Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-03-08March 8, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 8, 1989, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr. and F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 9:08 A.M.), Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:12 A.M.), Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, Mr. George R. St. John; and County Planner, Mr. John T. P. Home. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:10 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to accept the items on the consent agenda as informa- tion. There was no discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Item 4.1. A report on Refunds on Business and Professional Licenses, Real Estate and Personal Property Taxes madelduring the period beginning November 1, 1988, and Ending February 28, 1969, by the Department of Finance; received as information. Item 4.2. A copy of the Planning Commission Minutes for February 21, 1989, was received as information. Item 4.3. Secondary Road Traffic Counts~?Taken in Albemarle County in 1988; received as information. Mr. Dan S. ROosevelt, Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation, noted in his letter that the traffic count program was reduced this year, ~and the counts cover all non-hard surface secondary roads, but only selected sections of hard surface roads. Item 4.4. Financial Report for the PeriOd of July 1, 1988, to Janu- ary 31, 1989, as prepared by the Department of Finance, received as informa- tion as set out below: ~ GENERAL FUNDS: REVENUES COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FINANCIAL;MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET REPORT FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1988 TO JANUARY 31~ 1989 1988/89 ~CEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE iiYTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS TOTAL EXPENDITURES 42,043,289 32~238,285 3,722,015 1~758,588 109,440 47,423 2~429~818 2~429~818 48,304,562 36~1474,114 88/89 EXM/OBLIG APPROP ~YTD 9,805,004 - 76.68% 1,963,427 - 47.25% 62,017 - 43.33% 0 - 100.00% 11,830,448 - 75.51% BALANCE EXP/OBLIG YTD YTD GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC SAFETY 3,169,025 1~1741,695 1,427,330 + 54.96% 1,103,980 .665,102 438,878 + 60.25% 4,348,091 2,935,793 1,412,298 + 67.52% 318 PUBLIC WORKS HEALTH AND WELFARE EDUCATION PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSFERS NONDEPARTMENTAL TOTAL SCHOOL FUND: REVENUES March 8, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) 1,793,460 791,798 1,001,662 + 44.15% 2,888,438 1,785,889 1,102,549 + 61.83% 25,367,126 14,845,127 10,521,999 + 58.52% 1,696,508 1,046,936 649,572 + 61.71% 1,314,778 775,433 539,345 + 58.98% 4,153,596 3,054,032 1,099,564 + 73.53% 2~469~560 2~385~557 ~ 84~003 + 96.60% 48,304,562 30,027,362 18,277,200 + 62.16% 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS-IN TOTAL EXPENDITURES 421,493 166,634 254,859 39.53% 16,420,426 8,733,361 7,687,065 53.19% 362,987 1 362,986 .00% 25,330,705 14,808,883 10,521,822 58.46% 42,535,611 23,708,879 18,826,732 55.74% 88/89 EXP/0BLIG ~ALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD YTD YTD ADMINISTRATION INSTRUCTION-REG DAY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE & HEALTH SERVICES PUPIL TRANSPORTATION OPERATION-SCHOOL PLANT FIXED CHARGES ADULT EDUCATION TRANSFER TOTAL 749,288 458,731 290,557 + 61.22% 26,572,224 12,509,878 14,062,346 + 47.08% 341,016 238,511 102,505 + 69.94% 3,040,752 1,816,074 1,224,678 + 59.72% 4,548,452 3,105,377 1,443,075 + 68.27% 7,273,251 3,642,705 3,630,546 + 50.08% 10,628 5,636 4,992 + 53.03% 0 0 0 + O.OO% 42,535,611 21,776,912 20,758,699 + 51.20% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND: REVENUES 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH NONREVENUE RECEIPTS FUND BALANCE TRANSFERS- IN TOTAL EXPENDITURES 418,500 305,131 i~113,369 - 72.91% 501,140 0 ii501,140 - 0.00% 2,886,902 738,768 2,!148,134 - 25.59% 4,626,458 4,626,458 0 + 100.00% 2~102,795 2~047~000 · 55~795 - 97.35% 10,535,795 7,717,357 2~818,438 - 73.25% 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD ~YTD YTD GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS EDUCATION PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSFERS TOTAL OTHER FUNDS: REVENUES 239,571 47,328 192,243 + 19.76% 1,245,945 103,981 1,141,964 + 8.35% 1,383,080 26,831 1,356,249 + 1.94% 5,385,542 3,703,618 1,681,924 + 68.77% 1,336,263 366,922 969,341 + 27.46% 812,609 523,636 288,973 + 64.44% 132,785 0 132~785 - 0.00% 10,535,795 4,772,316 5,763,479 + 45.30% 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION MODERATE REHAB. GRANT CDBG-AHIP T J HEALTH EDUCATION GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT TIPS E. D. PROGRAM CBIP SEVERE FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT DRUG EDUCATION GRANT 45,344 2,333 28,540 21,405 1,015,000 499,042 0 138,760 0 13,422 0 7,500 401,130 506,573 110,900 77,929 1,669 1,669 440,463 25,638 377,550 31,308 33,731 8,771 16,771 O 28,786 6,286 43,011 - 5.15% 7,135 + 75.00% 515,958 - 49.17% (138,760)+ 0.00% (13,422)+ 0.00% (7,500)+ 0.00% (!05,443)+ 126.29% ii32,971 - 70.27% 0 + 100.00% 414,825 - 5.82% 346,242 - 8.29% !'i24,960 - 26.00% 16,771 - 0.00% 22,500 - 21.84% March 8, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) SUMMER SCHOOL FUND COMMUNITY EDUCATION ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH CHAPTER I CHAPTER II MIGRANT EDUCATION CAFETERIA FUND JOINT SECURITY FUND JOINT DISPATCH FUND JOINT RECREATION FACILITY TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND MCINTIRE TRUST FUND JUANISE DYER TRUST FUND STORM WATER CONTROL FUND FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT VISITOR CENTER FUND DEBT SERVICE FUND TOTAL 113,579 69,067 263,636 200,933 5,937 0 474,354 111,046 63,423 8,776 34,991 14,306 1,394,845 627,265 3,015,297 933,316 658,462 462,402 195,066 21,318 218,500 198,944 10,000 27 0 176 463,037 377,360 143,140 143,140 0 39,512 2,043~666 1,007~032 11,597,817 5,555,256 OTHER FUNDS: EXPENDITURES 44,512 60.81% 62,703 - 76.22% 5,937 0.00% 363,308 23.41% 54,647 13.84% 20,685 40.88% 767,580 44.97% 2,081,981 30.95% 196,060 70.22% 173,748 10.93% 19,556 91.05% 9,973 0.27% (176)+ 0.00% 85,677 + 81.50% 0 + 100.00% (39,512)+ 0.00% 1~036~634 - 49.28% 6,042,561 47.90% 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD YTD YTD 319 METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION MODERATE REHAB. GRANT CDBG-AHIP T J HEALTH EDUCATION GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT TIPS E. D. PROGRAM CBIP SEVERE FED. JOB TRAINING PART. ACT. DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT DRUG EDUCATION GRANT SUMMER SCHOOL FUND COMMUNITY EDUCATION ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH CHAPTER I CHAPTER II MIGRANT EDUCATION CAFETERIA FUND JOINT SECURITY FUND JOINT DISPATCH FUND JOINT RECREATION FACILITY TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND MCINTIRE TRUST FUND JUANISE DYER TRUST FUND STORM WATER CONTROL FUND FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT VISITOR CENTER FUND DEBT SERVICE FUND TOTAL 45,344 3,426 28,540 17,767 1,015,000 452,453 0 138,760 0 14,511 0 27,437 401,130 137,375 110,900 36,597 1,669 1,668 440,463 147 007 377,550 172 145 33,731 8 073 16,771 7 211 28,786 8 469 113,579 63 365 263,636 246 109 5,937 3,178 474,354 223,293 63,423 32,889 34,991 25,350 1,394,845 673,712 3,015,297 1,115,093 658,462 302,637 195,066 49,462 218,500 91,821 10,000 0 0 0 463,037 50,240 143,140 105,358 0 39,512 2~043~666 1~636~168 11,597,817 5,831,086 41,918 + 7.56% 10,773 + 62.25% 562,547 + 44.58% (138,760)- 0.00% (14=,511)- 0.00% (27,437)- 0.00% 263,755 + 34.25% 74,303 + 33.00% 1 + 99.94% 293.,456 + 33.38% 205i, 405 + 45.60% 25,658 + 23.93% 9:,560 + 43.00% 20,317 + 29.42% 50,214 + 55.79% 17,527 - 93.35% 2,759 + 53.53% 251,061 + 47.07% 30,534 + 51.86% 9,641 + 72.45% 721,133 + 48.30% 1,900,204 + 36.98% 355,825 + 45.96% 145,604 + 25.36% 126,679 + 42.02% 10,000 + 0.00% 0 + O.OO% 412,797 + 10.85% 37,782 + 73.60% (39,512)+ 0.00% 407~498 + 80.06% 5,766,731 + 50.28% Item 4.5. Notice dated March 3, 1989, from Mr. D. E. Ogle, Assistant Highway District Engineer, re: Citizen Information Meeting on preliminary plans for the improvement of Route 250 from St. Clair Avenue to 1-64 in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County; received as information. (Note: Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 9:11 A.M.) Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: May 14, April 6 (N) and April 13, 1988. 1986; January 6 (N), Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes for April 13, 1988, page 25 to End, and found them to be in order. 320 March 8, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes for May 14, 1986, page 13 to the end, and January 6 (Night), 1988, and found a few minor typographical errors. Mr. Perkins had read the minutes for April 13, 1988, page 13 to 25, and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve minutes which had been read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Discussion: Improvement Project Route 20/Avon Street Extended Interchange. Mr. Roosevelt said that on February 27, 1989, VDoT held a location and design public hearing on this project which covers improvement of the Route 20/Avon Street Extended intersection south of Charlottesville. Only five members of the public attended the public hearing. VDoT presented an engi- neering report and information concerning right-of-way negotiations. None of the citizens in attendance made any statements concerning the information presented. As of this date, Mr. Roosevelt said, no written statements have been received by the Department. Mr. Roosevelt said the project would improve the sight distance at the intersection of Route 20 and Avon Street Extended. The improvement would als¢ necessitate the taking of one business located at the intersection. In 1988, this section of Route 20 carried 6,060 vehicles per day ahdVDoT anticipates that it will carry about 13,002 trips per day by the year 2012. He said there were ten accidents at this intersection between January, 1986 and October, 1988. Mr. Roosevelt said this improvement would cost $680,000, with the cost of acquiring the right-of-way totaling about $185,000; construction costs, $442,000; and preliminary engineering, $60,000. He said the VDoT plans to advertise this project for construction in May, 1990. Mr. Roosevelt said he now needs the Board to advise him of its position on this~improvement. Mr. Way said he thinks the improvement is needed andlshould make the smfer for school buses carrying children to and from the ~ew Southside school. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to endorse the improvement as proposed by the VDoT by adopting the fdllowing resolution: WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportat$on held a Location and Design Public Hearing to consider the p~oposed location and design of Route 20 from 0.10-mile north of Routei742 (Avon Street) to 0.14 mile south of Route 742 in Albemarlei,County (Project #0020-002-S17, C501); and ~' WHEREAS, none of the citizens in attendance at the public hearing made any verbal statements, nor were any written comments received, concerning the information presented; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Board does heresy endorse the project as proposed by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindst=om, Perkins and Way NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 6b. Statement for Preallocation Hea~ing in Culpeper on April 12, 1988, for the Interstate, Primary and Urban Systems. Mr. Agnor sai~ the Planning Commission is meeting in a work session this~month with the to discuss the Six Year Primary Highway Plan. He recommehded that the state- ment be drafted after the Planning Commission has present~'d the results of work session to the Board, sometime at the end of March. March 8, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) 321 Mr. Way noted that the preallocation hearing is to occur on the same date as the regular day meeting of the Board. Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Bowie offered to attend. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Home to consider the possibility of including the widening of Route 250 East to Shadwell, particularly if Milton is to be a growth area. Agenda Item No. 6c. Discussion: Route 641 Project. Mr. Roosevelt said the Board took action on February 13, 1989, concerning the right-of-way status on Routes 708 and 641. Right-of-way deed for Route 708 have been forwarded to the District Office for recordation. Mr. Roosevelt said he has reviewed the location of Route 641 on the ground. This route is approximately two miles long and serves twelve houses of which two are under construction. The right-of-way which was dedicated prior to November 1, 1988, fronts along property occupied by four of these houses, two of which are currently under construction. Of the four houses along the dedicated section, three are near the road and will be affected by dust during dry periods. Mr. Roosevelt said Route 641 qualifies as an improvement need, but he does not feel that the quarter-mile or so of lright-of-way dedicated prior to November 1 serves sufficient families to warrant considering this section for improvement under the old policy. He will advise the Board should additional right-of-way become available in the future.. Unless directed otherwise by the Board, he will hold the deeds currently in hand until additional right-of-way sufficient for a valid improvement is obtained. Mr. Bowie asked if the right-of-way that has been dedicated could be recorded so that the right-of-way would remain even if the property were sold. Mr. St. John said the right-of-way was not recorded until all that was needed had been dedicated; otherwise, the road may ~ever be widened and people would have given up their property for nothing. Agenda Item No. 6d. Discussion: Route ~614 at Intersection with Route 766. Mr. Roosevelt said he received a letter dated January 26, 1989, from Mr. Bradley Knight complaining about the intersedtion of Route 614 and Route 766. Mr. Knight said he had experienced two automobile accidents at this intersec- tion and asked if there could be an improvement made to the road. Mr. Roosevelt said he has researched the! accident data for this intersec- tion and the data is confusing. Between Janu~ary, 1986 and November 1988, VDoT lists only one accident occurring at this loC/etlon. However, records of the County's Police Department list 14 accidents bccurring at the intersection from January, 1986 to July, 1987. He said hei visited the site and the visi- bility is poor due to high embankments on both sides of the intersection and because Route 766 slopes uphill where it meetls Route 614. He said the sight distance could be improved for about $2500, h~t he would like to make sure that sight distance is responsible for the a~idents. Mr. Roosevelt said he must verify the accident records before proceeding any further, and pointed out that there are many intersections in the ~ounty where sight distance may be an even bigger problem. Agenda Item No. Mr. Bain thanked Mr. Roosevelt for atter behind the Woodyard"~ - ~ $ 7~ Mr. Lindstrom asked why river gravel is ments, such as Route 676 in Ivy. Mr. Rooseve 6e. Other Highway Matte~:s. ling to the repair of "the road ieing used for some road improve- t said the contractor, Whitehurst Paving, used river gravel because ~t is cheaper than the local stone and meets VDoT's standards. 322 March 8, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting (Page 6) Mr. Perkins said a citizen from the Windham Retirement Home in Crozet asked if a caution light or crossing could be installed on Route 240 at the entrance of the Home. An elderly person was hit by a car at this location on Route 240 six weeks ago. Mr. Roosevelt said this stretch of roadway is posted at 25 miles per hour. He added that it is VDoT's policy to minimize the use of flashing caution lights and crosswalks, because people begin to rely on the signs or lights for protection, even though these measures do not slow down traffic. Agenda Item No. 7. Yellow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District, An Ordinance to Create a district known as (deferred from March 1, 1989). Mr. Horne handed out a list of the properties involved, which has changed since this item was deferred. He said the proposed district now contains five parcels owned by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Sabel, tax map 70, parcel 37B; two, 21-acre parcels that were recently subdivided from parcei 37B, 37B2 and 37B3; and two, two-acre parcels also subdivided from parcel 37B. Mr. Horne said the Board indicated at its last meeting that it was not interested in including the two, two-acre parcels in the agricultural/forestal district. Mr. Horne said there were no dwellings on the two, 21-acre parcels ~and two dwellings on the 79-acre parcel. He said the three big parcels were all being used for farming and staff recommends that these parcels are eligible for inclusion in the agricultural/forestal district. Since the last meeting, Mr. Horne said, Mr. F. Bradley Peyton, III, contacted the staff and said he wishes to modifY his application. Mr. Peyton wants to delete a parcel of seven-tenths of an acre from the application and add tax map 55, parcel 12B (33.250 acres), parcel 16 (10.§6 acres), 16B (19.700 acres) and 20A (18.880 acres). Mr. Home said th~ staff has reviewed these parcels and found that they are being used for agrihultural purposes and have no dwellings upon them. He recommended that the Board accept the modifi- cation to the application, i Mr. Lindstrom said the parcels he objected to have a~l been deleted, except for part of a parcel on Interstate 64. Mr. Peytoni~addressed the Board and said the piece of property was part of a larger parce~ that he would like to have accepted into the agricultural/forestal district.~i Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Perkins to adopt the following ordinance. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way NAYS: None. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 2.1-4, CHAPTER 2.1, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of ALbemarle County, Virginia, that Section 2.1-4 of the Code of Albemarl~ be, and the same hereby is, amended and reenacted by the additio~ of a new subsection (p) to be known as the Yellow Mountain Agr, icultural and Forestal District, as follows: Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described. (p) The district known as the "Yellow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: tax map 55, parcels 12B, 15, 16, 16B, 20A; tax map 70, parcels 15, 15A, 15D, 15E, 29, 37B (part); tax map 71, parcels 2,1 22, 22A, 22B, 22C. ~. Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: Solicitors Ordinance, revisions to. March 8, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) 323 Mr. St. John said he has discussed this matter with Mr. Lindsay Dorrier who suggested that the Board not amend the ordinance to restrict solicitors to daylight hours, because such an amendment may not be constitutional. He said solicitation is considered speech and protected under the First Amendment; restricting the time, place, or manner of solicitation could be compared to restricting free speech and the Board would have to show a compelling reason for such action. Mr. St. John said he believes the County's ordinance should be amended to bring it into conformance with State law, by adding a section calling attention to, and making the ordinance subject to, Chapter 5 of Title 57 of the Code of Virginia. He said he has provided the Board with a proposed amendment. He added that the policeand the~public should be informed of the provisions in the present ordinance, which give every resident the right to post a "no soliciting" sign on the premises,'and the right to order solicitors to leave, even if such a sign is not on the premises. Mr. Bowie asked if the County could require that solicitors be licensed. Mr. St. John said solicitors do not have to ~e licensed by the County if they are licensed by the State Tax Commissioner. ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked if solicitation could be considered a special kind of speech, since the State imposes a fee and a ~icense for the exercise of such speech. Mr. St. John said he does not think this argument would prevail. Mrs. Cooke asked what recourse cmtzzens!~have if they do not wish to be bothered by solicitors. Mr. St. John said aisolicitor becomes a trespasser when he or she steps foot on posted propertylor when he or she refuses to leave after being asked to do so. I Mr. Perkins asked if there were any distinction made between charitable solicitation and commercial solicitation. M~. St. John said the County has the power to regulate solicitation by commercial organizations and require them to have a license. He said he does not think the County could restrict the hours of commercial solicitors. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain an~iMr. Lindstrom to hold a public hearing on April 12, 1989, to bring section 17~4 of ~he County code into conformity with the State code and to add a new sectional7-7. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, M~ssrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Enhanced 911 Program, Update on the. Mr. Agnor gave the following staff repor;.t: "In October 1987, you held a public hea~ing on the assessment of a telephone surcharge for the funding of a~n Enhanced 911 emergency dispatch system, which is an automated l'ocator system to determine the location of telephones being used foM calls for emergency help. The surcharge was advertised not to exceed 85¢ per month per sub- scriber for a period of two years to develop the locator system, and 30¢ per month per subscriber thereafter for operating the system. Your action at that meeting was to authorize the development of a plan to implement the system. You also .authorized the 911 Board to contract with Centel for the system. '~ Since that hearing, a number of methods ~or developing a locator system in the County have been examined. ! Methods used by other local~tmes, by other telephone systems, and those offered for con- sideration by firms who develop such systems have been scrutinized. A principal concern has been the ability!?to estimate costs, and to translate those costs to monthly telephone surcharges on county and city telephone subscriber bills, i! As you realize, the bulk of work in deve$oping a locator system is in the County. An important element of the~iproject is the availability of accurate and detailed maps, and the a~aptation of the maps to an information system which can be derived ~rom, or can serve, other 324 March 8, 1989 (Regular Day.Meetin (Page 8) mapping uses in County and City governments, i.e. property assess- ments, utility service areas, land planning, zoning, bus routing, inspections, etc. Listed below is a current estimate developed by Centel from meetings with staff, and from programs in other localities, which is believed to be a reasonably accurate projection. Staff has prepared a request for proposals from firms who develop these systems, and is prepared to commence the project. The first phase will be to determine what is the best locator system that can be developed in the County which would operate in tandem with the City's street and building number system, and be adaptable to mapping information systems. How much it will cost, and how long it will take to install the system will be included in the first phase. The recommendations for the system and its costs will be presented to the Board for decision before pro- ceeding to develop the system. Until the costs are calculated from a selected locator system, and the time for its availability to telephone users is known, staff can not recommend the commencement of a surcharge. Staff does recommend, however, that a special project fund be created with an advance of $35,000 from the General Fund in order to begin the project, with~the understanding that the advanced funds would be returned to the General Fund from the first receipts of the telephone surcharge once it is known, and is levied. As you know, State law allows the costs of designing and developing an Enhanced 911 system, and the opera- tions of the system, to be derived from the surchar§~ on telephone bills. Those costs will be accounted for in the project fund, and expenditures of advanced funds recovered when surcharge revenues begin. ESTIMATE OF COSTS FOR ENHANCED 9111 Equipment - Centel $ Data Base - Centel Greenwood/Gordonsville Exchange Equipment - 911 Center Contingency Collection Fee - Centel Sub-Total $ Total City County 400,000 $ 160,000~ $ 240,000 167,000 67,000 100,000 100,000 40,000.~ 60,000 90,000 36,000 54,000 50,000 20,000 30,000 24~000 9~600 14,400 831,000 $ 332,600 $ 498,400 Locator System Total 285~000 10,000 $1,116,000 $ 342,600 275,000 $ 773,400 System Cost per access line $ 14.135 $ 21.61 Monthly Cost per access line for 24 months $ 0.%0 Ongoing Monthly Costs when system operational $ 0.35 Total telephone lines in system 59,618 City telephone lines = 40 percent of total County telephone lines = 60 percent of total $ 0.90 $ 0.15 Shared costs of equipment and collection fees = 40%/60% Locator System-estimated costs of developing each system-not shared costs Mr. Bowie asked what the collection fee for Centel is. Mr. Agnor said Centel would collect the fee from its subscribers and give the County the money from this collection. He said State law allows Centel to retain a collection fee of three percent. !i Mr. Bowie said he is concerned that one-time costs, ~ch as equipment, are mixed in the estimate with the ongoing monthly costs, i!He asked Mr. Agnor if the estimates for the monthly costs, made about a year ~go, are still accurate. Mr. Agnor said "yes"'. March 8, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) 325 Mr. Bain asked if the $773,000 estimated cost for the enhanced 911 system is expected to come from the Capital Improvements budget. Mr. Agnor said the funds are intended to come from the surcharge and have not been incorporated in the Capital Improvements budget. Mr. Bain asked how much of the $773,000 could be recouped. Mr. Agnor said the County is allowed to recoup the one- time costs and the cost of updating the data base and the collection fee. He said it would take about two years to recover the $498,400. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to appropriate $35,000 from the General Fund to begin the project by adopting the resolution below, with the understanding that the advanced funds will be returned to the General Fund from the first receipts of the telephone surcharge once it is known and levied. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. FY 1988/89 Fund: General Purpose of Appropriation: Expenditure Cost Center/Category 1100031040565610 Revenue 2100051000510100 (Note: Funding for implementation and study for E911. Description Amount Egll Implementation $35,000.00 TOtal $35,000.00 Description Amount Appropriation from Fund $35,000.00 Balance ~ Total $35,000.00 The Board recessed at 10:30 A.M~ and reconvened at 10:50 A.M.) Agenda Item No. 12a. Appropriation: S¢ottsville Floodwall Utility Relocations. Mr. Agnor said Mayor A. Raymon Thacker Of the Town of Scottsville had requested contributions to the cost of relocating water and sewer systems necessitated by the floodwall. He said the project is now complete and cost $64,764.81 for the utility relocations, less $7861 paid by the Town, leaving a net cost of $56,903.91. The Albemarle County Service Authority has paid the contractor in full and asks that the County reimburse the Authority for its share. Mr. Agnor said he assumes that a 50-30 split was intended, which would be $28,451.90 for the County's share. He said the staff recommends that the Board approve an appropriation for this amount, with the funds derived from the Capital Improvement Program fund balance,i which increased by $90,000 when this item was removed from the program. - Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to appropriate $28,451.90 from the Capital Improvement Program for one-half of the County's share in the costs by adopting the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded ¥ote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. FY: 1988/89 Fund: Capital Purpose of Appropriation: Expenditure Cost Center/Catesory 1900041000702028 Revenue 2900051000510100 FUnding for relocation of Scottsville Floodwall Utilities. Description ! Amount Scottsville Utilities $28,451.90 iTotal $28,451.90 Description_ Amount Appropriation f~om Fund $28,451.90 Balance Total $28,451.90 326 March 8, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) Agenda Item 12b. Appropriation: Education - "English as a Second Lan- guage Program". Mr. Agnor said the County schools are eligible for additional federal funds for migrant education due to the increased length of the students' stay in the County. Additional funds are available for compensation and expenses of migrant instructional personnel to participate in "English as a Second Language" program development and staff training. The School Board asks for an additional appropriation in the amount of $11,000. Mr. Perkins asked why the School Board is requesting $1,100 more in the category of staff development. Mr. Agnor said he does not know and will try to find the answer for Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Agnor said he has received notice from the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) that negotiations have been completed with Virginia Power for new contract rates for local governments. He presented the contract from Virginia Power, which he said would result in a significant reduction in the rates. He said this reduction is retroactive from July 1~, 1988, and will last three years. He said the rates have been reduced by anywhere from seven to 14 percent, depending on the fee schedule, in the first year~ of the contract. During the second and third years, increase in the rates will be modest, two and one-half percent in the second year and two and four~i~enths percent in the third year. He said staff had anticipated a reduction of~!!ten percent and planned the budget accordingly; the actual reduction is an average of 8.5 percent. Mr. Agnor asked for authorization to execute the new agreement in recognition of the County's participation in the negotiations with VACo. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to authorize the County Executive to execute a contract with the Virginia Electric and Power Company with the new rates to be effective retroact'~ve to July 1, 1988. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following r~corded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindst~,om, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing and Adoption of !%esolution - Com- munity Development Block Grant Program (Old Scottsville S~hool). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 4, 1989.) Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Community Development, summarized the adaptive re-use of the old Scottsville School for apartments for the elderly citizens with low or moderate incomes. He said the Jorda~ Development Corpo- ration proposes to rehabilitate 31,000 square feet of thei?acant school building into 34, one-bedroom apartments for people who a~e 62 years old and older, with low incomes. Each apartment will be equippedi~for independent living and contain a full kitchen, bath, bedroom and livi~g-dining area of approximately 625 square feet. Laundry and storage areas'iwill be provided. He said the Department of Parks and Recreation operates f~cilities adjacent to the proposed apartments that will provide con, non space for~ meetings and recreation as well as activities and educational programs. Mr. Cilimberg said the County and the Corporation have signed an agree- ment to enter into a Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) co~tract for all 34 units, which will guarantee continued occupancy by low-inaQme elderly for about 12 years. The Corporation will finance the rehabili~ation with its own equity, with a loan from Jefferson National Bank of Charlottesville, with loans from the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund and the Ciommunity Development Block Grant applied for by this application. When the construction is fin- ished, the Albemarle Housing Office will advertise and certify tenants to move in. The management of the Scottsville School apartments ~11 be contracted with Management Services Corporation, a professional management firm in Charlottesville overseeing some 1000 apartments in the area. Employees from March 8, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) the Management Services Corporation will be available to assist tenants with maintenance and safety and direct them to community services. He said the Board of Directors of the Jordan Development Corporation will oversee the activities of the management firm at monthly.meetings. Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Since no one present wished to speak, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Bain asked about the loan of $1,000,000 from the Jefferson National Bank. Mr. Cilimberg said staff anticipates needing only $850,000 of the $1,000,000 commitment. This loan will be used to pay construction costs and then it will be converted to permanent financing based on a adjustable rate mortgage for 35 years. He said the rent charged for the units will be used to pay back the loan. Mr. Way asked Mr. Agnor to brief the Board on the status of the property, owned by Uniroyal, which must be acquired before the project can proceed. Mr. Agnor said the contract is moving through the hierarchy of Uniroyal. He said he anticipates no problem with the contract but will check on its progress. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt the following resolution: ~ WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle, ¥irginia, wi-shes to apply for $300,000 of Virginia Community Development Block Grant funds for Adaptive Re-Use of the former Scottsvil~e School for Low/Moderate Income Elderly apartments; and WHEP~EAS, $340,000 in Virginia Housing Partnership Load Funds, a $1,000,000 loan commitment from Jefferson National Bank, $110,000 in Jordan Development Corporation funds, anld $300,000 in Albemarle County property have been dedicated to this project; and WHEREAS, it is projected that thirty-four, one-bedroom dwelling units providing housing for forty-six lo~ and moderate income persons will be developed; and WHEREAS, public hearings have been :'~eld in accordance with guidelines of the Community Improvement grant Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thati~ Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, is hereby authorized to sign ~nd submit the appropriate documents for submittal of this Virginia! Community Development Block Grant application. Roll was called and the motion carried b~ the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Not Docketed: Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Agno~ if the staff could prepare an explanation of the new legislation on conditional zoning and special dis- tricts. She said she thinks the Board shouldlidiscuss this new legislation and its ramifications for the County. Mr. Lindst~om suggested that Mr. Jim Skove, a former planner for Fairfax who served on th~ Albemarle County Planning Commission, address the Board on conditional $oning and special districts. Mr. St. John said he could also provide an overview of the legislation during work sessions on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. ~Way said he wants to stick to the agenda during these work sessions and thinks it would be more effective to have Mr. Skove and Mr. St. John make presentations at a future work session. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom said they think ~he new legislation should be discussed before a new Comprehensive Plan is ~dopted. Agenda Item No. 11. Community Service Officers Program, Discussion of. Mr. Agnor presented the following memoraq.~dum, dated March 1, 1989: "Advertisements for volunteers for the C~mmunity Service Officer program were placed in local newspapers ~n August and September with 328 March 8, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting (Page 12) no applications being received. Recruiting by staff for volunteers during October and November resulted in six applicants. Five of these applicants passed the tests required for the positions. A decision is now needed to proceed with the program with five candi- dates, or to continue to recruit before commencing the planned training, or to restructure the program. Numerous inquiries were received from the advertisement and recruit- ment efforts, but only six filed applications when training require- ments and duties were discussed. Most inquiries were interested in being involved in an auxiliary police program, which would assign ride-along duties, and provide firearm training and equipment. Staff estimates that approximately fifteen participants are needed to have a useful program in traffic control and security at events or disasters, assuming not all volunteers are available at any one time. Staff understands the structure of the program from the concerns of the Board in developing it, but also realized that auxiliary police forces, as outlined in State law and used by other Communities, are more in line with the interests of citizens who volUntarily dedicate their time to training and serving. A similarity toi~ volunteer firefighters who train for and serve a dangerous profession alongside paid employees could be drawn to a volunteer police ~group. Rescue squad volunteers are somewhat similar, even though they do not serve alongside paid employees. They do voluntarily train~ and are dedi- cated to a hazardous service in today's health envif6nment. Staff believes that citizens who volunteer to serve iin police, fire, and rescue services are motivated for reasons and i~a manner that does not respond to limited service. Staff recommends consideration be given to restructuring the volunteer program along traditional lines of responsibility with a specific trial perio~ after which the program would be reviewed and/or revised. A two ye~ trial period is suggested. If the Board does not agree with the restructuring, ~taff recommends that the program proceed with a continued effort to ~xpand the participants to a more meaningful number." Mr. Bowie said he thinks one of the problems with recruitment is that al a volunteer will be allowed to do, after passing the test,~ training for hours and passing a background check, is answer the phone. According to state law, Mr. St. John said, auxlllary~!offlcers may have the power of arrest and carry firearms. Mrs. Cooke said she has a problem with people who waht to volunteer for something just so they can carry a gun. She said the County would also be liable for the safety of these volunteers; allowing them to carry guns would necessitate a lot of insurance. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not believe there can be ~hortcuts to achiev- ing a fully trained, fully accredited police force. He said several police officers have told him that they are uneasy about riding ~ith part-time volunteer policemen, whether these volunteers were armed qr unarmed. He said he also thinks this program should begin under the administration of the new chief of police, once this position is filled. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not support expanding the duties of the volunteer officers, i~ Mrs. Cooke said she agrees with Mr. Lindstrom. She ~hinks that arming volunteer policemen would put more pressure on the full-time policemen. Mr. Bowie said he agrees that the auxiliary police p~ogram should not begin until a new chief of police has been hired. He sai~ there are over 2000 units of auxiliary police serving throughout the United S~ates; all but one are armed and the volunteers go through the same training!!as police officers. He said he thinks five volunteers should be enough with which to begin the training program. March 8, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) Mr. Lindstrom asked how much time police officers would devote to train- ing the volunteers. Mr. Agnor said the volunteers are required to be in training for 60 hours. The officers who would train the volunteers would donate 30 hours of their free time and the remaining 30 hours would come from their regular workday. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the Board should decide whether it wants to expand the duties of the auxiliary officers. Mr. Way said he is not opposed to the concept. He said what the new police chief thinks about expanding the duties will be important. He said volunteer police forces have worked well in other areas and could help the County improve its ability to enforce the law. Mr. Bowie said he supports delaying this program until a police chief is hired. He said a volunteer police force will involve citizens in law enforce- ment and educate them about the workings of the Police Department. Mr. Bain said he thinks there should be~a better working relationship between the Sheriff's deputies and the polic~ officers. He said the deputies should be able to help with crowd control and the other duties recommended to be assumed by the volunteer police force. He said he does not like the concept of a volunteer police force, but it ~s possible that a new police chief could convince him it can work in the ~ounty. Mr. Way said there seems to be a consensus to wait until a police chief is hired before proceeding with the communit~ service officers program. Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to reap- point Mr. Edward J. Jones to the Jefferson A~ea~ Board for Aging with said term to expire on March 31, 1991. Roll was calle~ and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, M~ssrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 18. Otherl Matters Not ~isted on the Agenda from the Board or the Public. Since the~e was time l~ft after covering the morning's agenda, Mr. Way asked Mr. St. J~hn to summarize for the Board the new legisla- tion concerning service districts, i service district for the provis He said the procedure for estab further. Mr. St. John said the new legislation allows counties to establish service districts by ordinance. A service dii~trict, he said, is a district in which governmental services are~provided thatiiiare not provided in other parts of the county. The residents o~ such distridts are taxed to pay for these services. Mr. St. John said th ~ county coul~inot levy a special tax in a [on of service~ that are provided county-wide. [ishing servic~ districts must be studied Mr. Lindstrom asked if the provided when it delineates the Board could choose the services deciding these services on a ye services could be added after t he does not think the Board wou! informing the residents what se then be added or eliminated by Mrs. Cooke asked if the Co department to oversee trash col district. Mr. St. John said "n Mr. Lindstrom said the leg paid for by creating special se "additional security" can. He Board must de~ide what services are to be boundaries of!' the service district, or if the after establishing the district, perhaps ~rly basis. M~. St. John said he thinks ~e service district has been established, but ~d want to set!iiup a service district without :vices will be!iloffered. He said services could unending the o~dinance and the tax rate. mty would hav~ to establish a public works _,e, ction and such, before creating a service slation states that police service cannot be ~vice district~, but "special security" or ~sked if this ~eans taxes could be levied in 330 March 8, 1989~(Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) service districts for extra security only if a locality-had no police depart- ment or if localities with police departments could tax residents in these districts for the extra officers needed to patrol the area. Mr. St. John said he does not know. He said it is difficult to imagine police officers or firemen responding to calls only within a service district, when an emergency occurs outside the district. Mr. Lindstrom said there should be some way of determining how much extra police service is used by residents in service districts and tax them accordingly. He said this legislation is the only way to pay for services needed in the urban area without unfairly taxing the rest of the County. Mr. Bowie said residents of subdivisions and growth areas often request leash laws and suggested that levying taxes in service districts could help pay for another animal control officer. Mr. St. John read from the legislation a list of the following services that could be paid for by taxing special service districts: transportation, water supply, sewerage, garbage removal and disposal, firefighting equipment, power and gas systems, sidewalks, economic development services, promotion of business, landscaping, parks, extra security, snow removal, street cleaning, refuse collection, recreational and cultural activities and other services or activities which will enhance the enjoyment, safety and wSll-being of resi- dents within a service district. Mr. St. John said the Board could also require that residents use the services provided by the COunty. Services that may not be paid for by special service districts include:i~ schools, police or general government services. Mrs. Cooke said she thinks the Board should hold a dSscussion with the public on this legislation. She asked the staff to put t~gether a presenta- tion on the legislation and its ramifications for the County to be presented at a future Board meeting. Mr. Bain asked if "transportation" on the list Mr. Sit. John just read could be interpreted to mean roads. Mr. St. John said i~would be difficult to tax residents of service districts for roads that may ~un outside the boundaries of the service district. ~ Agenda Item No. 13. Executive Session: Property. Personnel a~d Acquisition of ,i Mr. St. John said he would like to add a legal matte~ to be discussed during executive session, the suit against Mr. David Lee ~pradlin for operat- ing a salvage yard. At 12:06 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom a~d seconded by Mr. Bain to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel, land acquisition and legal matters pertaining to the Spradlin suit. Roll ~as called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: L AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindst~om, Perkins and Way NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 1:45 P.M. Agenda Item No. 14. Clean Community Commission Anr}ual Report. Mr. Chick Thompson, President of the Clean Community iCommission addresse~ the Board and introduced Ms. Judy Dunn, the Commission's ~ecutive Director. He thanked the Board for the help the Board has given the ~ommission over the years and said the Commission is glad to give something b~ck to the County. He said the County and City have won the Governor's Award~!~f Excellence for a Clean Virginia Community for the Commission's efforts in ~cycling and educat- ing the public. He presented the plaque to the Board andi~aid the County can display it for six months, then the plaque must go the City for six months. Mr. Thompson said the cleanup and recycling day held iCounty-wide last year drew 3,000 volunteers from the City and County. TheSe volunteers cleaned 150 miles of roadway and recycled over one million pounds ~f paper and glass. March 8, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) 331 This year, the Com~nission plans a cleanup day that will involve four counties and the City. Ms. Dunn addressed the Board and presented a resolution which she asked the Board to consider that would designate April 1, 1989 as Jefferson Country Cleanup/Recycling Day. Mr. Thompson added that Mr. Rob Coles would be the spokesman for the Commission and the Cleanup Day. Mr. Way congratulated the Commission for receiving the award and thanked them for the work members of the Commission have done for the County. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt the following resolution proclaiming April 1, 1989, as Jefferson Country Clean- up/Recycling Day: WHEREAS, four local counties in Virginia have formally desig- nated April 1, 1989, as a county-wide cleanup/recycling day; and WHEREAS, Charlottesville/Albemarle Clean Community Commission and Charlottesville/Albemarle Recycle Together have requested the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to designate April 1, 1989, as Jefferson Country Cleanup/Recycle Day; and WHEREAS, this designation will help C-AC3 and CART with promo- tional plans and be of benefit to the c~mmunity. AYES: NAYS: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, on ~his the eighth day of March, 1989, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby desig- nates April 1, 1989, as Jefferson Country Cleanup/Recycle Day. i! Roll was called and the motion carried ~y the following recorded vote: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, M~ssrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 15. Virginians for Cle~ Air, Request from. Dr. Tom Leinbach addressed the Board an~ said he is representing Virgin- ians for Clean Air, a group of concerned citizens who want to educate the public about the dangers of passive smoking ~d to encourage legislation to protect the public from the health hazards ofl. indoor pollution. He said the Surgeon General has identified second-hand t6~acco smoke as a serious health hazard for both non-smokers and smokers. According to the Surgeon General, second-hand smoke can cause lung cancer in non-smokers. Since 1986, states, counties and cities throughout the country have been regulating smoking in public places. Dr. Leinbach said the past sgSsion of the General Assembly convinced him that Virginia will be among thai last states to have a State-wide clean air ordinance. He then listed localities in Virginia that have clean air ordinances. He said it is urgent that tH~ County enact such a ordinance because if State Senator Virgil Goode has hi~iway, localities will not be able to pass such legislation in the future. He ~aid there is very little opposi- tion in this area to a clean air ordinance, i~e said smoking in public places endangers the public safety. According to a i~ecent article in the New EnKland Journal of Medicine, between 2500 and 8400 d~aths per year due to lung cancer may be attributed to second-hand smoking. H~asked the Board to recognize this problem and enact a clean air ordinance,~ia model of which he presented to the Board. ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if receht legislation has any effect on the Board's ability to enact a clean air ordinance before July 1, 1989. Mr. St. John said he thinks the legislation has l~ttle effect on the Board's ability to adopt such an ordinance before July 1, 1989. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the Board s~ould consider a clean air ordinance while it still has the authority. He suggested that the staff draft such an ordinance for the Board to review. H~ said he does not think it is fair to smokers to prohibit smoking; nor doesihe think it fair to non-smokers to make it impossible for them to find smoke-~ree areas in which to work or dine. He said the City's ordinance allows smokers to continue smoking, but 332 March 8, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) requires that space be set aside in restaurants and workplaces for people who do not smoke. Mrs. Cooke said she agrees that the Board should consider such an ordi- nance while it has the opportunity. She said it is difficult to have smoke- free zones in places such as restaurants where smoking is allowed, because smoke does not respect boundaries. She said she favors a clean air ordinance. Mr. Way said he agrees with Mr. Lindstrom and thinks this matter should be taken to public hearing. The Board directed the staff to draft an ordi- nance. Agenda Item No. 15a. Easement of Property Donation in the Ivy Creek Natural Area. Mr. Horne said Mr. Dennis Rooker and other property owners in the Roslyn Ridge subdivision, Roslyn Farm and Roslyn Heights wish to donate to the Count' easements or fee simple ownership of approximately 50- foot wide strips along Martin's Branch and other tributaries of Ivy Creek. On behalf of the resi- dents, Mr. Rooker has requested some contribution by the County towards the cost of surveying the above easements, or lot lines. Mr. Horne said the staff believes that there would be some environmental benefit to the protection of these streams. He said current zoning regula- tions do not allow buildings or drainfields within 100 ho=izontal feet of the edge of these streams, but clearing vegetation and foresC~ along these streams is allowed. Mr. Horne added that the proposed easement ~es in an area that would be crossed by one of the routes suggested for the Rdute 29 Western Bypass. He said it is uncertain whether the acquisition ~f this property for use by the Ivy Creek Natural Areawould affect the delibe~ations of the VDoT, but Mr. Rooker has said the property owners hope that thi~ donation would limit the use of this area for construction of a bypass. ~ Mr. Home said the staff does not recommend that theS~a donations be accepted or County funds be expended at this time. After~the YDoT has fin- ished its Bypass Study, Mr. Home said, it may be appropriate to accept these donations. If this land did not lie on or near a suggested rout~ for the proposed western bypass, Mr. Lindstrom said, would the staff recommend that these donation be accepted? Mr. Home said the staff would want to study the environmental benefits of the donations before making a r~commendation. In any case, Mr. Horne said, staff would probably not recommend that public funds be spent to survey these lots. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the staff's analyses of~iagricultural/ forestal districts, easements and the like should be neutral concerning the bypass. If this offer is consistent with the County's policies and benefits the public, then he thinks the County should accept the donation regardless of other issues. If the advantages of an easement do not justify the responsi- bility brought upon the County, then the County should not accept the ease- ment. He said he is somewhat skeptical about the advantage of holding an easement on 50-foot strips of land lining a stream, but he does not think the Board should approve or deny easements based on the Routers29 project. He said it would be helpful for him if staff were to evaluate these easements aside from their effect on road planning. ~i Mr. Bowie said he thinks the question when considering an easement should be is the County better accepting the easement or not. EVen when easements are accepted, he said, he does not think the Board has ever authorized the use of County funds to survey them. He said he is not prepared to support the request for money. Mr. Bain said he questions the public benefit of these 50-foot easments, particularly since the County has already restricted buildling within 100 feet of the stream. March 8, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) 333 Mr. St. John said the property owners are also offering the County fee simple ownership of the easement. He said people could use the easement for walks along the stream, which could be a significant public benefit. Mr. Perkins said it does not make sense to have trails along a stream when the County is trying to protect the water supply. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board's opposition to a bypass running through the watershed has been a matter of public record for some time. He said the City has criticized the County for accepting agricultural/forestal districts that may complicate the location of a bypass. He said the County accepted these districts because they significantly benefited the County. He said he thinks the easements offered today would bring the County more responsibility than benefit, due to their small size. He suggested that the Board accept the recommendation of the staff and notify the property owners and the Ivy Creek Foundation of the reasons for the Board's decision. Members of the Board agreed not to accept the easements. Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not on the Agenda from the Board or the Public. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive, made the following report on the U. S. Route 29 Environmental Impact Statement - Bathymetric Study: "I have recently discussed with both Dick Brown of Sverdrup Corpora- tion and their environmental subcontractor, Bob Neely of James R. Reed and Associates, the question of whether a bathymetric study will be conducted on the South Fork Rivanna ~eservoir. Both confirmed that a bathymetric study will be done as a part of the Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Neely indicated that transects of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir are nearing completion which will be compared to the latest bathymetric studies we have, (Betz Study - July, 1977; Glaspey Study - May, 1981) in order to ~etermine sediment loading and storage volume differences. In addition!, a series of reports for proposed road alignments will be prepared which will consider impacts on water quality, forestry, aquatics, wetlands and other environ- mental issues. While this bathymetric study will focus ion the impact a proposed roadway could have on the reservoir, st~ff would recox~end that we, along with the Rivanna Water and Sewer ~uthority staff, review the results of this analysis carefully before considering any further reservoir study." Mr. Bain asked if VDoT would release th~ bathymetric study before the rest of the reports on the impact of the various alignments. Mr. Tucker said staff will request this of VDoT, but there is no assurance that VDoT will agree. ~ Agenda Item No. 12b. Appropriation: Education. "English as a Second Language". In answer to an earlier question by the ~oard, Mr. Agnor said, the original appropriation for staff development ~was to pay teachers who are already qualified for the work, but needed some refresher training. The additional appropriation requested today is tO train volunteers, who have no background in teaching English as a second l~hguage, because the program has expanded so much. ~ Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and ~econded by Mrs. Cooke to approve the appropriation as requested by adopting th~ resolution which follows. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MeI~srs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. 334 FY: 1988/89 FUND: EDUCATION PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY March 8, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page'18) Additional fund for Migrant Education due to increased funding on federal grant. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1240463320100135 1240463320200100 2240463320580500 COMP.~TEACHER $ 9,200.00 FICA 700.00 STAFF DEVELOPMENT 1~100.00 TOTAL $11,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2240433000330102 GRANT PROCEEDS-FEDERAL TOTAL $11,000.00 $11,ooo.oo Agenda Item No. 16. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following memorandum on alternatives for the subdivision of rural areas: "Based on suggestions made at the last Board of Supervisors' work session on the Comprehensive Plan revisions, staff has developed information on alternative small lot options to be used as an option to the existing five development right/21 acre residue parcel sub- division. These comparative alternatives are: (1) small lot option based on 40 acre residue this was the original proposal to the Board of Supervisors from the Planning Con~nission. This approach is desirable from the standpoint of total lots created .... However, the reduction in number of lots attainable as compared to the existing subdivision allowances may not create the desirable incentives to cluster; (2) small lot option based on 30 acre residue - this is a substitute for the small lot option based on a 40 acre residue with 50 percent bonus presented to you last week. This alternative is basically the same as last week's proposal in terms ~of number of lots created. This alternative would still create less IOts than is currently attainable through existing rural subdivision allowances. This alternative may, however, provide more incentive to cluster. Market conditions and development costs will greatlY~idetermine the success of either of the above alternatives. If ths,market demand for lots in the rural area drives lot prices to a paint that develop- ment costs for servicing large lots (i.e. roads) ar~ioff-set, then most subdivision will likely continue as is under tbs current subdi- vision allowances. However, if development costs fo'~ large lots are significantly higher than for clustering and cannot ~e recovered by higher lot prices, then clustering will likely be prgferable. Under any clustering provision, staff recommends tha~ by-right clusters be no more than 20 lots in size, which is consistent with the rural subdivision standard proposed in the Comprehensive Plan and also contained in the current Plan. Staff would recommend clustered subdivisions exceeding 20 lots in size be consideredi'i~only under a special use permit. This provision will limit the by-right develop- ment of large rural subdivisions which effectively b~come small villages or communities and may be scattered through~ut the rural areas of the County. Staff would also recommend that clustered subdiviSions be reviewed under criteria that: (1) are sensitive to environmental protection (i.e., clustered lots are off of steep slopes, clustered lots are sufficiently buffered from water supply tributaries and impound- ments); (2) preserve open space (i.e., clustered lots are located away from open fields and sufficiently screened); (3~ipreserve important agricultural/forestal lands (i.e., clustere~ lots are located off of prime, important or unique agricultur~/forestal soils). ~ March 8, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) 335 Attached (on file) for your review are tables showing the rural subdivision scale under both small lot options as presented in this memorandum. Staff still supports the Planning Commission's original recommen- dation to the Board regarding rural residential subdivision. If the Board chooses to continue with rural subdivision allowances as they currently exist and add an option for clustered small lots, then staff would recommend instituting one of the alternatiVes discussed in this memorandum. The utilization or'the clustering option should be monitored over some period of time tO determine if it is accom- plishing the desired effects." Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks there are other aspects to clustering than density. One of these aspects is the location of roads in a clustered devel- opment. Rather than have the roads encroach upon open space, he said, he thinks the maximum developed area should be no greater than six acres per development right, regardless of the size of~the lots. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned about three other aspects of clustered development: the preservation of the residue, where the lots are to be clustered upon a parcel, and the number of lots allowed. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks there should be a provision in the ordinance giving staff the authority to decide how many clustered lots a parcel can hold. He suggested the following wording: "The number of cluster lots shall be based upon a demonstration to the satisfaction of the staff or commission of the number of achievable lots which meet all of the zonings!ordinance requirements on the parcel that the cluster lots are drawn from". To preserve the residue of a parcel, Mrs'. Lindstrom said, he thinks the Board should consider requiring that a perpetual easemen~ be granted to either the Virginia Outdoors Foundation or the County. If an easement is granted to the Foundation, then the County could be designated the enforcer of the easement Mr. Perkins said once the owner of a piece of property has used up the development rights, then the property cannot i~e further subdivided anyway. The County may need land later for developme~'.t and it will all be tied up in easements. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the ?;residue should be donated as an easement to keep property owners from thinking they can return to the Board, after exhausting their development rights, a~d request a rezoning or a special use permit. Without an easement, he said, the potential for developing the residue is always there. Mr. I{orne said easements can be removed from prop- erty if it is found that the easement no longer serves the purpose for which it was granted. If the Board is going to allow developers the benefit of clustering developments in return for open space, then the open space should be as permanent as possible. Otherwise, he s.~aid, land will be too expensive for farmers to farm. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the County s~uld hold any easements, rather than involve the Foundation. Mr. Bowie said easements would be less qbjectionable if most of the parcels in the County were under 200 acres,~'~aving residues of 150 acres or less. He said these residues would be suitable for one family to farm and the loss of development rights would not be an is:i~ue. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that there have been members of the Board whoiiran single-family farms on over 400 acres. ,~, ;. Mr. Way said he thinks the residue shoul~ be preserved in a way that will insure it remains farm land, rather than developable land. He said he is concerned that easements can be removed from :property if the land becomes part of a growth area. Mr. }Iorne said there are l~ovisions in the state law that allow for the removal of these easements. Mr. Bowie said he prefers that the easements be controlled locally and deeded to the County. Mr. Bowie said he alsoI agrees with Mr. Lindstrom that the maximum developable area of six acres peridevelopment right should also include roads. 336 March 8, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) Mr. Perkins pointed out that in the case of Blandemar Farm, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation would not accept the easement because it was not voluntar- ily offered. Mr. Way asked what the advantage of deeding easements to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation are, as opposed to deeding easements to the County. If the composition and philosophy of the Board changes over the next few years and members of the Board decide they want to have the easements removed and all the land developed, they would have to satisfy a state agency, if the easements were held by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, that retaining this land in easements no longer served the purpose for which the easements were intended. Mr. Lindstrom said the easements would then be more difficult to remove and the value of the property would reflect this difficulty, making the land more affordable to farmers. He also pointed out that the Virginia Outdoors Foundation is set up to administer easements and it is f~nded by the State to handle easements. He thinks it would be more economical ito deed easements to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. Mr. Horne said the development the Board would allo~ in return for the open space is permanent; therefore, the open space should be as permanent as possible. Mrs. Cooke said she thinks "perpetual" should be limited to a specific period of time. In this case, Mr. Horne said, "perpetual" means "until findings are made that the easement is no longer needed for its intended purposes". Mr. Way said he does not want a specific time~limit set on the easement, because that would make the easement more restrictive. Mr. Bowie iterated that he believes the easements should be granted to the County. Mr. Way asked members of the Board to indicate whether they supported having residue property perpetually held by the Virginia !Outdoors Foundation or'the County. Mr. Bain said he prefers the land to be held by the ~Virginia Outdoors Foundation. Mr. Bowie said he wants perpetual easements ito be under the control of the County. Mrs. Cooke said she also prefers the easements to be under the control of the County. Mr. Lindstrom said he p~efers that perpetua easements be granted to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. Mr. Way said he prefers that the County hold the easements, but he does ndt feel strongly about the issue. Mr. Perkins said he prefers that the County hold the ease- ments. ~i! (At 3:49 P.M., the Board recessed and then reconvene9 at 3:54 P.M.) Mr. Way asked members of the Board to consider the l~cation of the cluster upon a parcel. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that clusters not~!be located on the best agricultural soil and that the cluster be unobtrusive. After some discussion, members of the Board agreed tljat the location of the clusters would be based on the least obtrusive location. Mr. Way next asked members of the Board to consider how the development rights would be determined. Mr. Lindstrom said his proposition would insure thati~a developer could not place his or her full allotment of development rights!lin areas in which this number of lots was unachievable, due to topography for example. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not think clustering should allow a developer to use all his or her by-right divisions if the topography of the parcel would not have allowed the full number of by-right divisions. He said the staff could use a topographical map to determine whether the terrain limits the number of development rights achievable on a parcel. March 8, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) 337 Mr. Bain and Mr. Bowie said they thought this provision is in the current Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom agreed that the staff already has the author- ity to hold a developer to the number of development rights achievable on a parcel. He said his proposition would strengthen the staff's ability to verify whether the information given to them by the developer is true. Mr. Way moved on to the fourth aspect of cluster development: that the infrastructure of a development, such as roads and septic fields, must lie within the maximum acreage allotted for the cluster development. The maximum amount of land disturbed by any clustered development would be six acres times the number of lots to which the developer is entitled. Mr. Bowie said he supports this concept. Mr. Lindstrom said he is still concerned about who will hold the ease- ments on residue property. If members of the Board agree to allow the Vir- ginia Outdoors Foundation to hold the easement, he is willing to support residue lots of 21 acres, instead of 30 or 40 acres. He said he knows the Virginia Outdoors Foundation will not accept all the easements, but the ones it does accept have a better chance of being preserved for farm land. He asked Mr. Home to read from the Open Space Act the provisions for releasing easements on property. Mr. Home read as follows: "no open space land shall be converted or diverted from open space land use unless the conversion or diversion is determined by the public body to be 1) essential to the orderly development and growth of the urban area; 2) in accordance with the official comprehensive plan of the urban area in effect at the time of conver- sion or diversion; or 3) real property of at least equal fair market value and of as nearly as feasible equivalent usefulness and location for uses permitted on open space land shall be substituted within in a reasonable period, not exceeding one year unless the public body determines that such open space land and its equivalent is no longer needed". Mr. Lindstrom said the criteria for releasing the land remains the same whether the County or the Virginia Outdoors Foundation holds the easement, but he thinks the Foundation would be less likely to determine that the land should be released. If both the County and a' state agency held the easement, he continued, both bodies would have to find!ii'that a particular piece of open space is no longer needed. He said he would!~prefer that both the Foundation and the County hold easements. ~, If both bodies hold the easement Mr. B~wie pointed out the County could decide that some open space was needed for development and the state agency could disagree, making the release of the ea~ement impossible. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not think a state agency would ~Ounter the Board's desire to release an easement if the comprehensive plah, in effect at the time showed the need for growth on that property. He said he thinks a state agency would more likely base its decision on a comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance than upon one application from a persuasive develqper. Mr. Way said he is open to allowing theilVirginia Outdoors Foundation to hold the easement, particularly if the size df the residue lots remains the same. Mr. Bowie said he can support allowing ~!0th the Foundation and the County to hold easements on residue from clustered development, if the division rights are the same for both clustered and b~tright developments. Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Bain and Mr. Perkins safd they will support allowing both bodies to hold the easement. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks clustering iWill accelerate development in the rural areas. He said he believes it is worth this acceleration if the open space is preserved in the best possible Way. Mr. Way said he thinks this is a sensible compromise. Mr. Way asked if members of the Board wished to discuss boundaries for a possible growth area in Milton. Members of the Board decided that this issue was resolved at the previous work session. 338 March 8, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) Mr. Way said the next item to be considered is the expansion of Urban Neighborhood Three. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff considered the area below the interchange Route 250 East and Interstate 64. When water service is extended to the hotel, there will be a quadrant of the interstate interchange served by a public utility even though it is does not lie in the urban area. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff discovered a natural boundary that would take in quadrant from the southeast corner of the interchange. Given the of utilities and the proximity of the interchange, he said, the staff it would be logical to include this quadrant in the urban area. Mr. Bowie asked how much development would be possible if this quadrant were to be rezoned. Mr. Home said the con~nercial and business development could occupy three times the space currently occupied by the hotel. Mr. Bowie said this area is undeveloped and he does not see a need for showing a more intensive zoning in the Comprehensive Plan at this time. Mr. Lindstrom said conditional zoning legislation is not effective until July 1, 1989. He said some of the changes the Board may~make to the Compre- hensive Plan will create opportunities for major development. He said it would be better for the County if the Board created as few as possible of these opportunities before conditional zoning is allowed.'~ After some discussion, members of the Board decided ~against expanding Neighborhood Three to include this quadrant. Mr. Lindstrom asked if members of the Board agree to the staff's recom- mendation to require a special permit for clustered developments of over 20 lots. Mr. Bowie said he sees no reason to subject applicants to the process for a special permit just because they want over 20 lots. Mr. Horne said he thinks the County is beginning to see the effects of large subdivisions on rural areas. Once a subdivision re,aches a certain size he said, people begin to feel they are living in a suburb.an environment. After some discussion, members of the Board decided'to settle this issue at a future work session. Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn to March 15, 1989, at ~30 P.M. At 4:29 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was. offered Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adjourn until March~15, 1989, at 1:30 P.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follOWing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Linds~rom, Perkins and Way NAYS: None.