Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-01-23 adjJanuary 23, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) 195 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held jointly with the Albemarle County School Board on January 23, 1989, at 8:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRF~ENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, and Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney (arrived at 8:37 A.M). Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 8:05 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2a. Joint Meeting with School Board: Presentation of Affirmative Action Plan. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Charles S. Armstrong, Clifford W. Haury, William W. Finley, Charles S. Martin, Charles R. Tolbert, Roger R. Ward, and Mrs. Sharon Wood (arrived at 8:14 A.M.). Also present was the Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Andy Overstreet. Dr. Carole Hastings, Director of Personnel, presented a proposed Affirma- tive Action Plan for approval by the joint Boards. The local government had not updated its affirmative action plan since the 1970's. As part of its five year plan, the School Board included the implementation of an affirmative action plan as one of its goals in 1984. The proposed plan is action ori- ented, presenting tasks and goals in areas such as recruitment, training, program monitoring and evaluation, and information and dissemination. Dr. Hastings said the plan is not based on a quota system, but rather calls for an analysis of what is currently being done in each school and department to accomplish equity in the work place. The plan not only ad- dresses racial imbalance, but imbalances in "~ther areas such as more male secretaries or more women mn vocational worki!: Each principal and department head will be provided support in developing a plan to reach this goal. An aggressive training program will be implemented to assure that all employees are aware of the principles of equal employment opportunity and affirmative action. An advisory council comprised of employees from local government and the school division will be engaged to examine policies and to advise the County officials and Personnel Director on pertinent issues. Mr. Bowie said he supported the concept~, but had not had a chance to go over each part of the package. ~ Mr. Bain said he concurred with Mr. Bowie in that he had not had time to study each action listed. He was in support'ii:of the concept as well. Mr. Way said he appreciated the work Dr J Hastings has done on this. The time schedule had been met exactly as promispd. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and !seconded by Mr. Perkins to ap- prove the Affirmative Action Plan for general government employees as pre- sented to the Board in a memo dated January ~7, 1989. Roll was called and the motion carried ~y the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessEs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ~ A like motion was then adopted by the School Board for its employees. 198 January 23, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) Agenda Item No. 2b. Discussion: Crozet School Project. Mr. Agnor said the Board had asked for a comparison of cost estimates of the Crozet Replacement School and the new Southside Elementary School, includ- ing comparison of square footage and number of students. Ail of those figures for the Crozet project were provided; however, specific budget information is not currently available for Southside Elementary School from the architects. Those details will be provided as soon as they are available. The Board also requested the total cost to date of what has been spent on the Crozet School project and copies of minutes in which the Crozet School Project had been discussed. Mr. Agnor said these were all given to the Board, along with a confidential letter from the County Attorney regarding the pKoperty acquisi- tion issue. Mr. Bain asked when the figures from the architects could be expected. Mr. Overstreet said the architects~were unable to break out their number~ in the format requested for today's meeting. They would have them ready in a week to ten days. Mr. Tolbert said the architects would be ready to make their submission to the state within a week or so, depending upon what decisions the Boards made regarding costs. He said there is also the problem~of getting the school ready to open. If the school is ready in October, the switch to the new site could be made without too much difficulty. ~ Mr. Perkins said the problem in delaying is the bidding time. He felt the longer the delay, the higher the bids could come back, especially if they were delayed until summer. He said his understanding wa~ that the purpose of today's meeting was for the Board to make the decision o~ whether or not to appropriate the funds and the School Board to decide whether or not to pro- ceed. ]. Mr. Bowie pointed out that when the Crozet School discussions began, the School Board and the Board of Supervisors all felt a new school was not needed. Somehow within the next few months the decision!,!from the School Board was that it would only cost $100,000 to $200,000 more to ~build than to re- model. Now the figure is $4.5 million. He felt a consemsus from the School Board as to what the options are is necessary before the!Board takes any action. Mr. Lindstrom said he would rather wait for the figures from Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern before making any decision regarding lappropriation of funds. He said there had been many changes in this project since the dis- cussions began, according to copies of the minutes. It appears the cost per pupil will be thirty percent more than the Southside school. He believes the cost of development of the site and possibly some design~of the building are going to be substantial costs. He said he wants to see the architect's figures before appropriating any additional money from the Capital Improve- ments Budget. He is concerned that if this project is f~ded beyond what is budgeted, some other equally important project may be overlooked. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board consider a plan for a ilbond referendum, putting Crozet and Southside Schools, along with other p~o3ects having commu- nity-wide impact, into a bond referendum package. Mr. Bain said he wondered if something could be don~ at the old site. He asked that staff obtain information regarding possible u~e of the land beyond the present school building. He suggested possibly using a portion of the land from the new site for ball fields and tunneling under the state road for access to the fields. Mrs. Cooke said the Board was spending time comparing figures when the process could be made much simpler by using plans from fUnctioning elementary schools and adapting them to each site instead of starting from scratch on each project. Mrs. Cooke feels this should be as much a Ipart of the planning process as the growth projections, etc. Mr. Perkins said he felt the Board might as well be ireading about dino- saurs as to read the past minutes on these discussions, iHe felt that there is the opportunity this year to go ahead with this project, i' If necessary, the difference in the CIP could be made up next year. He sa~d at this point no January 23, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) 199 one knows what the bids are going to be. Other schools have been bid for less than expected. Mr. Haury said the Long Range Planning Committee had worked on enrollment projections for months for the Crozet School. He wanted to dispel any doubts as to whether there was the need for this school. He said their projection figures indicated that Crozet School may have spare seats for one year, but they would be filled quickly by 1992. He said both the Southside and Crozet schools would help relieve enrollment pressure in surrounding areas such as Red Hill. He said this committee would have a final report on enrollment by the end of February. Mrs. Cooke said she felt the stanardization of school plans should be as much a part of the overall planning process as the enrollment projections. Mr. Perkins said he agreed with Mrs. Cooke that it should not be neces- sary to "re-invent the wheel" on each school project. Mr. Finley said he had come to the meeting today thinking he would vote on this issue because considerations regarding the old site had been decided. If the Board of Supervisors felt they needed more figures, he was not sure it would be wise for the School Board to make a decision today. Mr. Tolbert said he understood that bids might actually come in low. However, he did not think the architects should betold to proceed, hoping t~ cost would work out in the end. He felt the decision regarding the appropri- ation of the funds had to be made by the Board of Supervisors after looking at the figures from Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern if that was what they desired. Then, if the Board of Supervisors felt a modification was necessary, the School Board would need to take action. Mr. Lindstrom felt the Board should consider deferring the discussion for two weeks. This would give time to get the figures needed from the archi- tects, get some answers regarding the bond neferendum issue, and analyze the present site at Crozet School during that time. Mr. Agnor said staff would need a good kontours map and the plans in fairly final form to analyze the site, and h~ is not sure these are available. He said by Wednesday of this week he could ascertain whether contours maps exist and whether staff could analyze the Cr0zet site. Mr. Perkins said he still thought the Bdard should go ahead with the project by appropriating the $200,000 to getl~ the land and telling the archi- tects there is this certain amount of money. They will then find ways to cut costs. He said Meriwether Lewis and Stone RObinson schools both had to be reworked after the bids came in. He felt the suggestions being made today were tactics to delay the project even further. Mr. Bowie said he thought the project was too far along to consider looking at the old site. The decision has tO be made before the deadline which he thought was about two months. The ~roblem is there are more projects in the budget than there is money. He was d~sappointed that VMDO's response was to say they were right and everyone else-was wrong. That led him to believe there might not be any reduction in ~osts. He felt Mrs. Cooke was right. There has to be some standardization ~in the system. Mr. Perkins said the decision needed toii~e made by February 1, 1989, in order to have time to advertise the bids. Mrs. Cooke said she supported Mr. PerkiqS' remarks. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and ,seconded by Mr. Bain to defer taking action on the Crozet School Project until February 1, 1989, to allow Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern to present their comparison figures. He said Mr. Agnor will know by Wednesday whether any comparison can be made of the present Crozet School site, and this will allow time for Mr. St. John to draft answers regarding a possible bond referendum. If the Board decides to fund the entire project, he does not think it will require another meeting with the School Board, but it will require an amendment of the CIP for this project. 200 January 23, 1989 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) Mr. Perkins said he hopes the Board understands what the results will be of a comparison of figures between Crozet School and Southside School. He said the Board should remember that the gym and cafeteria at Crozet School were designed for 600 students. They have twenty-one acres of land also. He said he feels the comparison will not be of "apples to apples". Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 2c. Executive Session: Acquisition of Property. At 9:40 A.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to adjourn into Executive Session to disCuss land acquisition. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 10:15 Agenda Item No. 3. Other Matters Not Listed on the~?Agenda. There were no other matters presented at this time. Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn to JanuarY 25, 1989, at!il:30 P.M. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adjourn to January 25, 1989, at 1:30 P.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None.