Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-09-14552 September 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 14, 1988, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., F. R. Bowie, C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: Mrs. Patricia Cooke. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County AttOrney, Mr. George R. St. John; and County Planner, Mr. John T. P. Horne. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:08 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. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve Item 4.1 on the Consent Agenda and to accept the remaining items as information. There was no further discussion. 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. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the Month of August, 1988 were approved as received by the above recorded vote. Item 4.2. Copy of 1987-88 Secondary Budget Fiscal Summary from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, dated August 22, 1988 was ~eceived for informa- ti_~n. "This report is divided into two sections. The first section in- volves incidental improvements. These are projects~which can be financed and completed usually within a single fiscal year. They cover the county-wide items such as new entrance pip9 and new signs as well as plant mix surfacing when it is done as an improvement. This report indicates that a deficit of apProximately $137,000 has accrued. This is due, however, to a number of plant'mix projects financed in the next fiscal year being completed prior to July 1. If these projects are eliminated, a balance of $47,000 results. The second section lists improvements classed as numbered projects. These are projects financed over a long period of time and usually take a long period of time to develop and construct.. We finished the fiscal year with a balance of approximately $4,073,060. One million dollars is allocated to the County's share of the Meadow Creek Parkway. Another $2.25 million is allocated to the bridge project on Route 660, the Rio Road widening and the safety impr6vements at three locations along Rio Road. I anticipate these projects going to construction during the 1988-89 fiscal year." Item 4.3 Copy of "Travel in Virginia 1987, An Econo~ic Report" from the Division of Tourism for the Commonwealth of Virginia, received and on file in the Clerk's office was received as information, t Item 4.4. Planning Commission Minutes for August 30~ 1988, were received for information. September 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) 553 Item 4.5. Copy of letter dated August 31, 1988, addressed to N. A. Overstreet, Division Superintendent, from Charles L. Conyers, State Department of Education, re: approval of application under Chapter 1 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 for school year 1988-89 in the amount of $453,456 was received for information. Item 4.6. Memorandum from George W. Williams, Executive Director, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, dated August 29, 1988, giving update on the Nimbus NPDES permit application was received for information. Agenda Item No. 5. Resolution for Submission to General Assembly Subcom- mittee Studying Legislation on Elected School Board and Fiscal Responsibility for same. The members of the Board reviewed the draft resolution and suggested some changes. After the Clerk has made these cor~rections, the Board will again review the resolution. Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Discussion: Culpeper District Round Table Meeting. Mr. Agnor said that the meeting is scheduled for September 27 at 10:00 A.M. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Richard Moring, County Engineer, will present a request that VDoT streamline the approval process for roads shown on site plans. Mr. Way said he thinks one or both of the members of the Board serving on the City/County/Uva Transportation Committeeishould attend this meeting and speak for the Board. Neither Mr. Bowie nor Mr. Lindstrom could attend. Mr. Bain said he would go. Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Meadow Creek Parkway Alignments. Mr. Horne presented the following memorandum, dated September 1, 1988: "The purpose of this memorandum is to p~ovide the Board of Supervi- sors additional information which they ~equested at a previous meeting after discussion of a realignment of the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway. At that earlier meeting~ the Board of Superviosrs tentatively approved a realignment of the section of the Meadow Creek Parkway north of the Rivanna River, which would move its alignment to the southern area of the Hollymead Growth Con~nunity. At that meet- ing, the Board requested that the staff report back with a discussion of the various possible alignments for major residential connector roadways from the Parkway into the residential areas of the growth community. Staff has reviewed the variOUs alignments discussed below and continues to recommend the connector roadway from the previous staff's report. That roadway would connect to Powell Creek Drive immediately to the north of the Hollyme~d Elementary School. There are two common issues that must be discussed by the Board of Supervisors in order to adequately review a recommendation as to the location of the residential connector. The first such issue is the status of the dam at the lake in Hollymead. At a previous meeting, the Board decided not to accept mainten~pce of that dam and therefore precluded the acceptance of a public ro~way for maintenance by VDoT across that dam. If the Board of Supervisors remains unwilling to accept maintenance of that dam, the sta~'s recommendation for a connector roadway to connect south of th~ dam is invalid. Since the previous Board meeting, the Department 6~ Engineering and the devel- oper of the Forest Lakes development north of the dam have reviewed several improvements to the dam, including an upgraded emergency spillway, which have enabled the owner of the dam to obtain licensure from the State Water Control Board for operation of the dam. The staff does not feel that there is a significant danger of failure of the dam that would merit the extraordinary measures necessary to 554 September 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) avoid the dam and provide adequate north-south access to the growth community. The discussion of alternate alignments for the residen- tial connectors will illustrate the other options available to avoid the dam and provide adequate connections in the growth area. The other common issue thatneeds to be discussed is the potential connection of the Timberwood Parkway to Route 649 (Proffit Road). The current development plan for Forest Lakes does not propose such an access and current site conditions along Route 649 would preclude VDoT from issuing an entrance permit due to a sight distance limita- tion. That site distance limitation is caused by the location of a church near Route 649. Without the removal of that church or several residences to realign Route 649 or the significant ~ealignment of the Timberwood Parkway to the east, adequate site distance is not achiev- able. if such a connection could be made, it would provide more direct access in and through the Forest Lakes development and the Hollymead Growth Community to traffic on Proffit Road and vice-versa. Negative impacts of such a connection would be increased through traffic in the residential areas of the Hollymead Growth Community and increased County obligations to upgrade roads and/or the dam when such a connection is made. These increased construction obligations will be due to the increased traffic over and above,the traffic generated by private developers in the area. The staff does not recommend a connection between Timberwood Parkway and Route 649. There will be a connection between the Forest Lakesidevelopment and Route 649 immediately to the east of the commercial~area along Route 29. That roadway will be constructed as a Category~i6, two-lane roadway which should be adequate to provide access to Route 649. The staff analyzed four optional alignments for the construction of residential connector roadways from the Meadow Creek Parkway to the Growth Area. Below is a summary table of the const~hction costs and issues related to these potential alignments. (AlsO! see map attached.) Alignment A. Staff's recommendation. Would connec~!.south of dam north of school. Length: 4000 feet. Road Cost: ~900,000. Dam Cost: $200,000, if connected to Route 649. Commen~s: Board of Supervisors must maintain the dam. Alignment B. Uses Gloeckner and Osborne Alignment ~, connects north of dam. Length: 8200 feet plus 2500 feet for secondary connection. Road Cost: $1,742,500 plus $250,000 (for secondary ~connection) for a total cost of $1,992,500. Dam Cost: None. Comment: Maximum cost alternative. Alignment C. Connector south of school. Length: 3600 feet. Road Cost: $815,000 plus additional upgrade length. Dam~cost: $200,000 if connected to Route 649. Comments: Places significantly more traffic through Hollymead subdivision; has been shown in the Compre- hensive Plan since 1980; Board of Supervisors must maintain the dam. Alignment D. Alignment A, with loop below dam. Length: 6000 feet. Road Cost: $1,275,000. Dam Cost: None. Comment: Construction of the road below dam would be very difficult due to grades and the location of utilities; alignment would disrupt propo~ed townhouse development near the dam. Once again, the staff is recommending the constructi A, which was the orginal recommendation. This recom dependent on the Board of Supervisors' willingness t nance of the dam structure in order to allow for the a public roadway across the dam. The next most leas should the Board of Supervisors not wish to accept m dam, would be Alignment B." ~n of Alignment ~endation is accept mainte- .iconstruction of ble alignment, intenance of the Laurel Hill~o 556 September 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) Mr. Lindstrom said he wonders if the section of Alignment A that connects to Route 29 North is necessary in light of the fact that the Parkway even- tually connects to Route 29 North at the entrance to the Forest Lakes subdivsion. He said he realizes the connection of Alignment A will keep some through traffic from using the Parkway from Forest Lakes to the City, but he wonders if this advantage will offset the additional expense to the County. Mr. Horne said there could be as many as 20,000 vehicles a day traveling through the residential areas of Forest Lakes and Hollymead if the only connector between the Parkway and Route 29 is at Proffit Road. He thinks this much traffic would destroy the character of the residential area. If the connector is built along Proffit Road to Route 29 North, Mr. Lindstrom said, commuters are going to use that road, rather than drive further down Route 29. He said he thinks the Board should decide whether it wants commuter traffic on this section of the Parkway. Mr. Home said the staff does not think many commuters will use the Timberwood segment of the Parkway once Forest Lakes is developed, as long as the other connector route is available, because there will be traffic lights and s~op signs along this segment. ~ Mr. Perkins said he thinks the whole Parkway should~be built at one time, with the City's participation. After some discussion concerning the diffi- culty of funding the Parkway, he said perhaps the Parkwa~ should be a toll road. Mr. Bowie said he came to the meeting prepared to d build the Parkway above or around the dam, and now it se, ment of the entire road is still in dispute. He suggest. a work session on the question. scuss whether to ms as if the align- id that the Board hold Mr. Horne said he thought the Board had decided upo~ of the Parkway; the alignments of the connector routes wi issues. He said the staff recommends that the Board proc step: a public hearing to hear comments upon and adopt the Meadow Creek Parkway. If the Board will not accept ~ then a new alignment is needed to connect the Parkway to area. the basic alignment re the unresolved eed with the next he new alignment for aintaining the dam, the Forest Lakes Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the Board should accep~ that it will have to maintain the dam and that the road built over the dam will carry more than 8,000 vehicles per day. Until the lower connector road and interchange on Route 29 is built, Mr. Bowie said, the section of the roadway going over the d~.a~_~will be considered the Parkway, and will be forced to carry a lot more vehioies than 8000 a day. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Alignment A over to the interchange at Route 29, with the to be North of Alignment A, to the east of Hollymead SchO Creek Drive and crossing the dam and the lake, and from t Timberwood Parkway and cul-de-sac near Proffit Road. The the responsibility for the dam and anticipates that the d reinforced and expanded to handle the additional traffic.~ also reserve access from the cul-de-sac to Proffit Road. ~' {r. Bain, to support northern collector )1 tieing into Powell lere would follow County would accept .m would have to be The County would Mr. Bowie asked how much it will cost per year to maintain the dam. Mr. Horne said he does not know, and added that, while the CoUnty would be respon- sible for the maintenance-of the dam, the County would no'~ have to pay for this maintenance. He said the maintenance of the dam is ~urrently the respon- sibility of the developer and the homeowners' association Mr. Home said he thinks it would be reasonable for the County to expect th.. developer and homeowners to continue paying part of any annual maintena~.ce cost. Mr. Lindstrom asked who is going to pay the cost of .he connection to Timberwood Parkway. Mr. Home said the developer is donating the right-of- way. The County will have to pay a portion of the costs ~f upgrading a section of Timberwood Parkway. Mr. Lindstrom asked if VDoT has agreed to accept for state maintenance a standard of roadway that would not be built to ultimate standard. Mr. Home September 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) 557 (Page 6) said "yes". Mr. Roosevelt confirmed Mr. Horne's answer and said VDoT has agreed to accept the roadway with the understanding that the County will pay to upgrade the road to four lanes. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the developer is donating the right-of-way for a four-lane road. Mr. Horne said, "yes". There was no further discussion. 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. (Note: Mr. Bowie left the meeting at 10:16 A.M. and returned at 10:21 A.M.) Mr. Lindstrom said he would like the staff to have the capacity to run the model Sverdrup is developing. Mr. Horne said the staff should have the expertise to run the model, but may not have'the experience. He said he may have to ask the Board for funds to hire someone to help the staff manipulate the model. Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: iRural Addition Requests - Road Viewers Report 1988. Mr. Richard Moring, County Engineer, addressed the Board and said he and Mr. Roosevelt inspected the five sites of the rural addition requests. Mr. Moring then presented the following chart comparing the costs and benefits of each project: Pro~ect Cost Miles S/Mile Dwelling Units S/Unit $ 38,550 0.95 ~ 40,760 10' $3,855 $ 57,000 0.25 ~228,000 7 $8,143 1. Extend Route 611 2. New Road North of Route 250, 1850 feet east of the east intersection of Route 751 3. New Road South of Route 627, 2400 feet south of Route 6 4. New Road South of Route 618, 1800 feet east of Route 729 5. New Road South of Route 746, 1400 feet east of Route 807 $ 62,600 0.25 $250,000 4 $15,650 $102,300 0.60 ~170,500 3 $34,100 $ 38,500 0.25 $154,000 3** $12,833 *Includes eight occupied dwellings and two microwave towers that generate regular traffic. **Includes one dwelling at end of project, two dwellings 1200 to 1500 feet beyond end of improvements and a Hunt Club 2250 feet beyond end of improve- ments. Final two dwellings 7250 feet beyond improvements. Mr. Moring also presented the following~chart showing the recommended schedule for these improvements: Fiscal Year Pro~ect Cost Funds Available Carry Over 1988/89 1 $ 38,500 $ :80,000 $41,500 1989/90 2 & 3 $119,600 $121,500 $ 1,900 1990/91 5 $ 38,500 $ 81,900 $43,400 1991/92 4 $102,300 $123,400 $21,100 558 September 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) Mr. Moring said he would like some direction from the Board on several other matters. He said other rural addition requests are expected to arrive within the next few years and asked if the County should hold to a schedule such as the one presented above, or review the schedules yearly, making changes as new requests come in. He added that the funds for the rural addition requests come from the State secondary road funds. Mr. Lindstrom said he questions the wisdom and utility of spending $34,100 per dwelling for any road. Mr. Agnor suggested that the Board proceed with the first project and re-evaluate projects 2 through 4 when the Board receives other rural addition requests. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Moring knew how many vehicle trips per day these roads carry. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bowie to fund Project 1, leaving the remaining projects in the order listed, and that the Board review the priority of these projects and any new requests yearly. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Planning Department has investigated the consequences of these improvements for development in the~rural areas. Mr. Home said "no". Mr. Lindstrom said no one forced people to live on ~hese roads and he thinks the cost of improvements per dwelling unit is too~!high. He said the funding available for these improvements can be used for!Other, more neces- sary, road improvements; the County will not lose the funding if it is not used for these projects. He said he thinks spending money for some of these projects will confer special benefits upon a few citizens, but there are other projects that would benefit more citizens. Mr. Way said most of the people living along these r~ads are poor and have lived there for a long time. Funding these projects!is the only way these citizens will ever have a decent road. While there may be road improve- ments in the urban area that would serve more people, Mr. Way said, he believes the people living along these roads in the ruraI~iareas of the County deserve some consideration. There was no further discussion. 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. Mr. Perkins said residents in rural areas pay more ih taxes than they get in services and he thinks it may be time to address this imbalance. Agenda Item No. 6d. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Bill Roudabush addressed the Board and said he and his partners had a subdivision of four lots approved in the County in 1983. This subdivision required that a road be built to VDoT standards, which was built and approved. The lots were sold to a builder, who applied for electric~service through Central Virginia Electric Co-op (CYEC) to serve four houses. CVEC required the builder to sign a deed of easement for power lines to iserve the property and one of the power lines happened to cross the road. After the houses were completed and the lots sold, Mr. Roudabush said, he applied to this Board over a year ago to have the road accepted into the State secondary system of highways. The VDoT inspected the road and asked CVEC to fill out an applica- tion for the utility lines. He said VDoT and CVEC cannotiagree over the easement and VDoT will not accept the road. Mr. Roudabushi said he has had a bond with the County since 1983 in the amount of $19,000 and he would like to have his money back. He said the roadway belongs to the dounty. CVEC may claim to hold an easement, but the person who conveyed th~ easement to the power company had no right to convey the easement because~the road did not belong to him. September 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) 559 Mr. Roudabush said he is not the only person experiencing this problem; two other subdivisions in the County face the same dilemma. Mr. Houdabush said he is facing his fourth winter of removing snow from a road that techni- cally belongs to the County. He said VDoT has sent the matter to the Attorney General's office, but he expects no quick resolution of the problem. Mr. Lindstrom asked why the County should take over Mr. Houdabush's problem. Mr. Houdabush said the road belongs to the County. Until all the requirements have been met, Mr. Lindstrom said, the road does not belong to the County. Mr. Roudabush said he has met all the requirements that he can. Mr. St. John said he is willing to contact the CVEC, but neither the County nor Mr. Roudabush has any power over the company, except in the courts. Nevertheless, he said, he would like to discuss this matter with officials from CVEC, and he wants the Board to give him the authority, on behalf of the County, to meet with these people. He said he does not want to see the County take over problems like this, but he does feel the County has some responsi- bility for this roadway. The County does own the fee under this area and did ask VDoT to accept the roads into the secondary system. Nor does he believe the developer has failed to meet the requirements. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom toauthorize Mr. St. John to cooper- ate with Mr. Roudabush and his partners in whatever way possible, short of taking responsibility for the road, to work out this problem and to do the same in the case of the other developers experiencing the same problem. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. 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. Mr. Perkins said he received several telephone calls from irate citizens who opposed the recent footrace held on Routes 614 and 601. Mr. Roosevelt said a permit for the race was issued and the road was closed. Mr. Perkins said the citizens resented having to detour Around the footrace. If citizens oppose closing roads for this kind of purpose, Mr. Roosevelt said, he would suggest taking up the matter with the Police iDepartment. Agenda Item No. 7. Susie Waldon: Requests resolution in opposition to movie "Last Temptation of Christ". Ms. Susie Waldon addressed the Board. She asked the Board to take a moral stand regarding the movie "The Last TeMptation of Christ". She said the movies tarnishes the name of Jesus Christ and disgusts the Christian communi- ty. In the crucifixion scene, she said, the~movie shows Christ being visited by an angel and tempted one final time. The angel tells Christ he is not to be sacrificed; instead he is to marry Mary Magdalene. This he does, and the movie shows him enjoying conjugal rights with'her, while the angel Gabriel watches. In the movie, Christ also goes on to sire children by the sisters of Lazarus. Only in his final hours, does Christ realize that the angel who visited him at Golgotha was the Devil, and heigoes on to fulfill his destiny and be crucified. Ms. Waldon then quoted ver~es from the Bible to substanti- ate her contention that this movie is a "drea~-fantasy" composedof monumental lies. She also objected to the movie's graph$c description of transubstantia- tion in the scene of the Last Supper, which s~e said looked more like canniba- lism. ~ She said this movie is a prime example o~ religious bigotry. She said she would never make fun of someone whose relSgion is different from hers and she expects the same courtesy from Hollywood.i She said Hollywood has not subjected Mohammed, Confucious or Buddha to t~is kind of ridicule. She said this movie defames the Godhead and reduces the Trinity to tatters. She said she speaks for hundred of Christians in the Cdunty when she says her faith will not be subjected to further ridicule. ~f She said she is not asking the Board to 4o anything unconstitutional, like ban the movie. She said local governments in Alabama and Florida have 560 September 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) passed resolutions condemning the movie as religious bigotry. She asked that the Board do the same. Mr. Way said he does not intend to see the movie and he thinks it most unfortunate that the times we live in make it possible for such movies to be produced. Nevertheless, he said, this Board has been reluctant to act on suc] issues. An unidentified woman addressed the Board and said that evil succeeds only when good men do nothing. She said there are many people who have never heard of Jesus, who may watch this movie and get the wrong idea. She said Waynesboro passed such a resolution and asks that the County do the same. Mr. Perkins said he thinks this is a matter for perSonal action, not for a governing body. Hearing no motion, the Chairman proceeded to the next item on the agenda. Agenda Item No. 8. Request for connection to public water system from Mr. & Mrs. Bobby Martin. Mr. Home said the Martins own two parcels behind t~e Plow and Hearth on Route 250 West. The first parcel has 11 apartment units!;~ the second, the Martins' single-family dwelling. He said the applicant has had difficulties obtaining adequate water supplies on the site. He said ~he staff does not object to extending water service to the single-family hame on parcel 16B, but would like to study further the situation with the apartment building, a non-conforming use, before recommending anything for this parcel. Mr. Way asked the applicants if they would like to Address the Board. Mr. Martin said he has drilled three wells within t~e last year, the deepest of which was 365 feet. He said they usually ren~. only four or five o~ these apartments, and only one person lives in each apartment. He said he has noticed that the water servicing the apartments is getting cloudy. The water supply to his house is limited to about 20 to 30 gallonsla day. Mr. Bowie said 20 to 30 gallons a day amounts to no 'water for a family of five. He said he thinks the staff implied that the County could refuse to supply water to the apartment buildings, therefore shutti!~g down what is admittedly a non-conforming use. Nevertheless, he said, !the apartments are legal and he does not think the Board should correct a non-conforming use by shutting off the water. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie to set this request ifor public hearing on October 12, 1988. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Mr. Bain said he has no problem extending the water line to the Martins' home. He asked that staff provide some background on the'other parcel: how many units are on this parcel, and how many are occupied ' 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. Returned to Agenda Item No. 5. Mr. Lindstrom said he has read over the resolution and found several typographic erro=s. He also:suggested another change in the wording. The final version of the resolution read: WHEREAS theAlbemarle County Board of Supervisors has considered the proposed legislation for electing school boards ~nd providing fiscal independence for same; and ~I WHEREAS it is believed that the citizens of Albemarle County have been well served by the existing school board a~pointment process; and September 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) 562[ WHEREAS this system has allowed for minority representation in almost the exact proportion to our minority population; and WHEREAS the appointment of school board members by the governing body facilitates a working relationship between the members of the two bodies; and WHEREAS Virginia's current system of local government which provides for a high degree of centralization of responsibility in one elected governing body has provided Virginia citizens with an easily understood, efficient and responsive system of local government which has been uniquely free of the corruption experienced by other states with more fragmented and less visible local governmental systems; and WHEREAS the levying of local taxes to finance local government needs should continue to be the responsibility of a single governing body of local legislators who have a perspective on all local needs rather than fragmenting authority between independent bodies with special, limited interests; and WHEREAS it is the experience of the Virginia system of appointed school boards that a higher percentage of local expenditures is devoted to education than the national average; and WHEREAS the fragmentation of local taxing authority between school boards and governing bodies would result in competition for the same primary source of tax revenues~to finance local government needs, that source being the property of local citizens; and WHEREAS it would be a travesty of representative government to provide for elected school boards without taxing authority; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supevisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby~unanimously oppose legisla- tion providing for the election of schodl boards and the authority to independently levy local taxes for school needs. Agenda Item No. 9. Executive Session: 'Personnel. At 11:17 A.M., motion was offered by MrJ Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to adjourn into executive session to discuss ~personnel matters. There was no further discussion. ~ Before adjourning into executive sessmo~, Mr. Way said, he would like to announce that a meeting has been scheduled for October 19, 1988, at 3:30 P.M. with the V DoT to review the various plans for the Millington Bridge on Route 671. 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 11:38 A.M. Mr. Way was absent at this time. Mr. Agnor assumed the chair in, the absence of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman. Agenda Item No. 10. Set public hearing ~o abandon subdivision plat for Tax Map 88, Parcel 26, Woods, Incorporated. ~ Mr. Horne said this matter involved an ibtentional violation of the Subdivision Ordinance on a small piece of property near Gleco Mills on Route 29 South. He said there was a discussion with Mr. Wood about whether these were four legal parcels; mt was determmned that they were not. In September, Mr. Woods submitted a proposal to subdivide t~e minimum two acres, which would lie on two sides of the road. The staff toldiMr. Wood that such a subdivision would violate section 18.33 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Nevertheless, Mr. 562 September 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) Wood recorded the plat, in violation of the ordinance. According to Mr. St. John, Mr. Home said, the next step is to vacate the plat after a public hearing. Mr. Lindstrom asked how Mr. Wood managed to have the plat recorded. Mr. St. John said the Clerk recorded the plat, whether because she did not notice the mistake or because she did not wish to refuse to record the plat. Mr. St. John said he thinks the problem is not whether the 1.47 acre lot deserves to be called a lot, but whether this lot is one of the fivedevelopment rights to which this parcel is entitled under the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. St. John said the staff believes this lot uses one of the five development rights, while Mr. Wood believes that this property is two separate parcels, and the rest of the property still carries five development rights. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain to set this matter for public hearing on October 12, 1988. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. If the Clerk of the Court made a mistake, Mr. Lindstrom said, then that does not bother him. But if the Clerk is making a pract{ce of ignoring information on a plat, then he thinks the County Executive should have a talk with her. Mr. Agnor said he would. There was no further, discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom and Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: 55/30 Regulation of VSRS. Mr. Agnor said that Dr. Carole A. Hastings, Director of Personnel, has informed him that there are 72 retirees from the School division and 18 retirees from General Government who could benefit from ~eturning to work and fulfilling the requirement for full retirement, which is 130 years of service. The service needed to meet this criterion ranges from ong~month to 25 years. He said Ms. Hastings said the County could provide work ~pportunities to people currently covered by the Voluntary Early Retirement Plan. Such a plan would allow early retirees to return to work for the amodnt of time required to fulfill the requirement of 30 years of service; these ~employees would waive their early retirement benefits. There are 19 individuals from the School division who would qualify for this plan and one from General Government. Mr. Agnor said that Dr. Hastings believes that handling such matters through the normal employment process is the most prudent course of action. Mr. Agnor said the School Board agrees with this approach. Dr. Hastings addressed the Board said she is concerned because there is no longer a mandatory age for retirement. It is conceivable, she said, that a 65 year old ex-employee needing ten more years of service? to receive the full retirement benefits could return to work for that amount !~f time. Many of the people eligible are teachers and it would be difficult to~iwork them back into employment for a few months or years. She said she and M~. Tucker have discussed creating positions for these people, positions ~n which a person could be hired, serve their time and then retire, leaving~the position open to the next early retiree. She said this approach would involve funding consid- erations. Dr. Hastings said she would prefer to place pe'=~ple on an informal, case-by-case basis, rather than create positions or force~!department heads to hire retirees. ~ Mr. Bowie said he thinks the County should make somei~ieffort to provide for the employees who choose early retirement, only to ha~e VSRS change the rules. He said he does not think these people will be employed through the normal hiring process, because no one will hire someone w~o wants to work just a few months over someone who is looking for a career. Dr. Hastings said she could write to everyone who wa~ affected by the change in the retirement policy and ask them to contact h~r if they wish to come back to work and fulfill the requirement of 30 years'~of service. She September 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) 563 said there are no short-term assignments which qualify for retirement bene- fits, however. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that encouraging retirees to return to work will obligate the County to change its employment policy every time VSRS changes its retirement policy. Dr. Hastings said this also concerns the School Board. Dr. Hastings said she is also concerned about the other chal- lenges the Personnel Department must meet from the Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity programs. Mr. Bowie said he hopes the Personnel Department realizes that there is some interest on the part of the Board on what happens to these retirees. He asked that Dr. Hastings inform him if a retiree applies for a County position and whether that person is then employed. She agreed. Agenda Item No. 12a. Appropriation: Wind Damage to County Office Building. Mr. Agnor noted that last spring, wind blew two metal panels off of the outside rear wall of the auditorium stage at the County Office Building. The insurance company has settled for the damage in the amount of $27,252.19. An appropriation of this amount is needed in order that repairs may proceed. Staff and the building architect have n~gotiated with the original installer of the panels to install containment bars at no cost to prevent future wind damage. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt the following resolution of appropriation: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $27,262.19 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund for repairs to the Auditorium at the County Office Building due to wind damage. ~ AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date. Roll was called on the foregoing motion, which was carried by the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom and Perkins. NAYS: None. ~ ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Way. :~ Agenda Item No. 12b. Appropriation: Soil & Water Conservation Grant. Mr. Agnor said that the 1988-89 Soil Conservation Grant which funds the salary and benefits of a Conservation Specialist/Engineering Inspector in the County Engineering Department has been received. The amount of the grant is different from the amount anticipated during the budget process. The local share of the grant was budgeted at $6,320, but the actual local share is $7,134.98. This required an increase of $816.98 from local funds. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution of appropriation: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $28,539.93 be, and the s~me hereby is, appropriated from the Soil Conservation Fund for the ~!988-89 Soil Conservation Grant, and BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supeyvisors of Albemarle County, Virginia that $814.98 be, and the same h~reby is, appropriated from the General Fund balance to fund the loci~l share of the Soil Conser- vation Grant; AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date. 564 September 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom and Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 13. Advanced Allocation Company. North Garden Volunteer Fire Mr. Agnor said the North Garden Volunteer Fire Company has requested an advanced allocation of $90,000 to purchase a new 1500 gallon tanker pumper to replace a 1976 vehicle. This is in addition to a 1985 allocation, and brings their outstanding balance to $158,571, which is to be paid back over the next eight years. Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to sign the agreement so that the Director of Finance can make the disburse- ment. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Perkins to authorize the County Executive to sign the following agreement on behalf of the County: THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this 14th day Of September, 1988, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), and the NORTH GARDEN FIRE CO., ("North Garden"); WITNESS ETH; WHEREAS, the County previously has entered into a service agreement with North Garden, dated July 1985, providing for the withholding of certain sums each year by the County from the County's annual grant to North Garden, as set forth in said agreement, the terms of which are incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, as a result of said agreement, the outAtanding indebt- edness now totals Sixty-eight Thousand Five Hundred Seventy-one Dollars ($68,571.00); and WHEREAS North Garden now desires to receive fro~ the County Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000.00) to be used for the purchase of a new tanker pumper; and WHEREAS, North Garden now desires to enter intoian agreement consolidating its annual withholding of payments by !the county; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the=operation by North Garden of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and protect property and human life from loss or damage ~y fire and the purchase of a new tanker pumper during the term of this agreement, the County shall pay to North Garden Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000.00), which payment shall be made from the 1~88-89 advance allocation to be drawn as soon as this agreement hasilbeen approved and executed by both parties. Thereafter, the sum of Twenty Thousand Dollars ('$20,000.00) per year shall be withheld each year from the County's annual grant to North Garden for a period of seven (7) years, beginning with fiscal year 1989-90 and extending through July 1996, with alfinal payment of Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Seventy-one Dollars (~18,571.00) due and payable by July 1997. Thus, at the end of the e~ghth year, which is the term of this service agreement, a total of On~ Hundred Fif- ty-eight Thousand Five Hundred Seventy-one Dollars (~58,571.00) will have been withheld. This withholding consolidates t~e balance of all prior advancements as a result of the prior service ~greement with North Garden dated July 1985. If at any time during the term of this agreement~, North Garden is no longer in the business of providing fire-fighting services, or the tanker pumper is no longer used for fire-fighting!~purposes, or September 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) 565 the fire engine purchased per the July %985 agreement is no longer used for fire-fighting purposes, North~Garden covenants and agrees that it will convey its interest in the tanker pumper and the fire engine to the County at no cost to the County so long as the County or its assigns will use the property for fire-fighting purposes. Ail covenants set forth in the agreement dated July 1985 remain in full force and effect. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom and Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 14. Report: Chesapeake Bay Act. Mr. St. John presented the following report, dated August 23, 1988: "This is in response to the Supervisors' directive for a summary of the captioned act and its implications re the Route 29 corridor improvements. I am going to discuss the entire implication of the act and its present status rather thanmerely its Route 29 implica- tions. The act is Code Sections 10.1-2100 through 2115. In short summary, it calls for the establishment of a Board which will adopt criteria. These criteria will then be incorporated in local zoning ordinances and comprehensive plans. Counties in Tidewater must incorporate them; counties not in Tidewater may incorporate them. Time Frame: This Board has already been organized. It has until June 30,1989 to adopt the criteria, an~ilthe Tidewater counties have until July 30, 1990, to incorporate th6~ into their local ordinances and plans. The Board is now in the process of developing the criteria, lit Two things noteworthy: first, the act ~pplies not only to the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, but~!to all 'waters of the state' and these are defined as all surface and ground water in Virginia; second, state agencies must act consistently with local ordinances if these ordinances comply with the Board's criteria. Two results are seen as following from these points. One, the Act itself provides no guides or controls either at state or local level. It merely sets up a mechanism for the BQard and local governments to follow. Two, in order for state agencies to be mandated to act consistently with local ordinances, those ordinances must await the publication of the Board's criteria, and incorporate them. If we were to develop our own criteria, our o~dinances would have no effect on state agencies. Furthermore, Ibeli~ve that if we wait and incorporate the Board's criteria, our o~dinances will stand a much better chance of surviving judicial challenge by private developers or other opponents. ~ Side by side with the Chesapeake Bay Ac~, the 1988 legislature also enacted new additions to Code Section 1~.1-489 authorizing local zoning ordinances and comprehensive plans to include provisions for protection of ground and surface water. tied to the criteria adopted by the Chez says local measures must be 'consistent standards'. So we could theoretically But if we did this, we would be 'on our and could not affect state agencies suc! ginia and the Virginia Department of Tr~ hand, we wait until the criteria are puk This code section is not apeake Bay Board; it just with state water quality roceed under that section. un' in a judicial challenge as the University of Vir- nsportation. If on the other lished, we can enact ordi- nances which carry out both enabling seditions and which carry the express backing of these sections. In ~ddition, I believe we might 566 September 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) need outside consultants even to draft our own water protection ordinances independently. For these reasons, I recommend we wait for the criteria. I discussed this thoroughly with Scott Crafton, Executive Director of the Chesapeake Bay Board in Richmond." Mr. Lindstrom said the County, since at least 1977, has incorporated in the Runoff Control Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance provisions specifically designed to protect State waters as defined in this legislation. He said the County has received national and judicial recognition for these efforts. Because these measures to protect State waters are already in County ordinances, he said, he thinks it would behoove the County to identify in its ordinances and the Comprehen- sive Plan, particularly in the current revision of the Comprehensive Plan, the consistency between the County's regulations and the purposes of the Chesa- peake Bay Preservation Act, even though the Chesapeake Bay Board has not yet adopted its criteria. Identifying this consistency may give the County more legal standing, even if the County is not able to prevail, in the courts until the criteria are developed. He said he thinks the County is entitled to take advantage of this legislation because it has acted in good faith in ways that are consistent with the policy of the act. He said he i~ concerned that if the County waits until the criteria are promulgated, it may lose the advan- tages of acting quickly, if for example, the State planned a major public facility in the watershed, an area the Board deleted fromlthe growth areas of the County to protect the water supply. !i~ Mr. St. John asked if the Board wants the staff, asipart of the work on the revised Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance,~to draft provisions to strengthen the measures protecting water, based on thM!Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. He said this legislation may be a too~i, the County can use to strengthen its position on the proposed improvements t~ Route 29 North, but he thinks the County must consider this act in light of a~l the water in the County, not just the public reservoir. Mr. Lindstrom said he wants the staff to find out if!~there is anything the County should be doing, in view of the advantages offgred by this legisla- tion at this point, to strengthen the advantage to the CoUnty of its existing ordinances. He said he would like to see the County granted the benefits accorded under this legislation as soon as possible. Mr.!St. John said he would work with the staff to insure the County gets these!benefits. Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters not Listed on thei. Agenda from the Board and Public. ~ Mr. Bain mentioned the letter to Mr. Way inviting members of the Board to participate in the National Governors' Association New Governors' Seminar, scheduled for November 17 - 19, 1988. It was decided to put this item on an upcoming agenda for discussion when the Chairman could bei?present. Mr. Perkins asked for an update on the study of volunteer fire depart- ments and rescue squads. Mr. Agnor said a draft of the study will be avail- able by October 1, 1988. Mr. Perkins said adjoining counties have adopted a rAsolution pertaining to the abandonment of the railroad line by the CSX CorporAtion. Mr. Perkins said he thinks this Board should also take a position on ~his matter. Mr. Agnor said he and Mr. Home attended a meeting in Augusta!County with repre- sentatives of all localities involved in the abandonment. He said the Plan- ning staff is preparing a report on the abandonment and what the County might do with the property. He said it may take a year for the.State Corporation Commission to decide whether CSX can abandon the property~ Mr. Agnor said the CSX Corporation does not own all the property occupied by the railroad, but holds easements for some of this property. When the fail'bad line is aban- doned, the easement disappears, so a lot of this propertyiwill not become public property. September 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) 567 Agenda Item No. 16. Executive~Session: Legal Matters. At 12:37 P.M., a motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters concerning a contract and potential litigation on the assessment of property. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom and Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Way. The Board reconvened into an open session at 1:15 P.M. Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. With no .further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.