitive bidding proce- dure, provided, however, that no contractor who is currently disqualified from bidding on contracts with the DEPARTMENT because of collusion on any matter relating to violation of State or Federal Anti-Trust laws may construct, either as a prime contractor or subcontractor, any part of this project. Acquire the necessary right of way, including any required slope and/or drainage easements, for the construction of this project at no cost to the DEPARTMENT. Cause any utilities which conflict with the construction of this project to be adjusted at no cost to the DEPARTMENT. Prepare any required environmental documents and secure all necessary local, State and Federal permits required for the proposed construction at no cost to the DEPARTMENT. o Obtain the DEPARTMENT's approval of the final plans, cost estimate, and specifications prior to the advertisement for bids of the contract for the construction of the project. Bear all costs for any items included in contract which are not eligible for reimbursement by the Recreational Access Fund, as determined by the DEPARTMENT, In the event the total cost of eligible items exceeds the maximum allocation available from the Recreational Access Fund pursuant to item B-2, the COUNTY will bear all costs over this amount. (Eligible items are excavation, pavement structure, drainage facilities, erosion control measures and other related items expressly identified as eligible items in the approved project plans.) .Arrange for inspection/construction engineering services as required to assure the project's construction is performed in accordance with approved plans and specifications. 10. Make this project available to inspection by DEPARTMENT personnel during its construction; make final inspection jointly with the DEPARTMENT upon completion of the project's construction; and obtain the DEPARTMENT's concurrence prior to project acceptance. 11. Upon final acceptance of this project, bill the DEPARTMENT for payment of its portion of the project's eligible costs as set forth in item B-4. February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) 180 12. Maintain accurate records of all project costs in a form satisfactory to the DEPARTMENT and make such records avail- able for review by the DEPARTMENT upon request. 13. Be responsible to the DEPARTMENT, to the extent allowed by law, for all costs incurred by the DEPARTMENT beyond that amount herein agreed to, arising out of, or resulting from, the COUNTY's activities and those of its contractors, agents or employees, in connection with the work and services required under THIS AGREEMENT. 14. Acknowledge that pursuant to the provisions of Section 33.1-223, Code of Virginia, this access facility shall be designated a "Virginia Byway" and agrees, that in keeping with the intent of Section 33.1-63, to make all reasonable efforts to protect the aesthetic and cultural value of this road. B. The DEPARTMENT will: Review the plans, cost estimate, and specifications for Project 0880-002-244, M501, as presented by the COUNTY and approve them with whatever modifications, if any, it deems appropriate. Authorize Recreational Access Funds, in accordance with and subject to the applicable contingencies of the Commonwealth Transportation Board's resolution of November 16, 1989, for the actual cost of the construction and related inspection/- construction engineering activities for eligible items incurred subsequent to the DEPARTMENT's approval of the plans pursuant to item B-1. Make a final inspection with the COUNTY upon completion of this project. After acceptance of the project and upon receipt of certifi- cation and billing by the COUNTY, satisfactory to the DEPARTMENT, reimburse the COUNTY for the actual cost of eligible items. Such reimbursement shall be subject to the limitations prescribed by the Commonwealth Transportation Board's resolution of November 16, 1989, and in no case shall the total reimbursement exceed $350,000. C. Both parties mutually agree that: The contract items and applicable units of such items eligible for Recreational Access Funds shall be determined solely by the DEPARTMENT in accordance with its customary procedures. The DEPARTMENT shall reimburse the COUNTY according to the following schedule: For the initial $250,000 of actual cost of eligible items/units, the DEPARTMENT's reimbursement shall be the amount of such costs. For the portion of the project's actual cost between $250,000 and $450,000, the DEPARTMENT shall reimburse the COUNTY for one-half of such. costs, provided, however, that the remaining one-half of this portion of the project's eligible costs is provided by the COUNTY from other than highway sources. Any portion of the project's actual eligible costs in excess of $450,000 and the entirety of any cost ineli- gible for Recreational Access Funds shall be borne by the COUNTY at no expense to the Recreational Access Fund or any other highway source. February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) 181 The advertisement and construction of this project shall be scheduled in such a manner as its completion will occur at the approximate time as this park'splanned recreational facilities are available and open to the public. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 2:16 p.m,) Agenda Item No. 22. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Bain asked when the Board would receive some information on public facilities infrastructure. Mr. Agnor responded the information is supposed to be given to the Board in April. Mrs. Humphris said based on a couple of things that came before the Board today and in the past, requests constantly come to the Board in which people who have purchased property have a problem that was not anticipated. Usually the person did not study their deed carefully, and as a result wants the County to fix the problem. She thinks the Board has to keep reiterating that if someone purchases property with restrictions, the Board may not be able to do anything about it. There also seems to be a lack of understanding on the part of the purchaser about what facilities are available. She thinks the Board needs to reiterate that people should read the deed to the property and understand what services will be provided. For example, the issue on the fire hydrant, there was never any understanding that the County would take over and maintain the fire hydrant in Earlysville Forest, nor does the County have a mechanism to do so, and yet the Homeowners' Association had no understanding that the hydrant would be their responsibility. It is unfortunate that these things happen, but it also is not good public relations for the Board that it must deny these type of requests. Mr. Bain said the County is receiving such an influx of people from areas where all of the utilities and facilities are provided, and those people never consider that all of those services are not provided in Albemarle County. Last year the General Assembly passed legislation which was incredible in terms of its scope because in dealing with restrictions, covenants and what had to be in a contact. Although the people have always had that right, realtors do not show them the information and do not encourage them to read the contract. He does not know anything that the Board can do about the situation. Agenda Item No. 21. Appointments. Mrs. Humphris asked the reason there are only five appointees on the Equalization Board. Mr. Agnor said the number of appointees is limited to five by the Code of Virginia. Mrs. Humphris said having served on the Equal- ization Board~ frequently it was necessary for another person to be present, because not everyone could make all of the meetings. Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to reappoint Mr. Thomas Allison, from the Scottsville District, and to reappoint Mr. Joseph T. Henley, Jr., from the White Hall District, to the Equalization Board, with said terms to expire on December 31, 1990. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bain~ Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. None. Mr. Bowie. (At 2:26 P.M., there being no further business until the Joint Meeting with the School Board, the Chairman recessed the meeting.) At 3:00 p.m., the meeting reconvened in Rooms 5/6 with all Board members for a meeting with the School Board. February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 38) 182 School Board members present were Messrs. Richard A. Bagby (arrived at 3:08 p.m.), William W. Finley, Clifford W. Haury (arrived at 3:05 p.m.), Mrs. Patricia L. Moore and Mrs. Sharon Wood. Also present were Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet, Superintendent of Schools, and Mr. David Papenfuse, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Administration. Agenda Item No. 12a. Appropriation: Child Care Training Program. Mr, Bowie said this item was carried forward to the afternoon session to receive input from the School Board and staff before the Board acts on the appropria- tion request fOr $29,700. Mr. Way said he had made a motion in the Board's meeting not to accept the funds. He said he understands the reasoning for the request. He then stated that he is convinced that this program will carry over as an item in the regular budget next year. He further feels that it is inappropriate for Albemarle County Schools to get into the business of child care for the children of Albemarle County, He said he is opposed to spending the taxpay- ers' money for that purpose, and he will vote against the request. Mr. Way said he is willing to listen to comments from the School Board on the subject. (Mr. Clifford Haury arrived at 3:05 P.M.) Mrs. Moore said she agrees with Mr. Way's statements, although she is a new member of the School Board and was not present at the meeting when the School Board discussed of this matter. Mr. Way said it is obvious that there are some very good reasons for this program, or Mr. Overstreet would not have brought it before this Board. However, he said he would not support this type of thing regardless of who pays for it. Mr. Bowie explained that there had been a second to Mr. Way's motion, but some Board members wanted to hear what the School Board and staff had to say. He said Mr. English had been present to answer questions for the Board~ but apparently there is a philosophical difference. Mr. Overstreet explained that there is no intention to extend this project into next year with local funds. He said if there was some form of subsidy or grant appropriation, the project would be extended. He stated that the School Board had moderate reservations regarding this program as well. The School Board agreed that the program would not extend beyond the availa- bility of Federal funds, and the program would not be a priority area in future budgets. It would have to be supported with external funds. Regarding the question of why the Schools should have this program at all~ Mr, Over- street said the program is not intended to subsidize people for child care. It is intended to take high school students who have a child and help them finish their education and enable them to become self-supporting citizens, rather than being on the public doles. The child care is one component of this program. Mr. Overstreet said in order to help this small group of people finish their education, it is necessary to help them with child care. He said the idea is to "kill two birds with one stone" by using the child care as a lab setting for child care training for other students, Mr. Overstreet said it was not intended to simply set up a child care program. He said such a training program is already in operation at Western Albemarle and To-Tech Schools. Students go from that child care training program right into the job market. (Mr. Richard Bagby arrived at 3:08 P.M.) Mrs. Wood said she voted for this program because she is a child care provider and is aware of the great d~_mand for qualified child care providers in this area. She said this program would train students to give quality child care at the same time it helps other kids who might otherwise drop out finish high school. Mrs. Moore asked if the~e are students attending high schools now who are in this situation. Mr. Overstreet said there may be. However, the experience has been that the majority of youngsters who are parents do not stay in the traditional high school. Most do not even finish. The major problem is that they do not know how to attend to their children. Worse than that, they are not learning to be self-supporting members of society, Instead, they receive public support for themselves and the child. He said this proposal was made February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 39) 183 by the Job Training Partnership Act. He said there may be other institutions who could operate this program, but the Schools Division was approached with the offer. He said the Schools Division has the skills to take advantage of this grant, and it made sense to do so. He said the Schools Division would be providing the operational aspects while the JTPA would provide the funds, If there is no funding, there would be no program. Mr. Finley said he did not vote for this program when the School Board considered it basically for the same reasons as Mr. Way has given. He said his understanding is there are no regulations controlling this grant because it is called a laboratory. He is concerned about the health aspects of students handling these babies. He said he is not in favor of this grant. Mr. Overstreet said the State Board of Education has certification endorsement requirements and guidelines set for this course. Mr. Finley asked if there are health requirements. Mr. Overstreet said the health regulations are part of the course. Mr. Finley said he had asked that question when the School Board discussed this program, and there was no answer. Mr. Finley said he was told this program does not come under State child care regulations because it is a laboratory. Mr. Overstreet said it comes tmder the health requirements and endorsement supervision of the teacher and the standards that are related to how the curriculum is developed and taught, all of which are developed by the State Board of Education. Mr. Overstreet said this is a legitimate vocational training course. Mrs. Moore asked if Murray is considered a vocational school. Mr. Overstreet said it is not in essence a vocational school, but he would hope that the graduates are job prepared. In that sense it is vocational. Mrs. Humphris asked why the students for whom this program would be provided are not taking advantage of child care scholarships that are avail- able through the County's Social Services Department. Mr. Overstreet said he did not know. Mr. Haury said that money from Social Services is limited, and it runs out quickly. He said he supported this innovative program to allow kids who have kids to complete their high school education. He said this same problem occurs at Piedmont College, and finding child care providers becomes a barrier to completing education. Mr. Haury said the JTPA has arranged similar circum- stances to support students on the college level to finish their education. He feels this program will help lower the drop-out rate and provide another avenue of child care which is limited in this community. Mrs. Humphris said she understands the positive aspects and thinks this is a wonderfully creative idea. However, she has some problems with it. She is not really sure that the County would not be entering into child care in Albemarle County schools "through the back door". She is also not sure that the County should add a vocational aspect at Murray School which really belongs at CA-TECH. She said she feels the Board would be setting a precedent and needs to consider this more before going through a door without knowing what is on the other side. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Way not to accept the JTPA grant nor appropriate the funds as requested. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Mr. Bain said he spoke at length earlier and will not repeat his reasons for opposing the motion. He feels this program will educate people who would otherwise drop out of school and be on the public doles. That is more impor- tant than the child care component. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: Mr. Bain and Mr. Bowie. February 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 40) 184 Agenda Item No. 20a. Discussion: Urban Area School Site. Mr. Bowie said contrary to newspaper reports, the site for the proposed urban area school has not been selected. He said he had consulted with the County Attorney, and the Freedom of Information Act allows the Board to discuss acquisition of property for the urban school site in executive session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing acquisition of property for the urban area elementary school in accordance with Virginia Code Section 2.1-344.A.3. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. At 4:15 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was imme- diately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Way certifying the Executive Session as set out below~ 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 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. AYES: Messrs~ Bain, Bowerman, Bowie~ Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: None. ABSENT DURING MEETING: None. Agenda Item No. 23. Adjourn. At 4:18 pop., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to adjourn to February 21, 1990, at 3:30 p.m. 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