HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-10-06October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
October 8, 1986 at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room ~7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., and C. Timothy Lindstrom.
BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Peter T. Way.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Frederic W. Payne,
Deputy County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Develop-
ment.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 9:01 A.M. by the
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Bowie moved to approve Item 4.1, delete Item
4.2 for discussion at a later date, and accept the rest of the items on the Consent Agenda as
information. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Item 4.1. Right-of-Way Dedication for Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. Approved as
requested and outlined on a plat dated August 26, 1986, drawn by Roudabush, Greene and Gale,
Inc., File No. 6951.
"Proposal: Dedication of additional right-of-way on Route 606 at the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport.
Location: The dedication will be on Route 606 at the new entrance to the
airport (terminal).
Staff Comment: This proposed dedication is required as part of the improve-
ments to the airport. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta-
tion is requiring this dedication in order to establish a deceleration lane
at this entrance. Since this improvement is not directly related to an
approved site plan, the agent for the Board of Supervisors cannot sign the
plat until the Board has accepted this dedication. The Highway Department
has reviewed and approved the plat showing this dedication. Staff recom-
mends acceptance of this dedication."
re:
Item 4.2. Letter dated September 26, 1986 from Ray D. Pethtel, Highway Commissioner,
"Charlottesville Bypass". Contents to be discussed at a later date.
"I am in receipt of a September 11, 1986, letter from Miss Lettie E. Neher,
Clerk, Board of Supervisors, with which she enclosed a copy of the
"Charlottesville/Albemarle Highway By-pass Committee Statement." In the
letter she stated that the Board of Supervisors took official action to
accept the report.
As you are aware, the Department in developing construction plans for the
widening of Route 29 has been receiving input from the county staff and has
incorporated changes in the design to address county concerns where practi-
cal and feasible. It is our goal, as yours, to minimize all negative
impacts.
Additionally, our transportation planning staff is actively working with the
county staff to develop a microcomputer traffic assignment model that,
hopefully, will provide a better analysis technique to evaluate the impacts
of future development along Route 29 as well as the growth in through
traffic. We anticipate approving a consultant contract in the near future
that will provide the county staff the resources to accomplish this effort.
At this time, however, it is our opinion that the current project to widen
Route 29 will not adequately serve the future traffic needs in the Route 29
corridor. In the next year, as our staff and the county staff work together
in developing the microcomputer model, perhaps a clearer picture of our
long-range traffic concerns will evolve. During this effort, we will
continue to analyze the desirability and impacts of bypasses as well as
additional improvements to existing Route 29.
It is my hope that we can develop a transportation plan that recognizes and
adequately addresses statewide needs and at the same time incorporates local
needs and desires.
We look forward to working with the Board of Supervisors and county staff in
resolving this critical issue."
October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 2
0!7
Item 4.3. Memorandum dated September 29, 1986, from Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Execu-
tive, entitled "Five-Year Vehicle Operation Costs - Sheriff's Department", received as
information.
"Several counties (Pittsylvania and Campbell) are attempting to get the
State of Virginia to participate in the cost of replacement vehicles for
their Sheriff's Department. The State now participates on a per mile basis
at 20 cents per mile on the first 3000 miles per vehicle, then 15 cents on
all miles over the first 3000 miles.
The five year period on the attached schedules covers two years operation
when the Sheriff's Department was responsible for law enforcement, one year
operation when the transition took place, and two years operation when the
Sheriff was responsible for only court security and paper serving.
The second chart (miles driven by Sheriff's Department) shows a reduction in
actual cost per mile from 31 cents in FY 83-84 to 11 cents in FY 85-86.
This is due in part to use of all compact cars, lower speeds, and much lower
costs of fuel. These costs are inclusive of operational costs plus the
costs of replacement vehicles.
This memo is for information only and requires no action.
SHERIFF AUTOMOBILE OPERATION SURVEY
SUBJECT: LOSS SUBSTANTIAL BETWEEN THE EXPENSES AND THE REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE USE OF VEHI-
CLES
TIME PERIOD
July 81-June 82
July 82-June 83
July 83-June 84
July 84-June 85
July 85-June 86
Total
FISCAL YEAR INCOME
$112,016.00
198,067.08
79,611.63
108,918.00(1)
38~132.72
$536,745.43
FISCAL YEAR EXPENSES
$244,315.26
241,270.15
191,482.04
21,084.65
23~404.68
$721,556.78
ACTUAL ANNUAL LOSS
<$132,299.26>
<43,203.07>
<11!,870.41>
87,833.35
14~728.04
<$184,811.34>
(1) Approximately $50,000 was reimbursement of prior year expenses by the State Compensa-
tien Board.
SUBJECT: MILEAGE DRIVEN BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT PER FISCAL YEAR
FISCAL YEAR
TIME PERIOD EXPENSES + MILEAGE DRIVEN
July 81-June 82
July 82-June 83
July 83-June 84
July 84-June 85
July 85-June 86
ACTUAL OPERATIONAL
= COST PER MILE
$244,315.26 919,808.0 .26
241,270.15 939,471.0 .25
191,482.04 602,672.0 .31
21,084.65 176,625.0 .11
23,404.68 176,434.0 .13
SUBJECT: OPERATIONAL COST OF THE VEHICLES USED IN THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT PER FISCAL YEAR
TIME PERIOD
July 81-June 82
July 82-June 83
July 83-June 84
July 84-June 85
July 85-June 86
REPLACEMENT GASOLINE, OIL PARTS, LABOR TOTAL
OF VEHICLES AND OTHERS AND OTHERS INSURANCE AMOUNT
117,486.54 81,331.33 29,260.59 16,236.80 244,315.26
124,237.15 75,362.00 26,286.00 15,385.00 241,270.15
89,667.04 65,467.00 28,062.00 8,286.00 191,482.04
6,754.95 8,489.00 3,741.00 2,099.70 21,084.65
7,218.59 5,990.01 3,857.65 6,338.43 23,404.68
Item 4.4. Letter dated September 12, 1986, from Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway
Engineer, enclosing a copy of the 1985-86 Secondary Improvement Budget Fiscal Summary.
Received as information.
"In accordance with the Code of Virginia I am submitting to the Board of
Supervisors a fiscal summary of the expenditures for improvements on the
secondary system in Albemarle County.
The attached listing indicates the expenditures by route. In instances
where specific improvement projects were involved, the project number and a
brief location description is included. Total expenditures for improvements
on the secondary system during the last year amounted to $538,871.02. This
leaves the improvement fund with a balance of $3,302,302.95. Although this
is a large balance, projects currently under construction or advertisement
should expend approximately $1.8 million of this money by the end of the
current fiscal year. I anticipate that other projects, estimated to cost
$1.5 million, will be advertised between this date and July 1, 1987.
I request that this letter and the fiscal summary be distributed to the
members of the Board of Supervisors. As in the past, I will be glad to
answer their questions concerning this report at some future meeting if they
desire."
Item 4.5.
information.
Copy of Planning Commission minutes for September 23, 1986, was received as
018
October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting_)
Page_3_
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: October 3, 1984. Mr. Lindstrom had read pages
6 through 11 and found two typographical errors, and Mr. Bowie had read pages 17 through 22.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve the minutes read. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
None.
Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters. Relocation of Route 678 at intersection with
Route 250 West in Ivy. The following memorandum from the County Executive, dated October 1,
1986, was received.
"Attached is a proposed resolution of request to the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation (VDH&T) for the relocation of Route 678 with
Route 250 West. The only change in the resolution from that suggested by
the VDH&T is the assignment of responsibility for administering right-of-way
acquisition. Mr. Roosevelt has suggested that this be accomplished by
County staff which would avoid a public hearing by the Highway Department
and move the project along more quickly. Staff is of the opinion that
right-of-way clearance should be handled by the VDH&T since they have staff
more familiar with this process. Although the process may take longer if
the Highway Department personnel handles the right-of-way clearance, staff
does not feel that the timing on this project is critical."
Mr. Agnor discussed the proposed resolution, recommending that the resolution be favor-
ably considered and the process get started for the construction of the roadway. He said
that at one time it was thought that this project was important to the time frame of the
development of the Meriwether Lewis School. The staff's position is that this project was
planned a long time before the Meriwether Lewis School project was conceived, but it is a
needed highway project and was given impetus by the Meriwether Lewis School plans. He wanted
to emphasize that they do not believe the fact that the Highway Department has the hearing
and takes more time to acquire the right-of-way is a critical matter.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt said they would handle the right-of-way work if that is what the
county wants them to do, but he is not certain they can keep away from the public hearing
requirements.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following resolution.
motion.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan has proposed the
relocation of Route 678 as it intersects with U. S. Route 250 West in Ivy,
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, based upon review by the Albemarle County Engineer and the
Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation,
the County of Albemarle has determined that the relocation of Route 678 near
its intersection with U. S. Route 250 West is preferable to the reconstruc-
tion. of the existing road and that the location proposed is the most feasi-
ble alternative available.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta-
tion is hereby requested to participate in the cost of construction and to
administer the acquisition of right-of-way for the project; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle will participate in
the cost of construction, be responsible for the preparation of road plans
and incur the cost of right-of-way acquisition for the project; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors requests that the
Department of Highways and Transportation accept the new location into the
State Secondary System once final design is approved, right-of-way obtained
and construction is completed.
There was no further discussion, so roll was called and the motion carried with the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENCES: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters. Environmental Impact Assessment of a Western
Bypass. The following memorandum, dated October 2, 1986, was received from the County
Executive.
"At your meeting on September 10, 1986, you requested staff to consider and
give you suggestions as to how to develop a study regarding the impact a
western bypass would have on the South Fork Rivanna River watershed. Staff
has discussed the matter with several people and requested information and
studies relating to highway impacts on reservoir watersheds.
Staff would recommend that you consider appointing a committee or task force
whose membership would consist of both city and county representatives
similar to the Eastern Bypass Committee. This policy group would be charged
with developing a scope of study for the impact assessment and direct the
019
October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 4
preparation of the final report. While some of this information can be
developed 'in-house', it is staff opinion that the majority of the report
will necessitate outside expertise."
Mr. Agnor discussed this issue with the Board. He suggested forming a study committee.
This should indicate to the Highway Department that the locality is concerned enough to begin
its own impact study. It would also mean that the information that is needed would require
that information be received from the Highway Department on corridors that are being studied.
And, it would provide this Board and the City Council with details of the information which
would be used in terms of coordination and consultations with the State Highway Department.
He said they had learned there are several people at the University who would be interested
in assisting in such a study. He recommended that the Board consider creating this committee
and made suggestions as to who should be involved on the technical committee which would be
used as support.
Mrs. Cooke asked how a committee could make a study of the environmental impact as
related to the specific site if they don't know what that specific site is, and how is the
information obtained? Mr. Agnor answered that if a committee comprised of the county gov-
erning body and officials of this locality want to study the impact on our watershed, they
would need to obtain from the Highway Department what corridors were being considered.
Mr. Lindstrom said that since there are two routes known, the committee could consider a
study of those and probably there would be some carryover of validity of those studies to the
region.
Mrs. Cooke then stated that the Highway Department keeps talking about a Charlottesville
bypass and they seem to have specific routes in mind. If they have their environmental
studies, could these studies be made available to the County?
Mr. Agnor said the Highway Department will do its own study and it's public information.
He understood that the Board's directive to the staff was to determine how the locality could
have its own information. Mr. Fisher said the County must try to determine whether it should
try to influence the location rather than wait until a route is selected.
Mrs. Cooke asked why waste a lot of time, energy and money doing environmental impact
studies. She doesn't understand why the Highway Department can't inform the county what is
being considered.
Mr. Bowie agreed with Mrs. Cooke, and said he was concerned about hiring an outside
consultant when the route is not definite. He feels the committee should pressure the
Highway Department to tell them where the bypass will be built and then do the study.
Mr. Fisher stated that if the county has any influence as to locations, information will
have to be obtained as to what would be the most damaging to the community. He feels the
Highway Department will not do the impact study until they know exactly where the bypass will
go, and that will be too late for the County to influence the location.
Mr. Lindstrom said the City had expressed a skepticism about the extent of an environ-
mental impact from a bypass built in a watershed. The County had an in-house report drafted
which was not too convincing, so the information is not at hand to work with the City. He
believes the City is receptive to support the County's concern and opposition to having a
western bypass, if they can see some data to justify that position. He is in favor of asking
the Highway Department where the road will be built, because he feels that at the point where
the Department determines where the route will be, they will be so far committed that it will
be very difficult to dissuade them. He feels that by going to an outside independent consul-
tant, they will get the results they need and find out if there is a problem. He thinks that
if this is not done, then the County can forget about having influence over what is going to
happen.
Mr. Henley said he would not support the study unless he knows the route. If the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority wants to study the environmental impact, that's fine with
him.
Mrs. Cooke said that there should be some way to require the Highway Department to do an
environmental impact study before it determines where a route will go.
Mr. Lindstrom said that even if the Highway Department does the study, he does not think
it will be the quality of an assessment that the County can rely on. Mr. Lindstrom said that
in his dealings with the Highway Department, he was informed that the Department is being
pressured to build a bypass and in the western part of the County. In response to the
concerns about the watershed, the Commissioner said that they know how to take care of those
problems. Mr. Lindstrom doesn't want to rely on people who have not seen any kind of an
environmental impact study.
Mrs. Cooke said she does not necessarily want the Highway Department to do an impact
study, but she does want a study of the locality being considered.
Mr. Fisher said that the purpose of the Highway Department in any environmental study is
to justify why the road is going to be built where it is to be built. It will be for state-
wide transportation interests. If the locality does not do a study, the problems will not be
dealt with adequately. He feels that what Mr. Agnor recommends is correct and he supports
it. The first step should be to set up a joint committee with the City to talk about how to
go about evaluating an impact.
Mr. Bowie said there is no doubt in his mind that the Highway Department knows exactly
what it is going to do, and there is no way to block them. But, he thinks the localities
should try to work with them, He will support the formation of the committee to start
working with the Highway Department. He feels that some kind of aggressive action is needed.
020
October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting.)
Paqe 5
Mrs. Cooke said she would support Mr. Bowie's statement, because she does not feel that
anything done independently will make any difference.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the Board is abdicating its responsibility to the public.
When this kind of committee is set up, it probably will not do a thing. He said that each
Board member has a different perspective depending on where they are located, and that is the
biggest thing that the Highway Department has going for it. He wants to work with the
Highway Department, but feels as though they have already made up their mind. He thinks that
precluding an independent study would tie the committee's hands. He believes the Highway
Department proposals will be disruptive to this community and thinks the best thing they can
do for the public is to actively and independently evaluate what is being proposed so citi-
zens will know what's happening.
Mr. Bowie mentioned that everyone is concerned about the quality of water.
committee needs to be organized and operating.
He feels the
Mr. Lindstrom said if the quality of water is really a concern, a study needs to be done
independently and in advance of the impact a major thoroughfare would have on that watershed.
He doesn't see any other way to make the assessment and also to the meaningful and effective
support of the City necessary to persuade the Highway Department.
Mr. Henley said he doesn't have any problem with setting up the committee, but he is
still opposed to trying to do it independently without working with the Highway Department.
He said he would not support a consultant until a route has been picked and feels that the
County will have more influence with the Highway Department if the Board works with them.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks Mr. Henley is correct, but at some point there may have to be
an independent evaluation. He stated that the Mayor has suggested that if there is going to
be a comunity position on a western route, that it should be jointly done. He feels that
they should at least get this started.
Mr. Fisher suggested that instead of picking a new committee that the County appoint the
same committee. Mr. Lindstrom asked that the composition of the committee that Mr. Agnor
suggested be used but left open as to who will actually be on the committee. Mr. Fisher
asked Mr. Agnor to communicate to the City the Board's decision on this issue.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve the appointment of a joint committee of the
City and County to study how the assessment of the environmental impact of a western bypass
might best be undertaken. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion so
roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENCES: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters. Assessment Procedure: Roads to be Added to State
System of Secondary Highways. The following memorandum dated October 2, 1986, was received
from the County Executive:
"In the first two projects undertaken by the staff to improve four roads for
inclusion into the State highway system, it is evident that the assessment
procedure will be required to complete one of the projects. When staff
checked with the County Attorney's office on the time involved in the
assessment procedure, they learned from Mr. Payne that it was his under-
standing in drafting the resolution that the Board did not intend to commit
itself to making assessments of property owners as a part of these projects,
and authority to use it was not included in the resolution.
Attached is a letter from Mr. Payne outlining the assessment procedure, its
criteria, three'choices for proportionate shares of each lot involved, and
an option for installment payments. It is recommended that staff be direct-
ed to report to the Board on a case-by-case basis the need for the use of
this assessment procedure, and that the discretionary decisions of propor-
tionate shares and installment payments be considered when such a report is
made to the Board. Including that directive in these four projects will
give the staff needed guidance in the matter, without obligating the Board
to use the assessment procedure."
The memorandum from Deputy County Attorney Frederic W. Payne, dated September 25, 1986
follows:
"In accordance with our discussion of this date, this will serve to outline
my understanding of the status of assessments for the improvement of certain
roads which the Board has agreed to help in bringing into the System and the
procedure for making such assessments.
It is my understanding that the Board, in adopting its resolution of Septem-
ber 10, did not intend to commit itself to making assessments of property
owners to provide for the road improvements called for in the resolution.
On the contrary, the resolution provides that the County will participate in
the cost of the improvements when one-half of the estimated cost is funded
by 'one or more' of the affected property owners. This is not say that the
Board has foreclosed the possibility of making such assessments, but I think
it is fair to say that they have not decided to do so at this time. Rather,
they have decided to allow the property owners to work this matter out among
themselves, if possible.
021
October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 6
As to the procedure which is applicable if the Board does decide to impose
assessments, I have the following comments.
The enabling legislation for such assessments is found in Virginia Code
Section 33.1-72.1. This section authorizes the County to collect money, by
voluntary contribution, by assessment in certain cases and by contribution
from the County, to bring up to state standards roads which are not in the
System. (While the statute authorizes the Highway Department to pay part of
this cost, it is my understanding that the Highway Department takes the
position that, for reasons not relevant to this discussion, this authoriza-
tion does not apply in Albemarle County. We think this probably does not
prevent the statute's being applied here except that the Highway Department
will not participate.)
The Board is not obligated to impose assessments on property owners, but it
may do so if the following criteria are satisfied:
1)
not less than 75 percent of the affected property owners agree, in
writing, to the assessment;
2)
no assessment shall exceed one-third of the assessed value of the
property; and
3)
none of the original developers retains a 'speculative interest'
in any of the lots.
Assuming that these criteria are met, the assessment is imposed so as to
raise an amount equal to one-half the total cost of the improvements. The
assessment applies to all parcels which abut (i.e., front on) the road,
whether or not the owners of all parcels agree to it.
As to the amount of the assessment, the Board has the right to choose one of
three methods for determining what proportion of the total assessment is to
be paid by each property owner:
1)
by the proportion of the tax-assessed value of each parcel to the
tax-assessed value of all the lots fronting on the road;
2)
by the proportion of each lot's frontage on the road to the total
length of the road; or
3) by an equal share for each lot.
Which of these methods to use is left to the discretion of the Board.
Under the statute, assessments maae for this purpose are to be collected as
are other assessments for public improvements under Virginia Code Section
15.1-239 et seq.. In a nutshell, the assessment is reported to the taxing
authority (i.e., the Director of Finance) and treated as are other taxes.
Notice is given to the property owners assessed, and an appeal may be taken
to the circuit court. The assessing resolution is to be recorded in the
judgment lien docket and serves as a lien on the property.
(Unless otherwise provided, the assessment is due immediately. The Board
may, in its discretion, allow the lien to be paid in installments, payable
at the same time as taxes, over a period no% to exceed 10 years, with
interest not to exceed the judgment rate, i.e., as of now, 12 percent.)
I would note that Section 33.1-72.1 does allow the Board to accept the
entire amount necessary to be paid by one or more of the affected property
owners and thereafter use the assessment process to reimburse them, without
interest, for their 'fronting' the funds."
Mr. Agnor discussed the four roads to be added to the state system of secondary high-
ways. Mr. Agnor reminded the Board that after its Public Hearing, the people left with the
impression that if the assessment procedure was needed, it was available by law. He said
these citizens are carrying that same impression in the first two projects. One is still
on track and that procedure will not be needed, but the second one (Milton Drive) will not be
that easy.
Mr. Bowie mentioned that in the paperwork there are two or three places with emphasis on
the phrase "front on." He says this has become a point of discussion on Milton Drive where
there are corner lots that have one side on a state road and one side on Milton Drive. The
house fronts on the state road and the driveway, mailbox and house face that way. Do they
have this obligation if they don't front on the road being repaired? The County Attorney's
position is that the law says "yes." Mr. Payne said that Mr. Bowie was correct.
Mr. Bowie said there is no indication that 75 percent or more of the people are willing
to pay on Milton Drive. He believes that the people were told at the meeting that if they
get half of the money, the County would get the other half.
Mr. Lindstrom said his impression was that the Board was going to make the assessment
process available if it were appropriate for a given project, and he thinks it should be
available to these people.
Mr. Fisher stated that it should be used only as a last option, and he would rather not
get into that kind of administrative situation, but he will support it, if three quarters of
the people want to do it.
022
October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Payne said that the Board hasn't closed the possibility of assessments, but could
take it up on an individual basis at an appropriate time in the future, if ever.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Board has to set the individual assessment. Mr. Payne said
"yes," and quite a few other decisions would have to be made by the Board at that time.
There was no further discussion of this agenda item.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Highway Matters. Review of 29 North Reconstruction Plans.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor to try to arrange for a briefing for the Board as to what's
being proposed.
Mr. Roosevelt said he did not bring plans with him, but said he was planning on bringing
some designers from Culpeper to do this in detail on October 15. He said he could give the
Board an outline of what's shown on the plans.
Mr. Agnor said it was his understanding that a work session would be set with the
Highway Department at this meeting if plans are available. Mr. Fisher suggested a 2:30
session on October 15 to review Route 29 North plans.
Mr. Horne said that staff does not have plans either, but hopes to receive the plans in
time to look at them before the briefing with the Board. He asked if Mr. Roosevelt had
received any further information as to when they could get plans. Mr. Roosevelt said that he
had not, but the plans in his office are available for use in his office. He said this set
of plans has been marked by location and design section based on the consolidated recommenda-
tions that have been sent forward to Richmond. They are the best information available at
this moment, but they are not the approved Public Hearing plans. He said he is not happy
with the situation now, but he thinks it is because the Department is in a transitional
period where they are trying to shorten their preliminary engineering period. He said that
one reason they have set up two pre-hearings on Monday and Wednesday prior to the Public
Hearing is to allow citizens a chance to see the plans that will be presented at the Public
Hearing.
Mr. Fisher said that Mr. Roosevelt, Mr. Armm and himself attended a meeting in Lexington
on highways and the Governor and the Secretary of Transportation talked about shortening the
process.
Mr. Roosevelt' then gave a brief report on the project. He said that the Planning Office
of the Highway Department has done its part in this project and will have no more activity in
that process. Mr. Fisher asked how many lanes the bridge over the river will have. Mr.
Roosevelt answered that the road narrows back to two lanes as it approaches the bridge. Mr.
Bowie asked if there are four lanes going south with two left turn lanes, does that mean
there will be six southbound lanes or will the four become two at that point. Mr. Roosevelt
replied that the dual left lanes are in addition to the four.
Agenda Item No. 6e. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Roosevelt said that with the passage of the budget bill by the Legislature, there
are now some preliminary figures on allocations, although projections are preliminary and
will not be totally accurate until final allocations are determined in December. There will
be an increase in revenue for the Primary System for the Culpeper District from approximately
$5,400,000 to $9,200,000 in this fiscal year. This is an increase of nearly 80 percent. Next
year they are expecting an excess of $14,500,000 or almost a 170 percent increase. The
figures for the Secondary System will go from $1,052,000 to about $1,830,000 this year. Next
year approximately $2,800,000 is anticipated.
Mr. Roosevelt said that because of these tremendous increases in funds and the fact that
the funds available in this current year are going to increase 80 to 100 percent, the Highway
Department has scheduled a set of pre-allocation hearings and a final hearing as to what to
do with this additional money. The Culpeper District meeting will be held on November 3 at
9:00 A.M. at the Culpeper District office. After the nine district hearings have been held,
the Department will put together a revised program and there will be a final hearing now
scheduled for January 15 at the central office meeting room in Richmond at 9:00 A.M.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the percentage for the allocation for gravel roads remains the
same. Mr. Roosevelt responded that the percentage increase for the gravel roads is the same.
It is $252,000 this year and it appears they will get another $190,000. Mr. Lindstrom asked
what percentage is required, and Mr. Roosevelt said that it is approximately 5.3 percent of
the total funds.
Mr. Agnor asked, that in terms of the Culpeper hearing on November 3, if the BOard would
like for the staff to review what presentation was made at the spring hearing and bring it
back to them. Mr. Fisher said "yes," that maybe Free Bridge (Route 250 East) can be moved
forward in priority.
Mr. Roosevelt reminded the Board about the new funds that were approved in the last
Legislative Session, and said that much of this money went into preliminary engineering and
planning for projects that were not in the Six Year Plan or to move up projects that were in
the plan. He said a large amount of money was put on the Route 29 project and also Free
Bridge.
Mr. Fisher brought the letter from Mr. Pethtel to the attention of the Board (see Item
4.2 on the Consent Agenda). He noted a sentence in the last paragraph on the front page
which stated" . . as our staff and the County staff work together. . . ". He said that in
reading that, he feels he should respond and tell the Highway Department that the Board wants
O23
October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Paqe 8
to work with them, and hopes they will provide the Board an opportunity to begin this dia-
logue as soon as possible.
Mr. Horne informed the Board that staff is currently very close to letting a contract on
an M.P.0. project which was submitted last year as a County project to hire a consultant to
help develop and train County and VDH&T staff to operate a microcomputer-based traffic
forecasting model. They think this will be in operation within five or six months. Mr.
Agnor brought out the fact that it will be used as projects are brought before the Board to
be considered in terms of analyzing the traffic impact of specific projects.
Mrs. Cooke said the Seminole Trail Fire Department had contacted her. They are con-
cerned that the new bridge being constructed over the railroad tracks from Huntington Road
to Free State Road will not be able to support the fire trucks that have to use it in case of
an emergency to service that area. She asked if the Highway Department can put requirements
on bridges owned by the railroad company so that the bridge will accommodate emergency
vehicles. The Fire Department has to take an entirely different route to get to that area
which slows their response time.
Mr. Roosevelt said that there is no action that the Highway Department can take to
require the railroad company to upgrade that bridge. He said the Highway Department has
probably five or six times as many bridges as the railroad has that have lower weight limits
and probably fire engines cannot cross. He noted that the one on Free State Road is espe-
cially bad. He said that the railroad had recently done repair work there and brought the
weight limit up to what it had been before, seven tons.
Mrs. Cooke asked if a major housing development should take place in that area, would
that be reason for the Highway Department to require the railroad to upgrade the bridge. Mr.
Roosevelt said the Highway Department can not require them to upgrade it, but they do have a
general agreement with most railways in this state. If the Department of Highways wants to
replace bridges that the railroad currently maintains, they are willing to pay ten percent of
the cost, but then the Highway Department has to be responsible for the maintenance of that
bridge. He said there is no legal requirement for the Highway Department to upgrade the
lower weight limit bridges that are in Albemarle and Greene Counties.
Mr. Agnor said that the Jefferson Country Firefighter's Association has written Mr.
Roosevelt to point out that there are a number of these bridges with a similar problem. The
response has been to ask for a list to be put into the Highway Department's planning process
so it can be dealt with in terms of funding.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Roosevelt about a bridge on Route 20 North, which is the first
bridge north of the Route 250/20 intersection (Bailey's Bridge). He said it is not a two
lane bridge. Mr. Roosevelt said that bridge and another one-lane bridge north of Stony Point
have both been recommended for funding. Bailey's Bridge is scheduled for the next construc-
tion season. They are trying to work that with a sight distance improvement at the inter-
section of Route 621. The plan is to build a new structure on the inside of the curve.
Agenda Item No. 7. Set Public Hearing to extend Albemarle County Service Authority
water service areas to include Parcel 09-20, Tax Map 60A - Burkett Estate Property for water
service only. The following memorandum was received from the County Executive, dated October
2, 1986:
"Staff has received a request from Ms. Bessie Flowers for water service
only. Staff's review of this request indicates that the property needs
sanitary sewer facilities as well.
Staff would recommend adoption of a resolution of intent to amend the ACSA
Project Service Area to provide 'limited service' (water and sewer to an
existing structure only) to Tax Map 60A Parcel 20(9). We also recommend
that the public hearing be set for November 5, 1986."
The following memo, dated October 1, 1986, was received from Mr. John Horne:
"The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors has forwarded to me the enclosed
copy of a request by Ms. Flowers to extend ACSA service to a parcel located
between Georgetown Road and Barracks Road. I have spoken to Ms. Flowers and
it appears that she would need water and sewer service in order to occupy an
existing older dwelling located on this parcel. It appears that this parcel
along with five other parcels were left out of the jurisdictional area and
remain zoned RA, Rural Areas, because they were not developed at the time of
the amendment to the growth areas in the Comprehensive Plan and the amend-
ment to the jurisdictional maps.
I have yet to independently confirm the problems with the drinking water
supplies on this parcel. In my discussions with Ms. Flowers, it appears
that there are no sanitary facilities installed on this parcel.
If the past problems with the drinking water supplies can be established,
this Department would have no objection of limited service to this parcel to
extend sewer and water facilities to the existing structure only. The
actual action by the Board of Supervisors would be to amend the jurisdic-
tional area to provide limited service to Parcel 20(9) on Tax Map 60A."
Mr. Horne explained the situation to the Board. Mr. Lindstrom asked the acreage of this
parcel. Mr. Horne responded that it is approximately two acres.
024
October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
In response to questions from Board members, Mrs. Flowers said that she did not have a
septic system on this property. She said that her sister had an outside toilet there. She
stated that the water had been very good, but some children put chairs and other things in
the well, and her sister couldn't get it cleaned. In the meantime, she had another well
installed. The Health Department, however, said the water was not good for drinking.
Mr. Fisher asked if the house is being lived in now.
not.
Mrs. Flowers responded that it was
Mr. Fisher asked if it is in good repair, and Mrs. Flowers stated that she is planning
to get it repaired and is planning to occupy it.
Mr. Bowie then offered motion to set a public hearing for November 12, 1986 at 10:00
A.M. to amend the jurisdictional area of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include
Tax Map 60A, Parcel 09-20, for water and sewer service to the existing structure only. Mrs.
Cooke seconded the motion. There was no further discussion so roll was called and the motion
carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENCES: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 8. Set Public Hearing to extend Albemarle County Service Authority
water service areas to include Meriwether Lewis School site for water service only. The
following memo, dated October 1, 1986, was received from the County Executive:
"Attached is information regarding a request from the Albemarle County
School Board to extend the service area of the Albemarle County Service
Authority (ACSA) to the Meriwether Lewis School site for water service only.
Staff recommends that you adopt a resolution of intent to amend the juris-
dictional area of the ACSA to include Tax Map 58, parcels 69, 69A, 69B, 69G
and 69H for water service only. We would suggest that the public hearing
for this matter be set for November 5, 1986."
The following memorandum, dated September 25, 1986, was received from Mr. John Horne:
"I have received a copy of a request to the Board of Supervisors for exten-
sion of the~ACSA jurisdictional area for water service only to the new
Meriwether Lewis School property. Enclosed you will find a map indicating
the property which is composed of a total of five parcels with the main
parcel being Parcel 69 on Map 58. This Department is in receipt of site
plans which seem to indicate that actual structures would be placed on
Parcel 69 and Parcel 69G. It may, however, be more appropriate to approve
water service to all the parcels being used as the site in order to provide
future flexibility if school structures are to be place on some of the other
parcels.
Extension of water only service to these parcels for the school facilities
would, in the opinion of this Department, not set a precedent for future
extensions on the west side of Route 676 for development activities. This
extension would be for a clearly needed public facility which could logi-
cally be treated as a separate case from a private request in this area.
This Department, therefore, has no objections to this request."
Mr. David PapenfUse said that the School Division wants the water service basically for
fire protection, and they think it is a safer water source for the children.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to set a public hearing for November 12, 1986, to
amend the jurisdictional area of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include Tax Map
58, Parcels 69, 69A, 69B, 69G and 69H for water service only to the new Meriwether Lewis
School site. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENCES: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: Rio Woods Site Plan. Mr. Fisher stated that he had a
letter from Mr. Don Wagner, dated October 6, 1986, requesting withdrawal of this appeal.
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Commonality of Personnel Policies.
sented the following memo dated October 2, 1986:
Mr. Agnor pre-
"The School Board has adopted a resolution addressing the principle of
consistent treatment of employees which is the same as the policy which you
adopted, except for the final sentence. Attached are the two statements for
your comparison.
In my opinion, the differences in the last sentence are not significant.
you prefer that the two be identical, I recommend revision to incorporate
the School Board's version because:
If
(1)
Their statement indicates the Boards agree to work cooperatively,
and I, therefore, assume the responsibility of the Superintendent
and County Executive does not have to be stated; and
025
October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 10
(2)
The School Board showed more concern with the wording, and any
further changes may prolong completion of adoption of the state-
ment.''
Mr. Agnor said this is in response to Mr. Way's question about the status of the
School Board's adoption of this policy. Mr. Agnor recommended that the policy be left alone
or the Board should adopt the School Board's version.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thought it was more likely to happen the way it is worded by the
Board of Supervisors, but it really didn't make any difference to him.
Mr. Bowie said he would support adopting the School Board's version.
Mr. Henley said he would support the School Board recommendation and thinks it is a step
in the right direction.
Mrs. Cooke offered motion to adopt the following resolution.
motion.
Mr. Henley seconded the
RESOLVED, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and School Board
agree with the principle that employees of the local government and school
division are all County employees, and, as such, should be treated consis-
tently, where appropriate and consistent with local policies and State
statutes, with regard to salaries, benefits, and other personnel policies.
The Boards agree to work cooperatively with each other towards achieving
such consistent personnel policies where appropriate.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENCE: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 11. Appropriation: White Hall School. The following memorandum, dated
September 30, 1986, was received from Mr. Ray Jones, Deputy County Executive.
"For the past several months, the County Attorney's Office and the attorneys
for the purchaser of the White Hall School have been finalizing the sale.
Sickness and vacations in both law offices has delayed the closing.
Initially, the Poats family was to relinquish their rights in the 0.7 acre
in a single joint deed which transfers the rights of the County to the
purchaser. However, it was decided to prepare two deeds. The first deed is
to convey the rights of the Poats family in the 0.7 acre tract to the
County, and the second deed is to convey the entire 2.7 acre parcel to the
purchaser. This procedure requires an appropriation of $2,500 to buy the
Poats' family's interest in the 0.7 acre tract. Then the entire proceeds of
the sale ($47,699.99) to Clifford Land Trust would go into the Capital
Improvement Fund Balance.
Respectfully, you are requested to appropriate $2500 to purchase the Poats'
family's interest."
Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to adopt the following resolution.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $2,500 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
General Fund and coded to 1-1000-11010-702000 entitled Purchase of
Property - White Hall School;
AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie. There was no further discussion.
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Roll was
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs.
NAYS: None.
ABSENCES: Mr. Way.
Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 12. Donation of Garden Bench in Memory of T. Munford Boyd. The follow-
ing memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive, dated September 22, 1986.
"The Charlottesville-Albemarle Bar Association has requested permission to
donate a Rothesay garden bench with Wimbledon bench/coffee table. They will
be located adjacent to the Courthouse and in front of the former County
Office Building at Court Square. This is being done in memory of T. Munford
Boyd, attorney, and professor at the University of Virginia Law School for
many years.
The benches and location were discussed with and approved by Judge Gerald E.
Tremblay.
Staff requests your approval of the project. Ail acquisition costs shall be
provided by the Bar Association, and the installation will be made under the
direction of Bill Sullivan."
0?_.8
October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom asked if it was the same style as the other benches.
that it was the same style, but a different manufacturer.
Mr. Agnor answered
Mr. Fisher commented that he supports this donation. However, it seems to him the Board
should put in a clause in this and every case where people are placing something on public
property to reserve the right of the County to relocate or to remove it if at some point it
becomes necessary.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve a request by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Bar
Association to donate a Rothesay garden bench in the memory of T. Munford Boyd, to be located
in front of the former County Office Building at Court Square. Mr. Bowie seconded the
motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENCES: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 13. Report: Clean Water Action Project.
Mr. Agnor said that the Board had asked for information on the organization known as the
Clean Water Action Project and also a recommendation on the phosphate detergent ban being
considered for the next session of the General Assembly. Mr. Bill Norris, Watershed Offi-
cial, has prepared a response to both questions, which Mr. Agnor summarized for the Board:
"The following information regarding the Clean Water Action Project and the
phosphate detergent ban has been compiled as per your request of September
18, 1986.
I. Clean Water Action Project
The Clean Water Action Project identifies itself as a 'nonprofit organiza-
tion employing a full-time professional staff for research, lobbying,
citizen organizing, and canvassing.' The 'Project', first established in
the early 1970's as a citizens group, is based in twelve states with local
offices in Washington, D. C., Richmond, Va., Norfolk, Va., and Baltimore,
Md.
The Clean Water Action Project is a national organization which works for
safe, clean drinking water and to protect citizens from harmful exposure to
health threatening toxic chemicals in our waters, communities, and work-
places.
Acting under the umbrella of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which is the
organizing agency for support of the phosphate detergent ban in Virginia,
the Clean Water Action Project is seeking support from local citizens in its
efforts to:
a)
b)
Prevent and cleanup pollution of the Chesapeake Bay
and its tributaries by providing funding for various Bay
watershed-wide efforts, i.e. a phosphate detergent ban; and
Protect drinking water supplies by enforcing pollution control and
toxic cleanup laws.
Contributions, which are solicited door to door by volunteers and Project
members, are designated for use for research and to organize, canvass, and
lobby elected officials and appropriate authorities.
Correspondence from Mr. Richard M. Johnson of the Richmond office of the
Clean Water Action Project indicates that they view the passage of resolu-
tions in favor of the ban on phosphate detergents in Virginia as being a key
ingredient in the statewide push for the ban. Mr. Johnson has made a
personal plea to the Charlottesville City Council in an effort to gain
support for such a statewide ban.
II. Phosphate Detergent Ban
There is currently a statewide effort underway to gain support for the
passage of a statewide phosphate ban. Senate Bill No. 248 offered on
January 21, 1986, by Senator Joseph V. Gartlan is currently before the
Senate Committee on Education and Health. This bill would prohibit the
manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of 'any cleaning agent that con-
tains more than 0 to 0.5 percent phosphorus by weight expressed as elemental
phosphorus' with certain exceptions.
A review of the available data shows that a phosphate detergent ban could
provide an immediate reduction in phosphorus levels reaching the Bay and
could be enacted in a matter of months and used as an interim control
strategy while the more expensive and time consuming sewage treatment plan
improvement program was being enacted and completed.
A phosphate detergent ban in Virginia should be considered as part of the
overall nutrient control strategy to improve the water quality of the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries and should be supported."
Mr. Lindstrom said he was unable to make arrangements for anyone to come from the Clean
Water Action Project.
027
October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 12
Mr. Fisher said what convinced his VACo committee to support the ban was the results of
the Maryland experience with the ban. Just by adoptitng the ban, there was a substantial
reduction in the amount of phosphorous loading going into the streams and Bay without any
major capital expenditure. The only other choices were for all the other cities and counties
and towns to come up with millions of dollars in expenditures to increase treatment facili-
ties so they could remove some of the phosphorous, and that would take approximately five
years to accomplish.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following resolution. Mr..Bowie seconded
the motion.
WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program
found nutrient enrichment to be a major threat to the health of the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries; and
WHEREAS, research indicates a significant source of the nutrient
phosphorus entering the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries from point
sources is laundry detergents and cleaning agents; and
WHEREAS, Virginia has identified a "tentative" goal of reducing phos-
phorus loadings to the Chesapeake Bay by twenty percent below 1980 levels;
and
WHEREAS, it is estimated that a phosphate detergent ban would reduce
the phosphate loadings from sewage treatment plants by twenty to thirty
percent; and
WHEREAS, phosphate detergent bans have been passed in Maryland and the
District of Columbia, which together with Virginia, surround the Chesapeake
Bay;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, supports the adoption of a phosphate detergent ban in the
Commonwealth of Virginia as part of a nutrient control strategy to improve
the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
There was no further discussion.
ing recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENCES: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 14. Water Testing: Public Facilities.
October 3, 1986, was received from the County Executive.
The following memorandum, dated
"In the spring of 1985, there were concerns raised about the water quality
from the well serving Stone Robinson School. From those discussions, staff
recommended and you concurred, with the monthly water testing (rather than
quarterly) of well systems at all County facilities. Staff had also indi-
cated at that time, that once baseline data had been established for a year
and no significant water quality problems arose, we felt it would be advis-
able to return to quarterly water tests.
Over this past year, the Education, Parks and Recreation, and Staff Services
departments have conducted monthly tests and no water quality problems have
been identified. Staff would therefore recommend that all water testing
return to a quarterly sampling and testing frequency."
After Mr. Agnor briefed the Board on the County water testing program, Mr. Lindstrom
asked whether there were any County facilities that were close to land uses that may cause
possible groundwater problems.
Mr. Agnor said he was not aware of any. He said the testing included everything that
the County had in the way of wells. The only property that testing has not been expanded to
is the jointly-owned Ivy Landfill. Mr. Lindstrom asked if quarterly testing was done at the
Landfill, and Mr. Agnor said "yes."
Mrs. Cooke offered motion to accept the staff's recommendation that all water testing
return to a quarterly sampling and testing frequency rate. Mr. Henley seconded the motion.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENCES: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 15. Culpeper County - Request for Zoning Legislation.
memorandum, dated October 2, 1986, was received from the County Executive:
The following
"The County of Culpeper has requested Albemarle to support the Virginia
Association of Counties endorsement of legislation which would allow sunset
zoning. Culpeper County is proposing this legislation in order to eliminate
speculative zoning requests by placing time limits on a rezoning request.
Presumably, if development of the property has not occurred within the time
constraints required, the property's zoning would revert back to the origi-
nal zoning category it held prior to the rezoning request.
O28
October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 13
While unfamiliar with the advantages and disadVantages of sunset zoning,
staff would note that an applicant could possibly proffer such a time
limitation if the concern of zoning speculation in a particular area were an
issue."
Mr. Fisher said he did not quite understand how it would work or whether there would be
legal problems. He said that some of the other counties have indicated that there are other
ways of accomplishing this, such as conditional zoning. He said sUnset zoning is supposed to
discourage speculative rezoning requests.
Mr. Fisher said he would not recommend that the Board take a position to support this
request at this time.
The Board of Supervisors decided to take no action at this time to endorse legislation
to allow sunset zoning at the local government level.
Agenda Item No. 16. Discussion: Bicentennial of the Constitution. The following
memorandum, dated October 2, 1986, was received from the County Executive:
"Attached for your review and consideration is a staff report outlining the
Commission on the Bicentennial of the U. S. Constitution, and the process
for becoming a designated 'Bicentennial Community'. As the report indi-
cates, a local committee, appointed by the Board, would be responsible for
planning and implementing Bicentennial events over the three year period
1987-1989.
During this time the Federal Commission will act as a clearinghouse for
Bicentennial activities, while the Virginia Commission will be encouraging
the formation of local committees by providing ideas and suggestions for
Bicentennial projects. The local committee will secure designation as a
Bicentennial Community by submitting an outline of their plans to the
Virginia Commission.
Included in this report are recommended actions for the County to take in
appointing a local Bicentennial Committee. Highlights of the recommenda-
tions are:
Establish a Charlottesville/Albemarle Committee on the Bicentennial
consisting of no more than 10-12 members, half appointed by each
jurisdiction.
2. The Committee should be representative of the following groups:
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
County/City government
Local judicial system
School system
Historical Society
Chamber of Commerce and/or Visitors Bureau
Monticello/Ash Lawn
University of Virginia
Local historians
Civic groups
Citizen representatives
e
The Committee should be responsible to the Board and City Council with
all projects and plans subject to Board and Council approval.
The Chairperson should be responsible for submitting the application
for Bicentennial designation to the Virginia Commission with prior
approval of the Board and Council.
The local Bicentennial Committee should meet with members and/or staff
of the Virginia Commission.
The Charlottesville City Council has received a similar staff report on the
Bicentennial Commission and, although no official action has been taken,
Council has agreed to the concept of establishing a local Bicentennial
Committee."
Following is a memorandum from Mrs. Roxanne White, Administrative Assistant, dated October 1,
1986:
"The purpose of this memorandum is to provide background information about
the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution, to
outline the process of becoming a designated 'Bicentennial Community', and
to submit recommendations for the creation of a local Bicentennial Com-
mittee.
The Commission on the Bicentennial of the Constitution was established by an
Act of Congress to promote and to coordinate activities across the country
in celebration of the 200th Anniversary of the United States Constitution.
The purpose of the three-year celebration is to give the people a deeper
understanding of the Constitution, the freedom it guarantees and the civic
responsibilities it requires; in short, as stated by the Chairman, former
Chief Justice Burger, to provide 'a history and civics lesson for all of
us'. Although national events and publicity are planned, the major function
of the Federal Commission will be to encourage state and local commissions
October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 14
to sponsor commemorative events, and to act as a clearinghouse for informa-
tion and activities across the country.
The Commission has recommended that activities scheduled during the Bicen-
tennial years reflect the following framework:
1987:
Framing the Constitution: Celebrations should focus on events
leading up to the Convention in Philadelphia in 1987. September
17 is expected to be the highlight, and possibly a national
holiday.
1988:
Ratifying the Constitution:
the dates of ratification.
Celebrations will be planned around
1989:
Establishing a Government: Commemoration activities should focus
on the historical development of the three branches of government
under the Constitution.
On the state level, Commissions are forming in all fifty states; the
Virginia Commission, chaired by A. E. Dick Howard at the University of
Virginia Law School, has been active since August, 1985. The Secretariat
for the Commission is located at the Institute of Government at the Univer-
sity of Virginia, and is directed by Professor Timothy O'Rourke and his
staff.
In addition to encouraging the formation of local committees across the
state, the Virginia Commission will offer a statewide public awareness
campaign using public service time on radio and television to highlight key
provisions of the Constitution, and to remind citizens of the prominent role
of Virginians in the drafting of the Constitution and the formation of the
new government.
As part of their effort to encourage a widespread celebration, the Commis-
sion is also sponsoring regional conferences around the Commonwealth to help
local groups plan and implement Bicentennial projects. These conferences
will begin in December, and should be a valuable resource of information and
ideas to any local committee. The Virginia Commission will publish a
booklet 'The Ideas Package' next month, which should also be a useful guide
for groups thinking about projects and events in 1987.
On the local level, counties, cities and towns are being encouraged to join
the celebration by becoming designated 'Bicentennial Communities'. A
Bicentennial Community is one that 'establishes a committee representative
of the community; incorporates a commemorative program to educate its
residents about the meaning and significance of the Constitution; and
receives official designation from the Federal Commission'.
The process of becoming a Bicentennial Community is a fairly simple one,
consisting of the following steps:
1)
The local governing body appoints members to form a Bicentennial
Committee.
2)
The local committee submits the application form to the Virginia
Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution,
listing Committee members and indicating plans for Bicentennial events.
At the time of the application, projects or events do not have to be
formalized; proposed ideas are acceptable.
3)
The application, if approved by the State Commission, is sent to the
Federal Commission for official designation as a Bicentennial Communi-
ty.
The Virginia Commission emphasizes that localities should not feel over-
whelmed at the prospect of becoming a Bicentennial community. Local commit-
tees may determine how and to what extent they want to participate. The
Federal and the Virginia Commission do not prescribe specific projects and
do not expect elaborate celebrations. Rather, localities are encouraged to
sponsor events relevant to their history and their population, and to
incorporate the Bicentennial into already existing events, e.g. the Albe-
marle County Fair, the Dogwood Festival, Fourth of July celebrations, the
Casa Italiana Student Exchange Program.
Given the supportive framework of the National and the Virginia Bicentennial
Commission and the wide discretion given to the local committee in deter-
mining the extent and nature of local involvement, the following recommenda-
tions are submitted for your consideration.
Establish, in conjunction with the City of Charlottesville, a
Charlottesville/Albemarle Committee on the Bicentennial of the United
States Constitution. This committee,will be responsible in planning
and organizing local events for the Bicentennial years, 1987-1989, and
should consist of no more than 10-12 members. Each governing body will
appoint half of the members.
The Bicentennial Committee should be representative of the following
groups: '(see memorandum from County Executive) This Committee should
be able to designate additional persons or groups to work with the
Committee as deemed necessary.
O3O
October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 15
The Committee should be responsible to the Board of Supervisors and
City Council. Any specific activities, plans, or programs developed by
the Committee should be reported to the Board and Council for approval.
The Chairperson of the Committee should be responsible for submitting
the application for official Bicentennial Community designation to the
Virginia Commission. This application should be approved by the Board
and Council prior to submittal.
The Bicentennial Committee should meet with members and/or staff of the
Virginia Commission. The staff has indicated a willingness to do this,
and would be a valuable resource for suggestions and project ideas."
Mr. Fisher said he had discussed this with the Mayor and he believes City Council thinks
this should be done jointly and feels, as he does, that this community should participate.
He recommended that the Board approve this as a process, notify the City, and try to get
started with appointing members.
Mrs. Cooke suggested that the Bicentennial Committee be made up of the following repre-
sentatives: one each from the City and County government, and one from the following: the
judicial system, historical society, Chamber of Commerce, Monticello, Ash Lawn, and Univer-
sity. She said this would cover everything and eliminate the civic group participation. Mr.
Fisher suggested that one person from each school system be included. Mrs. Cooke agreed.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to establish a local committee on the Bicentennial of the
Constitution with membership as noted above. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. There was no
further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENCES: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Realized Revenues vs. Estimated Revenues (Five'Year Report).
A report from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, and Robert J. Walters, Jr.,
Deputy Director of Finance, dated October 1, 1986 and entitled "Revenue Comparison", was
received and is on file. The report compares actual collections against expected collections
from 1981/82 to 1985/86:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
SUMMARY REVENUE COMPARISON FOR FISCAL YEARS 1981/82 TO 1985/86
OBJECT DESCRIPTION
5 YEAR 5 YEAR 5 YEAR 5 YEAR 5 YEAR
SUMMARY SUMMARY SUMMARY PERCENT PERCENT
BUDGET ACTUAL VARIANCE VARIANCE TOTAL VAR
GENERAL FUND:
GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES:
OTHER LOCAL TAXES
PERMITS, FEES, LICENSES
FINES AND FORFEITURES
USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY
SERVICES AND RECOVERED COST
NON-CATEGORICAL AID-STATE
SHARED EXPENSES-STATE
CATEGORICAL AID-STATE
PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES-FED
$ 94,539,939 $ 98,964,155 $ 4,424,216 4.68 41.86
35,212,388 40,092,175 4,879,787 13.86 46.17
2,022,602 2,088,967 66,365 3.28 0.63
272,504 340,205 67,701 24.84 0.64
4,887,932 6,267,106 1,379,174 28.22 13.05
2,691,256 3,310,683 619,427 23.02 5.86
1,442,300 1,515,058 72,758 5.04 0.69
5,238,929 5,133,783 (105,146) -2.01 -0.99
6,920,086 6,073,100 (846,986) -12.24 -8.01
44,012 56,326 12,314 27.98 0.12
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
$153,271,948 $163,841,558 $10,569,610 6.90 100.00
SCHOOL FUND:
USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY
SERVICES & MISC. REFUNDS
CATEGORICAL AID-STATE
CATEGORICAL AID-FEDERAL
$ 114,280 $ 183,862 $ 69,582 60.89 -4.45
10,671,712 10,842,539 170,827 1.60 -10.91
42,159,031 41,166,181 (992,850) -2.36 63.43
4,372,036 3,559,087 (812,949) -18.59 51.93
TOTAL SCHOOL FUND
$ 57,317,059 55,751,669 (1,565,390) -2.73 100.00
(Mr. Payne left the meeting at 11:09 and returned at 11:11 a.m.)
Mr. Jones summarized the report. He said that software was ordered and they now have
about four years of data that can be drawn from already in the computer. The software is
designed to make cash flow projections, help with cash management, and will help in estimat-
zng real property and personal property collections.
Mr. Agnor said that the software program was not developed by Albemarle County. It was
developed and tested for the Municipal Financial Officers' Association. He said the staff
believes it will serve the County's needs.
Mr. Lindstrom thanked Mr. Agnor and Mr. Jones for putting this information together. He
thinks the money has been needed to provide services to the community. If significantly more
031
October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 16
is raised than is needed for the budget process then he feels that the-County has not repre-
sented the budget process as well as it should have. In this community, with the kind of
growth and economy that has occurred, it is difficult. He said that the County has been
fortunate to have this relatively Painless way of raising money for capital improvements, but
he doesn't think people are aware Of the tremendous and increasing demand for capital
projects. He noted that a substantial amount of money for capital projects has been raised
in ways that haven't been specifically obvious to the public, although it has been raised
through tax collections. He said that coupled with the fact that although the tax rate has
not been raised, the amount of taxes paid has gone up substantially due to reassessments.
Because of these two things, he feels that budget estimates should be tightened if possible.
Mr. Bowie agreed and said theicharts in the reports were excellent.
Mr. Fisher said it appears that collections have gone up from approximately 97 percent
to 98 percent over this period of time. He asked if that is correct. Mr. Jones answered
"yes." Mr. Fisher said this meansithat the County is collecting one-third of all of the
formerly uncollected taxes in the Year that they are levied. Mr. Jones said this is all
based on the current year's assessment. He said they are~collecting 97 to 98 percent on the
first billing during the non-penalty period.
Mr. Agnor said that it had been anticipated that the "set-off debt collection" through
the state would generate a lot of money.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the credit card availability has increased collections. Mr.
Agnor said "no," that it is more of a convenience, but it hasn't had any effect on theJCounty
in terms of the budget.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that on the last page of the report, tax collection percentages
for mobile homes are considerably different. Mr. Jones said that has improved. Mr. Jones
said that prior to the period in this report, the state changed the law and the assessment
process for mobile homes changed. They are now assessed as if they were permanent real
estate, but the personal property tax rate is used.
Agenda Item No. 18. Other Items Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public.
Mr. Agnor discussed the agreement with the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company and said
it requires Board approval so that the Chairman should be authorized to sign it.
Mr. Fisher said the agreement should specify what equipment is being bought and Mr.
Agnor replied that the money is for improvements to the Stony Point Fire Station.
"THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this tenth day of October 1986, by and between
the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), and the STONY POINT
VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. ("Stony Point");
~W I T N E S S E T H:
That for and in consideration of the operation by Stony Point of a volunteer
fire company which will fight fires and protect property and human life from
loss or damage by fire during the period of this agreement and the expansion
and improvement by Stony Point of its fire station for use during the period
of this agreement, the County shall pay to Stony Point Forty-eight Thousand
Dollars ($48,000.00), which shall be paid as follows:
$48,000.00 from the 1986-87 advance allocation fund to be drawn by October
15, 1986, leaving a balance of $112,000.00 in the fund. This advance of
$48,000.00 brings Stony Point's indebtedness to $104,000.00, which shall be
paid back as follows.
Thereafter, the sum of Twenty Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($20,800.00)
per year shall be withheld each year from the County's annual grant to Stony
Point, for a period of five (5) years, beginning with fiscal year 1987-88
and extending through fiscal year 1991-92, from the County's annual grant to
Stony Point, so that at the end of the fifth year, which is the term of this
service agreement, a total of One Hundred Four Thousand Dollars
($104,000.00) will have been withheld.
If at any time during the term of this agreement, Stony Point is no longer
in the business of providing fire-fighting services involving the use of the
fire station and the property upon which the fire station sits, identified
as Albemarle County Tax Map 48, Parcel 18D (the "Property"), Stony Point
covenants that it will convey its interest in the Property, as a volunteer
fire company, including all appurtenances thereto and improvements thereon,
to the County at no cost to the County so long as the County or its assigns
use the Property for fire-fighting purposes."
Mr. Bowie offered motion to authorize the Chairman to execute the Stony Point Volunteer
Fire Company Agreement. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. There was no further discussion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENCE: Mr. Way.
Mr. Agnor said the staff was asked to look at a request from the Virginia Association of
Counties as to whether they would use, if the Association made provisions for, a computer
information system. This would be a centralized system in .the VACO office in Richmond. It
032
October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 17
would be accessible by phone call or letter asking for information on an item of concern.
This question would be fed into a computer, and it would provide the information on other
localities that had dealt with it and who to contact in terms of getting the information. He
said that most local government departments have need for assimilation of that type of
information through their state associations. There is no cost to the locality. VACO would
pick up the expense. Mr. Agnor indicated to Mr. Dick Hall-Sizemore that Albemarle County's
use would probably be limited.
Mr. Fisher commented that he did not think the VACO Board 'had considered this idea.
is something the regular staff is exploring. ~
It
Mr. Agnor asked for a'briefing from the County Attorney about drug seizures. He said
that in Mr. St. John's research, he found that the effort .that was made last year had been
cut off by the General Assembly with legislation that went into effect the.first of July this
year. He said that there was a section in the State Code that allowed motor boats and
vehicles seized in drug raids to be used for local law enforcement purposes. Mr. St. John
indicated that that section of the State Code is nOt constitutional. But having already been
adopted by the General Assembly, there was no reason it could not be amended to include
monies that were also seized as a result of drug sales. After the General Assembly was
advised that the early enactment of that section of the code was not in compliance with the
Constitution, they added a provision not to allow access to funds or even to proceeds of any
assets that were seized in drug sales. They changed it to read that only motor vehicles and
boats could be used by court order and then for only 90 day periods of time after which time
they would be disposed of as any other property, and the proceeds would go to the State
Literary Fund. Mr.. Agnor said he had appeared before a VACO committee and asked them to put
that legislative request on hold. The only solution to this is to ask for a constitutional
change that would allow proceeds to be used for local law enforcement purposes. The VACO
committee felt that the emphasis they could give was that the funding of local law enforce-
ment agencies for drug purposes in terms of either national, state or local program should be
funded through the 599 funds to local police departments and through the Compensation Boards
to local sheriff's departments and not try to seek an amendment, because that would open up
other questions about revenues to the Literary Fund. Mr. Agnor recommended that it be
dropped from the requests to VACO for legislative support. He Said this was initiated
several years ago at the request of the State Sheriff's Association, and~it has been batted
around in several localities, but none of them are of a mind to try..to get a constitutional
change. ~' : ~"-'-'
Mr. Bowie said he had appeared several times to testify on this ~articular point.
Unfortunately, the General Assembly law was unconstitutional, and they made it constitutional
by giving nothing. He thinks it is dead as a legislative matter, and there is not enough
support for a constitutional amendment.
Mr. Tucker spoke about 'two other legislatiVe requests. They dealt with impact fees and
the family division problems. He has learned that Prince William and Fairfax Counties have
had problems with the family-division matter, and they have done a lot of work trying to find
solutions. Basically, the committee has asked that those localities who have had problems go
back and document them in order that some language can be developed and supported before the
General Assembly.
(Note: Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting at 11:45 A.M.)
Mr. Tucker said the impact fees were supported by the committee and Prince William, as
well as others. He stated that this is one of the areas the Commission on Transportation for
the 21st Century is promoting in raising revenue, but for roads only. He said that what the
counties are proposing is that the impact fee for new development could be utilized for any
new services.
Mr. Fisher said that there are two different kinds of proffered zonings available in the
state. The kind that's available in Northern Virginia allows the counties to accept cash as
one of the proffers for a rezoning, and that cash has to be dedicated for the use of fixing
public facilities that have to be expanded because of the development. That is a form of
proffered zoning that is not available to the other counties in Virginia. Mr. Fisher said
the committee has recommended that both forms of proffered zoning be enabled to all counties
.if they want to use it.
Mr. Tucker said the other proffer available in Northern Virginia allows them to accept
road improvements as part of a proffer.
Mr. Agn°~ said the staff now has preliminary floor plans of the band room area from the
'architect. The Municipal Band has been notified in terms of their lease that they need to
vacate the band room itself. He said the staff had received a letter recently from the
Municipal Band asking for a three year delay. He then met with Mr. James Simmons, and he
indicated that the accommodations are satisfactory to them. He expects this request to go to
bid in November and will bring the bids back to the Board'i~ December. They hope~to award a
contract for construction to start in the winter.
Mr. Ed Bauer proposed a topic for the Supervisors' meeting next week'With 'the School
Board. He said the topic is why there is not a goal for the school division that deals with
the quality of education. He commented that at its last meeting, the School Board adopted a
set of goals for the school division. They adopted five of them which dealt with making
consistency in the curriculum throughout the~schools, analyzing the guidance program, having
better salaries and incentive programs for the teachers and administrators, implementing the
capital improvement plan and increased minority hiring. Superintendent Overstreet said the
first thing they intended to do with these goals was to set individual performance goals for
each of the administrators in the school division. Mr. Bauer said it seems to him that
something about quality education should be the number one priority in a school system's
033
October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Paeg~18
goals. He would like to see Albemarle County as one of the outstanding school systems in the
country as far as the academic content of its curriculum.
Mr. Fisher said he thought Mr. Bauer had posed a good question, but he doesn't know how
you tell whether or not you have quality. He said everybody tries to find a merit test by
which to determine the quality of education. He noted that practically everything that he
has looked at has been somewhat subjective. But, he doesn't think it should be ignored.
Agenda Item No. 19. Executive Session: Property Matters and Personnel. At 11:53 A.M.,
motion was made by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Henley to adjourn into executive session to
discuss property and personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried with the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
NAYS: None.
ABSENCES: Messrs. Lindstrom and Way.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:40 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 20. With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Bowie
offered motion to adjourn until October 15, 1986 at 2:30 P.M. Mr. Henley seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
NAYS: None.
ABSENCES: Messrs. Lindstrom and Way.
CHAIRMAN