Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-10-12October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) 597 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 12, 1988, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr. and F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:10 A. M.), Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, John T. P. Horne. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 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. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve 4.3 on the Consent Agenda and to accept 4.1 and 4.2 as information. There was no discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Item 4.1. Memorandum dated September 19, 1988, from Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Degelopment, addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive, re: CSX Rail Abandonment, concerning resolution dated August 12, 1988, from Bath County Board of Supervisors was received as information. Item 4.2. A copy of the Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 1988, was received as information. Item 4.3. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail fo~ the month of September, 1988, were approved by the vote shown above. (Note: Mr. Lindstrom arrives at 9:10 A.M.) Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes:~ March 20 (Afternoon), 1985; October 3, 1988. No minutes had been read. Agenda Item No. 6. Highway Matters. Mr. Way announced that no one was present from the Highway Department, so this item will be heard later in the meeting. Agenda Item No. 7. To consider a request from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to abandon a section of Route614 (Sugar Hollow Road), 1.88 miles in length to public use, in order to allow the closing of access to Sugar Hollow Reservoir property after dark (deferred from September 7, 1988). Mr. Agnor stated that there were eight questions raised at the Public Hearing on the road closing at Sugar Hollow. These questions were passed on to Mr. George Williams, Mr. Frank Johnstone and Mr. George St. John for responses. He summarized the questions and answers as they were listed in Mr. Agnor's October 7, 1988, memorandum to the Board. 598 October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) Mr. Lindstrom asked if it is fair to offset the maintenance and capital costs of installing a gate against the cost of hiring a security guard. Mr. Agnor answered, "yes." Mr. Bowie said that in Mr. Johnstone's letter of response to the ques- tions that were raised at the public hearing, he mentioned that a radio might help the caretaker get help quicker because, when a problem arises, he would not have to go back to a telephone and call 911. He noted that the radio was not mentioned in the cover memo and asked if there was a reason that this suggestion was left out. Mr. Agnor responded, "yes." He said that getting to a telephone is not the primary reason for not getting quick responses to calls for help. He pointed out that trespassers sometimes have monitoring radios and, by the time the police get to Sugar Hollow, the trespassers are gone. He does not believe a radio would make the response time fa~ter, because the territory is not large enough at Sugar Hollow to cause t~e caretaker problems in getting to a telephone. Mr. Agnor then commented that there was a list provided by the Police Department of the 36 calls for service that were made and the people that were involved. He said he did not distribute this list because he did not think that it should be publicly discussed. He mentioned that there were some calls for service made by people other than the care- taker. Mr. Way asked Mr. St. John if he had anything that ~e would like to add. Mr. St. John answered, "no." Mr. Way then asked Mr. George Williams if he would like to speak. Mr. Williams responded that he did not have anything to say, Unless Board members had questions. Mr. Lindstrom commented that since the reservoir is owned and maintained by the Rivanna Authority, all that the Board can do is recommend that a security guard be hired by the Authority Board and, then, mot approve the request to abandon the road. The Rivanna Authority's Board must make the final decision. Mr. Agnor agreed. Mr. Bain mentioned that some of the landowners have iindicated that there is also a daytime problem with trespassers on the reservoir. He thinks that should be considered, also. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he believes that someone s~ould be at Sugar Hollow all of the time, except for the winter months. Mr. Perkins remarked that the game wardens, employed~i~by the Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, spend a lot of time in that area because the stream and lake are stocked with trout, and bgcause of the illegal hunting and fishing that occurs there. He said that these game wardens would probably respond quicker than the State Police. He said ~ihis is a way of providing law enforcement at Sugar Hollow that has not be~n previously men- tioned. ,'i Mr. St. John said if there is no mechanism to assure ithat the Rivanna Authority will continue to maintain this road, then it is iequally true that there is no way to assure that this road will be left open. during daylight hours in the future. He said the fee in this road, if the road is abandoned, will revert to the City, subject to the Authority's leasei, i If part of this problem is happening during daylight hours, then the next iistep could be that the road might be closed 24 hours a day except for people '~uthorized to go there. Mr. Agnor stated that one of the things that occurred, when the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was formed was that the City-owned reservoirs and the County-owned reservoirs were retained in ownership by ~he City and the County to be certain that they would be used for recreational purposes. He realizes that there could come a t~me when the Authority m~ght say that the use of the recreational facility is conflicting with the phblic water supply and the road should be closed for this reason. He said th~ City continues to own the Sugar Hollow Reservoir because it wants Sugar HollOw to continue as a recreational facility. He said the responsibility for that recreational use is assigned to the Rivanna Authority. He added that this ~ituation is similar October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) 599 to Beaver Creek. The County owns that land and leaves Beaver Creek open for fishing, but the Rivanna Sewer Authority maintains the reservoir. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not convinced that the problem is going to be as effectively solved by closing the road. Even if the cost has to be increased to include more hours for security, he thinks the security guard will be able to deal more effectively with the issues. He cannot support abandoning the road because of that fact, and he believes that closing the road will cause other complications. Mr. Bowie agreed with Mr. Lindstrom. H~ said he does not think that the park should be closed to other citizens because of vandalism. He would rather have security guards on duty or some other kind of backup law enforcement so that the park can be kept open to the citizehs. Mr. Way cox~ented that a public heating'has already been held on this matter. He said there are citizens present at the meeting, and if someone has a desire to say something that was not said at a previous meeting, he would give that person an opportunity to speak. Mr. Joseph Jones said his father has property past the reservoir so he uses the road through the park. He said at this time of year there are a lot of hikers and overnight campers who go to the National Park. He said that most of the hikers and campers that he sees are young adults, but occasionally there are families with children. He mentioned that should anyone become injured at night, that person would be denied quick access to medical atten- tion, if a gate was locked to keep people from using the road. He also mentioned, in relation to the security guard~ that when driving across Beaver Creek Road on almost any Friday or Saturday ~ight that there are three or four cars parked at the reservoir with beer drinking occurring. He thinks that a security guard could not only serve the Suga~ Hollow Reservoir but could, perhaps, periodically check the other reservoirs. Mrs. Millard Matthews, wife of the caretaker of Sugar Hollow Reservoir, submitted a letter to the Board from her husSand. Mr. Way asked Mrs. Matthews to read the letter. Mrs. Matthews read this.~letter which indicated that Mr. Matthews is in favor of the gate because he ~as had threats on his life and is concerned about the safety of his family. ~ Mr. Fred Landess said he did not feel that it was necessary for him to make a statement, but he would be happy to g~%e his opinion on any legal questions. There were no questions for Mr. ~andess, so Mr. Way placed the matter before the Board. ~ Mr. Bain stated that he is not prepared,! at this time, to support aban- donment of the road. He thinks that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority should take this first step with the securit~ guard and see what happens. He also agreed with Mr. Perkins that perhaps thei game wardens could be more active in the area. He does not think that the overriding risks for the water source is something this Board needs to consider at this time. Mr. Lindstrom agreed that the game wardens are a resource, but he thinks they have more than they can handle and have,to cover considerable territory. He added that particularly this time of year,i to expect them to do anything more than they already are doing, is not reasonable. Mr. St. John explained that the game wardens' responsibility is to enforce the game laws, but they can arrest arkyone if a crime is committed in their presence. With respect to poachers, tk~y would be interested in that sort of thing because it is part of their scope of duties. Vandalism and trespassing, Mr. St. John said, he thinks are!outside of their responsibility. Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. St. John if it is a valid consideration to ask the game wardens for help in addressing this part$cular problem. Mr. St. John said he would not try to seek a commitment that the game wardens focus on this particular problem. ~ Mr. Way explained that in order to dispoAe of this matter a motion would have to be made. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to deny the request for abandonment and request that the Rivanna Water 600 October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) and Sewer Authority consider hiring a security guard for the months suggested and also for evening hours. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Lindstrom commented that he has met a lot of security guards who are effective in terms of patrolling a building that is not very often used. He is not sure that these security guards are the sort of people who should be put out in the woods with all of the activity that goes on at Sugar Hollow. If the Rivanna Authority does consider a security guard, he hopes the security agency will be made aware of the dimensions of the problem. Agenda Item No. 6. Highway Matters. Mr. Bowie mentioned that he has had calls about the traffic light at the intersection of Route 20 North and Route 250 East, particularly the left turn lane coming from the Pantops Shopping Center. He wondered if something could be done to improve the flow of traffic because the traffic turning left blocks other traffic on Route 250. Mr. Roosevelt explained that the problem with this traffic light is a direct result of the timing with the light on the other side of the Free Bridge in the City of Charlottesville. He said that the iVDoT's Traffic Engineer has written to the City Traffic Engineer to see =if the lights can be coordinated. Mr. Roosevelt said that he didn't think that anything can be done unless there can be better coordination between the !two lights or if the City can increase the time for the Long Street traffic movement. Mr. Lindstrom mentioned a letter dated October 3, 1988, addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Deputy County Executive, from Mr. R. L. Hundley, Environmen- tal~Engineer for the Department of Transportation, regarding the Route 29 corridor study. He said the Joint Transportation Committee requested certain modeling that would include Route 29 with the grade-sepa=ated interchanges (Route 29 at Hydraulic and Rio Roads), which have been pa~t of the CATS Study for-a long time. Mr. Lindstrom said it appears that this'.!iletter from Mr. Hundley is a categorical denial of everything the Committee asked for. Nor will the detailed maps of the bypass alternatives that ar~ being considered be available in October as had been indicated. He added tha~ a staff meeting set to review those maps has now been cancelled. The Highway!.!Department also indicated that it does not intend to meet with the Joint Committee until December or January, and other meetings will be scheduled!lwith the staff as the Department sees fit. !i Mr. Lindstrom said is concerned about this apparent ~%~nilateral deletion of part of the study. He went on to say that if an expressway is not built and a bypass is built, those interchanges are critical~ b~cause east/west traffic flow across Route 29 at Rio and Hydraulic Roads i~ at unacceptable levels of service. He said the letter indicates that the~e was a hearing in October, 1986, and significant citizen testimony was rece~ved against the interchange at Rio Road. Based upon that, it has been deleted from further consideration, and he is appalled at that attitude. Mr. Lindstrom said there was no comment by either the County or City on this project because of the concerns about other improvements, but he feels that the Board needs to be aware of the action that has b~n taken by the Transportation Department. He does not know what needs t~i be done, but if sighificant pieces of the CATS Study are not going to be ~mplemented, then he thinks it is critical, i~ Mr. Lindstrom called attention again to the letter a~d said that the Department of Transportation indicates that it does not tl~ink that this situation is anything more than a design matter and would~inot affect traffic volumes. He noted, however, that if there is an unacceptable level of service at the major intersections, it will certainly affect traffic volumes as people look for other ways to get into Charlottesville. He wondered if a formal October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) 601 resolution should be adopted by the Board indicating support of the resolution unanimously adopted by the Joint Transportation Conm~ittee on September 23, 1988. He is concerned when letters are received and the Board does not respond to-them because it may seem as though the County is not interested in the matter. He said out of the 500 people who spoke at the public hearing on the grade-separated interchange at Rio Road, there could not have been more than 10 to 25 percent who spoke against it. He said the County Board of Supervisors is on record as having said nothing. Mr. Lindstrom said the County staff does not keep records of these VDoT meetings, because it was feared that the Highway Department would be offended if such records were kept. He feels that if a bypass is constructed and the interchanges are not built, it will be even harder for traffic to move up and down Route 29. Travelers on Rio and Hydraulic Roads, with a~shortened amount of green light time as the traffic pressure from north/south increases, will have a hard time getting across eight lanes of traffic. He thinks the Board needs to show in the record that the interchanges at Hydraulic and Rio Roads should not be deleted and that these project improvements are essential. Mr. Bowie said he will support Mr. Lindstrom's statement. He mentioned, however, that it is not the first time the Board has written short, clear requests for projects and have gotten long answers from the VDoT that in effect say the projects will not be done. H~ does not think, regardless of what the final outcome is, that the Committee representing the Board of Supervisors, the City of Charlottesville and~the University can continually accept denials of its requests and let them Pass. In his opinion, when nothing is said, it is the same as an acceptance of the VDoT's plans. He thinks that the Board should respond, and wh~ther or not grade-separated interchanges are approved, the VDoT should b~ informed that the County does not want the interchanges dropped from the p~oject. Mr. Bain asked if the response to the request that the modeling be done without the CATS Study's connector road between Route 20 South and Route 631 (Fifth ~Street Extended) is addressed. In res ,onse, Mr. Lindstrom read from Mr. Hundley's letter which indicated that, ''~ .1 improvements included in the approved Charlottesville area transportation )lan will be considered when the forecast traffic volumes are determined for ~e six candidate build alterna- tives. The exception is the interchanges on'~Route 29 at Hydraulic and Rio Roads." He then read the rationale for this Mr. Bain remarked that the Department oi cally stated whether it will or will not cons 20 South. Mr. Lindstrom answered that VDoT ~ sider the connector road to Route 20 South, that was left in the CATS Study. He said th~ meeting last month as to what would be consid the Department of Transportation indicated t~ decision. Transportation has not specifi- ider the connector road to Route as indicated that it will con- ~cause it is one of the things a discussion was held at the ered by VDoT, and a consultant in at the Meadow Creek Parkway would not be shown as a bypass alternative because ~hat will not be its function. He said it is as though that discussion never, happened. He said the Rio Road connector was not included in any local plan,I but it is shown in the model. He said the Transportation Department indicated that it had to be shown because it is part of the formal CATS Study and has never been formally deleted. He said the Committee asked the Transportation Department to study the effect of the interchanges, but the Department is not going to do that. He pointed out that the interchanges are clearly a significant part of the CATS Study, and when asked about this inconsistency, the Transportation Department said the interchanges were looked at as a design feature, and the Rio connector road was considered as a long range part of the plan. He said the Transportation Department made its own characterizations to suit its purposes, and he thinks that the County is getting "double-talk." He believes that the interchanges, at this point, are fundamental tothe whole system of traffic on Route 29, and whether or not the i~terchanges are constructed, will have an effect on how traffic patterns evolveiiin the planning period and how much traffic will use the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Bowie thinks that a response should ~e made by the Board to the VDoT indicating that the interchanges should be included in the modeling. He thinks, too, that the study should show the effect of the traffic with or without the interchanges. Mr. Lindstrom reiterated that the Committee's resolution requested that all of the features shown in the CATS plan be 602 October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) studied and that various features be deleted and added so that the variable picture could be shown. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie. to request staff to draft language to endorse the resolution adopted on September 23 by the Joint Transportation Committee concerning Route 29. No vote was taken. Mr. Bain asked if the Metropolitan Planning Organization (aPO) should take action on this matter and frame a response to the Highway Department, also. Mr. Bowie agreed that the aPO should be contacted, and also suggested that the Joint Committee address the situation again. At the meeting in May of this year when the six alternatives were shown, Mr. Lindstrom said, he asked Mr. Hunt, who was making the presentation, if property owners near these roads could be comfortable knowing there would not be any new routes added. Mr. Lindstrom said the response was that these were the six alternatives, and there would not be anymore. He added that now significant new roads are being shown. His perception is that there has been a dramatic change in the approach of the consultant and the Transportation Department because the initial impetus was to have an open process in working with the Committee and the community in the hope that this would make the final solution more acceptable. He said questions have been asked that the consultant from YDoT has not been able to answer, and Mr.liLindstrom's opinion now is that VDoT feels that there is more to lose by havfng an open public process than there is to gain. Mr. Bowie mentioned that he will be attending the Highway Department's Conference on October 26, and he would like to have some information on this question to take with him. He thinks it is sometimes more beneficial to get ideas to the workers at the staff level than the people Who answer the let- ters. '" Mr. Way asked if the Board could receive this information by next Wednes- day. Mr. Agnor answered, "yes." Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it is impor- tant to get the information as quickly as possible. He said it might be appropriate to indicate in the resolution that neither th9 City nor the County has taken any action to recommend the deletion of these i~terchanges from the plan. Mr. Way said he had received a petition from some citizens requesting a new bridge across the creek just before the Route 620 Country Store. He handed the petitions to Mr. Roosevelt. · Agenda Item No. 8. ZTA-88-2. To amend the permitted uses of 29.0, Planned Development - Industrial Park District (deferred from September 7, 1988). Mr. Horne explained the proposal to amend the permitted uses of 29.0, Planned Development - Industrial Park District. He said ~he Board held its advertised public hearing on this amendment on August 7 11988, but action was deferred until September 7, 1988. On that date, staff wa~ requested to resubmit this information to the Board, showing all of th~' language for Section 29.0. That language was submitted with the pape~ork for this meet- Mr. Lindstrom remarked that he has studied the amendment, and the differ- ences are minor. He said a couple of items are permitted i!:~in the existing LI and HI zones that are not permitted anywhere or not in th~I' same fashion in the PD-IP. He said these differences do not appear to him to >.bea problem. He asked if the dwelling that is permitted by-right in the L~ Zone is a caretak- er's structure. Mr. Home answered, "yes." Mr. Lindstrom then asked if the staff still feels tha~ there is an advantage to having this amendment. He said the amendmentii provides for a larger setting and more of a mixture of uses within one s~ting than tradi- tional zoning. Mr. Horne agreed and said the staff would ~ike to be as flexible as possible concerning mixed uses in many of the ~ones. The staff thinks this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and iks confident of the October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) 603 performance standards in the industrial zones. He said that no matter what use is put in the industrial zones, performance standards have to be met, and many have supplementary regulations. From Mr. Horne's point of view, he does not feel that it is tremendously important for county government to control specific lists of uses as long as the general categories are correct and performance standards are applied. In this situation, an application plan is also being applied where the interrelationship of the uses is controlled. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and~seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt the following ordinance to amend 29.0 Planned Development - Industrial Park to allow for uses as they may be established in!27.0 Light Industry and 28.0 Heavy Industry Zones. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None.. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE IN SECTION 29.0 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - INDUSTRIAL PARK - PD-IP BE IT ORDAINED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby amend and reenact the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 29.0, Planned Development - Industrial Park - PD-IP, as follows: Repeal 29.2, Permitted Uses, in its entirety, and in its place put the following language: 29.2 PERMITTED USES 29.2.1 BY RIGHT - CATEGORY I 29.2.2 The following uses shall be permitted in any area desig- nated as Category I on the app!roved application plan: 1. Uses permitted by right shall include uses permitted by right in the LI lighti!industry district. BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT - CATEGORY I 29.2.3 Uses permitted by special use permit shall include uses permitted by special use permi~ in the LI light industry district; provided that no separate application shall be required for any use included )n the approved application plan. BY RIGHT - CATEGORY II The following uses shall be permitted in any area desig- nated as Category II on the approved application plan: 29.2.4 1. Uses permitted by right shall include uses permitted by right in the LI light ~ndustry district and the HI heavy industry district. BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT - CATEGORY II Uses by special use permit shatl include uses permitted by special use permit in the LI l~ght industry district and the HI heavy industry district~' provided that no separate application shall be required for any use included on the approved application plan. In Section 29.5, Additional Require~.~ents, change the reference to section 21.0 to 26.0. ~i 604 October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) At this time, Mr. Way recognized the presence of Ms..Elmira Hurd, from the League of Women Voters. Agenda Item No. 9. Agreement Visitors' Bureau. Mr. Agnor said the County/City/Chamber committee which was formed to revise the Visitors' Bureau agreement for the operation of the Bureau, has forwarded the proposed agree- ment for review and approval. The major changes are: 1. The nine member appointed Commission is discontinued. The funding support changes from an annual negotiated process among the three entities, to a formula for the City and County calculated on the relative income from sales tax revenues and equalized (two percent) lodging tax revenues, and the Chamber's contribution of $23,500 the first year (1988-89) and increasing three percent per year. The financial results of the changes are: The Bureau is authorized to take on the added responsibility of support services to group meetings, conventions, etc. from funds generated by the Bureau staff. These funds ar~ currently derived from advertisement panels at the Center, advertisements in lodging/restaurant brochures, commissions on sale of tickets to local attractions, and commissions on lodging meservations. The agreement is for a five-year period with p~ovisions for five year renewals, and a six months cancellation n~ice. The Chamber's contribution is changed from a cdnstant $15,000 share to a $23,000 share, which will increase three percent per year. The ratio of the County and City share is changed from a constant 66.7 percent City/33.3 percent County split to a formula with factors that may change slightly each year. Initial estimates are 62 percent City/38 percent County split. Mr. Way announced that he and Mr. Bain have been meeting with the Visi- tors' Bureau concerning the proposed new agreement and a Copy has been given to the Board members. He pointed out that one of the prablems in the past, from the Board's point of view, has been the amount of the of contribution by the Chamber of Commerce. He noted that the contribution ifor the Chamber has been increased in the new agreement and there is a provis~ion for it to be increased at the rate of three percent annually. Mr. WaM!said this agreement will keep the Visitors' Bureau in the same status as it i~ now, which requires it to serve as a welcoming center for tourists and give t~em information abou~ the area. This agreement also allows the Visitors' Burea~ to begin promoting the area, but only with funds generated by the Bureau itself and by a portion of the Chamber' s contributions. Mr. Way said he has one suggestion for a change in the agreement. He suggested that the first line of Number One of the agreement state: "The parties shall operate the Bureau to assist visitors in our area and enhance tourism within the Charlottesville and Albemarle area." He believes this more clearly defines what the Bureau actually does. Mr. Bain remarked that a sentence needs to be added to Number Seven (b) stating that the Chamber's share shall increase each yearlby three percent. Mr. Lindstrom suggested the sentence read: "The amount o~ the Chamber's contribution shall increase by three percent in each succeeding year over the previous year's contributions." Mr. Lindstrom said he could not understand the formula that was used for the City's and County's shares. Mr. Agnor explained the formula, and said the equalization of the City's lodging tax is anticipated to ~e at a two percent collection rate because its actual rate is higher than the County's. Mr. Lindstrom wondered if it would be helpful to have an actual example with numbers listed. October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) 605 Mr. Bowie called attention to the second page of the memo and Number Two under the financial results. He said it shows that initial estimates are 62 percent City/38 percent County split. He said if these numbers could be explained, he thought that everything else would make sense. Mr. Way explained that this agreement has been pending for a year and a half. He said that everything in the Bureau's budget was held where it had been in the past. Mr. Agnor disagreed with Mr. Way as to the length of time that the agreement has been pending by saying that in 1984 the Board questioned the fact that the Chamber's share was still frozen and so the County froze its share beginning in 1984 until a new agreement could be drafted. This agreement is the first draft since that time. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned about Number Seven (d) in the agree- ment relating to added responsibilities of the Bureau. He said he does not mind if the Bureau is authorized to take on these added responsibilities, or if the Chamber or the other private organizations in this community want to fund a convention center through the Visitors' Bureau. He does, however, believe that those funds that are being generated by the activities of the Bureau should stay the way they are and not be contributed to these activi- ties. He thinks that if the private sector wants to get into. the convention business then the private sector should fund it because the direct results will go to the private sector. He said some~people say there is a tremendous benefit to having conventions and that sales*~tax revenues will go up. He has been to communities where conventions have b~come big business, and there is a significant difference between having a tourism trade oriented to families or individuals and a tourism trade oriented to conventions. If the private sector thinks this is beneficial, then it is the private sector's right to stimulate it. If this is done through the Bureau, that is fine, but Mr. Lindstrom would rather have it done with mone, y that is completely generated by the private sector. Mrs. Cooke agreed with Mr. Lindstrom and said she remembers that the Board has had a similar discussion in the pa~t. She said the County has done some basic things to foster tourism by providing a building and basic funding, and she thinks it is up to the private sector, to go after what the private sector wants. She thinks, too, that if the ~rivate sector benefits from something, then it should be funded by the p~ivate sector. She believes if the County gets involved with funding in an area such as this one, it will set a precedent. She reminded members of the Board that these same feelings were brought out in previous discussions. Mr. Bain asked what the Bureau's total ~dget is for this year. Mr. Agnor replied that the Bureau's total budget--!this year is $202,870. Mr. Bain asked how much of the total budget is from City and the County funding. Mr. fund and request the Agnor replied that the County was asked to $55,174 the to City was for 110,3.47. The County actually funded $47,025. Mr. Bain asked if the remaining $37,000 is coming from the Cham~ber's contribution plus the other amounts that are being raised from advertisemsnts and other measurements. Mr. Agnor answered, "yes." He added that the Bu~pau sells advertising space to restaurants and hotels in brochures and adver~isement panels at the Center. He said the Bureau ms also paid fees for selli~ng tickets to local attractions. Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with Mr. Wa~'s suggestion concerning the insertion of new wording in Number One of the.i~~'agreement. He said as the funds generated by the Bureau are used more and mor~ to promote conventions, the individual visitor will be lost. He thinks t~at service to the individual visitor will become secondary, at best. He b~lieves government functions ought to be facilitating tourism and assistin~ visitors. He said this area has significant international historic resources, and he thinks that there is an obligation to facilitate these resources, llHe added that when conventions are being promoted, that is a business, and aI~service to the individual visitor is not being provided. He thinks government funds should be providing service and private money should be promoting Mr. Bowie said he has, throughout the ye~ funding for the Bureau. He feels that the Ch benefit the most from any kind of promotional Way's suggestion relating to the insertion agreement, but he believes that the words sho~ clearly state that the primary purpose of the business. rs, opposed any increase in the mber and its members would activities. He concurs with Mr. words into Number One of the id be stronger and should Bureau, as long as it receives 606 October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) public funds, is to assist the individual tourist. Any promotion.of any type of convention or group should be paid for by the Chamber of Commerce funds or by the money earned by sales, and not by taxes. Mr. Bowie said he has studied the beneifits of the tourist trade and there is more than $30,000,000 a year spent in Albemarle County and $9,000,000 of that money is spent specifically on meals. If this impact is considered, that generates sufficient funds to finance three new schools. He believes that this agreement provides for private money to be used to provide promo- tional services and that public money will be used to provide assistance to tourists. Mr. Way said he feels this agreement is a fair compromise and worthy of the Board's support. He said the agreement provides for such a small amount of money to go toward the solicitation of conventions for this area, that he does not think that there is any danger of the Board being swamped with requests from other organizations. He does not see anything wrong with the County beginning to reap some of the benefits of the smaller conventions, and he is prepared to support the concept of this agreement. Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Agnor to give the Board members an idea of what this budget involves by indicating how many people work a~ the Bureau, and how the money is spent. Mr. Agnor replied that there is a Director of the Bureau and a staff of five people who work at the desk seven days a week, during daylight hours only. These staff people are carried on the City's personnel system, so he does not remember all of the details of the costs. He said the Bureau pro- duces brochures which have no advertisements in them. These brochures are handed out to visitors and are made available at the Visitors' Center A lodging and restaurant brochure is also produced which, until two years ago, was produced with money from the Bureau's funds. Now, hQwever, it has adver- tisements in it and generates some money, but not enough ~to cover the total cost. He said there is also some advertising for Charlottesville and Albemarle in travel guides and travel agency writers come here to write about the historic attractions. Out of the $200,000 budget, Mr.~ Agnor said, $15,000 is spent on advertising. He said this is a pittance compared to what is spent on advertising in publications distributed in the eastern part of the United States. Another expense involves bus tour meetings that the director attends with people who conduct travel trips, especially for senior citizens. These meetings occur twice a year and bus tour people meet with people who are trying to get tours to come to their area. Mr. Agnor safd the Visitors' Bureau also pays a square footage cost for the area that ~it occupies, and that cost goes to the Debt Service Fund on the building. The~ is also some cost for the building's maintenance and operations. He said t~e budget has a fee included for rent which involves bond payments and operati~ons costs. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he could support the agre~ent if the last sentence of Number Seven (d) is amended to read: "The co~t of this portion of the Bureau's program shall be borne by the Chamber of Co~erce and such other private sources as may be available and not by revenues generated by the operation of the Bureau." He asked that a formula be inserted with the actual numbers included, and that the changes that Mr. Way and M~. Bain suggested also be included. Mr. Bain said he thought the language for Number Sev~n (b) of the agree- ment should say: "The Chamber of Commerce's contribution~,.~shall increase in each succeeding year by three percent over the previous year's contributions." Mr. Bowie asked that instead of adding a phrase to t~e first sentence in Number One of the agreement, that a statement be added that states: "The primary purpose is to assist the individual tourist." M~. Bowie said this should be clearly stated in the actual agreement. Mr. Ba~'n suggested incorpo- rating the preamble in Number One of the agreement. At this point, Mr. Way asked the staff to return the i!agreement to the Board with the changes suggested as quickly as possible, iMf. Agnor informed the Board that the Chamber is having a meeting on the agreement tomorrow and the City Council will be meeting on Monday night. He said that he would bring October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) 607 any of their changes back and consolidate them with this Board's recommenda- tions. (Note: The Board recessed at 10:33 A.M. and reconvened at 10:41 A.M. Mr. St. John returned at 10:44 A.M.) Agenda Item No. 10. Emergency Operations Plan, Summary. Mr. Michael Carroll, Emergency Services Coordinator, was present to discuss the emergency operations plan prepared for the County. He said this plan is a general statement of the responsibilities of county departments, state government departments and local non-profit agencies in times of emergencies. It is not a set of standard operating procedures, nor can it substitute for such proce- dures for operating departments. Instead, it attempts to outline the basis for cooperative action by a number of agencies. He said this plan includes a new section developed by the Charlottesville/Albemarle Local Emergency Plan- ning Committee for response to hazardous materials incidents at local facili- ties. It was written to comply with the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 (also known as SARA). Agenda Item No. 11. Appeal: Tract A, Phase I, Landfall Final Plat. This matter was brought before the Board by a letter dated September 14, 1988, from the applicant, Captain Bruce S. van der'Linde, in which he stated that the appeal is to Section 18-36(e) of the Subdivision Ordinance which required a minimum design standard for three to five ~ots. The standard calls for a fourteen foot wide travelway with six inchesilof gravel and four foot shoulders and a ditch on each side. He appeals and asks for relief from the requirement regarding four foot shoulder widths throughout the approximately 700 feet of roadway. ~ Mr. Horne said that when this request f~r a waiver of a portion of Section 18-36(e) was before the Planning ComMission on September 6, 1988, it was unanimously denied. He pointed out on a map the section of roadway in question and the proposed tract A which is a~22 acre parcel which is listed as being the first portion of Landfall which is ~a division of a portion of the residue acreage. He emphasized that it is b~ a different subdivision than what is called Solaris. Mr. Lindstrom asked if all of this areai~ould have access over the Helios Path Road. Mr. Horne answered, "no." He reminded the Board of a long appeal process for Landfall approximately a year agO!. Based on that appeal, the Board approved an access at another location~pn the public road for these four lots. He said this request is for access for only the proposed Tract A of Landfall. There are, however, four parcels ~hat would need access to some portion of the roadway, but the rest of Land~all would have another access. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any of these four{ parcels have remaining develop- ment rights. Mr. Horne replied, "no." He salid~ Tract A cannot be further divided without a Special Permit. Mr. Way said there could only be a maximum of four houses on these tracts. Mr. Home responded that this is true, except for the residue acre- age. He said if the residue is further divided, it could technically take access over the roadway in question, but he did not know if it would be approved that way. He said it has never bee~ addressed, because Mr. van der Linde has never made the staff aware of his ~ntentions regarding this matter. Mr,. Lindstrom pointed out two of the foHr tracts on the map and asked if they access over only a portion of the roadway. Mr. Horne replied, "yes." He noted that these two driveways are very neiar the intersection of Omega Court. He said there is only a small portio~ of this segment of the roadway that is directly affected by the driveways to~!the current residences. Mr. Bain asked if Lot Ten in Solaris is accessing onto a portion of the roadway rather than Omega Court in order that~Omega Court would not have to be paved. Mr. Horne responded that Mr. Bain is correct. He said if the driveway to Lot Ten in Solaris was switched to Omega Cburt, it would solve one problem, but it would push the count on Omega Court to, a new category which would require that Omega Court be upgraded. 608 October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) Mr. Bowie commented that the proposed Parcel A and the existing residue would use the road'above Omega Court plus the driveway to Lot 10 in Solaris, if it is not changed to another road. He also mentioned a deep ravine in that area that flooded which would make the chance of any significant development unlikely. Mr. Home answered that there is still residue acreage on the other side of the ravine, which is Mr. van der Linde's farm. He said some division is possible, but he does not know if this is Mr. van der Linde's intent. He said he wanted to clarify the methodology of the Subdivision Ordinance in terms of segments of roadways. He went on to say that it is clearly shown in the diagram in the Subdivision Ordinance that the point at which there can be changes in the basic design of the roadway are intended to be at intersections and are not to be at individual driveway connections. He commented that if the design was stepped down at each individual entrance, it would not be a good road design and would be extremely impractical. He said the staff understands the reasoning behind the request, but the Commission, in particu- lar, is quite concerned about permitting lesser road standards on roadways, because private road requirements are a very important component of rural development in Albemarle County. Mr. Bowie asked where the trees are located in this area. Mr. Horne replied that many trees have been left immediately adjacent to the roadway to serve as a buffer between the roadway and areas behind the roadway which had been forested in the past. He said the point of discussion is whether it is necessary to use the standard shoulder width and ditch w~dth in order to provide the necessary drainage to this private road became the construction will alter some of these trees. He pointed out that Mr. i!~Steve Cresswell, from the Engineering Department is also present, if the Board Would like to hear from him. Mr. Lindstrom said he assumes the conditions relating to the appeal are that the circumstances constitute other unusual conditions, and would result in extraordinary hardship in terms of the elimination of~,~hose trees along that roadway (Section 18-3 of the Subdivision Ordinance)~i' He does not see any other basis to waive the roadway standards other than that or possibly the last sentence of that section of the ordinance that dealSiwith substitution of technique, and design or materials. He asked Mr. St. Johh if there is any- thing in the law that states that the kinds of conditions< that have been described at this meeting do not constitute unusual conditions or extraordi- nary hardship. Mr. St. John replied that he takes these two sentences of the Subdivision Ordinance as being almost opposite one another. He said ~his request would be heard by the BZA instead of the Board of Supervisors, if lit involved the Zoning Ordinance, but the BZA cannot grant variances to the Subdivision Ordinance. He went on to say that he does not see any reason to grant a waiver under the first sentence which relates to creating~a hardship for the owner, and believes it may be more appropriate to relate ~the request to the second sentence. He said if the Board feels that the wai~er is justified, then it could be granted, based upon a finding that by su.bstitution of this plan, the developer is producing a product that is betterii~environmentally for the general public and for the development itself. He s~$d it is not a legal question, but a decision for the Board to make. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. St. John has answered his question, and agreed that hardship has to be defined as an ob3ect~ve standard, i Mr. St. John said he believes the applicant will argue that what he has off,red to produce with this waiver will be a better product than what would be p~'oduced if the ordinance is followed exactly as it is written. Mr. Way opened the public hearing. With the aid of some visual materials, Mr. van der L~nde showed the Board the 700 feet of roadway in question and said he believes ~hat hardship is described differently for different people. He said he h~s lived on his farm for 19 years, and it is a historic place. The roadbed da~es back to at least 1830, which is the age of his house, and the tall trees o~ the right and left, that have a girth of 18 inches or greater and are fifty t~ seventy years old, were preserved in various timber contracts. He said he h~s been a forester since 1969 and is active in forestry practices. He mentioned, also, that forestry tours came to the farm when it was featured in 1~81 as the farm with October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) 609 the most outstanding forestry practices in the County. Mr. van der Linde is a member of the Cooperative Forestry Management Team, and has been an American tree farmer since 1976. He mentioned that the other two parties who own land along this roadway Would also consider following this requirement a hardship because, although they are not professional foresters, they would feel a certain loss if these trees were taken down. He mentioned that in the Coun- ty's next Comprehensive Plan, there are references to preservation techniques. He described these techniques listed in the Plan and went on to say, in regard to proposed development, that at the suggestion of a member of the Board of Supervisors and a member of the Commission, he approached his two neighbors about restricting the point of access because there was concern about down- grading if another driveway or road was permitted to access these five and 21 acre parcels. Now, one driveway is 15 feet past the intersection, and the other is 25 feet past the intersection. He said one of the parties was building a house at the time this issue began, and has since moved into the house. Mr. van der Linde said the two other!parties involved have agreed in principle, but a document will have to be drawn that will restrict points of access. He mentioned, too, that there are no other subdivision or building rights for this property beyond what already~exists with the principal entrance. He said this agreement would not ~estrict access for firewood or farming purposes, but involves a transition at Omega Court and Helios Path. Mr. van der Linde said the roadway involved would change from a paved 16 foot W~ wide roadway to a gravel, 14 foot wide road ay. He suggested, with this point of access restriction, that the road be changed to a driveway standard. If there were any upgrading for any of these twO properties or for Mr. van der Linde's property in the future, the matter would have to be brought before the Commission and would have to meet the standards at that time. Mr. van der Linde said he has worked wi{h a Mr. Cabell for 19 years in forestry. Mr. Cabell, who was with the VirgSnia Division of Forestry, and is now a private forester, surveyed the property in question and presented letters to the Commission which said there w~re approximately 109 trees of a girth six inches or greater that would be lost by creating a wider road. This road, while there are some saplings along thp side of it, basically has served hundreds of tractor trailers and tour buses. Mr. van der Linde said it has a solid road base and two cars can meet and pass. He believes.one of the major factors in this appeal is the potential agreement on a point of access restriction to the two residences. He said ~here is a strong case for the hardwoods which have been protected in legal~:timber contracts. He went on to say that he has spent his life in Solaris preserving trees, and without exception, no trees can be cut down in this ~3 acre community. Mr. van der Linde then discussed the general standards o4 what is hoped will occur with the scenic quality in Albemarle County in th~ said Mr. Richard Gould, who was on the Plann~ road from Solaris, and Mr. Gould has made th~ that Solaris was there. Mr. van der Linde ad impact that he has been working on for almost the house that he lives in is shown on an 187 he is requesting is consistent with 19 years hopes to continue to live there because it i! beauty of walking under these trees could be of the safety standards, and it is his desire safety while maintaining something that is be proposed Comprehensive Plan. He ng Commission, lives down the comment that he didn't even know ded that this is the type of a decade. He then remarked that 5 map as "Merry Oaks," and what of effort. He lives there and his farm and his home, and the ~eplaced for years. He knows all to meet all of the standards of · utiful. He does not think the two are incompatible. He hopes that the Board will ask him questions, and hopes that his presentation has been helpful,~ Mr. Lindstrom asked the width of the roadway once it passes Omega Court. Mr. van der Linde replied that the road width varies from 12 to 16 feet, excluding the bank. He said he started to c~ear saplings to show members of the Board the sight distance and the width o~ithe road, but it was suggested that photographs Would be more appropriate. Mr. Lindstrom asked, regardless of whet~er this waiver is granted, if Mr. van der Linde would be constructing a six-inc~'~ base for a width of 14 feet on the entire length of the roadway. Mr. van der Linde responded that he could do that, or he could consider a private driveway with the appropriate improve- ments. He said saving the trees is his primary interest. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the primary concern is the two foot shoulder on each side of the roadway which would require 61earing the trees. Mr. van der 610 October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) Linde answered that the shoulder requirement is four feet on each side. He went on to say that he and Mr. Cabell measured 14 feet with no problem, and in many areas, there is a greater than four foot bank. He pointed out that there are hundreds of places in Albemarle County where there are trees 18 inches from a State road. He said in some areas the banks extend five to ten feet or more on each side, but there are some areas where there are some hardwoods. He called the Board's attention to the pictures of some 40 year old trees at some of the driveways, and said the trees provide a beautiful canopy and are viewed from the homes of the other parties involved. Hementioned that the three people involved are at the meeting today and have all discussed the situation and share the same sense of pride in the beauty of the trees. He said he and his neighbors want to do what is safe and hope that there is a way to accommodate what nature has put there long before they moved there. Mr. Chuck Orella spoke next and stated that he and his wife live in Lot 10, which is the piece of property that is bordered by Omega Court and by the section of Helios Path that is under discussion. He admitted that he has mixed feelings on the matter and said he would speak in ~wo roles. He spoke first as part of the Solaris Homeowners Association, of ~hich he is the current Vice President. He believes he can say, with a degree of confidence, that most of the people in the Association view this portion of Helios Path as being a private driveway, and they would like for it to remain that way. The Solaris Homeowners Association has no desire to see this section of roadway become incorporated into the private road system that is part of the Solaris Subdivision. He agrees With the people in the Association and really would like for the roadway to stay as a private driveway. ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is a maintenance agreement between the Solaris homeowners. Mr. Orella responded, "yes." He said, however, the section of roadway in question does nog have a maintenance agreement, and everyone in the Association that he has spoken to would p~efer that this section of roadway not be included into the private roadli~aintenance agree- ment. He thinks an agreement between the two parties involved, however, would he.viewed favorably by the Association. He went on to say that if the piece of property is incorporated into the private road system of Solaris, most of the homeowners would be in favor of requiring Mr. van der.~Linde to meet the current County standards. In this sense, Mr. Orella sai~ the Solaris home- owners will probably not be in favor of granting an appea~. He added that if an ,agreement is reached between himself, Mr. van der Lind~ and the other property owner, he believes the Association would look upon that favorably. He said he has some questions because he is not sure whatiiMr, van der Linde has in mind, and he has not seen any detailed plans. He ~emarked that one point has been cleared up for him relating to what would ~appen if further subdivision of the residue on Mr. van der Linde's propert~ took place. He said the discussion at this meeting has pointed out that ~f subdivision occurs, it would be required to be appealed and road stan~ards.~ would have to be appealed, as well. Mr. Orella stated that in that senMe, he is probably in favor of the Board granting an appeal on the basis of a m~tual agreement being met to limit the access to the section of Helios Path, inlilorder to allow the road to stay as it is. He said there would not be a requ~rement to add the ditches as long as the property owners maintain that section, of the driveway. Mr. Lindstrom commented that he does not see why the iSolaris Homeowners Association would be required to maintain this section ofi~roadway if it was not part of the original subdivision. He went on to say ~hat, if it is part of the original subdivision, then he does not see how the!Association cannot maintain it. He asked if anybody knows if this section of roadway was included in the original subdivision. Mr. Orella said the way the road maintenance agreement and original covenants were written, Mr. van der Linde wrote in the right to add both homes and additional roadways to the private road system. He s~id, at this point, although that section of driveway is not under the privat~ road system, Mr. van der Linde has the right to add it at this time into t~e Solaris road system. Mr. Lindstrom remarked that when there is a private ~oad system, the County usually requires that there be some provision in the homeowner's association agreement for the maintenance of the roadway, i He wondered if this October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) 611 section of the roadway is covered by a maintenance agreement. Mr. Horne answered, "no." Ms. Eleanor Santic stated that she lives across from Mr. Orella. She is a new resident to Albemarle County, and one of the things that attracted her to the area was how beautifully kept everything was, and the pride that the residents of the area have in their community. She said that she came from a section of New Jersey where development had been allowed to run rampant, and people would protest after the trees had been cut. She said a seventy year old tree cannot be put up with "crazy glue," and she would like to see the variance granted. She also mentioned that she is concerned with the runoff because she is on a down slope, and the tree roots hold a great deal of water. She said the top of the trees are beautiful, and she does not think it is practical to cut down seventy year old trees for access for two-houses. She pointed out that, if it becomes necessary, trees can always be cut down, but once they are down, they cannot be put back. On that basis, if the homeowners can come to an agreement that would consider this part of the roadway as a private driveway, she would hate to see the "letter of the law" observed when the spirit of the whole Comprehensive Plan and the spirit of the whole area is contrary to it. Mr. Steve Cresswell made some clarifications for the Board and said that reference to the 700 foot road is incorrect. If the variance is not granted, the road would go back to where the 22 acre lot starts. He pointed out the area on the map, and said he believes the deSign standard should not be waived. He said the Board require that the ~oad be carried past the entrances to the 21 acre lot and Lot 10 and, by deed restriction, limit any further primary access beyond those points. This would result in the road being carried whatever distance is necessary to go ipast those two driveways, and it would be designed in accordance with the County standards for private roads. Mr. Home clarified Mr. Cresswell's comments !by saying that the upgrading could only go to the beginning of Tract A as '.opposed to going through Tract A. Mr. Horne said even if the standards require that the upgrading of the road go through Tract A, the requirement could be changed to only go to the beginning of Tract A. Mr. Horne said Mr. Cresswell thinks it might be a better idea to waive the chart in the Subdivision Ordinance and require a full upgrading to a point just past the two driveways. This would involve waiving the methodology of establishing road segments instead of waiving the actual construction standards, if there was some so~t of restriction that the primary access to the residences would remain as is and that the only access beyond that to the other two tracts would be secondary or accessory access for farming or forestry purposes. Mr. Lindstrom said this responds to the ~iissue that the standards are intended to address how many vehicles will b~i~ driving over the road. Mr. Home agreed, but said he has some ~eservations because if it becomes widely known that this is an option, he is co'nce~ned that there will be a lot of appeals and waiver requests. He agrees with Mr. Cresswell: if the Board is inclined to waive the road standards in this case, in terms of precedence, it might be better to waive the method of calculating segments. He said this is slightly less broad than waiving road standards. He pointed out that the County got into a pattern of waiving road standards years ago, and the Commis- sion does not want to have this problem again~ He said if the Board is not inclined to grant a waiver, then the staff's ~ecommendation stands. Mr. Bowie said he thinks it would be bett. er to address this waiver as an exception because of the 30 or 40 years of tr~e management. He feels that to waive the requirements on that portion of the road after the first two drive- ways would create the same situation with other County roads. Mr. Lindstrom said this is an alternativg method of providing for the public interest by recognizing that there areiestablished hardwoods very close to the road which in turn set the character o~ that road. His feeling is that, if another request with those facts came before the Board, he would be willing to grant that same waiver on these types of facts. He also pointed out that there would only be two lots that wo~ld be using that portion of the road. 612 October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) If exceptions are taken, Mr. Bain said, the Board might as well allow private roads, without worrying about standards, throughout the whole County. When this sort of thing is encouraged, rural areas are opened to more develop- ment. He likes to preserve trees, but he has a problem with supporting something that will change adopted standards. Mr. Horne said the Commission believes these trees are valuable and should be preserved, but they are not unique to this case. The Commission routinely sees tracts that are being divided voluntarily in wooded areas. Mr. Lindstrom said he would agree this is a bad situation only if it is assumed that the Board will be forced into making exceptions, and he is not sure if it will make any difference to any rural development whether the trees are cut or not. He does not think there is a significant expense attached to the extra four feet on each side of the roadway, but surface treatment would have an expensefactor involved. He thinks the development will go ahead because the cost will not prohibit it one way or another. He noted that he has always been concerned about road standards that seemto require the unnecessary destruction of the countryside. He believes, in this case, there is no meaningful purpose served by meeting these standards if the deed restriction is enforced. Mr. Bain believes that, if this request is approved~, the sections of the Subdivision Ordinance relating to how segments are handled might as well be changed. He believes there will be numerous requests for waivers, and he thinks it will be nearly impossible for the Board to make any distinction between the requests. Mr. Lindstrom remarked that if there is an enforceable recorded deed restriction that limits access to an existing driveway, and the standard is required to that driveway, then the purpose of the standard has been met. If there is not such an enforceable recorded deed restricti6~, then the Board should not grant the waiver. Mr. St. 3ohn said he believes the waiver can be cond!itioned with whatever conditions the Board thinks appropriate to answer these qRestions. He said a deed restriction is not needed, because a condition can b~ placed on the waiver. He said a future Board could eliminate the restr~ictions on a waiver, which would be the only value of having a deed restrictid~. Mr. Bowie said he has heard the argument that if an pxception is made for this request there will be a lot of similar requests. He said the Board has made other exceptions and has not received any such requests that he can remember. He said he will support the request and would-~ake a motion, with the conditions that have been discussed, but he is not sure how it should be worded. Mr. Lindstrom said the final outcome would be driveway standards for the remainder of the road in question. He added that the Board needs to decide if there is some value in having a deed restriction. ~ Mr. St. John said on second thought, he believes the.iHomeowners' agree- ment that is already recorded contains a provision that ME. van der Linde has the option to place this entire road under the Solaris Subdivision Homeowners agreement. He asked, if this is on record, does the Boar~ intend that Mr. van der Linde no longer have the right to do this as one of t~e conditions of the variance? He noted that Mr. van der Linde and the other lot owners will have to maintain that portion of the road, because it would noq be right for the Board to allow the waiver, and still allow Mr. van der Linde to put the road into the Solaris Subdivision maintenance agreement. ~ Mr. Lindstrom said he believes this is a matter thati~he landowners need to settle for themselves. A requirement would make the r~striction more accessible to buyers. He asked if there was some legal reason why there should not be a deed restriction. Mr. St. John replied that he does not think there is a legal reason for not putting a restriction on ~he deed. He said the Board needs to stipulate what the substance of the restriction would be. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like for part of his mot{ion to recognize that there are no further division rights on any of the parcel~ithat are served with the exception of the residue. Mr. St. John pointed o~t that the residue October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) 613 of Mr. van der Linde's property would have to have access to this portion of the roadway. Mr. Home disagreed and said the residue could have access another way. Once this matter is settled, he said, any future divisions will make necessary a discussion on where the road will be. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought it should~be stated that three of the four parcels have no further division rights. The fourth parcel, which is shown as residue may have further division rights. If these division rights are exercised, however, then County and State regulations would apply to that road. He said this variance is not for any further division along this road and is conditioned upon the preparation of deed restrictions applying to Parcels One and Two as shown on the plat. The restrictions would limit access to the existing driveways and would be reviewed by the County Attorney and recorded as a pre-condition to this waiver. The waiver is that, based upon those conditions, the standards will not apply beyond the driveway that is on the tract furtherest~toward the end of the road. Mr. Bowie added that he thinks there should be an explanation of why the Board is granting the waiver. M=. Lindstrom.agreed and said the waiver is granted in consideration of the preservation of the existing substantial hardwood trees that would be required to be eliminated by the road shoulder requirements of the current County standards and the fact that the number of lots that would actually be served by this section of roadway is no more than two. Mr. Bowie suggested that the motion inc~lude the fact that there have been 30 years of timber management on this property because he thinks this is peculiar to this particular request. Mr. Li~dstrom agreed to have Mr. Bowie's suggestion relative to timber management included in his motion. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to grant the waiver request subject to recordation of deed restrictions or other legal covenant, to be reviewed by the County Attorney, restricting access to the existing dwellings and to the current driveway location, with access to the remainder of those properties being only accessory access. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstr~m, Perkins and Way. NAYS: Mr. Bain. Mr. Perkins asked if Tract A has additiQ~al development rights. Mr. Home answered, "no." Mr. Lindstrom explained that the condition is that any further division on this section of the road, with respect to which the waiver has been grant- ed, triggers the application of the road requirements. Mr. St. John said this would not be true if another access is. used. the thought that further develop- ment of the residue would have a different access to the public road. Mr. Horne responded that portions of the residue will use a different access, but the "Merry Oaks" farm portion of the property could be served by this road. Mr. Lindstrom commented that he iS sensitive to Mr. Bain's con- cerns, and he has tried to accomplish a reasonable compromise which respects the peculiar nature of these circumstances and also the desire not to encour- age more development in the rural areas. Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: Ordinance to vacate plat of Tax Map 88, Parcel 26 (portion of) for Woodco, Inc. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 4, 1988.) Mr. Home presented a chronology of events concerning the Woodco Plat. He said the staff discussed this plat with Mr. Wood and referred questions to the County Attorney who determined that Parcel 26 ways, is to be considered one tract and is, ti Home said Mr. Wood evidently chose to record does not meet the requirements of the Subdivis Mr. Home showed the Board the location, Parcel 26 is separated by a public road and ti John was requested to explain whether this wo~ even though divided by road- .erefore, a subdivision. Mr. a plat creating a parcel that ion Ordinance. Parcel 26 on a map and said railroad. He said Mr. St. ld be considered separate 614 October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) parcels or one parcel. Mr. Horne said Mr. St. John determined that it is all one parcel, and if any section is divided, it would be considered a subdivi- sion and would have to meet the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Horne went on to say that a plat was submitted that showed a two acre portion, but it contained portions that were essentially appendages on a different side of the road or railroad. He said that under the Subdivision Ordinance, the staff felt the division could not be approved. He said the State Code allows the Board to vacate a recorded plat after a public hearing. He noted that this is the public hearing, and Mr. Wood was notified of this hearing by Mr. St. John. Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Mr. Wood said the parcel borders on the Southern Railroad, is a deeded parcel of land and sets off by itself. He stated that he did not see how it could be looked at in any other way except as two parcels. He said he would be glad to answer any questions that the Board might have. At this time, Mr. St. John said he should tell the Board more about the actual recorded plat. He proceeded to indicate areas on 'the tax map and asked Mr. Wood to position himself so that he could see the map, too. He then read portions of the 1986 deed from Grace and John Battle to Mr. Wood, which indicated that the land was considered to be only one parcel and contained 74.6 acres. He pointed out that the land was considered to be all one parcel according to this deed, and before this time, the land was always treated as one parcel. At one time, the property had been an even bigger parcel. Mr. St. John stated that the deed in question is dated January 9, 1988, and this was when Mr. Wood and his wife conveyed this property to Woodco, which is Mr. Wood's corporation. The plat which created the 1.47 acr~parcel does not follow the right-of-way of the road. He said there appeg[s to be a strip of land between the right-of-way and the road. He said thiS~strip of land could be the Highway Department's right-of-way. He does not think this is crucial, but he had hoped that Mr. Wood might be able to explain this strip of land. Mr. St. 3ohn added that he thinks the entire parcel, including the strip of land, is a likely candidate for a variance from the Board'iof Zoning Appeals because it does not do the lot any good to cut off a stri? on the other side of the road to constitute two acres. Without that variance, however, the creation of this lot by this plat not only violates the SUbdivision Ordinance, but also the Zoning Ordinance, because without a variance~a lot has been created that is less than the minimum size .... Mr. Wood explained that the dotted line on the map Was the old Route 745. He said when the four-laning was done on Route 29 South, ~he Highway Depart- ment condemned the area shown on the plat by a solid linei~ Mr. Wood stated, in his opinion, that when the Highway Department condemne~ that piece of land, it caused the land to be subdivided because the right-of-Way was taken away. He said the land was deeded and recorded, and the Souther~ Railroad followed the same procedure as the Highway Department. He noted t~at there is a parcel of land on the other side of the road that was handled in[the same manner. He pointed out that the property between the railroad track ~nd Route 29 was the only piece of property that was condemned. He said the r~mainder of Route 745 has never been deeded to the Highway Department. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Wood if he had bought this p~operty after all of the Highway Department's negotiations had taken place. Mr. Wood answered, "yes," and said he bought the land that was left after that time, also. He pointed out that the deed states that there is 74.86 acre~, but no one knows what it ~ncludes. He sa~d that he bought the residue, Gl~co Mills owns a portion of it, and a piece of property on the west side o~ Route 29 was also included in the parcel. He thinks that someone arbitrari}y drew a line on the plat indicating ownership. Mr. St. John said he feels the ordinance has been violated until a variance is issued. He said if this property is treated ~s a pre-existing separate parcel from the rest of the tax map, then the remainder on the other side of the~ road still has five development rights. He w~nt on to say, however, that if this piece of land is treated as a part gf one parcel, then one of the five development rights has been used. He added that all of the documentation has treated this area as one parcel as well~s the tax office and the deed registry, up until the time of this conveyanqe. This is the basis for the request to vacate the subdivisiOn. ~ October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) 615 Mr. Home said what is before the Board is simply the vacation of the plat that was recorded on January 25, 1988. Mr. St. John agreed, but he said he was giving the Board members background information that could be used in their decision as to whether the plat should be vacated. Mr. Bowie called attention to the third paragraph of the proposed ordi- nance to vacate the plat which he said was incorrect. Mr. St. John agreed, and said he recommended a change in this paragraph which would then read: " . the said Plat was not approved for recordation and constitutes viola- tion of the County's zoning and land subdivision ordinances." Since no one else wished to speak concerning the vacation of this plat, Mr. Way closed the Public Hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt the following ordinance to vacate a certain plat of a portion of Tax Map 88, Parcel 26 (portion of) for Woodco, Inc, and to correct the language in the ordinance as stated by the County Attorney. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess=s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A CERTAIN P~LAT OF A PORTION OF PARCEL 26, ALBEMARLE COUNTY T~AX MAP 88; THIS PROPERTY IS SHOWN ON A PLAT RECOPIED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY IN DEED BOOK 977 , PAGE!.~211 WHEREAS, a certain lot or parcel of land lying in Albemarle County has been heretofore subdivided i~to two lots, the plat of which is of record in the Clerk's office~ of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County at Deed Book 977, pagei~211 (the "Plat"); and WHEREAS, it appears that the subdiviided 1.47-acre parcel as shown on said Plat has been conveyed by~. E. Wood and Ann T. Wood to Woodco, Inc., by deed dated January 9~, 1988, recorded in said Clerk's office at Deed Book 977, page 2!0; and WHEREAS, the Board has received evidence that the said Plat was not approved for recordation and constitutes violation of the County's zoning and land subdivision ord~inances; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors ~f Albemarle County has determined, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-482(b), that said Plat should be vacated in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by ~he Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia as follows: 1. That the subdivision of land shown on the Plat recorded in said Clerk's office in Deed Book 977, page 211, be, and the same hereby is, vacated; ~ 2. That the vacation set forth in Section 1 of this ordinance shall in no way vacate any other street,~road, right-of-way or lot duly platted and recorded; 3. That the Clerk of the Board shall cause a certified copy hereof to be recorded in the said Clerk's office to be indexed in the name of Woodco, Inc. 4. That this ordinance shall be effective upon adoption. Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: Ex~end Albemarle County Service Authority service area boundaries for water only to Tax Map 59, Parcels 16A and 16B. (Advertised in the Daily Progress o~ September 27 and October 4, 1988.) 616 October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) Mr. Home said that since the Board discussed this request last month, the staff has researched further, the background concerning the parcels in question. The apartment units located on parcel 16A are being treated as nonconforming uses by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Martin stated that normally four to five residents are in the apartment building at any one time although there are eleven independent units. Staff has not been able to obtain any direct flow data from the well that serves the apartment units. The units are essentially single room occupancy type units, therefore, utilize much less water per unit than a traditional dwelling. In the opinion of staff, extension of water to existing structures only on parcel 16B in order to correct a demonstrated deficiency in the on-site water system would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Such service to nonconforming commercial uses would not, in the opinion of staff, be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Home said Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, is present to speak about the costs of extending water to the property~ Mr. Brent said the Service Authority Board of Directors has considered this matter in preliminary detail and has not taken a position as to whether this property should be included in the service area of the Service Authority. He said the Board has cautioned that the Authority has not earmarked funds for the extension of the water main which would be required to serve this prop- erty. He said approximately three-tenths of a mile.would~ be involved, and it would cost approximately $50,000 to serve one connection, He added that the Service Authority is self-supporting and would find it q~ite difficult to justify such an extension if revenue is to be recovered ~rom one dwelling. However, he said, the Authority has not ruled out such a~extension, but simply cautions that should this be included in the servi~e area, the Author- ity may not be in a position to make this extension. '~ Mr. Bowie asked if it would help to have informatio~ on the economic feasibility of the apartments. Mr. Brent replied that economic information would help, but it probably would still not be feasible, i! He said he believes the information will show that bedrooms are occupied by due individual and that there are probably no cooking facilities at the apaf~ments which would mean that there will not be much revenue to be generated.i'i Even if the house and all the other facilities in that area were included,(~e doubts they would support the extension. Mrs. Martin spoke next to the Board and said her lea%er explains the problems she is experiencing with the water supply. She ?~aid she has a three bedroom, two bath home on Route 250 West and has drilled~gi~hree wells with no success. She noted that she also has an I1 unit, efficiency apartment complex which has a well system sufficient only to supply the apz~tments with water. She explained that her house was once hooked up to that w~] 11, and it could not supply the 11 units and the house for any length of time ~ithout the water becoming muddy and cloudy. She said she understood at la]~t month's meeting that there would not be a great problem with getting wate~ to the house, if the matter was approved during the public hearing, but that hookups to the apartments would be unlikely. She remarked that the reasons given were that the apartments were not full at the time and would not warrant hookups because they were not generating enough revenue. She said that last month, there were only six apartments occupied. Now all of the units are f~ll. She noted that she tries to keep the apartments occupied in order to mak~ payments, pay the electricity bills, oil bills, and trash collection. She ~aid this is the only way she has to pay those bills. She pointed out that the?itemporary drops in occupancy are not by choice, but it is an occupational hazard of renting. She went on to say that on Friday, October 7, 1988, Mr. Horne!iicalled to see if she had received a letter from Mr. Brent, and it had not been?ireceived. She said Mr. Home indicated that hookup to one home would not gengrate enough revenue and would not be economically feasible for the Albemarle ~ounty Service Authority to pay for it. She said that Mr. I{orne explained that the cost to her and her husband would be approximately $50,000. She ~dded that Mr. }Iorne then asked if she and her husband still wanted to go through with the public hearing after she told him that they could not afford to ~ay the $50,000 for the water extension. She said they did want to have the ~blic hearing, and she pointed out that the apartments are a source of incom ~for her and her husband, and if half of the apartments are closed, as Mr. i~orne suggested, it would cut the income of the apartments in half and not le~e them enough cash October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) 617 to meet the mortgage payment, electric bills, oil bills or cost of repairs. When she talked with Mr. Brent on Monday, she was told that the water level in the area is dropping each year and that in the next few years, the Authority hopes that funds will be available to extend the water for a mile to connect to the existing lines near the Boar's Head Inn. In conclusion, Mrs. Martin stated that to close half of her apartments would mean more of a disaster than has already been endured. She cormmented that if worse comes to worse, she and her husband have no choice but to close their house and rent another dwelling and continue to wait until water is piped to the existing main near the Boar's Head Inn. In the meantime, she said she and her husband would have to pray that the water level does not decrease enough to endanger the well supply in the apartments which would be financial ruin for the Martins. She thanked the Board for its time. Mr. Way closed the public hearing since_there was no one else at the meeting who wished to speak. Mr. Bowie commented that the Board does not determine how the water will get to its destination. The Board only gives the Service Authority the authority to serve certain areas. He noted Ghat Mr. Brent has stated that the Authority does not have the money to run the lines and the applicant cannot afford to do it, so there seems to be no money available for this project. He said he would not have any problem includingi~ the apartments in the extension of the water service, but he does not know what purpose it would ultimately serve, ii! Mr. Bain stated that he concurs with tt~ staff's recommendation relative to the nonconforming use of the apartments. ~In this situation, he said, the Board is facing a request for the extension 9f water in something other than situations to single-family, existing structures in rural areas. He emergency mentioned that the Board does not control pu~ting__,= in the water lines. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the staff'~ recommendation is consistent with County policy. . Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and~iseconded by Mr. Bain to extend the Albemarle County Service Authority servide area boundaries for water only to the existing structure on Tax Map 59, ParCel 16B. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14. Appropriation Request: School Division. Motion was made by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie t~ approve the appropriation requests as outlined in a memorandum from MrJ Overstreet dated September 26, 1988, and set out below: i~ 1. Grant for Drop-out Prevention Proje~ t. Albemarle County has received a grant from the State for the 1988-89 school year of $16,771 to help reduce the number of sc~ ool drop outs. Funds are designated for stipends for teachers imolved in extra planning and training, staff development expenses, a~d for a part-time teacher assigned to Murray Education Center. Iq. is requested that the funds be appropriated as a grant for a specia~ project. The budget is as follows: Fiscal Year: 1988-89 Fund: Grant Purpose: Appropriation of funds f~0m Drop-Out Prevention Grant. Expenditure Cost Center/Category 1200963365100135 1200963365100203 1200963365200100 1200963365200500 Descriptio~ Amount Comp-Teacher Salaries $10,920 Staff Dev. St~ipends 972 FICA ~ 893 Health Insurance 447 618 1200963365301200 1200963365550400 1200963365580500 Revenue 2200924000240500 October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) Other Contracted Services 650 Travel-Out of County 889 Staff Development 2~000 TOTAL $16,771 Description Amount Drop-out Prevention Grant $16,771 2. State Appropriation for Family Life Curriculum Development. Albemarle County has received an appropriation of $29,106 from the state to assist in the development and implementation of the State mandated family life curriculum. The majority of the funding will be for staff development and curriculum development stipends for elementary teachers, and middle and high school health teachers. It is requested that the funds be received from the State and the budget amended to add the expenses shown below: Fiscal Year: 1988-89 Fund: School Purpose: State Funding of Family Life Curriculum Develop- ment Expenditure Cost Center/Category 1200060149100203 1200060149100204 1200060149200100 1200060149300206 1200060149300601 1200060149520100 1200060149540104 1200060149541100 1200060149550400 1200060149580500 1200060149580900 Description Staff Dev. Stipend Curriculum Development FICA Consulting Services Printing/Copy Services Postal Services Copy Supplies Books/Subscriptions Educational Travel Staff Development Miscellaneous Exp. TOTAL Amount $12,15o 4,320 1,237 1,000 1,000 100 1,000 500 3,000 2,000 2,799 $29,106 Revenue Description Amount 2200024000240216 Family Life Education $29,106 3. Regional Special Education Program. A change in the implementa- tion of Virginia Department of Education regulation~ for special education has resulted in the need for changing the ~method for seeking State reimbursements for program costs. In the future, emotionally disturbed and learning disabled students=.:may no longer be served in the same classroom. Having separate classrooms for these students will also qualify the programs for funding through the regional special education program. The State's"rate of reim- bursement for regional programs is higher than the rate reflected in the current budget. It is requested that both the dperating and ED program budgets be amended. Fiscal Year: 1988-89 Fund: Ragged Mountain Purpose: Revisions to FY 88/89 operating budge~ for Special Education program '~ Expenditure Cost Center/Category 1200563370100125 1200563370100135 1200563370100140 1200563370100141 1200563370100142 1200563370100203 1200563370100310 1200563370100312 1200563370200100 1200563370200200 Description Comp-Visiting Teachers Comp-Teachers Comp-Supervisory/Clerical Comp-Para-Professional Comp-Custodial Staff Stipends-Staff Dev. Comp-Sub Teachers Comp-Sub Aides FICA-Employer Share VSRS-Employer Share Amount ($25,ooo) 97,482 (6,500) 1,824 (3,640) (500) 1,200 1,200 5,636 7,265 October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) 619 1200563370200500 1200563370200600 1200563370200700 1200563370201100 1200563370201500 1200563370300400 1200563370300403 1200563370300601 1200563370301200 1200563370301400 1200563370510100 1200563370520100 1200563370520300 1200563370520301 1200563370540100 1200563370540400 1200563370541100 1200563370541200 1200563370541300 1200563370550100 1200563370580500 120056'3370580900 1200563370800200 Health Ins-Employer Share 4,660 Life Ins-Employer Share 652 Dental Ins-Employer Share 960 Workman's Comp. 1,033 Salary Reserve-Bonus (458) Repair/Maint-Office Equip (510) Repair/Maint~Bldg & Equip (500) Printing & Copy Services (230) Contract Serv-Other 56,641 Contract Ser~-Refuse (405) Electrical Services (5,820) Postal Service (100) Telephone Service (900) Telephone Service-Long Dist. (110) Office Supplies Medical/Lab Supplies Books & SubsCriptions Education/Re~. Supplies Other Operating Supplies Travel-Routine Mileage Staff Dev. Expense Other Misc. Expenses Lease of Buildings TOTAL ~ Revenue Des cr ipt i~n 2200518000189904 Ragged Mtn. ~evenue Fiscal Year: 1988-89 Fund: School (450) (75) (600) (450) (1,475) (1,460) 2,800 (7,488) 12~000 $136,682 Amount $136,682 Purpose: special education program. Revisions to FY 88/89 ope Expenditure Cost Genter/Category 120006100000100135 12000600000100141 12000600000200100 120006100000200200 12000600000200500 12000600000200600 120006100000200700 1200060150300218 1200060150999999 Revenue 220001:5000150201 2200019000190104 2200019000190106 2200019000190108 2200024000240202 2200024000240207 2200024000240208 2200024000240209 2200024000240211 2200024000240213 2200024000240219 2200024000240220 =rating budget for Descriptiqn Comp-Teacher Salaries Comp-Para Pr( :. FICA VSRS Health Insur. ncc Life Insuran~ e Dental Insurance Pupil Tuitio4 Contingency ~ TOTAL ~ DescriptiOn Property Rent ~1 VSRS Recover~ FICA Recover~ Group Life Re :every Basic Aid Duty Free Lunch Gifted & Tale ~ted Special Ed. (iSOQ) Special Ed. (C~ teg. ) Voc. Ed. (SOQi) Transportation Remedial Education TOTAL ~ Amount ($192,400) (58,264) (18,825) (38,928) (12,48o) (2,557) (960) 476,862 70,061 $222,509 Amount $ 12,ooo (9,120) (6,441) (248) (52,7o2) (156) (586) (4,121) 286,117 (976) (781) (477) $222,509 Roll was called on the foregoing motion ~hich was carried by the follow- ing recorded vote: !~ AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. None. .! 620 October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) Mr. Agnor called to the Board's attention an appropriation request from the school system for a water tank at Stone-Robinson Elementary School. The tank is to provide water to the sprinkler system as requested by the State Fire Code. He said there are sprinkler heads in what are called "unattended areas." He also said the water supply for the sprinkle system has been a subject of discussion because the existing well serves domestic needs and will not be sufficient to serve the flow requirements for the sprinkler heads. He said that $48,000 is the amount requested by the School Board, but Mr. Overstreet has indicated to him that this is a maximum amount requested, and the amount may actually be less. Mr. Agnor remarked that the school system needs authorization to proceed with the water tank because study is still being done on the design requirement of the quantity of water. Mr. Bowie asked what the source of the money will be. Mr. Agnor answered that there are no funds in the Capital Fund Balance, so the money would have to come from the General Fund Balance. Mr. Bowie asked if there was money in the Capital Improvements Budget which is for certain purposes, but has not actually been~ 'spent. Mr. Agnor replied, "yes." Mr. Bowie suggested that. the school system go ahead with its plans for designing and building the water tank, within Hhe budget, but he also suggested that no more money be appropriated at thi~ time. Mr. Agnor responded that the school system cannot go ahead with it~! plans because the allocations in the Capital Improvements Budget are by project. He explained that there is money that has not been spent in some of t~ other projects, but not in the Stone-Robinson project, because it is alreadylihontracted. He reiterated that there are no funds remaining to take care! of this water problem and that it is necessary for the Board to give a6thorization to transfer the funds from another project. Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with transferring ~he money from another project. He cannot understand, however, why more money Should be appropriated at this time. Mr. Agnor answered that the school system~gannot encumber an account without an appropriation, and the Board has to appropriate funds for this project. He pointed out, again, that the money in the Capital Improve- ments Budget is for specific projects. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board could appropriate S~me of the five percent contingency in the Capital Improvements Budget for this particular i~em. Mr. Agnor said there is no five percent contingency for 1988-89. He said the five percent contingency will start in 1989-90. Mr. Perkins asked if the water tank was removed from!!the Broadus Wood School project. Mr. Agnor answered, "yes." Mr. Perkins asked why. Mr. Agnor responded that the water tank was above-ground and considered an "unattractive nuisance". Secondly, Mr. Agnor said, the Broadus Wood wa~er tank was to be used for fighting fires in the Earlysville area instead o~ having a hydrant at the Airport. He said school officials were concerned about fire trucks coming to the tank at the school during the daylight hours and f%lling up trucks and relaying water to the scene of the fire. He said this ta~k was abandoned in favor of a fire alarm system in the school. He mentioned~ilthat an interpreta- tion of the Fire Code was requested from Richmond and Chicago and it was found that the Fire Code was misinterpreted at Broadus Wood, bu~ the fire alarm system had already been installed. I~ Mr. Perkins inquired about additional wells at Broad, s Wood and asked if the well could be tapped into to get sufficient water for~the sprinkler heads. Mr. Papenfuse responded that the sprinkler heads come off!i~of the domestic water service, and he would not want to tie a contaminate~ well into the domestic water service. He said a complete sprinkler system would have to be re-piped iiI Mr. Perkins asked mf another well could be drilled, i{Mr. Papenfuse answered that several wells were drilled before the new w~ll was found on the Stone-Robinson property. He explained that the new well is at the lower end of the property, and two wells were drilled at the upper ~d that failed. Mr. Bamn recalled that certamn amounts of money were~put into this year s budget for Crozet and Southside Elementary School. He su~[~ested that half of the appropriation be taken from each of those projects fox, the time being and October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) 621 that a transfer be made to the Stone,Robinson water tank project. Mr. Bowie agreed with Mr. Bain and said this is what he would like to see done. He said he could not see appropriating money at the beginning of the fiscal year before it is even known how much will be needed for other projects. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve the appropriation request of $48,000 for a water tank at Stone Robinson Elementary School to be funded with $24,000 transferred from the Crozet School project and $24,000 transferred from the new Southside School project, as set out below: Fiscal Year: Fund: 1988-89 Capital Improvements Program Expenditure Cost Center/Categor7 1900060623999999 1900060641999999 1900060632701007 Description Amount Crozet School ($24,000) Southside School (24,000) Stone Robinson- Water Tank 48~000 TOTAL $ -0- Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Perkins asked how long it has been ~lnce the contaminated well has been tested. Mr. Papenfuse answered probabl~ a couple of years. Mr. Perkins wondered if the well could ~e tested again to see if the water is still showing contamination. Mr. Papenfuse replied that the amount of flow for each sprinkler is what has to be~onsidered. Mr. Bowie said he believes the pressure imust be considered as well as quantity of water. Mr. Papenfuse explained further that booster pumps would have to be put on the support tank. He mentioned that another requirement, in addition to the operation of the sprinkler h~ads, is that the water supply must also fulfill a 100 percent domestic demand simultaneously with the operation of the sprinkler heads. He said i~i is not possible to pull this much water from the wells because it would d~in them. Mr. Agnor said he has asked questions ab'gut the quantity of water needed and has been told there should be enough to ~ilow a minimum flow of water to the fixtures, because if there is a broken pipe~ in the building, and the sprinkler heads are demanding water, it is assumed that all of the supply lines to the bathroom fixtures are operating at some flow and pressure. He said this is part of the calculation required by the Code. Mr. Bowie said when the school was desigt that the water supply would not handle the sp! for other schools, that will not be hooked up tank installation included in future bids. Mi two large school projects are already on publ renovation projects are small enough that the' requirements. Agenda Item No. 15 Approval of State Pll Equipment - School Division. Mr. Agnor said Governor Baliles created~ Technology Initiative to establish the electr~ The General Assembly authorized the State Boa~ ~ed, it should have been expected ~inkler system. He asked if bids to public water, will have water Papenfuse answered that the c water and the two smaller will not have to meet the same .n for Purchasing Technological he Governor's Educational nic classroom by July 1, 1990. d of Education to provide an equipment purchasing and financing program fo~ school divisions to use in acquiring equipment for this program. The State Board of Education has developed a five year bond program through the Virginia Public School Author- ity (VPSA), and requested school boards and g~verning bodies to commit to participate in the Governor's initiative. 622 October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) The State Department of Education has distributed to school divisions a subsidized hardware (equipment) allocation. Albemarle's allocation is $100,200. The State will purchase the equipment and make it available to local school divisions. The VPSA will issue bonds and use the proceeds to purchase local bonds. Local governing bodies will hold public hearings on local bonds and will issue five year general obligation bonds in the amount of the equipment purchase. These local bonds will be sold to the VPSA. The General Assembly has appropriated sufficient funds to pay debt service costs for each locality through June 30, 1990. Debt service is anticipated to begin in October, 1989. In future years, this debt service subsidy will be subject to General Assembly appropriation, and if not appro- priated, the local government will be obligated to pay the debt service, since it originates from the issuance of local general obligation bonds. The Board of Supervisors is being requested to adopt a resolution to enter into an agreement to participate in this program. Mr. Lindstrom said it is his understanding that the County will be getting this subsidy to purchase technological equipment ~in the classrooms. Mr. Agnor said that after June 30, 1990, the debt service subsidy will be subject to future General Assembly appropriations. He said that, if the General Assembly does not appropriate more money in futura years, the local government will be obligated to pay the debt service, since it originates from the issuance of local general obligation bonds. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the money will come from the County's general revenues to pay for these bonds. Mr. Agnor answered, "yes." Mr. Lindstrom asked if this equipment is part of a ~Ong-range local plan. Mr. Overstreet explained that a majority of expenditures would be for comput- ers and computer hardware for the middle schools and targeted for the sixth grade. He said this is an ongoing objective of the County's, and he thinks that the County will benefit. He said some of the money will be for electron- ic classrooms for the two high schools. This money will'be used to put in satellite dishes to be used mainly for advanced AP type eiasses. He repeated that he believes the State will be paying for something ~at the County would have to do anyway. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this money will be coming to.i~he County for this fiscal year. Mr. Overstreet replied that the State has ihdicated that it would take approximately six months to get the money, bu~the County could purchase the equipment and apply to the State for reimbursement. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the money would be saved in ~is year's budget or in next year's budget. Mr. Overstreet replied that the e~penditure is not in this year's budget, and Mr. Agnor explained that this money will be an addi- tional expenditure. Mr. Bain asked if all of the equipment would be purchased at one time. Mr. Papenfuse answered that it would all be purchased at the same time. He added that the bills would not come to the County directly, because equipment would be purchased out of the VPSA funds. He said the only bill that the County would get would be the five yearly installment pa~ent notices. Mr. Lindstrom wanted to know if this will reduce theiCounty's obligation for a program that has already been approved by the School Board. Mr. Overstreet answered, "no." He said it would fulfill someiiof the instructional objectives priorities, along with others that had been taken from the budget for the next few years because of other more pressing needs. In answer to a question by Mr. Bowie, Mr. Overstreetistated that this program would be a part of the Computer Committee's Five ~ear Plan, but he is unsure which year this specific equipment would have been targeted for pur- chase. Mr. Lindstrom commented that, given the nature of this subsidy, he would have no trouble approving it if the program were a part oJ an established program, and it would reduce local costs. He is not sure/ however, that the the County Would be interested in getting involved in thi~ program, if it were not for the opportunity that has been presented. October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) 623 Mr. Overstreet remarked that the State will be requiring this program soon, and when the State requires something to be done, it usually does not give the County any money to do it. He said he is confused because the State has a technical equipment program that it is promoting, but not requiring, and yet the State is offering to pay for it. He said there is no doubt in his mind that the electronic classrooms for the high school, and particularly the middle school computer programs aimed specifically at sixth graders, is something that is already taking place in the County, and it is hoped that a lot more of it can be done in the future. He said he cannot say for certain that a program such as this one will actually happen soonin the County, because some of the objectives get realignedlevery year, depending on the outcome of the priorities that are established in the budget. This program, however, is in the Computer Committee's FivelYear Plan. Mr. Bowie said he would like to see the Computer Committee's Five Year Plan and would like to know if taking advantage ofthe State's proposal will reduce the money that the County will spend. Mr. St. John asked if the equipment could be bought out of general revenue. He also said he did not know that this type of thing could be done without a referendum, unless it involved a Literary Fund Loan. Mr. Agnor responded that the information sent to the school system indicated that there would not have to be a referendum because th~ bonds would be sold to VPSA. Mr. Bowie commented that $100,000 compared to the size of the School Board's budget is really not much, if the equipment is needed badly. He said he would be happy to discuss the budget withi~the School Board, and perhaps money could be found. However, he said, to hearings for $100,000, which adds up to $20, amount of work, because this amount could be He said he is not voting against the advance~ thinks that this is the most complicated way money that he has ever seen. Mr. Overstreet replied that this progra~ nor's Commission. The General Assembly did ~ Commission did not want to give it up. He s~ o into the bond market and public 00 a year, seems like an unusual absorbed in the County's budget. classroom and technology, but he of getting a small amount of was an objective of the Gover- ot fund the program, but the id the program is complex and unusual, but even the legal costs are covered by the State, and there will be no co, st to the County unless in future sessions of the General Assembly, funds ar~a~propriated. He said there will be suc~ a wide level of participation ac~rdss the State that he cannot imagine that ~ithis will happen. He said if the County chooses not to participate, there is ~lready a certain amount of funding established, so Albemarle's money wo~ld'~ go to other localities that are participating. Mr. Way said if the Board approves the ~rogram, then even though this funding situation is not something the Board ~!ls happy about, it is a way to get assistance from the State. As long as the program is something that the school system wants and needs, he thinks this is the best way to handle it. Mr. Overstreet said he wished the State had jlhst decided to give local alloca- tions and have them as a part of the general 'budget. He said the money is available, and the County can participate in ~he program or not. He added that the School Board is willing to go along iwith the program, if the Supervi- sors are willing to give the authorization. Mrs. Cooke said if the program is a lon~range plan of the School Board, she thinks the County should take advantage ~f the funds which are available. She said the money will have to come from sons,where at some point, and she thinks the program is necessary to the schooli~' system whenever it is started. Mr. Lindstrom said he would feel better ~about the program, if it were part of a formally approved, detailed, long-range program of the County's, that had been done independently of any incentive created by the State. If this were the case, he said, he would be will!~ng to commit funds to this program locally regardless of whether there w~s a subsidy, but he has a reservation about the way this program is being handled by the State. Mr. Bain agreed with Mr. Lindstrom concening the way that things are handled by the State, but he believes that the State will have to go ahead with the program, since it is being provided across the State. He would like 624 October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) to support the request, assuming that it can be done legally and constitution- ally. Mr. Bowie remarked that he thinks this is a ridiculous way of handling this situation. He said the State is providing money to do something it wants the localities to do, but the State never provides enough money. He asked if the Board can find out if this way of handling bonds is legal. Mr. Bain said evidently the Board has until November 1, 1988, to make a decision on the program. He suggested that information on the legality be given to the Board before that date, as well as the computer program plans from the Computer Committee and the School Board. Mr. St. John said the Board does not have anything to lose if the program is not legal due to lack of the bond referendum. If it is illegal, the County could not be made to repay the bonds. Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt the following resolution, and to request further information as to whether this is legal or not; the information is to be provided by October 14, 1988, so the Board can reach a decision by November 1, 1988. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. WHEREAS the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors recognizes the need to expand learning experiences now availabl~ through technology to students in the Albemarle County Scho~i Division, and WHEREAS the Albemarle County School Board is e~igible for approximately $102,000 in subsidized technological ~quipment through the Governor's Educational Technology Initiative Prqcurement and Financing Program, and ~ WHEREAS the Governor's Educational Technology Initiative Procurement and Financing Program provides a vehicle~for the pur- chase and financing of microcomputers, satellite and associated equipment at a substantial savings to participating'iocalities, and WHEREAS the Albemarle County School Board has requested the approval of the Albemarle County Board of Superviso=M to participate in this program; it NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Albemarl~-iCounty Board of Supervisors that it does hereby authorize the Count~iExecutive to sign the Memorandum of Agreement between the County !~nd the Depart- ment of Education authorizing participation in the ~G~vernor's Educational Technology Initiative Procurement and Financing Program for the purchase and financing of approximately $10Z~i000 of subsidy eligible equipment, and ~i BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County ExecutiVe is hereby authorized to transmit the Letter of Agreement to the Department of Education on behalf of this Board. Agenda Item No. 16. Reclassification of Assistant Registrar. Mr. Agnor said the Registrar requested a review of the classification of the Assistant Registrar position for two reasons: 1) the function of the Registrar has changed. The Registrar is out of the office often which makes daily manage- ment of the office and supervision of part-time office workers the responsi- bility of the Registrar's assistant, and 2) new operating!iprocedures of the State Board of Elections changed the entire operation to a computerized system directly linked with Richmond, which assigned the Assista~ responsibility for primary office management of the system not presently recognized in the job description. Personn. request and recommended that the position be reclassified Range 11, effective with the October payroll. The additi~ benefit costs for the remainder of the fiscal year will bE t Registrar the . This function is 1 staff reviewed the from Range 9 to nal salary and absorbed in the October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) 625 Registrar's existing budget, if possible. Otherwise, a request for additional funds will be made in the last quarter of the fiscal year. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to reclassify the Assistant Registrar position effective this month. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Not Docketed: At 12:58 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss personnel and legal matters. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bain. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into an open session at 2:08 P.M. Mr. Way said the Board would take up Agenda Item 22 at this time. Agenda Item No. 22. Discussion: Risk Factors for Forestry Land Use. Mr. Perkins distributed a brief history ~of land use taxation for forestry land to the Board. He said that until this time there has been a risk factor of one and one-half percent used in Albemarle County for forest land. The new assessment rates by the Department of Forestry do not include a risk factor, but the Department is willing to put in the risk factor, if the Director of Finance so requests. He suggested that the Board direct the Director of Finance to ask for this one and one-half risk factor to be included in forest land use taxation. Mr. Bruce Hogue spoke next and pointed out that the County is now in a dry cycle that increases the risk factor. H~ mentioned the gypsy moth problem and said this could really be bad for hardwoo~d trees. If it were not for the forest areas in the County, he said, the runoff would be terrible when it rains and would imperil the watershed. He said forested areas release mois- ture as the year goes on and this helps keep ii. the streams alive. He thinks everything should be done to help the landow~ers who have forest land. He said the farmers have not enjoyed the same eqbnomy as people in some other occupations have, so he would like to see the.~ County keep the risk factor that it has had over the past 12 years. He said ~ is sure the Board realizes the importance of his request. ~ Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance,i~i said he does not have a problem with this approach. He noted that forestry ~Alues, in the past, have been used with the risk factor included. He addec~ii~ that even though the State has changed its policy, he thinks there is probably more risk now than in prior years because of the gypsy moths. He pointe~ii out that based on last year's numbers, if the risk factor were included, it"~would reduce the value by approximately 12 percent. Mr. Bain asked about the State Land EvalUation Advisory Committee (SLEAC) values. Mr. Breeden answered that several years ago they were increasing, but the new values for 1989 are showing some decreases. Mr. Bain asked about the values for horticultural land. Mr. Breeden r~plied that those values are decreasing approximately 15 to 20 percent for~next year compared to the current year. Mr. Bain said with the 15 to 2( sessment values, there should still not be re~ dollars being paid by the farmer. Mr. Breede will make a significant difference because th land use value no matter what the fair market there is a percentage basis involved, he does a decrease in the dollars he will pay. Mr. B~ there would not be an increase in dollars pai~ for land not qualifying under land use rose mc use. He noted that those values under land us land. ; percent increase in the reas- ~1 difference in the actual responded that the risk factor farmer will be paying on the value is. Mr. Bain said since not see how the farmer will have eeden replied that the only way would be if the building values re than the values under land e would go down for agricultural 626 October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the numbers produced by SLEAC are not absolute values, but they are used, regardless of the local assessment. Mr. Breeden said that is correct. He said there has not been much work done in trying to set local values, because he firmly believes that the values put out by SLEAC are the best. He said the County would have to use the same data as SLEAC to set values. He said unless there is some difference in philosophy, he does not see how the local figures could be supported. Mr. Perkins commented that he believes the action that the Farm Bureau took in going to Richmond and talking to the SLEAC Co~mnittee influenced the SLEAC Conm~ittee to lower the values that were raised so much a year ago. He said it still puzzles him that all the values in all the counties in the State differ for agricultural or forestal land. He gave an example that Class II land values are rated at $900 in Albemarle, $400 in Goochland County and $1250 in Rockbridge County. He said the values of forestry land are different throughout each county, also. He noted that forestry products are sold more on a regional basis and said that other markets besides county markets have to be considered. He added that the sawmills in Albemarle get logs from as far away as 100 miles. He thinks that Class II land should have the same value within a given geographic area. Mr. Breeden answered that one thing to consider is the type of forestry such as pine or hardwoods. Mr. Perkins responded that Albemarle County is classified as a hardwOod county. Mr. Agnor pointed out that every two years, SLEAC figures are given to the Board before reassessment notices are sent out. He said the figures just arrived this week, and they were to have been presented at the November meeting. ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked what classification is used for!ilopen space. Mr. Breeden responded that open space is a separate category~iof land use which basically applies to park areas, golf courses and the li~e. He said that Albemarle County has had very little activity in that category primarily because the land use values are as high or higher than the fair market values in most cases. ~ Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Perkins that the Director of Finance request the risk factor of one a~d one-half percent be added to the local value for forestry land. Roll was ca,led and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ~ Agenda Item No. 17. Discussion: Legislative Liaiso~n. Mr. 'Agnor summarized a memo he had written to the Bolerd of Supervisors regarding a Legislative Liaison. He called attention to ehe fact that his memo states that some localities engage the services of mlpart-time lobbyist to monitor activities of the General Assembly. He said ~6 has learned that this statement is not correct. There was an amendment to, the State Code several years ago which prohibits lobbyists from being employed by state agencies or local governments. He said localities can ha~e staff people assigned to the legislature. ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked if the staff people could lobby 'St the General Assembly. Mr. Agnor said the State Code indicates-that I~bbying can be performed by full or part-time staff of the localities, b'~t not by someone who contracts for that kind of service. Mr. Bain added that, as long as this person is being paid as a County employee, that person can lobby. Mr. Agnor said he most liaisons move to Richmond during the General Assembly session. He that Mrs. White, on his staff, is assigned the duty of monitoring proposed islation and then alerting the Executive staff and the Board of items of He mentioned that the employment of monitors or lobbyists has somel been handled by the joining of several localities to share the expense. He sl id it has been recommended to him that Planning District Ten staff s not be used for this liaison purpose, because it could create an awkward ituation. In terms of cost estimates for having someone present in Richmond the lodging cost October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) 627 would be approximately $150 a week, and the office areas available in Richmond rent anywhere from $10 to $15 a square foot. He said it would take approxi- mately 125 square feet for an adequate office, and he mentioned that space is available in the VACo building. He said commuting is unsatisfactory because sometimes the sessions run late at night. Mr. Agnor mentioned that he called the City Manager to see how the City was handling this situation. The City Manager said there have been discussions about having a liaison in Richmond, and the City may want to join the County in this venture. He said he did not call the City Manager back after he learned that sometimes planning districts were involved in this type of activity. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a person from the Planning District Commission representing the City and Counties, rural and urbanizing counties, would be able to represent all of those varying interests. Mr. Agnor said he had already asked this question, and the response was that the Planning District representative does not represent any of the localities in front of the committees. The representative only keeps the localities aware of what is happening, and the localities generally send an elected official to make an appearance if a bill is involved. It is the responsibility of the staff person assigned these monitoring duties to keep attuned to what the localities are specifically interested in, and to know what effect these various bills will have. Mr. Agnor said a direct link/~o the computer in the General Assembly which daily records every bill a~d-amendment as they occur. Inquiries of the computer system cost 25 cents each. He stated that it is conceivable that the computer system could replace the liaison se~vmce. But if the Board is interested in getting automated connections ~or monitoring purposes with the Legislature, he recommends that the system b~ tried for one year, in addition to the mail service for receiving drafts of ~ills. Mr. Bain inquired if the computer syste~ during the year about the subcommittee meeti~ a County employee would have to monitor thes~ that VACo provides this information by mail, in advance when the hearings will be held. not function in this capacity. Mr. Agnor pointed out that when the Gen~ County staff is usually in the middle of the would help get information gs. He said it seems to him that meetings. Mr. Agnor answered · nd usually the County knows well m said that the computer would ~al Assembly is in session, the budget preparation cycle. He said often it is hard for staff members to m~nitor the General Assembly because of budget obligations. Mr. Lindstrom asked when the County will District Commission as to whether or not it arrangement. Mr. Bowie said the Planning Di~ unless it is contacted first. He said this about the matter. He said he would be happy behalf of the Board and report back. He ment get an answer from the Planning s interested in this kind of trict Commission will not respond the first time he has heard to speak to the Commission on Loned that there are thousands of bills each year, and some of them do not appl~ to the County at all. He thinks there should be a way of tracking bil~s, not only while the session is going on, but at other times as well. Often ~y the time the Session begins, he said, the bill has already been through co~ittee and public hearings have been held. He believes that some other meth~/should be pursued, and he would like to know more about the computer hookup, i'I Mr. Bain said he is also interested in 1 ~oking at the computer system. Mr. Lindstrom remarked that if this position .s shared with other localities, he thinks it is necessarily assumed that the ,erson retrieving the information and passing it back to the County will assume a more passive role. He thinks this question should be explored with the Com~ission in the context that, while the County is exploring the possibiiity~" it has not been decided what will actually be done. ~ Mr. Way suggested that the Planning District Commission be asked if it would be interested in having this sort' of arrangement. Mr. Lindstrom agreed, and said if the Planning District Commission ~s not interested, then it is not an option. He is not sure if the County woul~ be getting its money's worth by going this route, and thinks it might be bett~r to pay the extra money and have somebody working for Albemarle County. 628 October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie and Mr. Lindstrom asked if the staff could find out who is available and how much money it will cost for someone who would be looking out specifically for Albemarle County. Mr. Way asked if the legislators should be called and a time arranged to meet with them in December. Mr. Agnor suggested'that the meeting with the legislators be held in the afternoon of November 14. Agenda Item No. 18. Discussion: Meals Tax. Mr. Lindstrom explained that at the last meeting it was discussed as to whether or not an information sheet could be assembled and whether members of the Board could make themselves available to speak to groups concerning the meals tax. Mr. Way agreed that a fact sheet should be developed. Mr. Bowie commented that he has his own facts and will make them avail- able for the fact sheet, if the Board chooses. Concerning making the public aware, it seems to him that there has never been a work session, a discussion, a public hearing or a budget hearing without reporters present, and he was surprised to see the statement in the media that nobody knows what is included in the County's capital plan. He said if there is a problem with knowing what is in the Capital Improvement Program, and how it is going to be funded, then he thinks this information should be put on a simple fact~ sheet. Mr. Bain suggested making the fact sheet available at libraries, the County Office Building, and to the media, so that the facts are known. He said he does not know how important this will be to the general public, but it will assist the citizens in understanding if there is a n~ed for a meals tax. He thinks that the misconception is not just coming from ithe restaurant owners; the citizens are also unaware of why the meals tax is being consid- ered. He said that once it is explained to them, he fee~ the public will be positive about it. He is concerned that there will be few people voting in the referendum. Mrs. Cooke said she thinks that it might be a good ~dea to publish at least one announcement of the Board's position in the newspaper. Mr. Bain said he thinks the facts need to be published as to what is included in the ~CIP. Mr. Lindstrom said he believes as long as the information is presented as factual then it will be an appropriate expenditure of :County funds. Mrs. Cooke said she does not know if it will do any ~good to make the information available to the news media, but it is a news~item. Agenda Item No. 19. Report: Computer Upgrade Committee. Mr. Bowie presented a report from the Computer Upgrade Committee, dated September 20, 1988, which concluded with the following findings: ~ Based on the historical data, Albemarle County has greatly increased the efficiency of operations in various departments. The increased productivity of its employees through the Coun- ty's computerization process has resulted in annual savings of $362,331 (in Finance Department salary costs al~ne) to the County. The savings generated in personnel costs alone ~re significant. The savings realized by not having to house numerous new employees, with their attendant support costs, £s incalculable. Automation has greatly improved responsiveness to citizens in obtaining tags and licenses, assessment and tax!!~bill informa- tion and necessary county registration forms. The increasing delay in response time for Count' justifies the purchase/lease of the IBM 4381 or and the supporting package that goes with it. The current Albemarle County Committee review s~ mation services provides no analysis of the ecor System users its equivalent stem of infor- ~mic advantages October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) 629 of new applications of the computer system~ i.e., Development Tracking System, which the Computer Upgrade Committee believes is a weakness in the current review system. Mr. Bain, Chairman of the Computer Upgrade Committee, said the Committee found that it was a very worthwhile project in terms of the uses being made of computerization. The Committee believes the County is headed in the right direction in terms of a cost analysis. He understands this is not done very often, and the Committee has found out subsequently that a cost benefit is rarely done in private enterprise or on the public side. To do it even on a partial basis, as it has been done here, is a fair amount of proof for the County. Mr. Lindstrom said the report is specific and the information makes him feel better about the computer program. He thinks the public should be aware of what the report contains, based on the study of the Finance Department, that the number of work units per employee has increased from 5106 to 8295. He pointed out that in 1968, if the same productivity rate per employee was expected, there would have to be 70 employees in the Finance Department where there are now 42. This amounts to a savingsiof approximately $360,000 in that one department. Mr. Perkins asked what constitutes a work unit. Mr. Bowie replied that a work unit refers to one item of work such as ?issuing one decal or mailing one bill. He referred the Board to Appendix A and Appendix C, which were compari- sons of requested data at ten year intervals ifor the Finance Department and comparisons of data over a ten year interval for the Real Estate Division. He discussed these comparisons and said all of ~hese increases in the employees' work loads have been handled with the implemgntation of automation. He said no where in the analysis was the fiscal impa~t compared, but the actual fiscal implications will have to be considered in an~ythlng that is done and should be part of the Board's decision making process. '.~ Mr. Bain reported that the Committee hag met with outside persons to discuss equipment and to ask specific questi~s. He said one other recommen- dation that might be added to the applicatio~ process would be to explain how much space is needed for new equipment. He ~aid if the storage space is increased to give the equipment the ability included so the Committee will know when exps Mr. Way commented that he was pleased w~ focus on the accomplishments of the Data Proc Mr. Agnor asked if, when the report ment means a new application on the mainframe com~ are some usages of microcomputers in individt Board wants reports on every application of t o operate then this should be nsions are necessary. th the report, which helped him essing Department. .ons "a new application", that Lter. He mentioned that there offices, and he wonders if the ~ese smaller units. He pointed out that the CIP is geared toward the mainfr~e, and the report is focused on the mainframe, so he is assuming that ~he applications are associated with the mainframe, i~ Mr. Bain said that basically is the Co~m.ttee's position. He said the critical focus is for major applications. ~ ~. Bowie remarked that the Committee also discussed the need to look at ~ther systems which are not in the CIP. However, the Committee's task was look at the Capital Improve- ments Budget, he said, and that is what it di To clarify what is meant by the financial impact, Mr~ Bowie said, a tracking system would have to be developed where each department would clearly~state its savings in hours and dollars due to automation, i' Mr. Perkins commented that people cannotIlook back with computers but they have to go forward all the time. He thinks that sometimes people can be overwhelmed with all of the information that ~ computer is capable of giving, and that information not always be needed. He cautioned the Board against this and said that he does not want to build a computer empire and think that money is being saved. Mr. Bain said this was.~a concern of the Committee. He said to buy equipment at the best price, the Committee would like to bring together all the departments, including schools. 630 October 12, 1988: (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie, to accept the report and the following recommendations. There was. no further discus- sion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain and Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. (Note: The recommendations are set out in full below:) That the County Executive or his designee be charged with the following: 1. (a) That each new application requested must provide detailed financial information and/or justification for the new application at the time it is developed. (b) That each new application, once approved, receive an annual fiscal review and be tracked in succeeding intervals with a report to the Board of Supervisors showing anticipated fiscal impact and actual fiscal impact. (c) That Information Services report to the Board of Supervisors on a semi-annual basis the proposed new applications, and the underlying justification for them, including th~ financial impact. (d) That the County Executive prepare a f~rmat for a report to the Board and the first report should be ~ue January 1, 1989. 2. For the Capital Improvements Plan budget the Board should receive the previous fiscal year's expenditure requests, proposed fiscal year expenditure requests from the previous y~ar's CIP, and the current fiscal year's CIP actual appropriation to date. This can be provided in the format presented for the operating budget. Agenda Item No. 20. Discussion: Crozet Replacement. School Plans. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it would be possible to take a basic elementary school plan, such as the one for Brownsville or Woodbrook, and examine with the County staff what fundamental changes would have to be made in those plans to comply with current State standards. From this analysis, the cost could be estimated for the construction of a facility for a student body the size of the one that is to be at the Crozet School. He thinks the comparables used to justify the design of the Crozet School may or may not be'.basic educational facilities. He has a hard time believing the design the Board saw was a basic educational facility. He said the Board will be considering many more build- ings, and this information is needed for those, but if there is a way that a basic design can be done without having the architect start all over again, then some approximate estimate could be made for those buildings. While he thinks it may be true that Crozet School is not significantly different than other schools being built today, he is not confident that's!just a basic educa- tional facility has been considered. He said he is talking about something that provides a decent environment for students to learn ~n but is not de- signed with oddly shaped rooms and lmbrar~es. He thinks that tinkering with the design isn't going to help, and he wonders if the Sta~e Department of Education has a basic plan. He does not understand why there cannot be a basic design that can be used in this County instead of h~ving to create an elegant design for every new building. Mr. Lindstrom believes one of the problems is that committees, with no ultimate financial responsibility for the project, are asked to come up with the initial drawings. He said these committees also havei!the initial input with the architect, who does not have any real restraint, iii~ He went on to say that the Board has to put a budget figure in the Capital ~mprovements plan, and that figure becomes a target which has already been e~ceeded by the proposal before it goes to contract. He would like to know if this request could be answered without spending a lot of money and six,months to do it. He does not know if this will benefit Crozet School, but it ~uld certainly help October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) 631 the next building considered and it might be beneficial to look at it in terms of the Crozet School. Mr. Way commented that plans are already being developed for the new Southside School, and it is almost too late to get input on those plans. Mr. Lindstrom asked if members of this Board could sit in on the Southside School meetings. Mr. Way responded that he is already sitting in on these meetings. Mr. Lindstrom asked if his suggestion is possible. Mr. Agnor said there are communities that have used basic plans and adapted them to the site. He said the County took this approach years ago, but has not done it in recent years, and he has not found any localities that are doing it now. He added that taking a basic set of plans and updating them to meet current require- ments could be done, but not in-house because the staff does not know the State Department of Education requirements. The staff knows only the inspec- tion and BOCA Code requirements. He said someone could be employed who would know these requirements and could look at a set of plans and indicate where the changes are needed, and then calculate the cost. Most of the calcula- tions, in terms of getting a second opinion,~tare usually done by a contractor who has cost estimators who work for him. To do what Mr. Lindstrom is sug- gesting, Mr. Agnor said, would require outside help. Mr. Agnor told Mrs. Cooke that the complications are because of the changes in the Code which can be very comple~ and involve a lot of money. Most of these changes involve mechanical, electrical and air handling. He said these are requirements of the BOCA Code~' but there are also State Depart- ment of Education health requirements that eqter into the design of buildings and these requirements have changed since th~ other schools were built. He noted that someone would have to be responsigle for knowing what these changes are and inserting them into the calculations~i Mr. Lindstrom said if it can be verifie~ that this building or something similar to it that is being designed for Cro~et is in fact a good, basic, efficient design, then that is a worthwhile ~hing to know. Mr. Agnor remarked that a good way to sdlve this problem is to have someone study the plans and give the Board a professional opinion. He said the person can critique the design and the materials that are being proposed. Mr. Bain asked at what point in the pro,less should this be done. He mentioned that the plans for Crozet are not ~eady to go to bid, but there is already a basic plan, without detailed drawings. Mr. Agnor answered that the detailed drawings would have to be studied id'~ order to have a thorough analy- sis of materials and such, because these thi~s will not be included in the basic design. Fir. Lindstrom asked if the plans for th ~i Brownsville school could be given to a cost estimator or someone who is~'miliar with current require- ments, and if that person could be told-to t~:e the basic design and do whatever is needed to meet State Code and report the cost estimates back to the Board. Mr. Bowie said he thinks two different things are being discussed. first thing to be considered is whether old p can, then someone would have to determine how bring them up to the educational requirements thing suggested is that someone study the Cro is a legitimate business practice, and he ask recently. The .ans can be studied. If they the plans must be modified to and the state Code. The second :et School design. He said this ~d if this has been done Mr. Bowie said he still has trouble accepting the fact that the shortest way between two points is a curved line, and ~hat a peaked roof is just as cheap as a flat roof. He thinks someone need~ to take a look at these designs. Mr. Lindstrom agreed this is why he,thinks another approach to the school designs is needed. He asked if a join~ meeting with the School Board is necessary or should the Board of Supervisors go ahead with its ideas and then let the School Board know the result of ~ts findings. ~ 632 October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) Mr. Bowie agreed that the Board of Supervisors, on its own, should find a way to verify the cost estimates. Mr. Bowie asked if the study can be done in a short time. Mr. Agnor said he would get a idea of the time and costs for such studies. He said Mr. Perkins had asked him for the prices of two projects in the Rockingham County school system. Mr. Agnor asked Mr. Overstreet to get the information for him, and he has not received an answer yet. Mr. Agnor understands, however, that these two projects are basic types of school buildings. Mr. Agnor said he called some people to see if they have had anyone analyzing the designs of their school buildings, and the City school system informed him that it is regularly done in that system. Mr. Bowie asked if a motion is needed, or can the Board just ask that the information be back by next week. Mr. Agnor said no motion is needed. Mrs. Cooke said parents get emotionally involved and want beautiful buildings and frills for their children. She said sometimes they do not pay much attention to logic and economics. She added that the taxpayers then have to pay for things when they are not necessary, and they have to pay for "wants" rather than "needs". She went on to say that unless somebody steps in and takes a stand, then the costs will just keep going up. Mr. Perkins remarked that he does not think that parents or the people on the school committees can be blamed for the designs of the schools. He said the committees and parents are usually looking at such t~ings as computer rooms, music rooms and some basic things that some elemehtary schools do not have. He said this is when the parity issue comes up. Mr. Lindstrom said parity is something that everybody is committed to try to provide. He said each building does not have to be different. He said that when an elegant building is built somewhere, and then another one like it is built, then it becomes a parity issue, and soon other ~reas want elegant buildings, too. · Mr. Bowie said there is no doubt in his mind that spending money now on a set of plans and a second estimate will save money later... He agreed with Mr. Perkins that the County should not have to rely on a report of what is the highest cost for a school as reported by the State Department of Education. H~ thinks the County should be given a report on the cost per square foot for the last ten schools that were built in the State, and then the Board will have its own figures. At 3:34 P.M., Mr. Way announced that he had to leave'the meeting because he had to participate in "Leadership Charlottesville" at ~:00 P.M. Mrs. Cooke assumed the duties of Chairman. Mr. Bowie also left at this time. Agenda Item No. 23. Comprehensive Plan. Discussion: Schedule and Agendas for Review of Mr. Agnor informed members of the Board that the first work session on the Comprehensive Plan has been scheduled for November 2 ~t 1:30 P.M., and the hearing to receive public comments will be held on ~Novemb~r 2 at 7:30 P.M. He said the next work session will be held on the afternoon ~f November 9, which is the all day Board meeting, and another work session will be held on Novem- ber 16 at 1:30 p.m. He went on to say that if the Board'~ work is complete at that point, the public hearing could be held on the nightiof December 7, but if it is not complete by that time, the public hearing can be rescheduled. Mr. Agnor added that after the public hearing is held, at,the end of all of the work sessions, then the Board is ready for the adoption. He said Mr. Way's schedule had another work session scheduled just in'case the Board needed to make amendments. He would assume, if that is ti this work session could be held on December 14. Mr. Agnor brought up the fact that Mr. Horne has the document on a word processor. He said the idea has been~ the Board goes through the work sessions, it would be hel' could be made on the sections of the plan and amendments He said that he would recommend this process because it w Le situation, that Comprehensive Plan iscussed that, as ful if decisions ade at that time. uld allow for a October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) timely document to be made available for public scrutiny. He also stated that a decision does not have to be reached on this matter today. (Note: Mr. Bowie returned to the meeting at 4:06 P.M.) Mrs. Cooke said that since the idea involving the word processor does not have to be decided upon today, the Board members can give some thought to this and make a decision at the next meeting. Agenda Item No. 24. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. A draft resolution was presented to the Board supporting the position of the Albemarle/Charlottesville/University of Virginia Joint Transportation Con~nittee as it relates to the U. S. Route 29 North Environmental Impact Statement. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the following resolution, with copies being sent to Constance Kinchloe, Ray Pethtel, Vivian Watts, R. L. Hundley, the City of Charlottesville, the Metro- politan Planning Organization, and local representatives to the General Assembly, with a cover letter signed by the Chairman. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has been furnished a copy of a letter from R. L. Hundley, Environmenta~ Engineer, Department of Transportation, dated October 3, 1988, addressed to Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive (copy attached); and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors supports the resolution adopted on September 23, 1988, by the Albemarle/Charlottesville/ University of Virginia Joint Transportation Committee as it relates to the U. S. Route 29 North Environmental Impact Statement; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors especially supports the testing, through the Traffic Model, of ~he proposed grade-separated interchanges of U. S. Route 29 North/RiG Road and U. S. Route 29 North/Hydraulic Road; both of the proposed interchanges are a part of the Charlottesville Area Transportation ~Study and have never been deleted as a needed improvement for U. S~'.~ Route 29 North by either the Cmty of Charlottesville or the Counti~ of Albemarle; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that~ the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, restates its~support of the resolution mentioned above, and orders that copies ~f this resolution be for- warded to The HonOrable Vivian Watts, SeCretary of Transportation, Mrs. Constance Kinchloe, Culpeper DistriCt Commissioner, Mr. Ray Pethtel, Highway Commissioner, Mr. R. L.tHundley, Department of Transportation, The Honorable Thomas J. Michie, Jr., The Honorable Mitchell Van Yahres, The Honorable Georg$ F. Allen, the City of Charlottesville, the University of Virginia, and the Metropolitan Planning Organization. ~l~ There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain and Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mri Lindstrom and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Way. 634 October 12, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 38) Mr. Bowie mentioned a letter that Mr. Agnor received from the Madison County Board of Supervisors asking him to do something about the traffic on Route 29 North. Mr. Agnor mentioned that the 1989 tax notices will be mailed out at the beginning of next week. Agenda Item No. 25. Adjourn. At 4:11 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.