Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-10-14272 October 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, scheduled for October 14, 1987, at 9:00 A~M., in Meeting Room 7, SecondFloor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, was 'not called to order until 9:22 A.M. due to lack of a quorum. PRESENT: Mr. F. R. BoWie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 9:18 A.M.), Messrs. J. T. Henley, Jr. (arriVed at 9:21 A.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 10:24 A.M~) and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy coUnty Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and Director of Planning and Community Development, John T. P. Horne. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:22 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. ~ Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegianc&. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr~ Bowie offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve Item No. 4.7 on th~ Consent Agenda and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was ca!led and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley andlMr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Item 4.1. Letter from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, dated Septem- ber 11, 1987, with copy of 1986-87 Secondary Improvement Budget Annual Fiscal Summary attached thereto was received, as follows: Attached (on file) you will find a copy of the annual fiscal summary of expenditures on the secondary system for improvements during fiscal year 1986-87. I request that this information be shared with the Board of Supervisors. As of June 30, 1987, the Albemarle County secondary improvement fund has a balance of $3,839,269. This balance is due to balances brought forward from past years and the rapid increase of funds due to the action of the Legislature in September 1986. Projects now under construction should consume over $2.5 million of this total. In addition, my office is working on a schedule which would expend or obligate by June 30, 1988, thi~ balance ~and the funds to be available during the 1987-88 fiscal year. I stand ready to discuss this matter with the Board of Supervisors as they desire." Item 4.2. Letter from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, dated Septem- ber 21, 1987, with copy of Albemarle County Secondary Road Six Year Plan, 1988-94, attached thereto was received as information. "State law requires that the secondary road six year improvement plan for each county be updated at least every two years. In the case of Albemarle County this means the plan musk be updated to cover the fiscal years 1988-89 through 1993-94. The Department has directed its resident engineers to submit a revised plan by March 1988. To meet this schedule I believe the County must adopt a priority list of improvements by early March. The Code of Virginia requires that this priority list be adopted after a public hearing. Usually this hearing is scheduled only after Z73 October 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) a priority list is reviewed and tentatively approved by the Board. To meet notification requirements this means such review and tenta- tive approval should occur in late January 1988. In the past the Board has relied heavily on the recommendation of the Planning Commission in developing a priority list. ~I presume you intend to follow this procedure again. I request the Board direct your Commission and Planning Staff to present you a~priority list of projects for review so that I can meet this March 1988 submission date. The priority list developed by the County should be of sufficient length to absorb all the funds anticipated to be available between July 1, 1989, and June 30, 1994. I have attached ailist of the anticipated allocations available during that period. They amount to $19,434,720. In preparing this priority list, qualifying unpaved road projects and federal aid improvements should be included to allow for the full use of funds distributed to the County for these purposes. I have included the anticipated funds available each year for these purposes in the list attached. Beyond the requirements for use of federal funds and unpaved road funds, any improvements to existing secondary roads may be included on the priority list. P~oper and efficient planning, however, should dictate that projects and priorities in the current plan which have not been fully funded be included in the revised plan. I will supply your Planning Commission with a list of these projects and the funds still necessary for their improvement. ALLOCATIONS REGULAR UNPAVED YEAR FUNDS ROAD FUNDS TOTAL 88-89 $2,641,198 $787,146 $3,428,344 89-90 2,608,680 777,075 3,385,755 90-91 2,552,885 757,958 3,310,843 91-92 2,458,758 735,126 3,193,884 92-93 2,405,197 717,368 3,122,565 93-94 2,305,474 687,855 2~993~329 TOTAL $ 19,434,720 FEDERAL AID $293,550 289,800 283,400 273,400 267,300 256,228 Unpaved Road Funds Approximately 23 percent of Total Federal Aid Funds Approximately 8.5 percent of Total" Mr. Way asked if this letter means that the budget hearing must be in January. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, replied no; this letter refers to the Six-Year Plan which by law must be revised every two years. Mr. Tucker commented that the Planning staff and Planning Commission are involved in preparing a priority list for the Board's review in January. Stem 4.3. Copy of letter from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, dated October 1, 1987, addressed to Mr. Winston C. Gooding, concerning change of date for parade in Esmont until October 31, 1987, at 9:00 A.M. was received as information. Item 4.4. Letter dated September 25, 1987, from Mr. George H. Gilliam addressed to Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, re: ZMA-87~07, Jeffer- son Square Shopping Center, received as follows: ~ "When the referenced zoning map amendment was approved on Septem- ber 2, 1987, that approval was subject, among other things, to the applicant's agreement to rezone four commercial lot remnants on the west side of Berkmar Drive. I represented to the Board that we would file a rezoning application promptly. ~ 274 October 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) We cannot file that application until we know the precise dimensions of the lots to be rezoned; we are now awaiting word from the Depart- ment of Transportation as to how wide Berkmar Drive is to be, etc., so we can prepare a plat of the new lots. As soon as that process is completed, my clients intend to file the rezoning application. I would appreciate your informing the Board of the reasons for the delay in filing the rezoning application." Item 4.5. A copy of Planning Commission Minutes for September 29, 1987, was received as information. Item 4.6. Memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated October 12, 1987, entitled "Status Report on Greenwood Chemical" was received as follows: "Staff has recently met with a representative of Federal Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding Greenwood Chemical. EPA staff has been preparing an Action Plan for disposal or treatment of the most contaminated liquids and materials on site. Approval of that Plan by EPA is expected within the very near future. Once approval has been obtained, removal or treatment of this waste will begin immediately and completion could ~be expected as early as the end of the year or early next year. A Remedial Action Plan is also being d~veloped for ultimate clean-up of the entire site. This Plan and its ~implementation, however, could take from two and one-half to three years. A public relations officer for EPA is now handling the public infor- mation effort regarding these plans and their implementation. He will be keeping the community and locatity abreast of EPA's progress on a continuous and uniform basis." Item 4.7. Statements of Expenses for Che Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the Month of September, 1987, were approved as presented. Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of MinuteS: March 18, 1985; February 11, March 18 (Night), July 1, August 5 and September 30, 1987. Mrs. Cooke read the minutes of March 18, 1987 (Night), Pages 1 (ending at Item #9) and found them to be in.'order. Mrs. Cooke read the minutes of July 1, 1987, Pages 1 - 9 and found them to be in order. Mr. Bowie read all of the minutes of September 30, 1987, and found them to be in order. Mr. Way read the minutes of July 1, 1987, Page 9 (beginning with Item #6) to the end and found them to be in order. Mr. Bowie offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Outstanding Rural Additional Review Requests. October 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) Mr. Roosevelt presented the following memorandum from his office dated September 4, 1987: On September 4, 1985, I wrote you concerning my review of four rural addition requests which were before the Board of Supervisors for review. I have attached a copy of my letter for your information. At the time of my letter I was under the impression that each of these four additions were ineligible due to the recent subdivision of some of the properties served by the roads. I have recently been advised that my interpretation was incorrect. Without burdening you and the Board of Supervisors with the details, let me say that it now appears that three of the four requests previously before the Board appear to be eligible under the Department's Rural ~ddition Policy. These three requests are as follows: Route 611 from the end of state maintenance to a point approxi- mately 0.95 miles northwest. An addition from Route 250 near Jo Bob's Restaurant to a point approximately 0.15 miles north. 3. From Route 746 to a point 0.30 miles east of Route 746. Although there are no funds allocated to rural addit:ions in the current budget, it would be a simple matter to transfer funds from some other project to cover rural additions if the Board of Supervi- sors so desires. I request that the Board be advised of this matter and that they advise me whether they wish to review these roads for addition to the system. It may be that there are other requests which could also be reviewed. I would be happy to advise the Board concerning the eligibility of other requests if you would forward them to me. I would suggest that this matter be placed on the Board's agenda at some future meeting if they desire a more detailed discussion." Mr. Roosevelt said State law allows an amount up to two percent of the County's secondary improvement funds for the improvement And addition of roads to the system through the rural addition law. In the pas~ Albemarle County has set aside $20,000 of its secondary improvement funds for this purpose instead of two percent. Mr. Roosevelt said he personally feels that there ara too many other needs in the secondary system that the money could be used for. Mr. Bowie asked if a cost estimate has been prepared on any of these requests. Mr. Roosevelt replied no. If the Board wants to set aside some funds for rural additions, it then has the option of appointing road view,rs or having the County Engineer act as the road viewer. He would develop!a cost estimate for the roads to be brought up to State standards, tell whoever doing the viewing what problems exist with regard to right-of-way, meet with the road viewer to consider the roads and then prepare a report for the Board's consideration on recommendations for the roads. Mr. Roosevelt commented that there have been additional requests during the past year. If the Board does decide to proceed with ~ural addition requests, it should advertise and allow enough time for r~ceipt of requests. Mr. Way asked Mr. Roosevelt for a brief description of the location of the three requests outlined in his letter. Mr. Roosevelt !said the first request is located off the end of Route 611. Route 611 c6ntinues out through Crozet, off Route 691, through Jarman's Gap and up the mountain. The addition is an extension off Route 611 and continues along the roadway intersecting with the Blue Ridge Parkway. The sectiOn is approximately a 0.95 mile exten- sion from the end of Route 611. The second request is lo~ated off of Route 250 West, across from 30 Bob's Restaurant. The addition would serve about six or seven homes off the north side of the road. The third ~request is off of Route 746 and continues off Route 20, south of Stony Point. This addition would serve approximately three homes. 276 October 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) Mr. Way said the issue that needs to be addressed is whether the Board wanEs.to use funds for rural additions and then decide what procedure to use. MC. Home said the Planning Commission plans to hold one or more public hearings and invite citizen requests before it begins review of the six-year plan. One consideration would be to also receive rural addition requests at that time. The Commission would then present to the Board a unified proposal along with a comparative analysis on the secondary road needs and rural addition requests. Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with the Commission doing that, but he has a problem with advertising for rural addition requests if the Board has no intention of funding them. He then asked if the situation with these roads is the same as Milton and Dunromin, where the citizens who live along the roads could be requested to help contribute. Mr. Roosevelt said he does not know. As he understands, the new interpretation for rural addition requests states that the property should be traced back to what it was in 1949. If, for example, the property was divided into ten lots and in the intervening years some of the lots are occupied, then that subdivision would be counted as if it were one parcel in 1949. i If someone lives on one of those ten lots then that person would count as the~occupant for that one parcel. He thinks that if he traces these subdivisions back to 1949, he would find that at that time the subdivision was one parcel that was then divided in which case it would not be eligible for rural addition funds. Mr. Way said the decision before the BoArd is whether to continue the policy for rural additions and what amount from the secondary roads budget to set aside. Mr. Roosevelt said at the present there is no money in the budget for rural additions. If the Board does decide to proceed with rural addi- tions, then it will be faced with financing,~whether to transfer money from a current project or set aside funds next year. Mr. Way asked what two percent of the budget would amount to. Mr. Roosevelt replied approximately $80,000. Mrs. Cooke asked how much roadway $80,000 would construct and if it is enough to cover the three projects listed. Mr. Roosevelt said it would depend on what is involved and he has not done a lot of review on the projects. Mr. Henley said he would like to see the Board go ahead and set aside the funds for next year. Mr. Way agreed and said he does not feel the money should be taken out of this year's budget. Mrs. Cooke asked when the review of the projects will begin. Mr. Roosevelt said the first step is to make sure that all outstanding requests have been received, by allowing a month or two for receiving requests. The requests are th~n sent to him and he needs some time to review the requests and then transmi~ them to the road viewers. Mrs. Cooke commented that the Transportation Safe~y Committee has a meeting scheduled in the next couple of weeks and if ithe Board wants the Committee to act as the road viewer, she would like to present it to them at the time of the meeting. Mr. Tucker commented that he f~els the County Engineer is in a better position to act as the road viewer. Mr. Bowie said he also supports proceeding with rural additions, and then offered motion for same. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Mr. Henley asked if it is necessary to state a specific amount of funds. Mr. Roosevelt replied "yes" because it has to be included in the the Six-Year Plan. Mr. Bowie then amended his motion to state that $80,000 be set aside, next year, as guidance for consideration of rural addition requests during review of the Secondary Roads Six-Year Highway Improvement Plan. Mrs. Cooke, as seconder, accepted the amended motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: , AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Way said in terms of who acts as road viewer, he feels the County Engineer would be the most efficient. Mrs. Cooke offered motion that the County Engineer be designated the road viewer for the projects. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. October 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) Mr. Way asked what efforts will be made to notify citizens that the Board will review these requests. Mr. Home said the Commission could add this as one of the categories of potential road improvement requests and incorporate it into the six-year process. This would allow the Board to see the secondary needs and the requests for rural additions and then decide how much funding to set aside. Mr. Home said this will be advertised in the newspapers. There being no objections from Board members, Mr. Way authorized Mr. Horne to proceed. Mr. Roosevelt said he will wait until all of the requests are received and will then get back with the County Engineer for a recommendation to be brought to the Board. Agenda ItemNo. 7. Introduction of Youth-In-Government Day Students. Mr. Way welcomed the students present from Albemarle High School for Youth in Government Day and invited them to make comments, if they so desired. He then introduced the following students: Gary Trader, Shanna Barton, Jim Simpson, William Tucker, Kendra Brown, William W. Roberts and Rebecca Lin. Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Discussion of a Policy for Donated Right of Way on Secondary Roads. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandums from the County Executive to the Board dated October 8, 1987, and from the Planning'iDirector to the County Executive, dated October 2, 1987, respectively: "The Virginia Department of Transportation has requested their Resident Engineer's to determine within each residency, Board of Supervisors' philosophy regarding donated and/or purdhase of right- of-way ~along graveled secondary roads. Our planning ~staff has rew[ewed this matter and contacted other localities to determine their policy for handling right-of-way for improvement projects. Currently, the County has not been receptive to purchasing right- of-way by those who benefit from the improvement. For major recon- struction or realignment improvements, it has been necessary, at times, to purchase additional right-of-way. This same general policy has 'been followed by other localities. Staff would recommend that we maintain our current policy regarding right-of-way donation/purchase as follows: Necessary right-of-way for gravel road improvement projects must be donated by the adjoining property owners~ of the proposed project (the County may consider right-of-way purchase or condemnation if the right-of-way is hot donated and there is a clear, demonstrable danger to public safety); Purchase of necessary right-of-way will be considered by the County for major reconstruction and/or realignment improvement projects on a case-by-case basis. Criteria for considering right-of-way purchase for both gravel road improvement and major reconstruction projects can be developed for your approval on November 11, 1987, if you wish the staff to do so." "This Department was requested to investigate the policies of other counties concerning the condemnation and/or purchase Of right-of-way for secondary road improvement projects. We divided our discussion with other counties into two categories of roadway projects. The first being gravel road projects and the second being~other more extensive secondary road construction projects. It has been the past policy of the Albemarle County Bdard of Super- visors that they did not wish to use secondary road improvement funds for the purchase of right-of-way for any gravel road improvement project. Right-of-way has been purchased, however, for major road reconstruction or construction of roads on new alignments. This October 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) Department contacted Chesterfield County, Roanoke County, and Hanover County to discuss this question. Ail the above counties have used this same general policy. In discussions with the Planning Depart- ments it appears that the concerns were. similar to those here. The main concern being that if purchase of right-of-way for gravel road improvements were to begin, it would lead to a decrease in voluntary donation and would begin to be a major cost item in the projects. These counties have, therefore, not used secondary road funds for the purchase of right-of-way on any gravel road improvement projects. They have used these funds for right-of.'way purchase on major recon- struction projects. This Department would recommend that this continue to be the policy in Albemarle County. If the Board chooses to establish a procedure for the use of secon- dary road improvement funds on gravel r~ad projects, this Department feels that it should only be done in the most extreme cases where there is a demonstrable danger to publi~ health and safety. There should be few roadways in the County where such a demonstration can be made. Many times the impetus for requests for these projects is due to increased traffic on a roadway from new residential construc- tion. It is conceivable that in some instances due to severe pro- blems with the alignment and width of a!particular roadway that this increased traffic could begin to endanger public health or safety. It would be possible to establish a criteria under which the Board would make direct findings as to the ne~d for a particular project in reference to public health and safety, iSuch criteria may include such measures as existing and anticipated traffic volumes. Such a criteria system would have to be carefully constructed so as not to set unacceptable precedents for the widespread use of these funds. It is also the staff's opinion that such a system would be somewhat arbitrary. Purchase of right-of-way for major reconstruction projects or road realignments is working quite well in ALbemarle County at this time. When road plans are clearly defined for.the staff to use in solicit- ing right-of-way dedication or reservation as development continues along a roadway, this is being done on a regular basis. The purchase of other additional right-of-way for these projects is an accepted practice in all the above counties and ~ believe is the most practi- cal method to proceed in this county. I would like to reiterate that the staff recommendation is that we continue with the present policy of not ~urchasing right-of-way on gravel road projects, but allowing for much purchase on major recon- struction projects. Should the Board d~cide to adopt criteria for the purchase of right-of-way on gravel road projects, staff would be happy to attempt to draft an acceptable criteria system. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me." Mr. Agnor noted receipt of the following letter, dated September 4, 1987, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Highway Engineer, which brought this matter to the Board's attention: "As part of an internal review of the Department's management respon- sibility, the question of the policy on secondary right of way has come up. Each Resident Engineer has been directed to discuss this matter with the Boards of Supervisors in his residency to determine the Board's philosophy concerning secondaryright of way. More specifically I am concerned with the Board's philosophy concerning donated right of way and/or the purchase-of right of way along gravel secondary roads. I request that this matter be scheduled for an early Board meeting so that the issue can be discussed and the Board's position determined. It appears that the Department is prepared to follow each individual Board's decisions concerning secondary right of way. If the Board wishes to embark upon a policy of paying for all secondary right of way, I believe the Department will abide by their decision. It may Z79 October 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) be that the Board wishes to develop certain guidelines as to when right of way will be purchased or accepted on donation. These are the issues on which I request the Board review." Mr. Bowie asked if the Highway Department will use its funds for purchase of right-of-way, i~r. Roosevelt said the secondary road funds allocated to Albemarle Countya~o use as it desirea. He believes thatthe Highway Depart- ment is just the "guardian" of those funds. He feels that the Highway Depart- ment has, in the past, exceeded its authority by convincing the Board not to build a project if right-of-way is not donated. Although there will be no additional funds available, if the Board wants to use secondary funds for purchase of right-of-way, it can do so. Mr. St. John asked if the Board wanted to proceed with condemnation, who actually conducts the proceeding. Mr. Roosevelt replied the Highway Depart- ment, as has been done in the past. Mr. Way commented that with the number of road needs in the County, if the Board decides to purchase right-of-way, all of the funds would be used for that purpose with nothing left for the road construction. Mr. Bowie said he concurs with Mr. Way. Mr. Way said he supports the staff's recommendations. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to maintain the Board's current policy regard- ing right-of-way donation and/or purchase on secondary roads as follows: Necessary right-of-way for gravel road improvement projects must be donated by the adjoining property owners of the proposed project (the County may consider right-of-way purchase or condemnation if the right- of-way is not donated and there is a clear demonstrable danger to public safety); Purchase of necessary right-of-way will be considered by the County for major reconstruction and/or realignment improvement projects on a case by case basis. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 6c. Other Highway Matters from the Board or the Public. Mrs. Cooke asked when the Department will install a stop light on Rio Road near the Northfields entrance. Mr. Roosevelt said there have been no additional studies since the last discussion on the matter, but he will talk with his traffic engineers to see about getting a study scheduled. Mr. Bowie said Board members received a copy of a letter, dated October 7 1987, addressed to the School Board, signed by PTO Presidents from Jack Jouett Middle School, Albemarle High School and Hollymead Elementary. The letter concerns what these persons consider a dangerous situation at school bus stops on Route 29 North, particularly at Ridgewood Mobile Estates. He would like staff to be aware of the letter and to insure that it is followed through and the chairpersons receive a proper response. Mr. Agnor said the Highway Department will be holding a citizens informa- tion and participation meeting on the improvements on Rou%e 631 (Fifth Street Extended) on Thursday, October 22, 1987, from 4:00 P.M. until 8:00 P.M. at the Holiday Inn South on Fifth Street. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: Extension of AlBemarle County Service Authority water service areas to include Parcels I~llB and 112, Tax Map 55, Yancey Lumber Company. (Advertised in the Daily Progr~ess on September 19 and October 6, 1987.) Z80 October 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) Mr. Horne said to reiterate the request, Yancey Lumber Company is located at Yancey's Mill on Route 250 West. The parcels around this property are provided with water to existing structures only, therefore, waterlines would be reasonably available to the property. There are presently no waterlines on the property. The primary reason for this request is to alleviate a problem with firefighting. There have been a series!of expensive fires at the site and it has been difficult to get fire equipment and water to the site due to the site's configuration. Although this would be an extension of water service beyond growth area boundaries, it would be to an existing industry which somewhat diffuses the potential for setting a precedent. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan mentions extension of!water for economic development in anticipation of encouraging the continued vitality of existing industry. The staff has no problem from a growth management point of granting this request. The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Sarah May, representing the appli- cant, said there have been several dangerous fires, with one a major fire consisting of a $300,000 loss in buildings and equipment, and a six month loss of production, layoffs and sales. The closest fire hydrant is approximately one-half mile and there is no other access t~ water in the area. A major fire requires the use of a lot of trucks and ties~up four lanes of traffic near the intersection of I64 and Route 250. This type of business requires precaution and planning to prevent fire. In a letter from the Fire Department, it states that a lumber yard is rated as a high hazard~type of business which means the size of the fire could grow to be substantial in size in a short period of time due to the amount of combustible material. Public water would provide them with better protection, would enable the installation of fire hydrants, would eliminate the problem of long distances for connection of hoses, and the delay time in setting up and blocking traffic. There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Henley offered motion to extend the water service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include parcels illB and 112, Tax Map 55, Yancey Lumber Company at Yancey's Mill on Route 250.West. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley andiMr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 9. Request: Support of Scenic River Designation for a portion of the Rivanna River. Ms. Kat Imhoff, Piedmont Environmental Council, was present to support Friends of Albemarle Rivers, an ad hoc group of Albemarle citizens and riparian owners. She said the request before the Board is to support state scenic river designation of a section of the Rivanna River. Ms. Imhoff presented a report (on file) prepared by Friends of Albemarle Rivers, dated September, 1987, outlining the request, an explanation of state scenic river designation and the process for obtaining designation. The closest Virginia scenic river to Albemarle County is a 26 mile portion of the Rivanna River in Fluvanna County. The General Assembly will be considering state designation for the Moorman's River in the 1988 session, .and if the Board endorses this request, this portion of the Rivanna River will also be considered at the 1988 session. Ms. Imhoff then explained what state designation does and does not do for the river and landowners. A meeting, where all riparian owners were invited, was held in May, 1986 and there was no opposition to the proposal. This river is noted in the Comprehensive Plan as a potential state scenic river. The river is a recreational resource iand is historically significant. (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 10:24 A.M.) Mr. Tom Blue said he is present to support the request. Mr. James King said he lives in the City, and is also present to support the request. The Rivanna River is a resource for the people in the City as well as the people in the County. He was involved with the cleanup day on the Rivanna River and was impressed with its importance. October 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) Mr. Way noted a letter received from the Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association supporting this request. Mr. Agnor commented that State law requires that an agency be designated as administering agency for state scenic river designation, and he suggested that the Board be designated as such and then could delegate the responsibi- lity to another agency. Mr. Bowie said he supports this project and then offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby endorse the designation of the Rivanna River from the Woolen Mills Dam to the Albemarle-Fluvanna County line as a State Scenic River and respectively requests the General Assembly to approve such designation; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors be designated as administrative agency. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Not Docketed. The Board members introduced themselves to the students present for Youth-In-Government Day. Agenda Item No. 10. Gypsy Moth Committee Report. Mr. Agnor introduced Mr. Charles Goodman, Extension Agent and Coordinator of the Gypsy Moth Committee. For information, it was reported to the Board about a year ago that gypsy moths were moving through Virginia from the northeastern part of the United States and that it was necessary to develop a plan for dealing with the moths. Mr. Goodman presented a slide presentation. He said the Gypsy Moth Committee is comprised of forestry agents, citizens of the county, environ- mentalists, farmers, etc. The Committee has met twice, including a tour of the Blue Ridge Parkway this summer, to review some of the'damage. A written report will be presented to the Board in November along with budget guidelines for the next three to four years. He then presented a slide presentation on the background of gypsy moths, the number of moths in Albemarle County and what's anticipated for the future. Mr. Goodman said once'an area is quaran- tined, the State does not survey the area. Burlap bags ace an inexpensive way to detect gypsy moths, costing four cents each which the Extension Service will pay for half and citizens pay two cents each. The b~gs are stapled to the trees. As the larvae move down the tree during the day time, they crawl under these patches on the trees and can be checked on a daily basis. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the sprays identified in the Jlide presentation are harmful to animals or people. Mr. Goodman said Demol~n, which is most frequently used and good at controlling gypsy moths, onlyikills leaf-eating caterpillars. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Demolin could be used near the reser- voir. Mr. Goodman replied "no" because the Demolin does affect crayfish, lobster and crab and the half life of Demolin in the soil~is four to five days. In areas such as the reservoir, it would be recommended to use BT. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the truck as shown in the presentation !can be contracted by a private citizen. Mr. Goodman said the State presently has one truck it uses to spray and will only deal with the locality through the Icoordinator. An individual citizen may contract with anyone to spray, but Ne hopes that can be avoided because some of the sprays that may be used are undesirable and affect other insects besides the gypsy moth. Mrs. Cooke asked if information is available for individual landowners to educate themselves about gypsy moths. Mr. Goodman said material has been 282 October 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) developed and is on order. He hopes to have kits available at the November Board meeting. These kits will be for public use and show how to detect gypsy moths, what to do if they are detected and who to call. The kit will include burlap bags and a male moth trap. There will also be a bulletin, in color, from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, listing those trees most susceptible and their life cycle. Mr. Lindstrom asked how responses are made to citizens who are concerned about spraying. Mr. Goodman said the State requires two letters be sent to each area where spraying is planned. He also does a presentation for the benefit of those persons explaining the type of spray being used. The Chairman called a recess at 10:55 A~M. The Board reconvened at 11:05 A.M. Agenda Item No. 11. Annnat-Repert*-~-~=-Ptanning-B~s~r~a~-8emmism~on~ This report was not ready, so will be presented at a later date. Agenda Item No. 12a. Appropriation: Animal Control, Funding for addi- tional officer. Mr. Agnor said that an appropriation of $31,039 is requested to fund the salary of an additional Animal Control Officer from November 1 through June 1988, as authorized by the Board at its meeting on September 9. The position has been advertised and should be filled by November 1, 1987. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $31,039 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund balance for the purpose of funding the salary of an additional Animal Control Officer; and FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is effective this date. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henleyl Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12b. Piedmont Council df the Arts. Mr. Agnor said that the County of AlbemJrle was awarded a $5,000 Local Government Challenge Grant by the Virginia Commission for the Arts in June, 1987. Of this amount, $4,250 has been received, with the balance of $750 to be received upon filing of a financial report by June 20, 1988. These funds are for the Piedmont Council of the Arts and the appropriation must be made before disbursement of the ftunds. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $5,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund for the Piedmont Council of the Arts; and FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is effective this date. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 13. Scottsville Rescue Squad - Allocation Agreement. 2. 83 October 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum from his office, dated September 28, 1987: "Funding was approved and appropriated in the 1987 Five-Year Capital Improvement Program-budget in the amount of $25,000 to purchase an ambulance for the Scottsville Rescue Squad. An advanced allocation agreement has-been prepared by the County Attorney's office which provides for the Scottsville Rescue Squad to pay back $5000 per year for the next five years from the County's annual contribution. For FY 87/88 the County contribution is $18,21o. You are respectfully requested to take official action authorizing the Chairman to execute the contract." Mrs. Cooke offered motion to authorize the Chairman to execute the following agreement: THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of October, 1987, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), and the SCOTTSVILLE RESCUE SQUAD, INC. ("Scottsville"); WITNESS ETH: That for and in consideration of the operation by Scottsville of a rescue squad company to protect human life during the period of this agreement and the purchase by Scottsville of a 1987 Ford Horton '301-P Professional Series Ambulance for use by Scottsville during the period of this agreement, the County has paid to Scottsvilte Twenty- five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00). Henceforth, the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) per year shall be withheld each year from the County's annual grant to Scottsville, for a period of five (5) years, beginning with fiscal year 1987-88, and extending through fiscal year 1991r92, so that at the end of the fifth year, which is the term of this:service agree- ment, a total of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) will have been withheld. If at any time during the term of this agreement, Scottsville is no longer in the business of providing rescue squad services, Scottsville covenants that it will convey its interest in the 1987 Ford Horton 301-P Professional Series Ambulance to the County at no cost to the County so long as the County or its assigns will use the property for rescue squad purposes. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom a~d Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14. Policy: Volunteer Fire Company Allocations. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum from him office, dated October 7, 1987: "The procedure for approval of an expenditure from th~ Volunteer Fire Companies building/equipment reserve is time consuming, and has become burdensome in some instances. Currently the Volunteer Company authorizes a request for funds; the request is reviewsd and recom- mended for approval by the Jefferson Country Firefighter's Associa- tion (JCFA) Finance Committee; it is then approved bylthe JCFA and forwarded to the County staff where an advanced allocation contract is drafted by the County Attorney, and the request and contract are placed on the Board of Supervisors agenda for approval. October 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) Z84 The process can require four to six months to complete depending upon cycles of meetings, and becomes burdensome when a fire company has an opportunity to purchase a fire engine as a 'stock unit' rather than a 'fabricated unit'. There are savings that can be gained buying stock units which are sometimes lost to another fire company purchasing the unit, while the County's company awaits the approval procedure. To expedite the process, staff recommends that the County Executive or his designee be authorized to execute the allocation contracts, as drafted by the County Attorney, after verification of approval by JCFA, and verification of funds available by the Director of Finance. Staff would advise the Board of each allocation by memo on the consent agenda." Mr. Henley said he does not have a problem with the staff executing the contracts, but he thinks approval should still come from the Jefferson Country Firefighter's Association Finance Committee because a lot of unnecessary equipment may start being purchased. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board only adds a couple of weeks to the process and that if there is concern with holding up.a purchase, then it seems to him the process should be expedited during the first few months of review. He thinks the the Board should be aware of these requests and have an opportunity to act on them. If a situation arises that is an emergency, the Board does has the option to call a special meeting. He also does not think that it is an automatic process that the money is available. He also agrees with Mr. Henley that removing review by the Board allows the temptation to purchase unnecessary equipment. Mr. Henley said the fire companies should be able to anticipate their needs six months in advance which would allow time for approval. The process needs to remain so the fire companies~must look at their needs. Mr. Lindstrom commented that a truck should not be purchased just because it is a good deal, but purchased because there is a need for itt He is uncomfortable with not bringing these requests before the Board for~review. Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with a change in policy, but if the system needs to be expedited, it should be done before reaching the Board. Mr. Henley again said he thinks the companies should look at their needs and anticipate those needs instead of changing the process. Mrs. Cooke said she thinks review by th~ Board is necessary and if removed could set up an incentive to get "eqUipment happy". This could send a wrong signal and she thinks it should remain. She also does not think a little extra time will cost a substantial amount of money or cause an undue burden. If there is a real need, then the Board will respond appropriately. There being no further discussion, the matter was dropped. Agenda Item No. 15. Report: Status ofiFlea Market on Route 250 East. Mr. St. John said the flea market on RoUte 250 East is gradually being phased out and the proprietor is now operating his flea market in Greene County. Mr. Bowie commented that someone was in the same place Saturday and Sunday operating a flea market. Mr. St. John said the use at this location is a pre-existing, nonconforming use and legally a user can conform to the level that existed before zoning. Mr. Lindstrom then asked that the Zoning Adminis- trator look at the present operation at the Site, advise the County Attorney of his findings and decide if the use is within the nonconforming use entitled to and report back to the Board on November 11. Mr. Bowie said he concurs with Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 16. Discussion: Operating Budget Format. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum from his office, dated October 8, 1987: October 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) "Attached for your review and consideration is an example of a revised budget format, which staff is proposing for the FY 1988-89 budget. It is felt that this revised format will provide all the relevant information to the Board and to the public, but in a much more readable and understandable document. The Department of Inspec- tions FY 1986-87 budget request is attached as an example of last year's budget format for your comparison with the revised format. When comparing the two budget formats two major differences arise. One, the line item narratives have been replaced by a budget overview section, which lists only the significant increases or decreases in the budget, and any major program expansions or additions in person- nel and capital. This section would be expandable for larger depart- ments and/or major program changes, i.e. the Police Department last year. The second major change is the summary sheet of expenditures, reve- nues, and personnel that replaces the line item computer printout. It is felt that this format, which shows all major changes on one sheet will provide a better overall picture of a department or an agency budget. You will notice that the proposed department format does not include the lists of capital equipment, vehicles, membership~dues or travel expenses. Although lists of capital and vehicle requests will not be located in an individual department request, summary sheets by function and department of all capital equipment, vehicles, and new personnel requests will be included in a separate section. The sheets for travel, conferences and membership dues and sub- scriptions, which will still be submitted by departments for staff analysis, would be available in a separate binder should any Board member want this information. The line item narratives submitted to staff would also be available in this separate bindet. This proposed format has been developed after examining budget processes in several localities. Your reaction to tie change is solicited, and your approval or endorsement is requested." Mr. Bowie commented that one major change is showing revenues generated by a department being listed on the same page as the expenditures and then showing the net total required for that budget. Mr. Agnor said that is correct which also provides the Board with a summary. Mr~ Lindstrom commented that he feels this information will be helpful to him. Mr. Agnor then summarized the attachments to his memorandum, as outlined above, and explained the changes from last year and the pqrpose of the changes Mr. Way said he feels positive about this new format and thinks that anyway to simplify all the information received will be a benefit. : Mr. Bowie said he thinks the Board should proceed with this change. This procedure will allow the Board to concentrate on the major items. He thinks that this change could help the Board as long as all the other information is available in case there is a question about the details of an item. He then asked if this proposed format has been discussed with the School Division or if their format will be different. Mr. Agnor said he has discussed this with Mr. Overstreet and will follow-up that discussion after today's meeting. He will request that the School Division follow this format. Mr. Bowie said he thinks that is important. Another comment he would like to make concerns zero-based budgeting which he would like to see implemented. He does feel that this type of proposed review is a step in that direction. Mr. Lindstrom said he is in agreement with Mr. Bowie's comments. He also would like to see zero-based budgeting undertaken. Mr. Agnor said, after discussions with other localities, the primary problem he has found is that the basic function of the department does not change and therefore they are just reinforcing previous requests. Also other localities are moving away from the zero-based budgeting and only examining expandingior changing pro- grams. This type of budget generates volumes of information that is not of October 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) practical use. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board has the option to selectively request a department to present a zero-based budget. Mr. Agnor said a zero- based budget does remove a sense of complacency. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the Board should periodically request that zero-based budgets be prepared. Mr. Bowie said he has participated in zero-based budgeting at both the local government level and private industry level and found that it involves a certain amount of minimum expense and takes several years for installation. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to endorse the proposed budget format changes. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 17. Recess for Lunch. Agenda Item No. 18. Executive Session: Personnel. At 11:51 A.M., Mr. Way suggested that the Board break for lunch with the students until 12:45 P.M., at which time the Board will adjourn into Executive Session for discussion of personnel, and reconvene at 1:30 P.M. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion for same. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie. Mr. Henley asked that the Board take up other matters before the vote, as he would have to leave after the Executive Session. Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and the Public. Mr. Agnor said he is in the process of preparing the agenda for the joint meeting with the School Board for next Wednesday and if any Board member had an item to add, they should let him know. Mr. Agnor said tax tickets will be mailed on Friday, October 16. Included with the tax tickets are explanations of the business license tax, tax relief for the elderly and handicapped and payment of dog licenses. Roll was then called and the previous motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley~ Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 1:35 P.M. Agenda Item No. 19. Appointment: Board of Supervisors member to fill vacant Samuel Miller District seat. Mr. Way said he believes the process the Board followed for this appoint- ment was as fair as possible. The Board received information from more than 700 people through calls and letters. He personally would have much preferred an open general election because this candidate is supposed to be the best representative of the people in the Samuel Miller District. The Board has worked hard and diligently and chosen the candidate it feels is best for the job. All seven candidates were thoroughly discussed and everyone's first choice was not the same. There was debate, however, there has been a consen- sus reached on the part of the Board members!and as a result of that consensus there will be only one nomination made for this position. He then opened the floor for nomination to fill the vacancy on the Board of Supervisors. October 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) Mrs. Cooked offered motion to appoint Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. to fill the vacant Samuel Miller District seat on the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Way asked for comments by Board members. There being none, roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. (Mr. Henley left the meeting at 1:40 P.M.) Mr. St. John commented that the Clerk is to prepare a certified copy of the resolution appointing Mr. Bain and have it delivered to the Clerk of the Circuit Court in order that Mr. Bain may be qualified and sworn. Agenda Item No. 21. Tour: Virginia Power Building on Fifth Street. Mr. Way encouraged Board members to take part in the tour of the new Virginia Power facility. Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn to October 21, 1987, at 3:30 P.M., Room 5. Mr. Bowie offered motion to adjourn to October 21, 1987 at 3:30 P.M. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley.