Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-05-10May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) 577 (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 10, 1989, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., F. R. Bowie, C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:09 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 Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to accept Items 4.1 through 4.8 as information and to approve Item 4.9 of the Consent Agenda. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. ~ Item 4.1. Memorandum dated April 21, 19!89, from Mr. Barry R. Lawrence, Executive Director, Virginia Association of Counties, concerning filing of requests for VACo's 1990 Legislative Program, received as information. Item 4.2. Letter dated May 2, 1989, fro~ Mr. R. H. Connock, Jr., Assis- tant District Engineer, Department of Transpo~tation, transmitting a copy of the Policy and Procedures for the Control of Residential Cut-Through Traffic adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board was received as information. A copy is on file in the Clerk's office. Item 4.3. Letter dated May 2, 1989, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, addressed to Mr. W. Brand McCaskill, concerning Route 637, with copy of letter dated April 24, 1989 from Mr. McCaskill, received as information. Mr. Bain requested that this item be discussed when Agenda Item No. 6g. Other Highway Matters, is taken up. Item 4.4. Letter dated April 20, 1989, ~rom Mr. E. C. Cochran, Jr., State Location and Design Engineer, Departmen$! of Transportation, stating that VDoT has approved the location and design for~iilthe Route 20/Route 742 project (Proj. 0020-002-S17, C-501), was received as i~nformation. Item 4.5. Letter dated April 27, 1989, f~om Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, ~concerning proposed changes in water and sewer rates effective July 1, 1989, ~was received as information. Item 4.6. Notice dated April 25, 1989, ~f an application filed with the State Corporation Commission by Virginia Electric and Power Company for an expedited increase in rates, received as info=~ation. Item 4.7. Memorandum dated May 5, 1989, !from Mrs. Roxanne W. White, Management Analyst, stating that the 1989 Italian Student Exchange Program has been cancelled due to a lack of interest by lo~al· students. 578 May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 2) Item 4.8. Notices dated April 20, 1989, from Mr. H. Bryan Mitchell, Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, stating that Woodlands, Monticola, The Cedars and Cove Presbyterian Church have been placed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and nominated to the National Register of Historic Places, were received as information. Item 4.9. Statements of Expense for the month of April, 1989, for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail were approved by the vote shown above. Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: June 8, July 6 (N) and July 20, 1988. Mr. Way had read the minutes for June 8, 1988, Pages 16 -31 and found them to be in order with two minute book corrections on Page 17, Agenda Item No. 6e. The word "said" should be included after "Mr. Roosevelt" on line two of the first paragraph. The word "be" should be inserted before "a public hearing" on line five of the same paragraph. Mr. Way had read the minutes for July § (N), 1988, Pages 1 them to be in order. 12 and found Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes for July 20, 1988, Pages 1 - 9 and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the minutes as read and corrected. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Route 660 over. the South Fork Rivanna River project. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer for the!Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT), said a public hearing on this p~0ject was held on May 4, 1989. At that hearing, charts showing three alternatives were pre- sented, and Mr. Roosevelt had those available for the Board's review. He explained that Alternative A goes across the river on a six degree curve east of the existing bridge. He said this alignment would provide improved traffic flow over the bridge and allow the existing bridge to be used during construc- tion. Alternative B is shorter and carries the new bridge west of the exist- ing bridge. Mr. Roosevelt said a sixteen degree curve, wl~ich is below VDoT standards, would be necessary in Alternative B. He said ~e major problem with this alignment is that it would cost about $0.5 million to relocate the underground utilities. Alternative C crosses the river o~ an e~ght degree curve with an alignment that falls between A and B. This ~ew bridge would cut through the existing bridge and preclude use of the existing bridge during construction because the road would have to be closed during construction. Mr. Roosevelt said Alternative A would cost an estimated ~949,000. Alterna- tive B would cost $1,429,000 because of the relocation of utilities. Alterna- tive C is estimated at $802,000. He recommended Alternatige A. Mr. Roosevelt said concerns raised by the public were-the number of overweight vehicles using the bridge, unsupervised access !'~to the river, access across the river during construction for emergency and local traffic, and the effect of this project on the cabin that overlooks the project on the Charlottesville side. ~. Mr. Roosevelt concluded by asking the Board for a resolution of support today so that this project could continue on schedule. ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked what the design speed is for each?of the alterna- tives. Mr. Roosevelt said the design speed is 40 miles per hour for Alterna- tives A and C. The traffic volume of 1,100 cars per day i~dicates that this May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 3) 579 is a collector road. He said the curvature-on Alignments A and C meets the requirements of a collector road, while the curvature on Alignment B does not. Mr. Roosevelt said a waiver could possibly be obtained from VDoT if alignment B is approved by the Board. Mr. Lindstrom asked what the design speed is for Alternative B. Mr. Roosevelt said it was between 30 and 35 miles per hour. Mr. Lindstrom asked what the posted speed limit is on the curve after crossing that bridge. Mr. Roosevelt said it was less than 30 miles per hour. Mr. Lindstrom said it is dangerous to encourage drivers to travel at a speed approaching the bridge faster than the road could handle when the driver came off the bridge onto the next curve. Mr. Roosevelt acknowledged the need for improvements to Route 660 beyond the bridge, especially on the curve to which Mr. Lindstrom referred. He said to extend the improvement to that curve would cost an additional $330,000, which would change the nature of the improvement from replacing a substandard bridge to improving a section of road. He said an unfortunate problem encountered when improvements are maze to sections of roads is the disparity between portions of the road. Mr. Lindstrom said in order to leave the utilities undisturbed and to have the bridge open during construction, the obvious choice would be Alterna- tive A. However, that would mean increasingi~the radius on the curve. Mr. Lindstrom asked how a design speed of 30 miles per hour would affect the cost of the project for Alternative A. Mr. RooseVelt said unless the structure could be shortened, he did not think an alignment change in A would reduce the cost. However, the negative aspect is that ~here would be a curve which would be less than standard. He pointed out that the only justification for a less than standard curve along the B alignment was to keep from closing the exist- ing bridge during construction. Mr. Bowie asked if the main difference between A and C was whether the bridge stayed open during construction. Mr. ~iRoosevelt said there is a differ- ence in cost as well because the bridge is s~orter on the C alignment. Mr. Roosevelt said the bridge should be kept open~ during construction because 1,100 cars per day use that bridge. He said l!the majority of that traffic is between Cooper Industries and Charlottesville! or subdivisions this side of Cooper Industries, and those folks would hav~ to go around construction and through Earlysville for about nine months. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that ~ignment A calls for a substan- tial cut into the steep bank at that locatio~ and he suggested that a retain- ing wall would substantially minimize the poslsibility of erosion and allow less cutting into the bank. .il Mr. Eric Kaplan, neighboring property ow'~er closest to the existing bridge, said there is no need for a 40 mile p~r hour bridge because it is not safe. He said the rest of the road is 35 mil~s per hour, and the curves are treacherous. He said the bridge should be engineered in a way that would not invite accidents. He feels it is imperative ~hat the bridge be kept open during construction for the convenience of th~ people who live in the area and for access by fire and rescue facilities. Re!~arding cutting into the bank, Mr. Kaplan said the retaining wall makes sense from an erosion and aesthetics point of view. The last issue Mr. Kaplan mentioned was the problem of unau- thorized access to the river. He said there ~s a tremendous dumping problem in the area by the river. Such items as abandoned cars, mattresses, tires, cans, bottles and other trash are dumped here~. As a result of the trash, there have been fires by the river. He said ~he smoke is sometimes so thick on his property when people are d~own there burning mattresses and tires that it is hard to breathe. He said the noise is ~ problem almost 24 hours a day in the summer. People have camped down by th9 river and played radios all night. He said he was assaulted one night whgn he went down and asked that the radio be turned down. He said there is a~tremendous amount of disrespect for the land and the river. Mr. Kaplan pointed out that he has been Working on this problem for five years. He said he has talked with people fro~ the three public agencies in- volved, as well as Sheriff Hawkins. He said ~'he only solution to date has been to post the land from 10:00 P.M. to 5:00 A.M. He said the police have been cooperative about chasing people away wh~ n they are called to do so. He said he came before the Board today because h~ thinks now is the time to do 58O May 10, 1989 (RegUlar Meeting) (Page 4) sOmething about this problem. He said he raised the issue at the Highway public hearing, and Mr. Roosevelt said his department would be willing to cooperate with the County. Mr. Kaplan suggested that either a recreation area be created with proper maiqtenance and policing, or that access be completely prohibited to avoid the noise and nuisance problems. Mr.'Kaplan said this has been a problem for twenty years and is becoming more of a problem because more people are moving into the vicinity. Mrs. Priscilla Rappolt, owner of a cabin on top of the hill overlooking the river, said Alternate A would require grading right next to her septic system. She showed pictures of her property and a rendering of how her property would look should Alternate A be built. She said she hoped a retain- ing wall would be installed so that grass and trees could be replanted. She said people drive 50 to 60 miles an hour along this road. She invited the police department to bring radar and monitor traffic speed past her driveway. Mrs. Rappolt said she felt Alternate C would be more advisable. The Earlysville Fire Department has already solicited the help of the Seminole Fire Department to help with calls on this side of the reservoir. Regarding the interruption of traffic, Mrs. Rappolt said it was just as easy for people to go on Route 743. She concluded by saying that Alternate C would be cheaper, there would be a retaining wall to prevent erosion and washing into the reservoir, and the inconvenience would be negligible compared to the money saved. Mrs. Babs Huckle, a neighboring property owner, said~.her property is not physically affected by this bridge. However, she has been concerned for many years about protecting the reservoir. She said that although this is referred to as a river, it is just upstream from the reservoir and!.iwhat goes in here goes into the reservoir proper. She said the reservoir i~ already filling in with sediment. Although Mrs. Huckle said she uses this bf~idge frequently, she would be willing to postpone using it for the time necessary if the Board chose Alternative C. That alignment would be the cheapes~I and would do the least environmental damage because it requires the least d~tting of the bank. She said some time ago the bridge was repaired and could ~t be used for about a week. Everyone managed to find an alternative route at ikhat time. Regard- ing fire protection, she said this area did not have much ihelp at present from the Earlysville Company. If Alternate A is chosen, Mrs. ~ckle urged the Board to install a retaining wall. She pointed out that ~,~e Highway Depart- ment had built a steep bank at the Ivy Creek Natural Area~.~.'~i! Several years after construction, after heavy rains, great chunks of theilbank fell into the road and also into the reservoir. With the best of intent.ions, the ability to stabilize a bank in erodible soil is very minimal. Mr. Horne said representatives from the Planning DepaZtment and Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, visited the si~te yesterday. He said they looked at the location in terms of river access i~nd from the trans- portation point of view. In terms of controlled access through local or state funding, Mr. Horne said Alternate A would appear to providD the easiest access for a regulated boat launch area. He said Plan C would make access available, although it would be less convenient. In terms of State £hterest, representa- tives from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries sta~ed an interest in helping to establish a formal boat launch area should the ~ounty be inter- ested. Mr. Mullaney said his department had been looking fori!fishing access for sometime for the reservoir. He said the reservoir is the ~est fishery in the County by far, and there is very little public access to i~. The State is interested in funding a capital improvement there, and hisi!Department would be in charge of maintaining it once those improvements were m~de. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Department of Parks and Recreation would be aple to police the area. Mr. Mullaney said it is not easy to police fisherie~, but he felt his department could do a better job than'what is currently be~ng done. Mr. Lindstrom said if the Department of Parks and Recreation i~~ going to urge a certain almgnment because mt would mncrease the f~sh~ng aceessmb~lmty, then they should be prepared to provide funds to police the are41 and to keep it clean. Mr. Lindstrom asked who owns the property. Mr. Roosevelt said all of the land on the Earlysville side of the reservoir is either State Highway property or belongs to the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Kaplan interrupted to Say that May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 5) 581 was incorrect. He said he had researched the land records thoroughly in order to acquire it himself to obtain control of access. He said there is a small strip owned by the estate of Frank Milton Miles. The property is under the control of Sovran Bank. Mr. Lindstrom asked if that strip is where most of the activity occurs. Mr. Kaplan said the activity is spread out. He said Mr. Miles' land lies between the road and the river. He said under the bridge the land is owned by his neighbor, Mr. Conley. Mr. Bowie said he believes that before ~he County could do anything about the access, land would have to be purchased if it is privately owned and that could not be resolved today. He asked if a causeway would have to be built to bring in the construction equipment. Mr. Roosevelt said the causeway is not intended to go across the river. It is intended to go out into the reservoir far enough to serve as a work area for setting concrete piers and steel beams. Mr. Roosevelt pointed out that a quick cost estimate for a retaining wall on Alignment A would be from $200,000 to $300~000. He said a retaining wall would be about 15-feet high and would save about ten feet of trees. Mr. Lindstrom added that the wall would serve to:stabilize the bank. Mr. Bowie asked what the design speed would be on Alternate C. Mr. Roosevelt said it would be a 40 mile per hour"design speed. Mr. Bowie said he felt that access to the river is a different problem than the design of the bridge. He said Alternate C seems to have th~e advantages of less disruption to traffic and no loss of design speed. Mr. Lindstrom said the bridge improvemen~ts should be as compatible as possible with the rest of the road. That rafses the question of what the typical existing section is like leading to a~d from that bridge. Mr. Roosevelt said the pavement is between 18 and~.~ 20 feet wide. Shoulders and. ditches are two to three feet. Mr. Bowie said he preferred Alternate C because it is the cheapest and does the least damage to the area. Mr. Linds~rom said he would support Alternate C, but he would like to see a reduced design speed. Mr. Bain said Alternate C does not come nearly as close to the bank as Alternate A. Mr. Roosevelt said there would be some grading in~o the bank further up the road which could be taken care of by a retaining wall and reduction of shoulders and ditches, if VDoT would agree to waive the~iwidth standards. Mr. Bowie thought that Alternate C couldi~be built with retaining walls wherever the banks had to be cut and still hage a less costly project. It would also be more compatible with the area. ~IMr. Roosevelt pointed out that Alternate C closes the bridge for nine months~ and he did not think it would be possible to put a temporary bridge across ~o maintain traffic. The requirements of the Corps of Engineers and th~~ State Water Control Board with regard to crossing rivers would not allow a t.~/~.~porary structure at this location. Mr. Bain said he is inclined to support ~'!ternate C, although the bridge would have to be closed for nine months. Mr. iPerkins asked if it would be possible to begin the bridge construction on ~he Charlottesville side and complete that portion before the existing brid~ge is taken out. The delay might then be reduced to three to four months.~'~ Mr. Roosevelt said the possi- bility could certainly be looked into. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like a reducfion in the design speed on the cross section and on the curve if possible in ~Alternate C. He said it would mean less environmental disturbance, possibly ~a shorter bridge, and certainly no loss in safety. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and s! the resolution set out below in support of Alii of $802,000. Mr. Lindstrom added that Mr. Pez lent one to minimize the time of closure. Roll was called and the motion carried by AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. ~conded by Mr. Bowie to adopt ~nment C for an estimated cost , ~ns suggestion was an excel- the following recorded vote: and Way. 582 May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 6) WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation held a Location and Design Public Hearing to consider the proposed location and design of Route 660 from 0.13 mile south of the South Fork of the Rivanna River to 0.18 mile north of the South Fork of the Rivanna River in Albemarle County (Project #0660-002-187, C-501, C-502); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Board does hereby endorse Alignment "C". In endorsing this alignment, the Board acknowledges that the bridge structure has to be closed, but asks that the project be designed to minimize that closure time. In addition the Board requests a reduction in the design speed to 30 miles per hour to: 1. reduce the impact of the project; me reduce the cross section to do less damage to the slopes especially on the Charlottesville side; and Be to attempt to make the road compatible with what exists there now. AND FURTHER RESOLVED, that if there has to be g~ading of slopes, that retaining walls be used to cause less environmental disturbance. "~ Mr. Bowie said he would like staff to see what could~be done to get better public access to the river and proper law enforcement. Mr. Lindstrom asked that the information be presented in written form. !i Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Roosevelt if the Board would, receive a response from VDoT concerning access to the river. Mr. Roosevelt said his understand- ing was that the County would inform V DoT at a later datel-what their plans are for access. He said unless the County wants to use the ekisting roadway for access, he does not see a problem with VDoT revising the ~tans for an entrance to the river area between the roadway and the reservoir. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought it would be reasonableilto consider making the same facade available for this bridge that he hopes will be decided on for the Moorman's River (Millington) Bridge Project. (The Board recessed at 10:24 A.M. and reconvened at ~0:33 A.M.), Not Docketed: Mr Way recognized special guests from Albemarle High School who were in attendance for Youth In Government Day.i He said the Board was looking forward to having lunch with'the students tod~y. Since most of them lived in the Samuel Miller District, Mr. Way asked Mm.~ Bain to introduce them to the Board. The students were Ginny Peavy, Kathryn Maresi, Mark Farish, Allison Petty, Windsor Taggart and Rob Filmore. Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Route 654/656 project. Mr. Roosevelt described the spot improvements for the~ two projects and asked the Board for its recommendation. He said a public hearing had been held on April 24, 1989, at Jack Jouett School. He said the new construction for Route 654 would consist of widening the existing pavement to provide for an eleven-foot wide right turn lane into Route 656, George'~own Road. This improvement would have a six-foot wide shoulder and a fourg~foot ditch. He said a permanent easement would be required for sight distance on the east side of Georgetown Road. ~ He said the new construction for the Route 656 projecti would consist of providing two eleven-foot wide through traffic lanes with curb and gutter on both sides throughout most of the project. A five-foot wid~ walking trail May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) 583 (Page 7) would be retained on the west side of the project. New construction would provide left turn lanes into Route 1411 (Inglewood Drive) and Route 1472 (Old Forge Road). In addition, the curb and gutter and storm sewer would improve drainage along the roadway through this area. Mr. Roosevelt said citizens at the public hearing were concerned about the increased flow of traffic passing the entrance into Hessian Hills and the increased speed and traffic on Georgetown Road. Mr. Roosevelt recommended the approval of the spot improvements as presented by VDoT. He said the improvement on Barracks Road at Georgetown Road would increase the capacity of the intersection and would improve the safety of the turns by widening the shoulder and eliminating a deep ditch at the edge of pavement. The Georgetown Road improvement would improve the flow by removing the left turn traffic and would fit in with capacity improvements planned in the future by VDoT. He said the spot improvement at Georgetown Road would also improve the drainage in this area by the addition of a storm sewer. Mr. Lindstrom asked what the existing typical width of a lane is on Georgetown Road. Mr. Roosevelt said he thinks the lanes are eleven feet wide. Mr. Lindstrom said the concern expressed to ~im is that this road passes through a residential section. The traffic improvements proposed would facilitate through traffic, thus, increasing the speed of traffic. He asked if this =oad could be posted for 25 miles perlhour as a residential street, and be posted for no-through trucks. Mr. RooSevelt said the curve at Inglewood is already posted for a maximum safe speed of 25 miles per hour. He explained that it is an advisory warning sign rather than an enforceable speed limit. The remainder of the road is posted at 35 miles per hour. Mr. Roosevelt said this road is classified as a cgllector road in VDoT plans. As such, it would not be posted as a subdivision?street. The posting has to be based on a traffic study, and that is how the~'35 mile per hour speed was determined. Posting this road at 25 miles per hour would not be the proper thing to do because the drivers feel comfortable at a faster speed than that~ He said it is a proven fact that there is no Gay to slow traffic on a road where drivers feel comfortable and safe at a ~igher speed. To answer the second question, Mr. Roosevelt said VDoT has ~ecently issued a new policy concerning through traffic which applies to all~ through traffic. There is no procedure for singling out trucks unless ther~ is a weight limit problem prohibiting them, which is not the case here.? Mr. Bowie agreed that Georgetown Road is~i~a collector road. He feels the proposed changes would improve safety rather ~han increase the speed of traffic. He said he read the policy on through traffic, and feels the Board could ask for a modification which would limi~ heavy traffic. Mr. Lindstrom said he has been fighting ~ losing battle about this road ever since he became a Board member. He said:i~here is no safety problem on the road for the traffic. The safety problem~!is for the residents who live along the road. Everything that has been donqi to Georgetown Road over the past 12 years has increased that problem. He'!said he understands this is something that YDoT wants, and which they are'iigoing to get. He appreciates the reduction in the scope of the project by~oT, and thinks the right hand turn from Barracks Road is a necessity, but h~would like the Board to request a waiver of the policy for through traffic to prohibit through trucks. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie and lSeconded by Mr. Bain to adopt the resolution set out below in~upport of Th~Department of Transportation's recommendation, with the provisb~'chat an attempt be made by staff to obtain a modification to the Department of Transportat~0n's Policy and Procedures for the Control of Residential Cut-through Traffiqso the Count~gight have som~ control ove~ truck traffic.9~, f~, Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. 584 May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 8) WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation held a Location and Design Public Hearing to consider the proposed location and design of Route 654 (Barracks Road) at the intersection of Route 656 (Georgetown Road) and also of Route 656 (Georgetown Road) beginning one-tenth of a mile north of Route 1472 (Old Forge Road), northwest of Charlottesville, in Albemarle County (Project Nos. 0654-002-220, C-501 and 0656-002-221, C-501); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Board does hereby endorse the project as proposed by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: Route 614/766 intersection. Mr. Roosevelt said this was a request from a citizen who had two acci- dents within four months at this intersection. His request was that VDoT improve the sight distance at this intersection so that he and others coming out of Route 766 could see both ways on Route 614. Mr. Roosevelt said that County Police records indicated 14 accidents at this location, while State Highway records indicated two accidents at this location.~over a three year period. Mr. Roosevelt said he met with the County Police~ and discovered a problem in the computer program which lumped all the undesignated accidents on a certain route at each intersection whenever they asked for intersection data. When that was corrected, the County Police information agreed with the State Highway information. Mr. Roosevelt said he looked at the location, and the sight distance is reduced in both directions. To correct that to the west on Route 614 would require grading between the existing fence and roadway at an estimated cost of $1,000, excluding moving a telephone! cable. The problem on the right side would require obtaining an easement, relocating a fence, and some grading at an estimated cost of $1,500, excluding moping an underground telephone cable. He said to correct the entire sight distance problem, it would cost an estimated total of $5,000. While any accident is a traumatic experience, Mr. Roosevelt said that he would not recommehd improvements at this intersection based on accident data of two accidents~ in a three year period. While he agreed there is a sight distance problem at the location and it needs to be improved, he said it is only one of many s~Uch problems existin~ in Albemarle County. The consensus of the Board was to follow the recommendation of the Department of Transportation that improvements to this i~tersection are not justified at this time, and no action was taken by the B~iArd. Agenda Item No. 6d. Highway Matters: Revisions to i.the Six Year Secon- dary Road Improvement Plan. Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development,i J referred the Board to his memo dated April 3, 1989, with a staff smmnary re~ort attached. He said that memo included attachments showing the priority !listing and the funding plan proposed by the Highway Department. He saidi there are no new projects recommended by staff or the Planning Commission i~or inclusion in the plan at this time. There are no recommended changes to ~he priority of any projects currently in the list, with the exception of including the Route 671 (Millington Bridge) project. Mr. Way said he thought the Route 620 bridge project!ihad been moved up on the priority listing. Mr. Home said the Board had authocized early funding for the project, but did not change the priority position'~ Mr. Cilimberg said projects proposed for revenue sha~ing funds in Fiscal Year 1989-90 are: -Route 631, two intersection improvements, SPCA Road and Agnese Street -Route 654, turn lane at Georgetown Road -Route 631, two bridge improvements south of the Urban Area -Route 631, turn lanes at Route 768 -Route 656, construct turn lanes -Route 693, Gravel Road improvement May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 9) 585 Mr. Cilimberg said staff is concerned about paying $300,000 in revenue sharing money for Route 693, which is a gravel road project. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Roosevelt had been able to rectify the situation so that neither secondary funds nor revenue sharing funds would have to be spent for unpaved road improvements. Instead of Route 693, the Route 601 bridge over Buck Mountain Creek should be funded from revenue sharing money and should be included in the list above. With that change, staff recommended that $500,000 be allocated this year in order for the County to continue its participation in the Revenue Sharing Program. He said the Planning Commission had endorsed the recommendation as well. Mr. Horne clarified that the Board had already endorsed the $500,000 allocation in a previous meeting. Staff is recommending that in future years the Board continue to allocate $500,000 into the program. Mr. Roosevelt said he will attempt to accelerate projects as dictated by the priority list and will advise the Board annually, based on his construction schedule, as to the most efficient way to use the money that year. That will give the effect of an additional $1 million going toward the priority list of accelerated projects. Mr. Home said the commitment to increase the funding is being recox~ended, rather than a specific list of projects. Mr. Perkins asked if Park Road in Crozet:.was mentioned on this year's list. Mr. Cilimberg said it was shown as a revenue sharing project at one point. Mr. Roosevelt said last year the revenue sharing allocation was for three projects which would not get through the planning process for over a year. Therefore, he suggested to staff that i'~he revenue sharing allocation be made to projects that would be built within that year. Mr. Cilimberg said the major adjustment i~o the budget for this fiscal year is in funding of unpaved road projects. ~:.iiThe policy of the Board is to appropriate the minimum amount of funds as required by State law for the paving of gravel roads, and staff supports that policy. He pointed out that Mr. Roosevelt had to obtain a waiver of VDoT'iS~ requirements in order to continue this policy for another year. He s~d the total amount of unpaved road funds available for Fiscal Year 1989/90 ~s $777,500. He said VDoT proposes funding for four paving projects in Ehis fiscal year. They are: Route 627 (from Route 727 to Route 708) ~i $227,000 Route 674 (from Route 810 to Route 673) ~! $150,000 Route 662 (from Route 660 to one mile we~:it) - $100,000 Route 693 (portions from Route 635 to RoUte 692) - $300,000 Mr. Cilimberg said staff concurs with Mr~~I Roosevelt's proposed budget in Attachment 2. He pointed out that the total ~or the 1989-90 secondary road ~:~ match by the projects is $3,380,000. In addition to that ~s the $500,000 State for revenue sharing projects. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to set a public hearing for June 7, 1989, on the FY 89/90 Sec~hdary Roads budget for projects totalling $3,380,000 as outlined on Attachmen~il 2. Roll was called and the motion carried b~~~ the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkin~i~ii, and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Mr. L~ndstrom no ed that he stmll does no~ support the Mmllmngton Bridge (Route 671)project. He said the compromise ~ached may be the best solution the Board is going to get, but he feels the project was "railroaded" through against the Board's wishes. Mr. Cilimberg said that Item 4 (Road Proj (Other Road Planning Activities) are explanati cussed by the Board. He wondered if the Board a later meeting. It was suggested that these 1989, agenda. ~ct Implementation) and Item 5 ,ns of issues previously dis- would like to discuss those at .rems be placed on the June 14, 586 May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 10) Mr. Roosevelt said he needed a resolution from the Board specifically designating the revenue sharing allocation for 1989/90. He recommended the four projects which staff had listed. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. WHEREAS, Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia provides that the Virginia Department of Transportation shall make an equiva- lent matching allocation of up to $500,000 during the current fiscal year from Revenue Sharing Funds to any county for designation by the governing body to roadway and construction projects; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has proposed for the use of Revenue Sharing Funds the following subject projects: Route 631, two intersection improvements at SPCA Road and Agnese Street $130,000; Route 654, turn lane at Georgetown Road - ~80,000; Route 631, two bridge improvements south of Urban Area - $150,000 Route 631, turn lanes at Route 768 - $220,Q~0; Route 656, construct turn lanes $120,000~i: and 6. Route 601, bridge over Buck Mountain Creek~:i- $300,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Siupervisors that the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby respect- fully requested to allocate matching funds in the amount of $500,000 for the 1989-90 fiscal year allocated to the above outlined projects. Mr. Roosevelt said he has a problem within the Depar~ent of Transporta- tion with regard to proceeding on the Route 620 project. !!The Richmond Office does not feel that the Board of Supervisors has included ~he Route 620 project in their six year priority list. In effect, there is no priority list from Albemarle County because VDoT rejected the priority list f~?om last year and adopted the financial plan Mr. Roosevelt submitted instead~. He said he needed a confirmation from the Board of the priority listing shown on Attachment 1 handed out by the staff. He said that priority list inclqdes the project on Route 671, which he understands is a problem for some Board members. He said when VDoT made the presentation on the options for Route ~71, it was acknow- ledged by the Board that it was not objecting to including that project in a priority list. Mr. Roosevelt explained that a six year p~'hn is actually two documents made up of the County's priority list and the. financial plan pre- pared by Mr. Roosevelt to finance the priority list. Las~i~ year, VDoT rejected the County's priority list, because it did not include Route 671. Therefore, VDoT's six year plan is basically the funding plan and fuJds only about 50 percent of the priority list. Mr. Roosevelt said the Richmond office would not allow him to change the financial plan to add additional projects without a confirmation from the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said in previous discussions, it was not made clear that there were two parts to the six year plan. He asked what 'happens in theory in the event the Board does not approve a priority listing. ~r. Roosevelt said a legal question was difficult for an engineer to answer, i!~iWith that stipula- tion, he explained that the Code of Virginia indicates tha{ %rOoT has the responsibility for developing the s~x year plan. The procedure ~s that the County is allowed to develop the priority list. If lrDoT a~rees with that list, then a financial plan to accomplish those projects w~ll be developed. May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 11) 587 It is only in extreme circumstances that a priority listing would be turned down. Mr. Roosevelt said VDoT could adopt its own priority list, and that is exactly what was done last year when the County's list was rejected. Effec- tively, VDoT adopted the financial plan developed by Mr. Roosevelt as the priority list. He said he tailored the financial plan to the Board's priority list, with the exception that he included Roqte 671. The problem now is that if any changes are to be made, the Board will have to reaffirm their priority list. Mr. Lindstrom said he went along with the Moorman's River (Millington Bridge) project on Route 671 because he understood that it would not make any difference because VDoT could do what they wanted to do. He said now it sounds like there was something the Board could have done. If, in fact, the Board has to adopt a plan for projects to go'forward, then the Board should understand that. Mr. Roosevelt said the problem is purely an internal problem for VDoT. Mr. St. John said he sent the Board members a memo addressing this question when the Route 671 project was being discussed. Mr. Lindstrom said there was no indication that YDoT would not go forward without an approved priority list. Mr. St. John said he could o~ly tell the Board what power the Department of Transportation has'. He said th~ey have the power to reject the Board's priority listing and proceed with their own if that is what they want to do. He said the Board's remedy is to appe~al to the Highway Co~missioner, and the Board did that. Mr. St. John said t~e Highway Commissioner's decision is final. Mr. Lindstrom said the Highway Commissioner held the decision in abeyance. Mr. St. 3ohn said that research h~d been done by his office to find an attorney general's opinion on the subject,!il and there was none to be found. He said the law is clear as to VDoT's authority to make the ultimate decision. Mr. Roosevelt said that VDoT has given ~m three choices. He can either ask the Board to reconfirm the priority list ifrom last year, go through the whole six year plan cycle again, or hold off !on the Route 620 project until the six year plan is modified. Mr. Bain asked how Route 620 got moved f~rward on the priority list. Mr. Roosevelt said the Board discussed it in FebrUary. At that time, he told the Board he had a tremendous balance of funds that needed to be spent. The bridge plans were already in hand, and the right of way had been purchased. All that was necessary was to find a way to f~nance the project. That is why the Board agreed to move the project up and f~nd it in the 1989/90 fiscal year. Mr. Home said the Board did not take an~ action to actually change the priority number on the list. There was simpl~ an internal authorization to Mr. Roosevelt to go further down the list forla project that could be built. Mr. Roosevelt said once the priority list is ~dopted, every project that can be financed within the six year period is devgloped. As projects get ready for construction, regardless of where they appear on the list, they should go to construction at that time. It is perfectl~ within the guidelines and procedures of VDoT to go ahead with Route 620 iiif everything is ready. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seco~ the Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan Route 671 (Millington Bridge) project. Roll by the following recorded vote: ded by Mr. Perkins to readopt or 1989-1994 to also include the as called and the motion carried AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Lindstrom explained that the only re~son he went along with the Route 671 project was because he thought the Board ~ad absolutely no choice. He said he does not want to sanction something which the Board really did have a choice about and with which he disagreed. (Mr. St. John left at 11:58 A.M.) 588 May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 12) Agenda Item No. 6e. Highway Matters: Selection of design and facade fox the Moorman's River Bridge (Route 671). Mr. Roosevelt said regarding the bridge and approaches to the Moorman's River, that the Board had been presented a number of options and had agreed to the green line alignment. He showed the Board an aerial photograph with that alignment painted in to indicate the exact location. The main item of discus- sion for today is the treatment of the bridge parapets. Mr. Roosevelt then displayed a New Jersey rail which is normally used on bridges, three aluminum rails, a modified New Jersey rail with a wooden hand rail on top, and a design known as the Kansas Corral. Mr. Roosevelt said the facade treatment could be something other than concrete. He said that he might have mislead the Board by indicating that concrete with a wooden rail on top would mean that the concrete could be lowered. Mr. Roosevelt said it has been explained to him that the concrete barrier must be a certain height because without it the wooden rail offers no resistance. Mr. Bowie asked how high the concrete is for the three aluminum rails option. Mr. Roosevelt said the concrete is only a six inch curve. He pointed out that part of the design is metal anchored to the concrete which would have the strength to hold a vehicle. Mr. Bowie wondered if th~ metal portion could be painted to blend with the wood. Mr. Roosevelt said he is sure that a paint could be found in a suitable color that would adhere to t~e aluminum if that was the Board's wish. Mr. Bowie said when he goes across/~a bridge, he likes to be able to see the river. With the New Jersey option,~i!he said the only thing visible is cement. He thought the alnminnm rails wduld allow more visibility compatible with a rural setting. Mr. Lindstro~ said he agreed, if the finish could be painted a bronze tone to blend with t~ setting. He suggested using an anodized aluminum which comes in color~. Mr. Roosevelt said he was sure that could be done, but he did not have 2! cost estimate for that feature. Mr. Perkins asked if it would be better to use steel~!~nstead of aluminum, with a coating that looks like rust which protects from f~ther rust. Mr. Roosevelt said the problem with a rust treatment on the h~:nd rail is that when it is hit, it leaves a scar that cannot be repaired. Mr. i'~.Lindstrom said rust color is the most unobtrusive in a natural setting, and h~ii thought that an anDdized aluminum rail would be less expensive than a fulli concrete design. Mr. Roosevelt said he did not come prepared to talk about i.~osts today. Mr. Roosevelt then displayed the choices for facade t~reatment. He said the parapet could be treated to make it look like brick fcbm a distance, even though it would be concrete. He then showed wire faced brick, slumped block, and mason cut stone. He said these were forms to make concrete look like brick. The surface could then be painted any color. He said VDoT has had no success in mixing the color with the concrete. Mr. Perkin~ said a local cement supplier told him it would be no problem to include?the paint with the cement. Mr. Lindstrom said he hopes that when a suitable facade is agreed upon, it can be applied to other bridges as they are replaced so~the selection process does not have to be repeated. Mr. Roosevelt then displayed a sample of an exposed aggregate facade. Mr. Perkins asked if the support columns could be treated With the exposed aggregate. Mr. Roosevelt said he was sure they could because this treatment is applied after the bridge is constructed using mortar, w~ereas the brick look is accomplished when the concrete is poured. Mr. Per,fins said the exposed aggregate treatment would blend with the setting. ~4r. Roosevelt then displayed some color choices that could be used for the fad~ade and the beams. He also displayed for the Board several pictures of bridges! with various designs and facades. Mr. Bowie asked if the concrete posts could be treated~ with exposed aggregate using the three rail option. Mr. Roosevelt said ilhe had never seen that done. He said it is possible to build the metal rail/~i~nd then form the concrete around the metal posts and apply the aggregate to !.'~hat. He said that could be done, but it would involve some expense. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like something as natural looking as possible. He said if ~he facade treat- ment could be done to look like natural brick, that would b~ good. The major May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 13) 589 visible portions of the bridge are the beams underneath and the piers on which the bridge sets. The minor portions are the parapets and the rail. He sug- gested that the piers and parapets be designed with the same treatment. He said if the exposed aggregate could not be applied to both, it might be wise to consider the brick facade which would presumably be less expensive. Mr. Bain said he liked the exposed aggregate look, with painted beams. He thought that would be a more natural look than brick. Mr. Lindstrom said the aggre- gate would require less maintenance than a painted brick look because even- tually that would need to be repainted. Mr. Perkins suggested that citizens present from that area might want to express their opinion about the facade. Mr. Forbes Reback, Chairman of the Millington Neighborhood Association, compared Mr. Roosevelt to a friendly car salesman who is trying to get a customer to pick the color of a car the customer does not want to buy in the first place. If there is going to be a bridge, he would like it to be as natural looking as possible. He said they do want people to be able to see the river since it is designated as a State scenic river. He reiterated that there is still a right-of-way problem contrary to what VDoT says. He said the bridge is a long way from being built, and h~ was not ready to pick a color today. Mr. J. P. Davis said the aerial drawingishows that about half of his hay field will be taken for this project. He sa~d the hay field is very valuable to him, yielding roughly 100 bales of hay peR acre. Mr. Way said that is a problem of condemnation when and if this bridge is ever built and could not be resolved today. The question before the Boa~id is what the bridge should look like if it is ever built. Mr. Davis sazd zt Mas obvious that he could not get anywhere with the Board. He said he was a p~Or farmer and not a millionaire. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board understands tha~i he does not support this bridge location. !~ Ms. Sherry Buttrick said the Board shou~ give consideration to the aesthetics of all bridges in this County. S~9 said this is a good opportunity to begin thinking along those lines. She sa~ the aggregate is certainly an improvement over what comes from New Jersey. people to see the rivers they are crossing is general policy. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the steel, anodized treatment be used to give the maximu She added that a provision for a worthwhile consideration as a ~hree-rail approach with an view of the river. He sug- the rail in a color as close to gested that the understructure be matched wit rust as possible to be the least obtrusive in a natural setting. The aggre- gate would be applied to the piers and all t<~ exposed parts of the concrete visible from the river. ~i Mr. Bain said he would like to know whati~extra costs would be involved. There was no objection from the Board to this choice of design and facade. Mr. Lindstrom said since a cost estimate .is being requested for the aggregate treatment, he would also like a com ~arison of the cost of the aggregate versus the brick facade. Agenda Item No. 6f. Highway Matters: W ~ighing Station on Route 29 South. Mr. Roosevelt reported that the project ~ad been cancelled at the pro- posed location in front of Sherwood Farms at ~he intersection of Route 1106 and Route 29 South. He said letters had been~mailed to legislative represen- tatives informing them of the cancellation. ~.nstead, VDoT.is proceeding with for a "weigh-in-motion" site about one ~ile south of Route 1106 which plans involves installing detectors under the pavement to monitor the trucks. He said the Department of Transportation would c~ntinue to look for a suitable weighing station site within five miles of th~ original location. He said when another site is found, he would discuss ft with the Board. Mr. Jeff Gleason spoke in behalf of residents of Sherwood Farms. He said he is a resident of the subdivision and is ha~Py with the decision. He said 590 May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 14) the residents appreciated the Highway Department's response to their initial complaints in light of the fact that bids had already been submitted and closed on this project. He said VDoT held a public hearing on the matter and based on the results of the public hearing, the project was cancelled. On behalf of the neighborhood, Mr. Gleason expressed appreciation to the Highway Department for their action. Agenda Item No. 6g. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Bain referred to Item 4.3 on the Consent Agenda, concerning Route 637. He said he had received comments concerning the section of Route 637 between 1-64 and the Ivy Landfill regarding trash and dumping problems. He said the County is doing some patrolling there, and he hopes that YDoT will help maintain that stretch of roadway. Mr. Bowie said he wanted the record to show that the. Highway Department had crews out at Stony Point all day on Saturday and Sunday to make road improvements. He said he appreciated the efforts of the Department. In answer to Mr. Bowie's question regarding the status of Milton Drive, Mr. Roosevelt reported that plans were being reviewed and~a letter regarding the status would be forwarded to the County from VDoT today. Mr. Bowie said he hoped the Engineering Department would keep up-to-date~on this project because the price would be unreasonable if another construction season is missed. Mr. Bowie said it has been reported repeatedly that ~oute 250 East would be four-laned to the Fluvanna County line. He said his understanding is that the Board had asked for money to study safety improvement~ and that no one from this Board had requested four lanes on Route 250 Easel. He said the latest article reported that the Highway Department is p1Ahning to undertake that project. Mr. Roosevelt said the rumors and articles stem from~the Board's request at the primary road hearing in Culpeper last month that ai!~tudy be made of the needs on Route 250 East from Interstate-64 to the Fluvann~:~ County line. He said the Highway Department has no plans to do anything o~i Route 250 other than a spot improvement at Route 729. He said at this ti~e he cannot say that funds will even be available to accomplish the study requested by the Board. Mr. Bowie said he wanted to clarify for the record that the Board's request was strictly for safety improvements. ~ Mr. Perkins asked the status of the right of way prob~lem on the Route 674 project. Mr. Roosevelt reported that one owner had agreed! to the original alignment when Mr. Roosevelt informed him that the project'would end just short of his property, leaving the remainder of the road gravel. In fact, Mr. Roosevelt said the owner had been very cooperative in other minor changes in the project as well. Mr. Perkins said he had received complaints that Route 674 east of Route 810 is one of the worst roads in the County. He said that{~a milk truck, two school buses, and various farm vehicles use the road frequently. He requested that Mr. Roosevelt check that portion of road and make maintenance improve- ments. Mr. Way asked if the Woodridge Hunt Club could avoid ~aving to meet commercial entrance requirements for such a low volume of ~raffic. Mr. Roosevelt said VDoT had recommended the commercial entranc~ as part of site plan approval. He said he understands that the site has a~ existing entrance which does not have adequate sight distance. Without the F~oard s conditions of approval, the only avenue VDoT has to get the entrance upgraded is to take the owners to court. He said realistically speaking, VDoTiiis~'~7-' not about to take the Hunt Club to court to make them relocate their entrance. He said if May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 15) 591 the Board's requirement for a commercial entrance is waived, VDoT would abide by that. Not Docketed: At 12:47 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adjourn into Executive Session for a discussion of personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. The Board reconvened into open session at 2:05 P.M. Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: Saie of a 1.015 acre lot located on State Route 795 just outside of the Town of Scottsville and adjacent to the Union Baptist Church. (Advertised in the Da£1y Progress on April 27 and May 4, 1989.) Mr. Agnor said the School Board had con~eyed 1.015 acres of land with an old brick school building as surplus property to the Board. The property in question is designated as County Tax Map 131, Parcel 71.- He said there is a question about the exact acreage, and the property will be surveyed before final disposition. He recommended to the Board that the property be assigned to the Building Committee for disposition. The public hearing was opened, and no one from the public was present to speak. The public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to assign the property to the Building Committee for dispositiOn. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded-vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: Proced~es for creating a Seventh Magisterial District. ~ In response to a previous request from the Board, Mr. St. John reported that the Board would have to adopt a resolution stating their intent that a seventh magisterial district be created at th~ next redistricting. In due time the boundaries of the district would hav~ to be established and named. The resolution of intent would begin the process which would be carried out by the Planning staff and the Registrar's Office~ Mr. St. John pointed out that Section 24il-40.9 of the Virginia Code precludes any change in districts until afterilMarch 31, 1991, unless such change is ordered by a court. He said a resoSution of intent could be adopted by the Board at any time, but no other action}could take place until after the 1990 census. ~ Mr. Lindstrom said he realized when he r~quested the information, that the Board would either not be able to, or not!want to, take action until the census data was available. He said it seemed,~to be a fairly simple procedure to implement, and that was what he had wanted~to determine. He said if the Board adopted a resolution of intent now, a s~bsequent Board would have to make the final decision. He said it would no~ be his decision to make, but he does feel it is worth thinking about. He sai~ there has been public concern for a number of years over Board decisions being made by a tie vote. He said on a matter as important as the budget, there may be some real advantage in having an uneven number of Board members. He ~said the workload of the Board in terms of committee work is increasing to the point where an additional member to share in the workload would be advantageous. As the County contin- ues to grow, the relationship between the Sup~zvisors and their constituents will become more distant to some extent unlessl another district is created. 592 May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 16) With regard to the workload, Mr. Bowie said there are other counties with up to one million citizens which have only six supervisors. Mr. Bain said in Fairfax they have nine supervisors, but each one has three full-time, paid staff members working for them. He said there are lots of ways of handling the problem, but they all cost money. Mr. St. John said he could find no maximum or minimum limit to the number of supervisors. It was the consensus of the Board to wait until the 1990 census figures are available before discussing this matter further. Agenda Item No. 10. Adoption of resolution for relocation of Ivy Pre- cinct Polling Place. Mr. Agnor said the Electoral Board had requested that the polling place for Ivy Precinct be moved from Murray Educational Center to Meriwether Lewis Elementary School. He said the move is to alleviate traffic difficulties at Murray. The cost of the move ($1,050) is included in the>iV89/90 budget and is to be effective for the November general elections. He said staff recom- mends the adoption of a resolution which would authorize the Registrar to proceed with the necessary actions. Mr. Bain said he concurs with the request to move th~ polling place. He said there were over 3,100 voters at Murray, and there was mass confusion as a result. He said there is better access, more parking, and better sight distance at the proposed location. Mr. James Heilman, Registrar, was present in support~of the request. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. B~Wie to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board ~f Supervisors does hereby concur in a request from the Albemarle C6~nty Electoral Board that the polling place for the Ivy Precinct bei~hanged from the Murray Educational Center on State Route 738 to the Meriwether Lewis Elementary School located on State Route 676 i~i the vicinity of its intersection with U. S. Route 250 at Ivy. ~ Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carrie~ by the following recorded vote: · AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Heilman said there may be a similar request to move the polling place for the Berkeley Precinct due to a change in the State's holiday schedule this year. Election day is no longer a holiday which means that the Division of Motor Vehicles will be open for business. It will be almdst impossible to hold a major election there. He said the Commissioner has been asked to close the DMV this year and next year on election day so the polling place will not have to be moved temporarily and then changed again when =edistricting is done. He said Delegate George Allen and Senator Thomas Michie have been asked to write letters also requesting the Commissioner to do that. Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Amendments to the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional (Service) Area for the C='vzet area. Mr. Horne pointed out the location of the parcels fo~'ilthe Board. He said the parcels in question are north of Route 240 outside the:igrowth area but within developed areas of the Crozet community. He said t.he Planning staff is recommending that these parcels be added to a limited service category, which is a special category applied in certain instances around ~he County. Now that the sewage collection system is in the Crozet area, these large, rela- tively undeveloped parcels are physically crossed by the sewer line. In the past, where that has happened with a water line, the water!service was allowed to existing structures only. He said the sewer service toi.lexisting structures May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 17) 593 has not been allowed in the past, but staff felt in this case a limited amount of service could be provided to existing structures without fostering addi- tional development outside the growth area. It provides some benefit to the property owners who allowed the sewer line to cross their property. Some of these property owners are having problems with their existing septic systems and would like to hook onto the sewer line within the first year. Mr. Horne said when this matter came before the Board in January, it was referred back to the staff to discuss whether a precedent would be set by providing this service, particularly with reference to property owners wishing to connect to the interceptor from the urban~area to Crozet. Mr. Horne summarized his memo of March 21, 1989, by saying that staff had consulted with the County Attorney and the Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority. The County Attorney's opinion was that the Board had broad discre- tionary authority to set service areas for public utilities. The distinction between these parcels hooking to the collection system and other parcels hooking to the Crozet interceptor are: The interceptor is a force main inlsome areas and cohnections are not possible. The pumping stations and force mains along the Crozet inter- ceptor are sized to accommodate deSign flows from the Crozet community only. The design configuration of the jurisdictional (service) areas in most areas of the County are dictated by the general land use policies. These policies at the time of installation of the interceptor and today would nog provide for public sewer except in designated growth areas. 4. Parcels recommended for addition t~ this limited service area · n Crozet front on sewer mains tha~ are part of a collection system which by design anticipates ~connections to the lines as opposed to the interceptor which ddes not anticipate such connection. Mr. Horne said for those reasons staff ~eels the Board could allow limited service to these parcels without setting a precedent. Staff feels that this allowance would not be supportable ~justification for similar connec- tions along the interceptor. Mr. H~rne explained that each case is a specific one-parcel service change rather than being a~ change to a general area. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and ~econded by Mr. Bain to set a public hearing for June 14, 1989, on a change~in the Albemarle County Service Authority s service areas for water and sewe~ Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perki~ and Way. NAYS: None. ~ ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 14. Appropriation: Crozet Replacement School. Mr. Agnor said the School Board had vote~ on May 8, 1989, to request the Board of Supervisors to increase the budget f~r the Crozet Replacement School. The apparent low bidder was Harmon Construction from Harrisonburg, Virginia, for a price of $3,501,200. This bid along wi~h other known and estimated costs total $4,511,995 for the entire projectii At this time, the project would be short of its funding needs by $332,7~5. The School Board is request- ing additional funding in that amount as well[as~ a five percent contingency account for any required contract change orders that may arise. The contin- gency account would be managed by the CapitalliProjects Coordinator once that position is filled. Five percent of the construction budget would be $185,060. Dr. Charles Tolbert, Chairman of the SchOol Board, encouraged the Board to support the request. 594 May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 18) Mr. Perkins asked if there was adequate money in the Capital Improvements Program to fund the school project until July 1. Mr. Agnor said he believed there was. Mr. Perkins said in that case, the additional $332,795 would not be needed until next year. Mr. Agnor said that was correct. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the project would still be eligible for the Virginia Public School Authority bond issue should a contingency amount be appropriated. Mr. Agnor said the project would still be eligible, but VPSA would have to be notified by next month that the County is interested in obtaining funding during its fall bond cycle. Mr. Bain asked if the School Board had taken any formal action on requesting school bonds. Mr. Agnor said when this project allocation is decided by the Board, staff would proceed with the application. Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve an additional amount of $332,795 to fully fund the Crozet Replacement School project for a total of $4,511,995, with the appropriation to be made at a later time. Mr. Perkins said he felt the contingency should be more fully discussed, and he would not include that in his motion atithis time. Mr. Agnor said he would not recommend that any project be started without some kind of contingency. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is a limit to changes that can be made in the field without review. Mr. Agnor said ~11 changes that affect the cost of the project would be reviewed by the Capital Projects Coordinator and there would be administrative approval set up by the school system and general government. Change orders would not b~ approved in the field. Mr. Lindstrom asked how the contract would be adminis!tered without a contingency account, without having to come back to the B6'ard for every change. Mr. Agnor said the problem is that administrativ~ approval cannot be obtained through the Board because of conflicting schedules with Board meeting dates. He said there is no such thing as a project with ~o changes. He realized that some Board members feel that money allocate~ will be spent, but it would only be spent if change orders are required. Mr. Lindstrom asked what kind of administrative problem would be created by not giving prior approval for a contingency. Mr. Agno~ said the problem that no changes could be made. He pointed out that the 440 day timeframe for this project is tight from the beginning. Mr. Bowie said he was not prepared to support a five ,percent contingency without knowing what controls are in place. He is convinC~ed that not all change orders are required, and he is concerned that there! be some kind of review process. Mr. Bain said the contingency does not have to be five percent. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a contingency account could b~! set up to require that changes over a certain amount have additional review.~ He said in the past he thought the Board saw periodic change orders afte~ the fact. Mr. Agnor said in the past, the persons responsible for the project approved any change orders. He said a contingency account could be set~ up so that changes over a specified amount would have to be approved by the SChool Board. If the changes required additional funds, the School Board would i~hen have to make that request to this Board. Mr. St. John suggested that an amount could be appropriated now, and if there are change orders above that amount, the account could be replenished if necessary. He said change orders are the source of more disputes and litiga- tion than any other facet of construction. He agreed wit~ ~the County Execu- tive that the project could be held up repeatedly without some type of contin- gency fund. The whole contract is at a standstill until change orders are reviewed. Mr. Agnor pointed out that an effort is always made t~ offset change orders by finding some other item to be reduced. Mr. Lind~trom asked if the entire contingency was depleted for the Meriwether Lewis p~oject. Mr. Agnor said he believed it was used up entirely and that an additional appropriation was required. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt that a contingency should be estab- lished with the County Executive administering it, and wil~ make that motion when the motion on the floor is completed. May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 19) 595 Roll was then called and Mr. Perkins' motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Perkins to approve a construction contingency account of $50,000 for the Crozet School Replacement Project to be administered by the County Executive. Mr. Bowie asked if the intent of this motion is that when construction changes amount to nearly $50,000, the School Board requests this Board for additional money. Mr. Lindstrom said that was correct. In addition, the intent is that the architects attempt to offset any additional expenses Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 11. Report: Status of CSX rail line abandonment. Mr. Horne said the CSX Corporation has indicated an interest in abandon- ing an entire segment of rail line from Gordohsville to Clifton Forge, Vir- ginia. This line runs through Albemarle County from the Louisa County line just north of Lindsay to Afton Mountain. Acc6rding to CSX officials, the process of studying the feasibility of abandoning this line is underway although no specific time table was offered. ~The feasibility depends on the service ability to reroute the Amtrak "Cardinal" to other rail lines. Whi:le the status of the segment west of Charlottesville is unclear, indications from Amtrak and CSX are that an agreement has been! reached that would enable the "Cardinal" to be rerouted onto the Norfolk Southern line from Orange to Charlottesville. This may permit CSX to abandon the segment from Gordonsville to Charlottesville in the near future, and that right of way is potentially important to the County. There could be the 9pportunity for possible use of the line as a greenspace and trail system, fo~ location of utilities or fiber optic lines, or for redevelopment of the rail!,?Isystem in the future. He said it is important that the County ~xpress its interest early in the process of disposition due to the complexitie~ of rail abandonment. The notification should express the County's willingness to acquire the right-of-way. He said staff recommends that such a letter of interest be drafted from the Board and submitted to Mr. H~wk of CSX. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and ~econded by Mr. Bowie to author- ize the Chairman to sign a letter to CSX as recommended by the County Execu- tive. Mr. Perkins suggested that copies of the ~iletter be sent to other counties bordering the rail lines. Roll was called and the motion carried b~ the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkin~ and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 12. Request from Thomas pefferson Planning District Commission for continuation of Legislative Lialison position. Mr. Agnor said the Planning District Com~ission had requested that the legislative liaison position be continued on a' year-round basis. The cost of funding the position would be prorated on a per capita basis to all partici- pating jurisdictions. The position would be one day a week when the General Assembly was not in session, and full t~me beginning one week prior to the 596 May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 20) General Assembly and lasting one week after the session. He said staff recommends favorable consideration of the proposal. He said the total annual cost is $24,815. The FY 89/90 budget includes an appropriation of $5,250 for continuation of this program on a part-time basis. Approval of this request would require an appropriation of $4,628. Mr. Bowie said the comments he had received regarding the liaison indi- cated that other counties were satisfied and would probably continue their participation. Mr. Bain said Nelson County is also considering participating this fiscal year. Mr. Bowie said he would support continuing the position. Mr. Bain said he would as well. He was not sure the Board would want to get involved in the process of selecting the individual. Mr.~Bowie said he felt that would have to be a decision by the Planning District Commission. Mr. Way said he felt this was money well spent. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to continue the legislative liaison position as outlined in the staff memo dated May 3, 1989, and the memo dated April 12, 1989, from the Executive Director of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, with the intent to appropriate an additional $4,628 for the fiscal year. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 13. Authorize Chairman to execute service agreements for the Seminole and Stony Point Volunteer Fire Companies. Mr. Agnor said the Jefferson Country Fire Fighter's Association (JCFFA) had requested that the County make advanced allocations t6 the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Company and to the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company in the amount of $200,000 each. This money would be from the $1 imillion allocated to JCFFA for the purchase of buildings and equipment five yea~s ago. The request is for the purpose of funding pumpers at each of these stations. Mr. Agnor said according to the Director of Finance, there would be ~adequate money paid back into the Fire Fund Reserve to fulfill these requests,ii~i Agreements had been prepared by the County Attorney, and staff recox~ende~ that the Chairman be authorized to execute the agreements. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. L~ndstrom to author- ize the Chairman to execute the agreements as outlined in {he County Execu- tive's memo of May 4, 1989, and amended to include "all oC~.er equipment" in the last paragraph of each agreement as set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this 1st day of May~i 1989, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), and the STONY POINT VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. ("Stony Point"); W I TNES SETH; BACKGROUND - (A) The County previously has entered into a service agreement with Stony Point, dated October 10, !1986, pro- viding for the withholding of certain sums each year by the County from the County's annual grant to Stony Point, as set forth in said agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and (B) As a result of said agreement, the outstanding indebted- ness now totals Fifty-six Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($56,400.00); and May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 21) 597 (C) Stony Point now desires to receive from the County an additional Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) to be used for a new pumper; and (D) Stony Point also desires to enter into an agreement consolidating its annual withholding of payments by the County; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the operation by Stony Point of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during the term of this agreement, the County shall pay to Stony Point Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), which payment shall be made from the fire fund, $100,000.00 to be paid in September, 1989 and $100,000.00 to be paid in January, 1990. The sum of Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($14,800.00) shall be withheld from the County's annual grant to Stony Point for the 1989-90 fiscal year. Thereafter, the sum of Twenty-Six Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($26,900.00) shall~be withheld each year from the County's annual grant to Stony Point for a period of eight (8) years, beginning July, 1990, with a balance of Twenty-Six Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($26,400.00) due in the ninth year (July 1, 1998). Thus, at the end of the ninth year, which is the term of this service agreement, a total of Two Hundred Fifty-Six Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($256,400.00) will have been withheld. This withholding consolidates the balance of all prior advancements as a result of the prior service agreement with Stony Point dated Octo- ber, 1986. If at any time during the term of t~is agreement, Stony Point is no longer in the business of providing fire-fighting services or the pumper is no longer used for fire-fighting purposes, Stony Point covenants that it will convey its interest in the Pumper to the County at no cost to the County so long ~s the County or its assigns will use the Pumper for fire-fighting purposes. Ail covenants set forth in the prior agreement dated October, 1986, shall remain in full force and effect through October, 1~991. WITNESS the following signatures a~ seals: THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this l!~t day of May, 1989, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINI~ (the "County"), and the SEMINOLE TRAIL VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMEN~.~i INC. ("Seminole"); W I T N E S S E T~H; BACKGROUND: (A) The County previously has entered into a service agreement with Seminole, dated F~bruary 6, 1980, providing for the withholding of certain sums eachlyear by the County from the County's annual grant to Seminole, as se~ forth in said agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and (B) As a result of said agreement, ii!the outstanding indebted- ness now totals Twenty Thousand Dollars ~$20,000.00); and (C) Seminole now desires to receiv~ from the County an addi- tional Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($20~,000.00) to be used for a new pumper; and (D) Seminole also desires to enteri'into an agreement consoli- dating its annual withholding of payments by the County; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the operation by Seminole of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during the term of this agreement, the County s~all pay to Seminole Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), which payment shall be made from the fire fund, $20,000.00 to be pai~. in July, 1989, and $180,000.00 to be paid in December, 1990.i 598 May 10, 1989 (Regular Meeting) (Page 22) The sum of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) shall be withheld from the County's annual grant to Seminolefor the 1989/90 fiscal year. Thereafter, the sum of Twenty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred Seventy-two Dollars ($28,572.00) shall be withheld each year from the County's annual grant to Seminole for a period of six (6) years, beginning July, 1990, with a balance of Twenty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred Sixty-eight Dollars ($28,568.00) due in the seventh year (July 1, 1996). Thus, at the end of the seventh year, which is the term of this service agreement, a total of Two Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($220,000.00) will have been withheld. This withholding consolidates the balance of all prior advancements as a result of the prior service agreement with Seminole dated February 6, 1980. If at any time during the term of this agreement, Seminole is no longer in the business of providing fire-fighting services or the pumper is no longer used for fire-fighting purposesf Seminole covenants that it will convey its interest in the pumper to the County at no cost to the County so long as the County or its assigns will use the pumper for fire-fighting purposes. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: Agenda Item No. 15. Appointments. No appointments were made at this time. Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the'~Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Agnor distributed information from Mr. Overstreet, Superintendent, t¢ the Board regarding the School's career ladder plan and staff development activities for teachers. Mr. St. John announced that the appeal of VA-89-13, ~vy Commons Partner- ship, would not be necessary because both parties had agreed to the exact conditions stipulated in Mr. Bain's motion on May 3, 1989~ Mr. Bain said he would like to schedule a time to discuss the legislative program for the next General Assembly session as well as iholding a "brain- storming" session. ~ Mr. Lindstrom called the Board's attention to the letter from Senator Thomas J. Michie, Jr. in which he recommended that the CoUnty adopt a compre- hensive smoking ordinance, since it seemed unlikely that Chere would be much support in the future from the General Assembly. ~ At 3:22 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to adjourn into executive session for legal matters regarding Nimrod Clark, et al versus the Board of Supervisors. Roll was called and the~motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. At 4:00 P.M., the Board reconvened into open sessionl Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. There being no furthe= business to come before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.