Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-11-15 adjNovember 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 1) 265 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 15, 1989, at 1:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The meeting was adjourned from November 8, 1989. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., F. R. Bowie, C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke. OFFICERS PRESENT.: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive (arrived at 1:45 P.M.); Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and .Community Devel- opment; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 1:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: 1989-95 Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Cilimberg said the Albemarle County Planning Commission, at a public hearing on October 10, 1989, unanimously recommended approval of the priori- tized list of Capital Improvement Program projects for the years 1989-90 through 1994-95, and specifically recommended funding for projects listed for the remainder of fiscal year 1989-90 and for fiscal year 1990-91. There are a total of 81 projects proposed for funding; funding for the first 32 projects proposed in the second half of FY 1989-90 and the remaining 49 projects proposed for funding in FY 1990-91. The Boacd will need to take action on funding the 1989-90 and 1990-91 projects. The Planning Commission did add comments to twelve of the projects in the priority list which will be dis- cussed along with the respective project. Mr. Benish summarized the following projiects by category: I. ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS 1. Charlottesville-Albemarle Health Department Clinic Wing - Addition of a clinic wing of approximately 8,000 square f;eet to the existing health department facility. Proposed funding: $7,080 in 1990-91. The Planning Commission made the follow~Dg comment concerning this project: "The Charlottesville-Albemarle Hea~h Department Clinic Wing requires further discussion between the City~,and the County regarding the City's commitment and time schedule. The co~hty should consider moving the project up if a funding .agreement can be reached with the City." Mr. Bain asked if the City and County a~s proposing funding in the same fiscal years for joint projects. Concerningithe Health Department project, Mr. Agnor said the City had suggested that thD County finance the entire project and allow it to repay the County. T~t suggestion was declined because the County does not have the financial resources. Before action can be taken, the County and City will need to coordinate funding in fiscal years. Concerning the Joint Security Complex expans~0n and renovation, Mr. Agnor said the figures in the CIP will be revised after ithe Jail considers modular construction. The figures are in the CIP re~eognizing that they would be amended. : Mr. Cilimberg said funding by the City amd County corresponds for the Health Department project in fiscal years 199/2-93 and 1993-94. The only difference is that the County Planning CommisSion recommended $7,000 prelimi- nary engineering in 1990-91. The City fundedl that $7,000 in 1992-93. Mr. Bain said he does not see how fundin~ of the Health Department clinical wing can be put off for four years.~IMr. Agnor said he agrees. Mr. Lindstrom said if the Health Department project is urgent it does not make sense to put it off for four years. Mr. Agnor said administration at the Health Department requested funding in the 1992-93 cycle. November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 2) 266 2. Joint Security Complex Expansion and Renovation - Multi-phased expansion and renovation of the Regional Jail. Proposed funding: $124,782 in 1989-90; $1,553,042 in 1990-91. Mr. Bowie said the minutes of the last meeting of the Jail Board state that the City "will not consider further funding for many years". He is not sure what that means, but he had an indication that the City will provide $124,000, to be available July 1, to fund the modular cells. He does not think the modular units will take care of the problem of providing a place for the guards to shower. He supports the plans for administrative support for the staff. He also thinks the County needs to fund the modular units and should shift $124,000 to 1990-91 to be consistent with City funding. He thinks the $1,553,042 should be deleted until further information is avail- able. Mr. Bain said he will not agree to any funding for the Joint Complex that is not agreed upon by the City. He does think the County needs to consider the threat of legal action because of overcrOWding if the necessary renova- tions are not made. Mr. Bowie said this facility is not as crowded as most facilities in the state and although the modular units are designed to house 40 prisoners, they will hold 60 to 80 prisoners. At this point the County is doing all it can do. Mr. Agnor said the amounts in the CIP a~e the County's share that has to be funded up front and then half of that amodnt is reimbursed from the State. Mr. Bowie said the situation with the j~il is an urgent problem, but he does not necessarily believe that the solution presented here is the right solution. Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with!that assessment of the jail. Mr. Bain asked if staff looked at spacei.~needs as it was reviewing all of these requests from various departments and ~gencies. Mr. Cilimberg replied no, but individual departments were requeste~ to look at space needs when submitting requests. 3. Real Estate Comprehensive Assessment Administration System - An on-line administration system for total management of all property assessments and a geographic system that integrates data'?bases with computerized maps. Proposed funding is not until 1992-93. .. Mr. Bain asked if this is the same information system that was discussed during budget work sessions last year. Mr. ~nor said this system is in addition to what was discussed last year. A!iso, the funds listed in this CIP are just planning monies. ~': 4. County Office Building PBX System Replacement - To replace the current PBX telephone system for the County Office Building on McIntire Road. The new system will provide a minimum of 1000iports, will utilize digital technology allowing simultaneous voice and data transmission, and will allow for future expansion. Proposed funding: $2~000 in 1989-90; $882,000 in 1990-91. ~ Mr. Bain asked if this project has been out to bid. Mr. Agnor replied no, the figure provided is just an estimate. Mr. Lindstrom asked what benefit this new system would provide for the average citizen. Mr. Agnor said for more than a year, there have been prob~ lems with busy signals and tied up phone lines. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the problems are in specific areas. Mr. Agnor said no. The current system is centralized and is just being overloaded. Th~ system was estimated to have a five to seven year life, and it is now eight years old. Mr. Lindstrom said when he calls the County Office Building he has no problem getting through, but has a problem getting the person he wantsi:to the the phone. Mr. Agnor said most of the problems experienced are fro~ 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and 3i00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Another factor is the maintenance of the present system. It is becoming very costly to continue maintaining the system. The proposed system would require less maintenance and would have digital transmission capable. Mr. Lindstrom asked the projected life of the new system. Mr. Agnor replied ten years and it can be expanded. November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 3) 267 Mr. Bowie said he calls the County Office Building more than the average citizen and has not experienced that much of a problem. Although he has been disconnected occasionally, in all the times he has called, he has received about three busy signals. Mr. Agnor commented that he does believe the cost estimate of the new system is a little overpriced. Two years ago the public started making complaints about the phone system. At that time, all of the telephones that were not necessary were removed and all agencies not related to County government were removed from the system. II. EDUCATION Mr. Benish said in this category of pro~ects, the first six projects are from the Schools Long Range Plan. The Plann~ing Commission made the following statement concerning these projects: "The Ptanning Commission endorsement of funding for the Urban Area Elementary School~;i is not an endorsement of a specific site at this time. The recommendation is for funding only; the site should be addressed at a later date. Major ~chool projects recommended by the School Facilities Committee in 1988 have been endorsed by the School Board for funding in FY 1989-90 without a public hearing. The Broadus Wood Elementary School expansion project should be coordinated with the Department of Parks and Recreation to study community recreationl facilities at Earlysville Commu- nity Park." 1. Broad, s Wood Elementary Expamsion -i~To expand the capacity of the school from 350 students to 600 students by adding ten additional classrooms plus two special education rooms. Funding in 1989-90 is for planning, engi- neering and land acquisition. Funding for construction is over the following two years. Proposed funding: $150,000 in 19189-90; $600,000 in 1990-91. 2. Urban Area Elememtary School, New F~ility - Construction of a new 600 pupil elementary school to serve the northern urban ring. Proposed funding: $135,000 in 1989-90; $1,600,000 in~.1990-91. 3. Hollymead Middle School, New Facility - Construction of new middle school to accommodate the enrollment growth [~eing experienced in the elemen- tary grades and progressing towards middle s~hool. Proposed funding: $50,000 in 1990-91. 4. Rose Hill Alternative High School R~novations, and 5. Murray Elementary School Renovations;;i These two projects are linked together..: The Long Range Plan recommends that the alternative high school be moved fr6~ Murray to Rose Hill. Murray School is needed to accommodate enrollment grbwth in the Ivy area. With necessary parity improvements, Rose Hill could accommodate the alternative high school. The building will require majori~asbestos removal, air condi- tioning and modernization. The building's multipurpose room will serve as a cafeteria/gymnasium. Proposed funding for Rose Hill: $70,000 in 1989-90; $1,499,450 in 1990-91. Proposed funding for Murray: $150,000 in 1989-90; $2,681,000 in 1990-91. The Long Range Plan recommends the reassignment of Murray as an elementa- ry school to relieve the overcrowding at Meri~ether Lewis Elementary School. Construction is required that will provide bo~h parity and expansion to accommodate a rated capacity of 375 students.~ Mr. Bowie questioned, but did not get a response, about an additional six classrooms to handle a 375 student capacity. ! 6. Albemarle High School Phase I gxpans$on and Renovation - The Long Range Plan recommends building improvements aG Albemarle to attain equality with Western Albemarle and to accommodate a r~ted capacity of 1625 students. This project would specifically add 32,000 sqdare feet of classrooms with modern science and computer laboratories, a n~w safe bus loading zone, full handicap accessibility, new playing fields, p~rking and upgrade of utilities. Proposed funding: $100,000 in 1989-90, $2,15~,000 in 1.990-91. November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 4) 268 Mr. Way said he does not understand spending an additional $5,000,000 so the school can accommodate 1600 students when there have been 2,000 students in Albemarle for years. Mr. Lindstrom asked to what extent projects recommended in this CIP are affected by school redistricting decisions. Mr. Cilimberg said the projects are totally affected by proposed redistricting. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not know how the Board can be comfortable with making a decision about these projects without knowing more about the proposed districts. The districts may be School Board policy, but it is a driving force in this CIP. The Board needs to understand where those district lines are being drawn to understand the relationship to these projects and to know whether or not the proposal makes the most sense in terms of expenditur~ of public funds. He has previ- ously raised this concern, but has not gotten a response. Mr. Bain asked what the effect would be!~if the Board does not include funding in the CIP for the Murray addition. Mr. Bowie said he thinks what Mr. Lindstrom mentioned is a problem separate from the CIP. He has read through the Long Range Plan and the Board has received briefings on it and he has no d~sire to try to redo the study. His problem with the Plan is that it is based on the future and based on a certain set of assumptions. The Plan has be~n reviewed, but not accepted by this Board. The Board is now seeing schools~planned for four and five years in the future being changed assuming the PlaR will go exactly as proposed. There are certain developments which were no~ taken into account in the Long Range Plan which will affect the outcome. It does not make too much sense to him to commit to a third and fourth year of a ten year study without knowing if that is the way to go. ~ Mr. Lindstrom said his concern is that .~f the Board is looking at projects which are assuming certain districtiboundaries and is not happy with those boundaries or locations of the project,, it may change the cost of the projects in this budget. Mr. Agnor said the Long Range Plan has ~ paragraph in it to the effect that it is to be reviewed annually and revised. Mr. Lindstrom said there are certain issues that need to be considered. What effect would there be on dollar figures if the location was changed o~ some of these projects? What effect would a changed location have on othe~ districts? Does the Board like the projects as they are now proposed, and iS not, would a change have a ripple affect and effect other projects sinc~ most of the projects are tied to districts? Since the County will be experiencing growth from Dunlora, Forest Lakes, etc., does it make sense to build a s~hool on the western edge of that area or does it make more sense to build it ~ore centrally? A school built more centrally would require site acquisitio~ and site development costs which are not projected. Mr. Lindstrom said the Urban Area Elemenitary School is based on a $500,000 site development cost and no site a~quisition, and he asked if the Board members should be concerned with that mt this t~me. Mr. Bain noted that $650,000 was spent on site development costs ifor Cale Elementary School which did not include any site acquisition costs, hr. Agnor said funding for all of these large school projects will require long! term financing. It may also require some temporary borrowing. Mr. Agnor ~aid he talked with Mr. Over- street about the School Board's approach to the Long Range Plan and Mr. Overstreet said that it was not their intent ~o approve a plan with everything locked in. The School Board wanted to use the Plan as a basis for looking at capital needs and redistricting needs. Mr. Way said he has a problem with the ~irst six projects. If the Board adopts this CIP, he feels the Board is approv~.~ing these projects the way they are listed. That is a significant step. Mr. Bain commented that there may not be~a need to address the high school needs as soon as the elementary and middle school needs. Mr. Bowie said he is concerned with the 8ollymead Middle School. There is a need for a middle school somewhere in th~ County, but this gives a definite location. Mr. Lzndstrom sazd as a result, everybody mn Hollymead will be expecting a middle school to be built in the community. November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 5) 269 Mr. Lindstrom said he has some uneasiness about going ahead with a plan that is this significant without having examined the premises on which it was based. There has been a tradition of dealing with expanding enrollments by building new buildings. Some day the County is going to find itself in the position of having vacant buildings that are not needed. He would like some discussion about the deliberate use of mobile modular classroom space. He does not think that is necessarily awful to consider. Mobile classrooms should be considered as a semi-permanent way of dealing with the problem assuming that in ten years the wave of enrollment will have passed through the system. The reason he raises that possibility is because it seems to him the County is "wedded" to dealing with an enrollment fluctuation by abandoning, selling or constructing new buildings. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the Board needs to take a hard look at the most efficient way to deal with a growing school population. It seems what has been presented is the easy way out. He agrees with concerns expressed by Mr. Way. In 1976 the County had a school capacity of 13,470 students and enrollment of only 10,075 which is more than the present population, yet there seems to be a need for more schools. He is sure state standards have changed, but he questions whether the schools are being used efficiently. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the figures provided are maximum capacity, effec- tive capacity, or rated capacity. Mr. Agnor replied that they are the rated capacity of the County, but state standards .have changed considerably in twelve years. Mr. Way said Albemarle High School had a capacity of 2,230 students. Now the Board is being informed ten years later that there is a need to spend $5,000,000 in order to have 1600 in the same school. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not know where the 1600 figure came froM, but the expected enrollment in 1992 is 2107. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to hav~ the assumptions that went into the Long Range Plan. He feels the Board is ~Ccepting a lot of assumptions without eXamining whether effective capacity~iis the way to build school buildings. The Long Range Plan also provide~ for a 20 percent contingency in addition to the projected cost per square fo~t of the building. By accepting these figures from the Plan, the Board is essentially accepting all of the assumptions that came with it. Mr. Bowie sai~ his objection to this Plan is because he cannot accept the numbers. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not want to go back and do the whole Plan again but he th~inks there is some benefit to examing the Plan in detail. Mr. Bain said he~ thinks the Board is going to have to go back and take a look at the numbe~fS in the Plan, if it does not want to accept them. ~' Mr. Agnor said in 1976-77, the State allowed 3 students in a classroom; the State has now reduced that number to 25 ~tudents and the School Board's policy is for 22 students. That makes a big idifference. Mr. Lindstrom said it also makes a big difference that a school l~was built assuming 25 students per classroom and the day it opened it had 22~i students per classroom. Mr. Agnor urged the Board not to reinvent the num:bers because there was a commit- tee that worked on them very hard. Mr. Bowie~'. said he can understand what Mr. Agnor is saying, but the numbers were based on certain assumptions and now there is a price on those assumptions. He thinks the Board needs to decide whether it wants to accept the assumptions that were made. The Board may have nothing to do with the 22 versus the 25 studehts per classroom, but it does have something to do with what size school to! build. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned aboutilthe report because the Board has not looked at it fully. If the Board's projeations are lower than what they should be, that will create a problem. If thp projections are higher than they should be, that would not create a probl~m. He also thinks that by putting names on these projects, it will crea~e some problems in expectations. He would suggest that the Board continue withlthis process and stipulate that it is not in agreement with all of the assumptions in the Long Range Plan and is using these amounts as planning figures only. Mr. Bowie said he has a problem because he feels approval of the CIP budget will commit the County to all of these'~school projects. It does not matter what is said later on, the County would already be committed. November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 6) 27O Mr. Agnor said the CIP is a planning document. It does not mean that a project cannot be halted. These monies for the first six months of 1989-90 are preliminary design funds. Mr. Lindstrom said everything that has happened to him in the past five years concerning schools is this same kind of situation. The Board will get the plans and state its dislike, indicate that the project is expensive, and then always end up with a response that "it ~is too darn late to do anything" and the Board then ends up going ahead with .the project. That is exactly what the Board is heading towards now. He would like to know at what point a project comes before the Board and if the Board does not like the location, the building or whatever, can decide not to ..fund it. It always makes the Board look like "the bad guys". This same situation occurred with the new school in Crozet. Mr. Perkins said he has some suggestions to make. One suggestion is to move Alternative Education to the 01d Crozet~ School building rather than the I~ose Hill and then keep Rose Hill as an elementary school to retain that elementary capacity. Mr. Bain said the Board was told that it would cost $2.5 million to renovate Crozet. Mr. Perkins said there is no need to completely renovate that school. Ail that is needed is to change the height of the water fountains and urinals. Why is there a need to have everything so fine and fancy especially when it ends up costing millions of dollars. Mrs. Cooke has suggested adding on to Woodbrook Elementary, ~but there has been no feedback on that. He thinks that all of the schools shohld be used to maximum capacity. Mr. Lindstrom suggested discussing another category. He feels there are certain facts the Board is going to have to come to grips with. Mr. Bowie agreed with going to another category, but h~ said the first six projects are problems. He thinks the whole problem is ho~ to move forward considering the projected increase in enrollment. Mr. Way said he agrees with moving to a~other category and coming back to deal with these six projects later. Mr. Lin~strom said he thinks there needs to be a better and more concentrated discussion on the school projects. He does not think $27 million is something the ~oard should sign off on in one afternoon. If it is the consensus of the Board to move on, then it needs to decide when to discuss projects one through Kix further. Mr. Way said he would rather just change the subject right n~w. Mr. Lindstrom asked if light shields ar~ included in the renovations at Albemarle High School. Mr. Agnor replied no~' Mr. Lindstrom said he wants those shields in the budget. He has request~ those shields for over a year. Mr. Bain said if shields are going to be lnc~,uded at Albemarle then the same thing should be done at Western Albemarle. ~ir. Lindstrom said anywhere lights such as those at Albemarle are in the County li~ they should be shielded because one of the biggest insults to a rural-type c~mmunity is unnecessary light pollution. There can be perfectly illuminated fields without illuminating half of the county at the same time. Anothe~',.place that has a real bad situation is the lights at Piedmont Virginia ~Community College. There was no discussion of Projects #7 t~rough #12. 13. Bus Shop Imterlor Modifications - Relocation of the parts department downstairs requiring less travel time and loslt effort on the part of the mechanics. PropoSed funding: $38,000 in 1990-91. Mr. Bowie said he does not think the problem is going up and down the stairs, but is smoking a cigarette and "shooting the breeze," and relocating the shop will not save time. He thinks this ~s a ridiculous amount of money. Mr. Bain asked if anyone from Mr. Agnor's staff has looked at the department. Mr. Agnor replied no. Mr. Bain said he would!like for someone to look at this situation carefully. If there is a need he w$11 support it, but if it is along the lines stated by Mr. Bowie he will ndt support the request. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the staff needs to looE at purchasing an intercom system to be used by individuals on the different floors. November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 7) 271 14. Maintenance Shop Equipment Storage - To provide storage facility for the Building Services Department. Ail tractors, lawn mowers and their imple- ments are currently stored outside. A storage facility would extend equipment life and reduce equipment maintenance cost. Proposed funding: $23,500 in 1989-90. Mr. Bowie said he would like to know the savings if a storage facility was purchased. Mr. Perkins said he personally does not think a storage facility will be a savings. III. FIRE~ RESCIIg AND SAFETY 1. Jefferson CoumtryFire and Rescue Advance Allocation Pool - This request is based on simplifying coordination between the County and fire and rescue services. Proposed.funding: $250,000 in 1989-90; $250,000 in 1990-91. Mr. Bain asked if the Board would still~be reviewing each expenditure request. Mr. Benish replied yes. The Planning Commission made the following comment concerning this request: "Advance allocation request should be approved with the understanding that all specific project requests for fire and rescue buildings or expansions must be reviewed by the Planning Commission for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with Section 31.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance." Mr. Agnor said the staff is still waiting for the JCFRA report on other safety needs. He has indicated to JCFRA than this request will not be acted on until the report has been received. Mr. Bain said the Comprehensive Plan had, several recommendations on public facilities and asked when the Board wuuld be receiving something on that and how those recon~nendations affect th~ CIP. Mr. Benish said hopefully some information will be presented to the Pl~.nning Con~nission by January. There are several studies that are nearing c~pletion and a draft should be forthcoming to the Commission. 2. City of Charlottesville/County of A~bemarle Mazardous Material Vehicle - Purchase of a hazardous material v~hicle to be shared jointly by the City and County with the intent of assigning~i~the vehicle to the City Fire Department. Proposed funding: $50,000 in 19B9-90. Mr. Bowie said a committee recommended that the University of Virginia share in the funding of the vehicle. Mr. Ag~Pr said the state is putting money into the program which is considered t0"~ be the University's share, but it does not involve itself in the purchase of~i the vehicle. The University is providing the County with all of the training; supplies and a program to fund the operation of the vehicle. The locality ~st purchase the vehicle. This is a $200,000 program of which $100,000 come~ from the locality. HIGMWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION ~ 1. Revenue Sharing Road Projects: a. Routes 654/656 Intersection - Prbposed funding: b. Route~ 708/631 Intersection - Prpposed funding: 1989-90. 1989-90; $35,000 in 1990-91. 1990-91. 1990-91. 1990-91. 1990-91. 1990-91. c. Route 620 Bridge - Proposed funding: d. Route 810 Spot Improvements - PrAposed funding: e. Routes 743~606 Intersection - PrOposed funding: f. Routes 729/250 Intersection - Proposed funding: g. Route 654, Four-Lane Upgrade - PFoposed funding: h. Route 601 Spot Improvements - PrOposed funding: $40,000 in $10,000 in $113,000 in 1990-91. $45,000 in $25,000 in $10,000 in $82,500 in $100,000 in November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 8) 272 1990-91. i. Greenbrier Drive Extension - Proposed funding: $275,000 in j. Park Road Extension - Proposed funding: $65,000 in 1990-91. Mr. Bain said he thought the County and state were splitting revenue sharing projects on a fifty-fifty basis. Mr. Cilimberg said the County's portion is actually about one-third of the cost of the project. There are several projects in the list that have received prior funding. Mr. Bain said he thinks there should be a note in the Plan on those projects where the cost to the County is actually less than fifty percent. Mr. Benish said the funds to the Route 620 bridge project are an addi- tional allocation using left-over revenue sharing funds from 1988-89 and that project had some previously allocated secondary funds. Mr. Cilimberg said because revenue sharing funds cannot be held, in the future the Board will see funds in the last year of the allocation to the project or only when the project is actually under construction. Mr. Bain said he thinks a note should be added to whatever project is affected because he does not want to rely on someone's memory to remember what was done in the past. 2. Sidewalk Construction: Fifth Street - Proposed funding: $78,000 in 1990-91. Rio Road - Proposed funding: $37,8100 in 1989-90. Georgetown Road Replacmment - Propo?ed funding: $3,545 in 1990-91. Mr. Cilimberg said there is one correcti~on. Funding for Georgetown Road replacement should be in 1989-90. Mr. Lindstrom asked what is happening w~th the pedestrian paths in the vicinity of Hydraulic Road. Mr. Cilimberg s~id the path on Whitewood Road has been completed. A path on the east side of Hydraulic Road would create some problems. Secondly, a path on the north sid~ of Hydraulic should not be constructed until improvements to Hydraulic ~re done because those improve- ments would mean ripping up the path. He would suggest that sidewalk costs be separated from the rest of the project. Mr.~ain said he thinks sidewalk costs should also be separated from the totaIi project costs. 3. Street Lights: a. Hydraulic/Commonwealth - Proposg]d funding: $16,000 in 1989-90. b. Hydraulic/Georgetown - Proposedi~unding: $16,000 in 1989-90. c. Hydrualic from Whitewood to Geo~etown - Proposed funding: $12,000 in 1990-91. d. Hydraulic from Georgetown to C°~.~mwealth - Proposed funding: $16,000 in 1990-91. Mr. Cilimberg said although funds are listed for these street light projects, they are more than a year behind in'schedule because Virginia Power is behind schedule in reviewing and approving' plans. Mr. Benish said one of the problems is that Virginia Power has scheduled these as low priorities. Mr. Perkins said the developer should be responsible for installing these street lights and they should have been installed when the project was done. He feels the developer should be responsible.~or paying for the street lights and not the County. Mr. Cilimberg said VDoT has certain standards for street lights and they cannot be installed in a piece meal fashion. There are various other street light pro~ects in the Plan, but they were not discussed at this time. 4. Meadow Creek Parkway North of Rio Road. Mr. Bain said he concurs with the County Executive's recommendation which is that the Board remove this project from the CIP and inform VDoT that the County will not get in the road building business. November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 9) 273 Mr. Bowie said he does not think $28 million will build the project nor does he know where the County is going to get that amount of money to build a road. He has a problem with leaving the project in the CIP for that reason. Mr. Cilimberg said during review of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission made a very specific decision that this type project, although the County could not presently fund it, needed to remain in the CIP and that the County might have to face funding it at some time in the future if it was ever to become a reality. Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman of the Planning Commission, said the reason- ing for that statement by the Commission was that the County has a land use plan which is based upon certain infrastructure requirements. Without those roads the land use plan cannot be implemented. The road systems in the plan are an integral part of the whole land use plan. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that if the projects are listed in the Plan, the State will make certain assumptions, but if these projects are not shown, a lot of people are going to make different assumptions. Albemarle County is growing fast and it is as a result of that growth that these pro- jects are needed. If a project is listed in the Comprehensive Plan and not in the CIP, that raises the question of why it is in one plan and not the other. He is concerned about deleting a project just because no one knows where the money will come from. He also thinks that removing a project from the CIP is taking a step backwards. Mr. Bowie said his concern is that funding for the project needs to be shown and he does not know where the $28 million will come from. Mr. Lindstrom said for the purposes of the CIP, i~he Board should identify the need, show the need and then quantify it. Mr. Agnor said his remarks were based on the assumption that the Route 29 Corridor Study indicates that none of the plans for reconstruction work unless the Meadow Creek Parkway is included. He th~nks the Meadow Creek Parkway will survive whatever other decisions are made an~ with the realization that the project is still a long way off. He would s~ggest that the project remain in the CIP so as to not lose track of it and indicate that it is to be funded by the state. Mr. Lindstrom said that is fine ~ith him, but the Meadow Creek Parkway project discussed by the Board is different from the project discussed by the state. Mr. Bain said if that is done~Ifor the Meadow Creek Parkway, then he also thinks that the Board should leave other growth areas projects in the Plan even though there is not funding identified for them in this Plan. Mr. Way said the general consensus of the Board seems to be to leave the Meadow Creek Parkway in the CIP, but not to ~ow any funding by the County. 5. Avon Street/Route 20 Connector RoadI~:- Proposed funding. $1,298,000 in 1990-91. Mr. Way said this project is in the sam~ situation as the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Cilimberg said the state has indicated that it will provide no funds for this project. The project also doei~ not qualify for revenue sharing funds. Mr. Agnor said the cost estimate for an iinterchange at 1-64 is $4.5 million. The state will not fund any portionlof that project, therefore, it would require funding by the City and County.~i He recommends that the County not proceed with this project because it was his understanding that the Avon connector was being considered primarily for the Cale School, and that situation has been resolved. Mr. Bain said the Planning Commission felt that the project was still needed. Mr. Cilimberg ~aid the Commission felt that it is an important project related to the genera~ land use development of the neighborhood for provision of circulation of ~ast/west traffic. A long term concern for Neighborhood Four was making that!idirect link between Avon Street and Route 20 to open up that area for development as well as to provide better access off of Avon Street to an Interstate inierchange. Part of this road could possibly be built by a developer. Apprgximately one-thmrd of the road passes through what has been considered to be~a prime developable tract of land. November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 10) 274 Mr. Lindstrom asked if the County could pay some of the start up costs and then recapture those costs from a developer. Mr. Cilimberg said that could possibly be done during a proffered rezoning request. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the County could go to property owners, say the road is needed for public purposes and the property owners would benefit from its development, the County construct the rOad, and recoup the costs if the landowns and their successors would agree to contribute a percentage of the costs. Mr. Cilimberg said that is a legal question for the County Attorney. Mr. Bowie said it seems to him there are some private entrances that would benefit from the development of the road. He could not support using public funds unless the property owners agreed to Day a share of the costs. Mr. Bain said he thinks Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion is worth pursuing. Mr. Lindstrom said if these roads are to be built, then the County needs to be creative. A lot of the County's plan~ing will not come to fruition if some mechanism is not devised to deal with ~oads. Mr. Bain said since the project will not be funded in 1990-91, he thinks it should be moved forward two or three years so that funding mechanisms can be pursued. At this point, the Board agreed that funding for this projected be moved to 1992-93 and that Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion be pursued further. No. 6. Meyers Drive Recomstr~ction - i~roposed funding: $22,000 in 1989-90. Mr. Cilimberg said $22,000 is to allow the project to be incorporated in the engineering for the Berkmar Drive project, to be connected and built at a later date. It may be that this project could be paid for by the developer. V. LIBRARIES The Board did not discuss the first fou~ projects in this category. 5. North County Branch Library-Leased Facility - Proposed funding: $1,005,925 in 1989-90. Mr. Agnor said the County will have a s~ortfall of funds in the next six months of $2.2 million and he would suggest ~hat the leased facility planned for interim use as a North County Branch Library be diminished to fit the resources that could be allocated to it. He:~would suggest removing the $405,925 shown for the project. The staff r~commends a 15,000 square foot facility, instead of 25,000 square feet, at ~ cost of $600,000. In 1994-95, after three years usage of leased space, funds would be provided to consider a permanent facility, at which time usage expe~ience may accurately establish the size needed. Mr. Bain said he has mentioned this berate, but since the County proposed to build two new schools, and if those are t6! be centrally located, then the Board should consider space in the school as~ adjunct to it for a library facility. That may be a lot simpler and a lox less expensive in the long run. Mr. Perkins said he would also like to include CA-TEC as a possible site for a library. Mr. Agnor said the Rio Road/CA-TECi~rea has been determined to be too constricted in the urban area and a library is needed further out Route 29 North for long term use. Ms. Donna Selle, Executive Director, Jeflferson Madison Regional Library, said it is her understanding that before this CIP is adopted, there will be a need for coordination in years with the City.i~i She will be coming back to the Board with revisions. Mr. Way said there seems to be consensus of the Board members to agree with Mr. Agnor's suggestion to reduce the pro~ect to $600,000. (At 3:38 p.m., the Chairman called a recess. 3:55 p.m.) The Board reconvened at 275 November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 11) Not Docketed: Mr. Cilimberg said he needed a decision from the Board with regard to charging the cost of the proposed Lickinghole Creek Basin to new development. The staff is beginning to process a subdivision which is partly a rezoned area in Crozet and it needs confirmation on how to charge the costs of this development against the ultimate Lickinghole Creek Basin. There is nothing in the records to indicate what type of fee system to use. There has been discussion of basing the fee for individual development against the undeveloped area within the growth area of Crozet. Each development would pay its pro rata share. Mr. Lindstrom said the basin is to serve not only the undeveloped area but the developed area and there is no mechanism through which to collect fees from the developer. He feels that as a matter of fairness, is it not appropri- ate to consider the total cost of that facility as a public expenditure. Mr. Cilimberg said the benefit to be derived from the Lickinghole Creek Basin will obviously be for the whole growth area. Mr.~ Lindstrom said he is not so concerned with what is happening outside ofthe growth area. Mr. Cilimberg said staff does not have a percentage, but it may be equitable to go ahead and charge only against the undeveloped areas for the basin itself. Mr. Lindstrom said the biggest problems will most likely occur during the construction phase, but if there is a legitimate basis on which to charge it that way he has no problem. Mr. Bain said he understood from earli~r conversations that the County was not trying to recoup the whole cost, bu~ only a certain percentage. Mr. Agnor said that point was debated because t~ere are some public costs associ- ated with the project. Mr. Cilimberg said the cost could be ch~arged on a per acre basis consider- ing that all development would have relativ~iy the same effect. A more equitable approach would be to base the fee bn the type and density of develop- ment and use run-off rates typical of such d~velopment. Mr. Cilimberg said for any of the currently undeveloped lots, the Board would have to decide at which point the fee Ks to be imposed. If imposed at the time a building permit is received, all ~ew development would be assessed. If imposed at time of subdivision, the fee would not be assessed on existing lots. Mr. Bain asked how soon there will be a~tual bid figures on the Licking- hole Creek project. The figure shown in the!iCIP is an estimate and is likely to change. Mr. Agnor responded that this will not occur not until early spring or late winter 1990. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the suggestion is reasonable. Mr. Cilimberg said the County Attorney's preliminary opini~ to the staff is that the County can set up this charge system even though th~ project is not yet developed. He will also get an opinion from the County ~ttorney on whether the costs can be adjusted to reflect a higher assessment later during the project. This information will prObably come back to the B~ard early in December. Mr. Bowie said the Lickinghole Creek Ba~%n project has been in the CIP all of the six years he has been a Board member. He cannot remember, and would like to know, the percentages of benefits versus the alternatives. Mr. Agnor said the Board went through this process three years ago about whether to have a regional basin versus subregional ~asins or individual basins. A lot of discussion took place, including fundilng mechanisms. Mr. Bowie said he remembers the discussions, but the project seems to cost a lot considering the little improvement it will make. Mr. Cilimberg said if any money is taken and the project is not built, then those monies would be returned. Mr. Perkins said the project description~lists recreational benefits and it was his understanding that there were veryiilittle or none at all. Mr. Agnor replied that is correct and the project is not designed for recreational use. There was no further discussion at this ~ime on this project. November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 12) 276 Mr. Way said it would be reasonable for Mr. Clifford Haury, Chairman of the Long Range School Planning Con~nittee, robe present at the November 29 meeting to discuss the school projects. In talking briefly with Mr. Bowerman during the break, he had indicated that a lot of the questions Board members were asking were discussed by the Committee. Mr. Way then suggested continu- ing this discussion on November 29 at 1:30 p.m. There was no further discussion of the CIP at this time. Agenda Item No. 3. Work Session: STA-89-02. Private Roads. Mr. Keeler presented his following memorandum dated November 15: "During Board of Supervisors' work sessions on private road amend- ments, a representative from McGuire, Woods, Battle & Booth, suggested awording change to the proposed private roads provisions. I recom- mend that a portion of the change be incorporated into the ordinance along with other language to preclude possible subversive activity. As recommended by Plannin~ Cox~ission: No alternative public road alignment would alleviate signifi- cant degredation of the environment. As proposed by McGuire~ Woods, Battle &"Booth: No reasonable alternative public~ road alignment available to the subdivider would alleviate s~gnificant degredation of the environment. As currently recommended by staff No alternative public road alignment available to the subdivi- der on the adoption date of this section would alleviate signi- ficant degredation of the environment. I believe this new wording would avoid ~0ssible interpretive problems cited by McGuire, Woods, Battle & Booth~~I This new wording must also prohibit serial land divisions intended :to avoid the intent of the provision." i~ Mr. Lindstrom said he will not be present at the public hearing tonight, but he agrees with the staff 100 percent andi. the report incorporating the staff's recommended language. -~ Not Docketed: Mr. Agnor said, several Weeks ago the County Engineer requested from the Board endorsement of an administrative policy concerning the upgrading of private roads. In summary, i~he CountY Engineer has been using a policy which states that private roa~s are not intended to be in the state system and that if any group or person ~ants to upgrade the private road to bring it into the state system, that group or person is responsible for all of the costs. Although the County Engineer hms been continuously following that policy, he has been challenged. Mr. Agnor said if the Board agrees with the policy in principle, then he requests an affirmative action from the Board. Mr. Bowie asked the nature of the challehge to the policy. Mr. Agnor responded that property owners do not feel they have to pay all of the costs for upgrading the roads since the County authorized them as private roads. Mr. Agnor said it is clear that private roads are not intended to be upgraded at public expense to get into the state system. Mr. St. John said there is a state enabling statute that allows the Board to have in its Subdivision Ordinance a provision requiring any subdivision that has private roads to put to record a declaration that these roads are private and will be maintained at private expense and not by the Commonwealth of Virginia or the County. Although he does not think it is necessary, the Board could cite that section of statute in t~e policy. November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 13) 277 Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to accept the County Engineer's memo dated April 3, 1989, as the Board's policy with regard to upgrading private roads. The policy is set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE POLICY GOVERNING DEDICATION OF PRIVATE ROADS TO THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FOR ACCEPTANCE INTO THE STATE SECONDARY SYSTEM OF HIGHWAYS Private roads are requested by the developer of a subdivision and permitted solely at the discretion of the County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. They are intended to be permitted occasionally as an exception to construction and dedication of public roads. Private roads are intended to promote sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site. To this end, private roads are permitted greater flexibility in terms of horizontal and vertical alignments, grade, widths of pavement Smd shoulders, construction of sub-base,, ditch locations, and amount ~f required clear zone. Private roads are not intended for dedication eS public roads at a future date. '~ Any person, group of persons or associations who desire to have a private road dedicated to the County fo~ inclusion into the State Secondary System of Highways will be responsible for upgrading the road to current State standards. All costs associated with this upgrade shall be borne by the individuals requesting the dedication. In many instances these costs will prove prohibitive. Nevertheless, those individuals who desire to undertake such an effort should proceed on the following basis: ~ 1. Contact all property owners who will be affected by the proposed dedication and ascertain their willingness to provide a total of 50 feet of right-of-way dedicationi{ Usually, a 25-foot dedica- tion is required from each propert~ owner. Dedication of drain- age and sight easements will probably be required as well. If all parties are not in agreement t~ the proposed dedications, it is unlikely you will be able to proceed further. 2. A meeting among the property owner.~ should be held to discuss the costs involved. It would probably':.ibe beneficial to retain a private consultant to attend the m~eting and assist in preparing an estimate for the upgrade at thi~! time. 3. Discuss the loss of vegetation tha~ is likely to ~ccur. The Virginia Department of Transportat$1on has a minimthn clear zone of ten feet from the edge of pavementi~ Estimate a 20-foot width of proposed roadway with a ten-foot cl!~ar zone on each side. This will result in a 40-foot width of ~i!ear area, measure 20 feet from the centerline of pavement to ~ach side. Any trees within this zone will most likely have to ~e removed. If all property owners are in agreement with the necessary dedications, the costs, and the lo~ of vegetation, notify the County Department of Engineering o~! your intent to proceed, and the Department will assist you as ~iaison with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)i~ The Engineering Department will also notify the Planning Comm{Ssion and the Board of Super- visors of your intent. 'i' The next step will be to hire a prikate consulting firm to prepare road and drainage plans forii:the reconstruction of the road upgrading it to public road standards. Your consultant will require the assistance of a geologihal consulting firm to perform California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test~ and to determine existing 278 November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 14) road base and pavement thickness. These tests will ascertain the strength of the road and the underlying road sub-grade and will be the basis for the new pavement design. Have the consultant contact the Department of Engineering to schedule a site inspec- tion with the Virginia Department of Transportation. An inspec- tion will be made of the existing road and drainage system and you will then be advised whether drainage pipes need replacement, trees need removal, etc. In addition to having your consultant prepare road plans, most likely erosion control plans will need to be prepared as well. This determination will be made during the above mentioned road inspection. When final road plans have been prepared, the plans will be submitted to VDOT for review and approval. 10. 11. Once road plans have been approved, a contractor to reconstruct the road in accordance with the approved road plans must be retained by the applicant. Have your consultant prepare a dedication plat dedicating the necessary right-of-way and easements and then submit this plat to the Department of Planning and Community Development for review and approval. When road construction has been completed, a final inspection will be made by the County Departmsnt of Engineering and VDOT. Any items identified as incomplete~ias a result of the inspection will have to be corrected. ~ Have your consultant prepare and submit four sets of as-built construction drawings and five sets of the recorded plats to the Department of Engineering. The DePartment will then prepare a resolution for acceptance of the rgad by the County Board of Supervisors. ~ The applicant(s) will need to have!.iall utility companies which have utilities within the limits o{ the proposed right-of-way complete VDOT Form CE-7 and forwar~ these forms directly to VDOT for approval. If any utilities ~x~st which are not owned by a major utility company, such as ¥ir§inia Power or Centel, then a continuous bond for maintenance of ~hese utilities will have to be posted with VDOT. An example of this is where a subdivision is served by a central well and a ~rivate water system. 13. Finally, a performance bond must be posted and a maintenance fee paid directly to VDOT to guarantee~he construction of the road from major defects for a period ofi~ne year from its acceptance into the State Secondary System. 14. Once VDOT has made final acceptanc~ of all construction, received the as-built drawings, plats, resolution, CE-7 permits, perfor- mance bond and maintenance fee, it~ill process the request for acceptance of the road. It will take from 30 to 90 days before final processing is complete and t~e road is accepted into the State Secondary System of Highways.~i Agenda Item No. 4. Nominations for Recreational Facilities Authority. Mr. Agnor said there are to be nine pers6ns on the Recreational Facili- ties Authority. Three of those appointees will serve on the Authority for one year~ three appointees will serve for two years and three persons will serve for three years. Mr. Way asked the deadline for appointee~ to the Authority because he thinks this could probably wait until the first of the year. Mr. Lindstrom said the articles cannot be filed without providing names. He thinks the Board can appoint staff members to the Authority on the understanding that as November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) 279 (Page 15) soon as the articles had been filed and the County has the charter, the Board Would then take action to fill the positions~ He feels it is important to go ahead and get this Authority set u. Mr. Agnor said the names are needed in order to advertise the ordinance to create the Authority and to name the Board of Directors. Mr. Bowie nominated Mr. G. David Emmitt and Mr. Archibald Craige. Mr. Way nominated Mr. Raymond Reiss and Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom (since the Authority will not be created until January 1, 1990, after Mr. Lindstrom's term has expired). Mr. Lindstrom nominated Mr. John H. Birdsall, III. Mr. Perkins nominated Mr. Scott B. Peyton. Mr. Bain nominated Mrs. Norma J. Diehl and Mr. David Bass. Mr. Way suggested that someone contact Mrs. Cooke to see if she has a nomination to submit. The consensus of the Board was to preclude current Board members from membership on this committee. The articles of incorporation are to belprepared for advertising includ- ing the names submitted today. Agenda Item No. 5. Appropriation: FY ~988-89 Year-End Adjustments, Fund Balances. ~ Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, presented the following memoran- dum, addressed to the County Executive, dated October 25, 1989: "The previous request for reappropriati~ns overlooked the following two items: Information Services Equipment Purchase Order outstanding as of June 30, 1989. $ 5,713.00 Watershed Management - Equipment Deleted from 1989/90 Budget. Request to be purchased from 1988/89 funds. Total 4,374.00 $ 10,087.00 The review of Capital Improvement projects has revealed that total appropriations for two school projects need adjustments to match the projected cost. Yancey Elementary Crozet Elementary Total $ 77,000.00 24~000.00 $101,000.00 Approval of these amounts as detailed on appropriation form 890013 is requested." Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve the appropriations as outlined in the memo dated October 25, 1989, for a total of $111,087, by adopting the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. 280 November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 16) FISCAL YEAR: FUNDS: 1989-90 GENERAL AND CAPITAL PURPOSE 'OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATIONS. ALSO ADJUSTMENTS TO SCHOOL PROJECTS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100012200800700 1100082040800700 1900060213800650 1900060203800650 INFORMATION SERVICES-EQUIPMENT WATERSHED MANAGEMENT-EQUIPMENT YANCEY SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION CROZET SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $5,713.00 4,374.00 77,000.00 24~000.00 $111,087.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100051000510100 2900051000510100 APPROPRIATED FROM GENERAL/FUND BALANCE $10,087.00 APPROPRIATED FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BALANCE 101~000.00 TOTAL $111,087.00 Mr. Breeden presented the following memorandum, addressed to the County Executive, dated October 24, 1989: "The following year end adjustments are!requested to correct minor errors and overexpenditures for FY 1988/89. OVEREXPENDITURES General Fund Legal Services Sheriff Fire Department Piedmont Virginia Community Colleg9 Soil & Water Conservation VPI Extension Service Total 300.00 2,400.00 15.00 40.00 160.00 850.00 3,765.00 This amount will be funded from the General Fund Balance. Community Development Block Grant - A/tIP $ 6,940.00 This amount will be funded from Grant ReVenues which exceeded projec- tions by an equal amount. Victim Witness Grant 764.00 This amount will be funded from the Grant Fund Balance resulting from prior year revenues. Gypsy Moth Grant $ 465.00 This amount will need to be transferred from the General Fund Balance to cover miscellaneous items not covered by the Grant. School Fund Attendance & Health Transportation Operations Adult Education Total $ 25,192.00 55,160.00 186,744.00 2~464.00 $ 269,560.00 This amount will be transferred from other School Categories and will not effect the fund balance. CBIP Severe ProKram $ 17,894.00 281 November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 17) This amount will be covered by $5,760 in excess revenues with the balance of $12,134 to be transferred from the School Fund resulting from non-reimbursable expenditures. Community Education Program $ 200,945.00 This program was substantially expanded' during the year. All but $14,183 of this amount will be funded from program revenues. The transfer of $14,183 from the School Fund Balance will be necessary to balance this operation. Organization Research Program $ 1,931.00 Non-reimbursable expenditures of $1,345 will be transferred from the School Fund. The balance will be funded from program revenues. Cafeteria $ 21,270.00 This will require the transfer of $9,603 from the School Fund with the balance covered from program revenues. Capital Improvement Meriwether Lewis $ 11,469.00 Rose Hill 800.00 Stone Robinson 33,834.00 Burley 26~896.00 Total $ 72,999.00 This amount results from the following school projects and will be funded from the Capital Improvement Fund Balance. Renovations to the old Jailor's House exceeded appropriation by $2,150 and will be covered by transfer from other completed projects. Facilities Refurbishment $ 37,144.00 This is the unexpended balance from prior year operations. Effective with the FY 1989/90 Budget, these repairs and maintenance activities are included in the School Fund. This balance will be transferred to the School Fund. This should conclude all transactions required for closing the records for FY 1988/89." Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and lseconded by Mr. Bain to approve appropriations for year-end adjustments as outlined in a memo from the Direc- tor of Finance dated October 24, 1989, by adopting the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mr. Lindstrom, Mr~. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. FISCAL YEAR: FUNDS: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATIONS: EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1100012040300201 1100031020700700 1100032010700100 1100069000200100 1100082030100100 1100083000100100 1122481020563100 122531012550300 1988-89 VARIOUS YEAR-END ADJUSTMENTS. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT LEGAL SERVICES-OUTSID~ SERVICES $ 300 SHERIFF-DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT 2,400 FIRE DEPT-MACHINERY ~iEQUIPMENT 15 PIEDMONT COLLEGE-FIC~i~EXPENSE 40 SOIL & WATER CONSERVatION-SALARIES 160 YPI EXTENSION SERVICELSALARIES 850 CDBG-ALBEMARLE HOUSIN~ IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 6,940 VICTIM WITNESS 764 November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 18) 282 1123034010541300 12000 12000 12000 12000 12000 1200663380100135 1230060774100134 1240163300100203 1300063030100146 1900060627709999 1900060630702000 1900060632709999 1900060771701002 1900032010700505 1900043000701005 1900043000701009 1920093010591001 1920060000300403 GYPSY MOTH SCHOOL-ATTENDANCE & HEALTH SCHOOL-TRANSPORTATION SCHOOL-OPERATIONS SCHOOL-ADULT EDUCATION SCHOOL-INSTRUCTION CBIP-SALARIES COMMUNITY EDUCATION~SALARIES ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH-SALARIES CAFETERIA-SALARIES MERIWETHER LEWIS SCHOOL ROSE HILL SCHOOL STONE ROBINSON SCHOOL BURLEY SCHOOL FIRE DEPARTMENT RE-ROOF JAILORS HOUSE RENOVATIONS JAILORS HOUSE FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT-TRS TO SCH FD FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT-REP & MAINT TOTAL 465 25,192 55,160 186,744 2,464 (269,560) 17,894 200,945 1,931 21,270 11,469 800 33,834 26,896 (730) (1,420) 2,150 37,144 (37~144) $326,973.00 TRANSFERS 1100093010591010 1200093010591001 GENERAL FUND TO GYPSY MOTH SCHOOL FUND TO VARIOUS CBIP COMMUNITY EDUC ORG RESEARCH CAFETERIA TOTAL 12,134 14,183 1,345 9~603 $ 465 37~265 $ 37,730 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100051000510100 2122424000240500 2122524000240500 2122551000510100 2123051000512004 2200618000189905 2200651000512001 2230060001161201 2230051000510100 2230051000512001 2240133000330200 2240151000510100 2240151000512001 2300051000510100 2300051000512001 2900051000510100 TRANSFERS 2100051000510100 2200051000512001 2200051000510100 GENERAL FUND-APPROP FROM FUND BALANCE $ 3,765.00 AHIP-GRANT REVENUE 6,940 VICTIM WITNESS -GRANT-REVENUE 253 VICTIM WITNESS-APPRO~ FROM FUND BALANCE 511 GYPSY MOTH-TRS FROM GEN'L FUND 465 CBIP-MISC REVENUE 5,760 CBIP-TRS FROM SCH FUND 12,134 COMMUNITY EDUCATION-TUITION 169,489 COMMUNITY EDUC-APPROP FROM FUND BALANCE 17,273 COMMUNITY EDUC-TRS FROM SCH FUND 14,183 ORGANIZATIONAL RESEAg~CH-FED' L REVENUE 304 ORG. RESEARCH-APPROP !FROM FUND BALANCE 282 ORG. RESEARCH-TRS FROM SCH FUND 1,345 CAFETERIA-APPROP FROM FUND BALANCE 11,667 CAFETERIA-TRS FROM SCH FUND 9,603 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS~APPROP FROM FUND BALANCE TOTAL GENERAL FUND FUND BA~CE FOR GYPSY MOTH $ 465 SCHOOL FUND-TRS FROM i!FACILITIES REFURB 37 , 144 SCHOOL FUND FUND BAL~iNCE-FOR VARIOUS CBIP , 12,134 COMMUNITY EDUC ? 14,183 ~ 1,345 ORG RESEARCH ~ CAFETERIA 9,603 FACILITIES REFURB. ~ (37,144) TOTAL ~ 72~999 $326,973.00 121 $ 37,730 ? Agenda Item No. 6. An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact, Chapter 16 of the Albemarle County Code entitled "Refuse and Garbage" in Article I, Section 16-5. (Deferred from November 8, 1989.) The Board members reviewed the wording of the proposed ordinance. Mr.~ St. John said he thinks the wording has been ~hanged to reflect what the Board decided on as a result of a presentation made! by the League of Women Voters last week. ~ November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 19) 283 Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 16 of the Albemarle County Code entitled "Refuse and Garbage" in Article I, Section 16-5. Mr. St. John requested that the effective date of the ordinance be set for January 1, 1990. He said that staff needs to think about who should be the County's agent to enforce this ordinance. The refuse ordinance on the books at this time applies only to buildings, but this ordinance applies to the owners of the property. ; Mr. Lindstrom then amended his motion to include setting the effective date of the ordinance as January 1, 1990. Mr. Bain, as seconder, agreed. Mr. Bowie asked about the word, "owners" in the last line of the ordi- nance. Mr. St. 3ohn said he feels that Sta~e Code set this language because an owner (or owners) is an identifiable or leachable person. If the occupant of the property could not be contacted, the~e is always the owner. Mr. Bowie asked what would happen if the County were Challenged by an owner who had been assessed for something done by a tenant. Mrs. St. John said it would apply not only to a tenant, but to a trespasser. He ~aid the County is authorized by State Code to hold the owner, or even the land itself, accountable for the offense. There being no further discussion, rolllwas called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. None. Mrs. Cooke. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 16 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ENTITLED "REFUSE AND GARBAGE" OF!ARTICLE I, SECTION 16-5 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Code of Albemarle CoUnty be and is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 16-5. Removal of Trash~ Garbage, iRefuse~ Etc. It shall be unlawful for any owner~or occupant of any property in Albemarle County to store, accumulate or dump any refuse, trash, rubbish or any other waste material or substance on such premises in such quantities or in such a manner or for such a period of time as to constitute a nuisance or as to be injurious to the health or safety of the public, or potentially injurious to'i~the health or safety of the public. Ail garbage shall be placed in!!water-tight containers and be kept covered until transported to a pub%ic sanitary landfill or until taken from the premises by trash or garbage collectors or otherwise disposed of as provided by law. The owner or owners of any property, in Albemarle County shall, at such time or times as the governing bod~ or its agent may prescribe, remove from such property any and all t~ash, garbage, refuse, litter and other substances which might endanger the health or safety of other residents of the County; and whenever the governing body deems it necessary, after reasonable notice, ~he governing body or its agent may have such trash, garbage, refuse, litter or other substances which might endanger the health of other residents of the County, removed by the County's own agents or employees, in which the cost or expense thereof shall be chargeable to and paid bY the owners of such property and may be collected by the County as taxes and levies are collected; And, be it ordained, that this ordihance shall be effective on and after January 1, 1990. 284 November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 20) Agenda Item No. 7. Resolution: Coalition for Mentally Disabled Citizens of Virginia. Mr. Way suggested that this item be held until the full Board is present tonight. Agenda Item No. 8. Request to abandon a portion of State Route 629 to public use. (Applicant requests deferral until December 13, 1989.) Mr. Way noted that the applicant wishes to have this item carried forward to December 13. There was no objection from the Board. Agenda Item No. 9. Request from Thomas Vincent for an extension of the time limit on SP-88-25. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Vincent is not present. He would like to note that this is a special use permit that the ~taff initially had some reserva- tions with. Mr. Lindstrom said since the applicant .was not present, he felt this item should be placed on a regular agenda, and public notice given that it would be discussed. Mr. Cilimberg said the request involved!a condition that required that a home be built on the subject property within~18 months after approval of the permit. He said staff was concerned about ~llowing a home occupation on property where there was no residence, thusi~allowing a precedent to be set. The applicant's request is to extend, or amend the condition in the special use permit because there was no constructioniduring the 18 months as required. Mr. Bain said that one of the adjacent property owners who objected to approval of the permit was the one who wouldinot grant Mr. Vincent an easement for electric service. Mr. Lindstrom said he still thinks this should be handled in the usual way, and notice given. · Mr. Bowie said if nothing is being changed, unless the County Attorney feels it is a significant change to extend the time limit, he has no problem with the request. At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to set this matter for public hearing before the Board on December 13, 1989. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bain. ~ Roll was called and the motion carried ~y the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mr. Lindstrom, M~. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 9a. Adoption of Personnel Policy, Conflict of Interest. Mr. Agnor explained that this one polic~ was not adopted with the other policies on November 1. In "Conflict of Interest" the section on political activity ahs been deleted entirely. In P-25~ "Standards of Conduct" the following has been added as an example of unacceptable conduct: "Use of an employee's work time or work environment to ~romote a political candidate. This should take care of any problems relate~i to Board members being treated differently from employees who choose to run ~for office. This change was discussed with Mr. St. John. He said the School Board had adopted the policy, so there will be commonality. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt P-25 and P-27 as set out below. 285 November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 21) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. P-25 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT Add paragraph 21 under examples of unacceptable conduct to read: "Use of an employee's work time or work environment to promote a political candidate." The remainder of the paragraph remains the same. P-27 CONFLICT OF INTEREST In accordance with the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-639 the Board has established certain procedures for complying with the Conflict of Interest Act. Employees are expected to be familiar with State Code requirements that are applicable to them whether or not these require- ments are specifically reflected in thiB policy. Nepotism No administrator or any other person in a supervisory position shall have under his or her direct supervision any employee whose relationship is of the first or second degree, either by blood or marriage. In the event of a promotion which brings about the condi- tions thus described, the employee of I~ower rank shall be transferred to another position for which he or she is qualified when a vacancy Occurs. Relationship of the first or second degree shall mean father, mother, brother, sister, spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law or daugh- ter-in-law, sister-in-law or brother-in-law. Acceptance of Gifts No officer or employee of a state '6r local government or advisory agency shall: accept any money, loan, gift, favor, service, or opportunity that reasonably tends to influence them in the performance of their official duties. Items given to a group shall be permitted if used or consumed on the County premises and not used in contraven- tion of the above policy. This policy is not intended to abolish the exchange of gifts between employees for birthdays, ChristMas, or Retirement events, or the offering or acceptance of social invitations, providing that such exchange or invitation is understood no~ to influence employees in the discharge of their official duties. Annual Statement Employees will be required to sign !an annual statement regarding to whom they are related within their d~partment. Regarding the Recreational Facilities Authority, Mr. Way noted that Mrs. Cooke had been called, and she did not have ~i' name for nomination. It was agreed to add Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr. as the niDth member, so that advertising can go forward, it being the understanding th~at Mr. Agnor would resign at the first meeting of the Authority. ~ Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and secohded by Mr. Bain to accept the list of names presented at this meeting. In .~nswer to the question of how terms would be applied, Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the list be alphabetized, and the first three people be assigned a one-kear term; the second three people be assigned a two-year term; and the final three people be assigned a three.year term. It was so agreed. November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 22) 286 Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Lindstrom said he would not be present at the meeting tonight, so he would like to have the minutes he had read approved at this time. He had read October 19 (Afternoon), 1988, and found them to be in order. Mr. Lindstrom had also read March 22, I989, and asked that the following sentence on Page 8 be corrected to read as follows: "He said it should be pointed out that overall resources versnm after subtracting the demands on those resources ~-n~t-~ne-where-there-w~tt-.be may not reflect a surplus." Also, on March 22, Page 1, next to the last sentence in the first full paragraph, change the word, "work", to "workers". On Page 10 of March 22, 1989, the following correction should be made: "Mr. Lindstrom said it begins to enter the realm Of antitrust when local government uses its authority in any way, shape, or form to protect pe~pte existing businesses from ~ntrnd~ng new businesses." On Page 18 of March 22, change the following sentence to read: "He said he supports restoring the tax rate to 77 cents per $100 of assessed value and possibly increasing the tax rate beyond 77 cents." Mr. Lindstrom had also read the minutes.; for April 5 (Afternoon), 1989, and asked that the following language be inserted at the end of the third paragraph on Page 14: "(Note: In reviewing-the minutes for this meeting, Mr. Lindstrom stated that he was in error in maki. ng the statements contained in this paragraph, and pointed out that rural land in fact costs the County considerably less for services than urban la~d, according to several studies he has reviewed. )" Mr. Lindstrom had read April 20, 1989, ~nd found only a couple of minor typographical errors. Mr. Lindstrom offered a motion which was seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the minutes which he had read with tile corrections noted. Roll was called and the motion carried b~y the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mr. Lindstrom, M~. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 11. Adjourn. At 5:11 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. ~Bowie to adjourn into executive session for the purpose of discussing disposal of real property in accordance with Virginia Code Section 2.1-344.a(3). Thel' motion was seconded by Mr. Bain. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mr. Lindstrom, Mr'. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs Cooke. At 7:30 P.M., the Board reconvened into ~pen session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain certifySng that the executive session was 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, Bowie, Perkins and Mr. W~y. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. 287 November 15, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 23) 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 lCode 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 ~he best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business ma~ters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia ~aw were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters ~as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. VOTE: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. [For each nay vote, the substance of the departure from the require- ments of the Act should be described.] ABSENT DURING VOTE: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. ABSENT DURING MEETING: Mrs. Cooke. CHAIRMAN